Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Take down your 'castle', twat told

coley said:
They should have let him keep it up solely as his main dwelling, on the condition if he sold it any profit would belong to the council.
Click to expand...
That would be an excellent addition to planning law. But I don't think it would work. This guy has had the house for 12 years now, 7 of them openly. For £50k he's already had pretty good housing value from the building.
 
Frumious B. said:
He built it on farmland in the green belt. Whether you like the look of this ersatz executive Hobbit-style "castle" or not the green belt needs protecting. And if the house were allowed to stand the value of the plot would jump by squillions because you'd be allowed to have a dwelling there, smack in the green belt, in perpetuity. That can't be allowed, because I don't have squillions and I won't have some crafty ne'er do well with a dodgy barnet getting rich. And he's called Fidler, which I'm quite sure is a pikey name. The whole scheme reeks of pikey. :mad: I bet he's got three Range Rovers and two Mercs. And goes dogging. And doesn't wash afterwards.
Click to expand...

Why must the green belt 'need' protecting, precisely? So well heeled folk keep their unspoiled views?
 
Citizen66 said:
Can't argue with that I suppose. I bet there's interests and agendas lurking in the background though.
Click to expand...
There are more interests and agendas lurking on the other side. You don't think that those with money and power would love to exploit all that readily commutable space for serious profit? Protecting it against money and power is a full time job.
 
beesonthewhatnow said:
Exactly, it's not random people building the odd house that's the issue, it's Tesco wanting to build a regional distribution centre and so on.
Click to expand...

not that i disagree with your point about a Tesco distribution centre, but the uncontrolled building of 'one off' houses in Ireland during the Celtic Tiger has to be seen to be believed - everybody built a house at least 500 from the next, so you have a landscape where there's nowhere with nothing, but lots of places where the thread off 'one off' houses just goes on, and on, and on... bungalow blight i think they call it, and the building - not to mention the cronic lack of taste involved in the design/build many of the houses - has had a significant effect on the overall attractiveness of whole areas. bad news for places that rely on their natural beauty for tourism...
 
Citizen66 said:
Why must the green belt 'need' protecting, precisely? So well heeled folk keep their unspoiled views?
Click to expand...

Also the idea that the green belt is only full of rich people is a bit daft. Plenty of rural poverty, even in Surrey.

The example i gave earlier in the thread is of a council estate called woodhatch surrounded on 2 sides by green belt which the council want to open to develop. This will remove green space, building more houses but no plans for new services.

The green belt isn't *always* about stockbrokers
 
If the green belt weren't protected the whole of the south east would slowly become one big urban/suburban area. The same thing has happened in China and the US. A metropolis ends up as a megalopolis - the gaps between London and Brighton and Reading and Luton would all get filled in. It would be interesting if we just let it happen. The economy would become even more concentrated in the South East than it is now. There'd be a housing boom. The housing shortage would end. Values in the sticks would crash. You'd be able to go and live pretty well on benefits in remote countryside oop North or in Wales or somewhere. You could buy a field for fifty quid, built an earthship for nothing, live off-grid and relax. Like they do in the desert in the US. But with a welfare state.
 
Frumious B. said:
If the green belt weren't protected the whole of the south east would slowly become one big urban/suburban area. The same thing has happened in China and the US. A metropolis ends up as a megalopolis - the gaps between London and Brighton and Reading and Luton would all get filled in. It would be interesting if we just let it happen. The economy would become even more concentrated in the South East than it is now. There'd be a housing boom. The housing shortage would end. Values in the sticks would crash. You'd be able to go and live pretty well on benefits in remote countryside oop North or in Wales or somewhere. You could buy a field for fifty quid, built an earthship for nothing, live off-grid and relax. Like they do in the desert in the US. But with a welfare state.
Click to expand...
This sounds quite appealing tbh.
 
frumious, i'd advise you to read some of the threads discussing the use of the work pikey before you use it again. there's many people around here who consider pikey to be a massively loaded expression, with at best overtones of racism and / or class prejudice. you've got away with it on this thread somehow...
 
jakethesnake said:
This sounds quite appealing tbh.
Click to expand...

It's how I imagine my retirement. But because of land prices and planning permission in the UK I imagine I'd have to do it somewhere dirt poor in the EU, e.g. rural Portugal, or Romania. If you lived there, could you still get your pension and free healthcare?
 
el-ahrairah said:
frumious, i'd advise you to read some of the threads discussing the use of the work pikey before you use it again. there's many people around here who consider pikey to be a massively loaded expression, with at best overtones of racism and / or class prejudice. you've got away with it on this thread somehow...
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of all that. It's called satire. Pretend you're reading Viz.
 
It was meant to be subtle...start the post sensibly and gradually lapse into wtf rabid nonsense. Dark humour, which is always risky online.
 
I'm not sure this has another thread about it - can't find one anyway....This bloke in Wales has built a house without PP and now the council are going to knock it down. Lovely house but why would you spend £15,000 on building a house and take a big gamble that it wont get knocked down very soon?

http://naturalhomes.org/save-charlies-house.htm
 
sunny jim said:
I'm not sure this has another thread about it - can't find one anyway....This bloke in Wales has built a house without PP and now the council are going to knock it down. Lovely house but why would you spend £15,000 on building a house and take a big gamble that it wont get knocked down very soon?

http://naturalhomes.org/save-charlies-house.htm
Click to expand...


Doubtless those same planners went straight from dealing with this case to rubber-stamping four dozen applications to turn various local pubs, shops, places of worship and historic monuments into Tesco Metro stores :mad:
 
ddraig said:
the hobbit house is very different from the castle tho!
Click to expand...


Very true, but its the not asking for PP that planning departments hate. The council might have given consent if he had asked - this place is right next to something called Llamas Eco Village after all - but just building without consent is pretty much always going to end in tears.
 
It is really fucked up that an ordinary person is unlikely to get planning permission to build anything, even a low-impact house made from natural materials, in certain parts of the country while development companies can bribe, sue and bully their way to building any old shit they feel like. That doesn't change the fact that everyone knows you can't just build something anywhere you like with no permission and expect to get away with it. Some busybody neighbour will always grass you up to the council, or the council will find the place themselves with their new planning violations helicopter which they bought with all the bribe money they got from Tesco.

e2a: Allegedly
 
e2a to sunny jim
agreed
cafe in Cardiff did the same
wanted bigger place so refurbed somewhere few doors down without PP and stitched himself up for £150k! :facepalm:
 
The owners of the hobbit house were saying on an FB group 'Natural Homes' that they built without PP at the beginning of this year. I dont think that was a good idea. :facepalm:
 
Given that once it's built, what was there existing has already been destroyed and greenfield type land turned into brownfield, I am fine with councils being extremely harsh and sparing about when they will grant retrospective planning permission. I don't care how eco friendly it is personally.
 
I'll link it later - Tablet is refusing to paste links for some reason!

It is also already discussed on several other threads as well.
 
charlie5.jpg


Fuckin hobbitsez lord of the rings freaks:rolleyes:
Get planning permission like the rest of us have to:mad:

I've got an allotment. It doesn't mean I can build the dungeon of my dreams on it though:mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hash tag
Sainsbury's are going down the pan
2 3
Replies
60
Views
3K
cesare
cesare
_Russ_
This little shit.....
Replies
19
Views
906
stavros
S
nogojones
Mark Drakeford standing down
Replies
28
Views
1K
weltweit
weltweit
StoneRoad
  • Poll
Are YOU happy with the overall result & your [new] constituency MP ?
2 3 4
Replies
114
Views
3K
Boo Radley75
Boo Radley75
N
Times you thought real change was coming... only to be sadly disappointed
2 3 4
Replies
109
Views
4K
gosub
gosub
Back
Top Bottom