Hiding a house...

kwerk said:
What is "historical architecture"? Is it the same type of thing as a "historical" British person i.e white skin and a British accent? Thatch roof and brick chimney? Sounds like something from the BNP manifesto.
Click to expand...

I think you might have some wierd issue tbh mate. What has skin colour got to do with Architecture and why are you bringing the BNP into it ?


Do some research into British Arhitecture and you will see what this building is, its an eclectic mish mash of styles that don't make any sense, the front and rear elevations aren't even from the same period and have no relationship to each other appart from they reside on the same building.

And yes I do worry that people like it because we've been there and done that and we need to be going forward with innovative designs not only looking backwards but then doing it badly
 
Last edited:
Wasn't there a case a few years ago where a farmer built a bungalow on his own land,totally out of sight of anyone unless they came onto his land,and he had to demolish it when they found out!
 
Well you look as confused as I am.

I don't understand the link between buildings styles from our past which are clear to see all around Great Britain and the bonkers ideas of the BNP regarding a fictional indiginous British race.

Tefal said:
without being hidden the construction could not have been completed.
Click to expand...

this, I don't understand why people can't grasp this fact.
 
Last edited:
Theres only two sure fire ways to get a planning application passed hassle free one involves a brown envelope and the other is to be a planning officer.
 
LOAM said:
this, I don't understand why people can't grasp this fact.
Click to expand...

Because the building could have been constructed without the hay bails? They would just have noticed it sooner and either told him to stop or told him to take it down.
 
RDM said:
Because the building could have been constructed without the hay bails? They would just have noticed it sooner and either told him to stop or told him to take it down.
Click to expand...

Your second sentence contradicts your first and therfore implies that the hay was integral to its construction and thus proves the point.

You can't claim it's validity because it could have been built without them because it wasn't built without them. He obviously felt the hay had to be present to make construction possible. By doing this it becomes part of the construction by implication,
 
Last edited:
LOAM said:
Well that then proves that the hay was integral to in construction and thus proves the point
Click to expand...

It depends on how you define "integral to the construction". Would a copse of trees hiding the site also be considered "intergral to the construction"? A dip in the land making construction unviewable from offsite? A large hedge?
 
See my previous post I added to it. A line of trees though would I guess depend on if they were established trees or not, newly planted sapplings aren't likely to conceal much. In addition you are unlikely to then remove the copse to expose the construction, same for a ditch.
 
Last edited:
But you add on is wrong. lots of property gets built without planning permission and with out hey bails.

It is not needed for construction, it's use and aim was to hide. Two different things coinciding at the same time.
 
In this instance though acid, it was needed. His neighbours went mental when he exposed it, it's utterly out of context to it's surrounding. This is nothing like farmer bob building an extension to his house in the middle of 1000 acres.

If the hay wasn't there it could not be built, that's not implying that, that exact same house couldn't be built else where without the hay though it's simply stating that in that location, in that context the hay was vital to it's construction.
 
LOAM said:
This is nothing like farmer bob building an extension to his house in the middel of 1000 acres.
.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. for the sake of law, as far as I'm aware.
It was not needed for construction. However it was needed for concealment that is the difference.

I'm not arguing about the morals of it, or the way it looks. I'm arguing from a law standpoint and as far as I can see from the article they have used a law outside of it's mandate.
 
Last edited:
LOAM said:
See my previous post I added to it. A line of trees though would I guess depend on if they were established trees or not, newly planted sapplings aren't likely to conceal much. In addition you are unlikely to then remove the copse to expose the construction, same for a ditch.
Click to expand...

I don't know, get some partially grown leylandii in and you could hide construction in a year or two. :)

LOAM said:
Your second sentence contradicts your first and therfore implies that the hay was integral to its construction and thus proves the point.
Click to expand...

Not really contradicting, possibly not explaining well enough though. The hay was not necessary for the physical construction. He may even have been able to complete the build of the house without the hay before being told to pull it down. Putting planning permission aside (because obviously he didn't apply for it and the four year rule only applies if you haven't applied for it or followed it) the house could have been built without the hay being present.

It's only purpose is to hide the house for the four years required to exploit the loophole.
 
It had to be concealed to allow construction, by implication it becomes a "tool" of construction.

I will convince you of this ;)
 
LOAM said:
It had to be concealed to allow construction
Click to expand...

Not in the slightest, there has been a fair few buildings and extensions where it has not been hidden and built. It has no purpose or effect on the construction, it does have an effect and need on the planning permission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom