 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
This was on a tv programme recently. Same guy raced quad and trail bikes around the countryside and had a right bit of traveller blood about him! All on what appeared to be greenbelt land.
Scum, rip it down and stop people trying to cheat the system to destroy our beautiful land for selfish gain.
Robert Fidler, of Salfords, Surrey, built the home - complete with turrets - without planning permission.
the clue's in his name surely?
A damn waste of a good home though. Rip it down just because they can.
stop people trying to cheat the system to destroy our beautiful land for selfish gain.
Where do you live? Wasn't that once beautiful land?
(Okay, I am being the devil's advocate here I know)
A damn waste of a good home though. Rip it down just because they can.
So what do you suggest as an alternative - let them get away with it, at which point planning laws become totally meaningless and every man and his dog starts building without permission?
I saw the tv programme and at the time I hoped he wouldn't get away with it. Looks like he won't, good.
How about seizing it and adding it to the councils housing stock?
I guess 'access' might be an issue.
So what do you suggest as an alternative - let them get away with it, at which point planning laws become totally meaningless and every man and his dog starts building without permission?
Aren't planning laws a bit of an ass anyway? At what point can we build houses then suddenly not build them? It seems far less intrusive to those living in the area than some poor sod having a two story extension built by their neighbour and blocking out their light because it hasn't contravened a planning regulation.
It is all about ticking boxes and he didn't tick them.
[i]mastiles_fanylion - Member
A damn waste of a good home though. Rip it down just because they can.
stop people trying to cheat the system to destroy our beautiful land for selfish gain.
Where do you live? Wasn't that once beautiful land?[/i]
Where I live still is beautiful land! A long-established village with VERY little building going on. Houses only come for sale when a granny pops it!
How about seizing it and adding it to the councils housing stock?
That sounds a better solution to me.
It is all about ticking boxes and he didn't tick them
TBH - I think it was more about not filling a form in
Where I live still is beautiful land!
But you live in a house, right?
In fairness mf, there were a lot of big boxes he didn't tick!
Where do you live? Wasn't that once beautiful land?
I think MF was implying that at some point in the past there was a green patch where your abode now stands
That sounds a better solution to me.
So rather than just removing something he's not supposed to have, you're additionally punishing him by removing something he's always owned and is entitled to? Not the way the law works, but I suppose it might discourage people from trying it on like this even more!
In fairness mf, there were a lot of big boxes he didn't tick!
Granted he completely took the p*ss and it was doubtless right to take action against him, but to just knock it down seems a waste.
I am just trying to get across how odd it is that an imaginary line was drawn at some point making it right/wrong to build as and where you want and this property does seem (on the face of it) to have less impact than some developments that are allowed.
The planning system isn't there to keep grass green. It's there to ensure a lot more, as I'm sure the STW village idiots know, although knowing this doesn't assist them when creating their short snappy moments of unbacked wisdom.
and had a right bit of traveller blood about him!
wtf is that supposed to mean?
Planning should be about quality, not how it looks - and for me its irrelevent what the neighbours (or would-be) neighbours think - if you want to have a reasonable chance of knowing your likely view, buy in an already built-up area. Its a bit like controlling the colour of a neighbours car.
And how come when they build a new estate the houses can be built up to a boundary line, but not when I want to extend an existing property?
I am just trying to get across how odd it is that an imaginary line was drawn at some point making it right/wrong to build as and where you want
Not really, I'd like to think it was in place to stop people building monstrosities and taking over land and mashing views, but in reality I think it was probably initially done to ensure councils got taxes etc.
While I really am against people building stuff where they shouldn't, I kind of feel like he made such a good effort that it'd be ok to let him off. But then I like the fact that he was killed by his own technicality.
Granted he completely took the p*ss and it was doubtless right to take action against him, but to just knock it down seems a waste.
Do you actually really think taking the house off him and using it for some other council purpose would work (even if it was allowed under the law, which it's never going to be)? If not, what else do you suggest?
The planning system isn't there to keep grass green
agreed. today its a house, tomorrow its a superstore. Granted the system is as bent as a dogs leg, but clandestine construction definitely does not allow for any public consultation.
If not, what else do you suggest?
I don't have any answers but as I have said, it seems a shame to knock it down just because he didn't get the planning. Apparently he applied but he didn't get a response so decided on that course of action.
I think the question they need to ask themselves is 'would we have allowed this development if we had received and considered an application before works had started' not 'we didn't get a planning application so we will make him rip it down'.
Not having planning permission, does allow him to show off his artistic flare for a novel property design though 😉
novel property design though
It has faux cannons and everything.
Apparently he applied but he didn't get a response so decided on that course of action.I think the question they need to ask themselves is 'would we have allowed this development if we had received and considered an application before works had started' not 'we didn't get a planning application so we will make him rip it down'.
Well that's what he says. He also said "he knew he had to deceive the council of its existence until a period of four years from substantial completion and occupation had occurred as they would not grant planning permission for its construction."
This one was in our local paper today 😉
Couple in planning row with neighbours after painting house bright pink:
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7137740/Couple-in-planning-row-with-neighbours-after-painting-house-bright-pink.html ]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7137740/Couple-in-planning-row-with-neighbours-after-painting-house-bright-pink.html[/url]
love this quote:
[i]For its most recent makeover, the couple let Felicity, a university student, decide the colour, who opted for Rose Madder after seeing a pink-coloured tea room in nearby Bromyard.[/i]
lol 😉
Well yes it is what he said - I said so in my post. 😕
How does he know they wouldn't grant permission if they didn't look at his case? There must be much more back-story than is available on the BBC site.
Its green belt land - no planning for new houses.
That doesn't look like a house built by an 'ordinary' farmer, more like someone with too much money, no taste and delusions of grandeur.
It's quite simple - he knew he was breaking the law and wasn't lucky or clever enough to get away with it so it has to be taken down and will serve as a very expensive lesson and hopefully put off others trying the same trick. Apart from the legal aspect, it's bl@@dy hideous anyway 😯
I had to laugh at the other one
Planning officers for Mole Valley District Council were tipped off by ramblers who were concerned about the activity on the Surrey farm.
Imagine all the 'red socks' sipping their 1/2 shandys in the pub and letting their imaginations run riot about 'secret government buildings' etc.
Its green belt land - no planning for new houses.
Which goes back to what I said ages ago - how are these things suddenly decided? Why is field 1 green belt, field 2 brownfield and so on? Why shouldn't someone be allowed to build a property on his own land? No doubt it he wanted to build an ugly barn it wouldn't have been a problem.
MF - 'cos otherwise all villages and towns would just sprawl and there would be no green around them at all.
green field is a site which has been built on before where as brown field has and is a re-development. I think that by saying that taking the bales down was the last but of building the judge was getting around the loophole.
'cos otherwise all villages and towns would just sprawl and there would be no green around them at all.
But as is being felt by most towns and cities, the Government-backed Local Development Framework means that there is lots and lots of new build going on, with land owners being encouraged to give up land for development. Why should one set of homeowners be faced with development bordering their property when another has their homes protected because of green belt rules. After all what IS green belt? I can understand why there are areas of special scientific interest which need preserving, but green belt?
As I say, I can't get my head around it - how were these seemingly random areas of land ever selected to be protected?
Its bollocks, planning is there to make the public's life difficult, while enabling commercial/government to do what they want.
Want to paint your front door a different colour - no!
Or add a porch/cover over the front door - has it got one already? If no, you can't.
I kid you not this is where I live in a large 'development' put up over the last 10 years.
Well this is how they seem to to do it round these parts:
Sleep with someone off the planning committee
Buy a small plot of land with road access.
Sleep with someone off the planning committee
Stick horses on land
Sleep with someone off the planning committee
build barn, fill it with hay
Sleep with someone off the planning committee
put in hardcore driveway for 4x4
Sleep with someone off the planning committee
Then a battered caravan
Sleep with someone off the planning committee
Then a static caravan & generator and water supply
Sleep with someone off the planning committee
Sign "Little Trotters Farm"
Sleep with someone off the planning committee
Build skylights into barn and tack room, showers, kitchen, sleeping quarters 😉
Move horsey family in build grand bricked entrance with electric gates with huge white horse statues everywhere.
Marry someone off the planning committee
Job done 😉
Someone did similar on a green belt land between Harrogate and Knaresborough. Slapped a static caravan on there and added and added to it (gates, fences, security lights, big dogs) now the planning is going through for a permanent property.
There must be much more back-story than is available on the BBC site.
<sigh> well of course there is. Why are you so reluctant in that case to believe the evidence they do provide just because they don't provide the full details?
Which goes back to what I said ages ago - how are these things suddenly decided? Why is field 1 green belt, field 2 brownfield and so on? Why shouldn't someone be allowed to build a property on his own land? No doubt it he wanted to build an ugly barn it wouldn't have been a problem.
For a start there's no "suddenly" about it. Yes of course it's a bit arbitrary, but the whole thing is strategic rather than tactical - if they don't stick to what they've decided then the whole strategy goes out of the window. Maybe he would have been allowed to build a barn - though I wouldn't be totally sure - but if so, that would have been because it was serving far more important a purpose than a new house.
As to "Why shouldn't someone be allowed to build a property on his own land?", why shouldn't a developer be allowed to buy a big parcel of land between say Malham Tarn and Kilnsey and build a property or two on his land (making use of the handy drovers road for access - which he will of course upgrade to tarmac)?
Why are you so reluctant in that case to believe the evidence they do provide just because they don't provide the full details?
Because, as I said in my original reply, I am being a bit of the devil's advocate on this as I have always felt that planning laws and regulations are a bit arbitrary as you say so yourself. And I have also accepted he was taking the p*ss but it just seems a shame to knock something down for the sake of it.
It's being knocked down to send out a message to anybody thinking of trying something similar, not just for the sake of it!
I accept that. Still seems a daft decision to me, but I have always thought green belt rules are ridiculous. We are living in an ever-expanding nation and more and more people live outside of traditional family units meaning even more need for more accommodation and the Government knows we need thousands and thousands more properties building, yet silly rules stop properties being built.
Seriously - why does it matter what colour has been arbitrarily assigned to a piece of land? Why can't any land-owner build where he wants? Every single house was once a nice green field.
I live in a conservation area and built a shed in my back garden without the required planning permission
that was nearly three years ago, only one more year and I can move in
I have always thought green belt rules are ridiculous.
So you wouldn't have a problem at all with our whole country being concreted, villages sprawling and much less countryside to play with? I think you're on the wrong forum MF - "concrete and brick world" is over there somewhere, that's where I got the gem about the planned development near Malham.
See the lovely location he built it in. Fab place to have your 'castle' 😉
Note all the tracks no doubt from racing his quad bikes.
i remember when i worked in betws,i was asked to put my name on a petition to stop a house being torn down up in the woods.
i said no much to the shock of the small crowd who had made it their aim to save the blokes house. he's a nice bloke they said I know i said but thats not the fekking point is it.i would love to build my own gaff up in the hills but its not allowed.
as you can see MF i still dont know how to write.
So you wouldn't have a problem at all with our whole country being concreted, villages sprawling and much less countryside to play with?
I wouldn't have a problem with any development that is required to support the growing population. And I live on a property backing on to greenfields and areas of special scientific interest. I have watched as permissions have been granted for some 20,000 (IIRC) properties being built by 2021 in order to support the need. Some of that development is coming to a field near me - I know it is only a matter of time until they give permission for builds in the field next to our home (rejected several times in the 80s and 90s) and I lose our view over to Stainburn and the Yorkshire Dales.
If this development wasn't allowed, where do the people without homes go? The ones on high incomes can afford to buy, those on lower incomes are priced out (even moreso than now).
but I have always thought green belt rules are ridiculous
That is one of the stupidiest things I have read on here. "Green belt" is just as the name suggests, a belt of green around urban sprawl. Sometimes development can be permitted, if the local authority is corrupt enough. Green belt legislation *[b]should[/b]* make it as difficult as possible to build on it. Unless of course you really like road biking...
If this development wasn't allowed, where do the people without homes go?
Never heard of urban regeneration. Try driving into Liverpool along Edge Lane. Hundreds of beautiful three story properties boarded up. Wrong, wrong wrong. Go to any urban sprawl and you will see countless empty properties and brownfield sites lying idle.
If this development wasn't allowed, where do the people without homes go?
To houses built not on green belt land - there is plenty enough of that around to build on you know (including the field outside the back of my house - not much of a view, but would be a shame not to be able to look out of the window at sheep - though would reluctantly accept there was no fundamental reason not to build there as it's not GB, and we knew that when we bought).
I've always thought the notion of "needing" more houses is a bit of an odd one. MY feeling is the government wants to build more houses so that people can be good little consumers and buy more stuff etc. I mean, if we're so short of housing where are the hordes of homeless people?
Anyway, they should knock down the pikey mansion IMO, that'll learn 'em! 😈
sharkbait - I was wondering where it is; will try to ride over to have a look sometime.
mastiles_fanylion - Member
I accept that. Still seems a daft decision to me,
IF you think its a daft decision and they didn't do that then whats to stop any one from doing this? How would you go about enforcing the rules?
I live near this idiot. And I say tear it down. He'd been trying to invoke some old medieval law about every man having a right to a castle. He's quite clearly not got his marbles.
maybe they should make him surrender sufficient suitable land for low-cost housing, maybe 3 houses (or a pump track maybe ?)
Video on BBC website now - Farmer loses high court bid to save hidden castle:
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8497285.stm?ls ]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8497285.stm?ls [/url]
Coyote - I agree that there are countless properties stood empty and they should be utilised wherever possible, but that isn't the answer, it is only a small part of the answer. We live in an evergrowing society - if every new home built in the last 30 years had been built/rebuilt in existing residential areas then there simply wouldn't be enough homes.
Just think about all the new developments all around the country. I recall looking at a property in 1991 (I almost bought it). At the time it was at the end of the biggest residential estate in Harrogate. Since then the estate has doubled again in size and the property is right in the middle. I would estimate some 600-1000 additional homes being built in that time. There is clearly a need and the Government recognises a need to keep building more new homes, hence the LDF.
So what would be your recommendation? Make all those families move to places like inner-city Liverpool and live in these redevelopments?
But, for fear of repeating myself, why ARE there green belt areas? Why is one field okay to build on, the next not, purely because someone in local Government said so? I accept why certain areas need protecting such as national parks or areas of special scientific interest. But to stop development in this seemingly random manner remains odd in my opinion. Surely penetration of residential property (ie, a % balance of land v build) and local needs should come above these arbitrary rules saying where and where not property can be built.
And another odd thing I have witnessed recently - my mother and father-in-law own a home on green belt and have a large piece of almost worthless land as they cannot build on it. But around 15 years ago the local Government built a bypass right through the middle of it. Why is building a house not permitted but building a road is? Then last year a local football club bought a piece of neighbouring green belt and was given permission to build a club house, car park, fenced pitches and (IIRC) are awaiting approval on floodlights. But because it is not a residential home it was approved.
Mastyles - once again you are talking rubbish. There is plenty of land to build new houses without using greenbelt land. Not all countryside is greeenbelt.
2 main issues - brownfield sites are more expensive to develop and people want greenfield. tough. Green belt is essential for the well being of our country in many ways. I am sorry you are so blinkerd you cannt see this
I will say this for the last time then go away...
[b]I do not understand WHY there is green belt.[/b]
(Ohh, and I think you were talking utter unmitigated rubbish in my post about vulnerable people).
We have greenbelt so that we can maintain some areas of land that are not scattered with houses and industrial buildings, so that we can have areas of nice woods and fields between our built up areas, because without it anyone would build anywhere and it would look a ****ing mess, we'd lose natural resources because businesses found it cheaper and more profitable to build there than elsewhere where they may have to do a little cleaning up first. How do you propose it works instead?
Several people have tried to explain. its clear you don't understand. 'cos you don't understand does not mean there is not a reason.
Its pointless trying to explain something to someone who does not listen. same as your other thread.
clueless is the word
But, for fear of repeating myself, why ARE there green belt areas? Why is one field okay to build on, the next not, purely because someone in local Government said so?
Well if you're going to repeat yourself, so will I. Of course it's arbitrary. The whole point though is to protect some bits of unbuilt on land - obviously it doesn't really matter that much which particular bits they pick to protect, but they have to make a decision and then stick with it, otherwise nothing will be protected. Is it really so hard to understand that?
As to building roads, well quite clearly since it's a green [b]belt[/b] then you're bound to get situations where you have to build a road through it. Totally different to a house - you can build a house anywhere, whilst a road isn't much use unless it goes a particular way. Meanwhile making football pitches is still maintaining open land - the club house is obviously an exception, but they can make those in some cases (not all building on green belt land is totally prohibited), and I imagine they took the pragmatic view that it's not exactly about to open the floodgates of lots of other football clubs building on the green belt.
I do not understand WHY there is green belt.
[b][u]BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU WOULD GET URBAN SPRAWL AS TOWNS SPREAD OUTWARDS, DESTROYING THE NICE BITS OF OPEN COUNTRY THAT YOU'D THINK A MOUNTAIN BIKER MIGHT QUITE APPRECIATE[/u][/b]
Oh I get it now you have shouted.
I'm quite amused that m_f isn't a NIMBY but a BIMBY, or I suspect someone else's back yard.
Green belt legislation and it's history is clearly available if you choose to spend a little time looking, about 0.015 seconds.
Anyway was you've voted for Cameroon you won't have to worry as he's got some interesting intentions for the planning system including removing the requirement to receive permission for certain types of development.
Once greenbelt is gone, it's gone for good. Following your logic we would keep on destroying the coutryside and laying mile after mile of concrete. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of perfectly serviceable properties fall into disrepair.
My wife's folks live in leafy Ormskirk. Due to the expansion of the local college, Edge Hill, there is now a shortage of houses at a certain pricepoint. Why? Local landlords buy up terraced properties and lower priced semis for student accommodation thereby creating a housing shortage of sorts. There is an easy solution. Build halls of residence inside the college grounds for the students. Suddenly there are a load of houses for people who want homes rather than transients who will only be there in term time and more than likely leave when there education is complete.
If we didn't have green belt then it would work much more like in the good old US where they have huge places just abandond (sp?) like air base/ports and lots of other industrial sights hell there are even whole towns out there. I for one don't want to see this in our small country.