Body & Soul0 min ago
Is This Bureaucracy Gone Mad?
42 Answers
Here we have two cases, one where they are thinking of removing the rights of light through our windows, and the other where a farmer has built a lovely building, and just because he failed to get planning permission he will be forced to knock it down.
http://
http://
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Regarding the man who tried to evade planning laws, I think his half castle / half house looks bloody ugly.
This kind of thing has to be cracked down on otherwise all kinds of hideous structures would be appearing all over the place. I have no sympathy for him. It wasn't as if he's made an honest mistake. He took a gamble and it failed.
This kind of thing has to be cracked down on otherwise all kinds of hideous structures would be appearing all over the place. I have no sympathy for him. It wasn't as if he's made an honest mistake. He took a gamble and it failed.
The planning laws are an ass - a farmer does not have the right to build a house on the land he works from - yet I bet they would give him planning permission for a couple of holiday cottages. This happened to a neighbour - his son was not allowed to build a house on the farm he was running as the planning office said his parents should move out of the farmhouse (and live where?) and they could move in...In the same year they allowed his sister to erect three holiday chalets on the same farm -ridiculous.
What are you talking about mags?
If your job requires you to be on hand you can be granted planning permission.
For example these two on an alpaca farm.
If it's just you've got a field with some horses in though you'll most likely be told No
Chances are this was a new house he wanted to build and then either sell the original or the new one at a big profit (most likely wanted to sell the original looking at what he built)
Very unlikely to get permission for holiday cottages on a new build (although a conversion might be possible)
If your job requires you to be on hand you can be granted planning permission.
For example these two on an alpaca farm.
If it's just you've got a field with some horses in though you'll most likely be told No
Chances are this was a new house he wanted to build and then either sell the original or the new one at a big profit (most likely wanted to sell the original looking at what he built)
Very unlikely to get permission for holiday cottages on a new build (although a conversion might be possible)
Fair enough the majority thinks that the farmer was in the wrong, and yes I do agree, but surely each and every case should be taken on merit, no one except them objected to the building, so surely they should have used a little common sense.
Interesting to note however that no one yet has remarked on the 'right of light through our windows' suggested changes.
Interesting to note however that no one yet has remarked on the 'right of light through our windows' suggested changes.
AOG
Leaving aside matters of taste*, the farmer deliberately tried to evade planning laws. It wasn't as if he even planned to get retrospective permission. He hid it from view because he believed he could use the loophole that if a building had been up for four years or more, it would fall out of the scope of the law.
*the combination of mock Tudor and Elizabethan castle is hideous in my opinon.
Leaving aside matters of taste*, the farmer deliberately tried to evade planning laws. It wasn't as if he even planned to get retrospective permission. He hid it from view because he believed he could use the loophole that if a building had been up for four years or more, it would fall out of the scope of the law.
*the combination of mock Tudor and Elizabethan castle is hideous in my opinon.
@AoG Well, at least in the case of the farmer, the ruling was applied based upon the merits of his particular construction, so that seems fair enough to me. Especially considering the deceitful way he went about it.
And you seem to be suggesting that homeowners should not have the right to object if a proposed construction might impede access to natural light - That seems perfectly acceptable to me, also.
So no, not "Bureaucracy gone mad" - More "Bureaucracy defending standards and homeowner rights in the face of predatory or uncaring developers" it seems to me.....
And you seem to be suggesting that homeowners should not have the right to object if a proposed construction might impede access to natural light - That seems perfectly acceptable to me, also.
So no, not "Bureaucracy gone mad" - More "Bureaucracy defending standards and homeowner rights in the face of predatory or uncaring developers" it seems to me.....
It is an interesting case and no - nobody objected.
Seems that the case was that nobody objected because it was hidden and therefore the timelimit for objection should not apply.
That certainly seems just to me how could someone object to a house if they couldn't see it!
I guess the judge could have held that the clock neede to be restarted but I think that would be a bit pointless and it was pretty clear that he wasn't acting in good faith
Seems that the case was that nobody objected because it was hidden and therefore the timelimit for objection should not apply.
That certainly seems just to me how could someone object to a house if they couldn't see it!
I guess the judge could have held that the clock neede to be restarted but I think that would be a bit pointless and it was pretty clear that he wasn't acting in good faith
If planning law is an ass; must say I've been inclined to that view on occasions; it is nonetheless binding on us all, and those, like this man, who break it must expect to face the consequences. These may be having to apply retrospectively to having a whole building demolished.
The lights one is more interesting. At present, the right may be established, over time, without regard to any need for the light. Planners considering new buildings and changes to existing ones always consider whether an adjacent building would be deprived of light and can, and will, order adjustments to the plans of the new development; this is alluded to in the link. The old 'ancient lights' rule is an anachronism, however it is expressed. No substantive change to existing established rights is being proposed.
The lights one is more interesting. At present, the right may be established, over time, without regard to any need for the light. Planners considering new buildings and changes to existing ones always consider whether an adjacent building would be deprived of light and can, and will, order adjustments to the plans of the new development; this is alluded to in the link. The old 'ancient lights' rule is an anachronism, however it is expressed. No substantive change to existing established rights is being proposed.
