What should rural homes look like?

[zazen999]

Sarah, I know its not like for like that was not the point. The point was and still is we cannot choose when we want to obey the law of the land and when we do not.

What I cannot understand is why the gentleman concerned did not apply for planning permission in the first place.

There may well be more to this than meets the eye.

And I still love the design of the house.

Potty

We can all choose when to obey the law of the land or not. Lots of people speed in their cars every day. The only ones that face a penalty are those that get caught.

[Potstubsdustbins]

Exactly the ones who choose to break the law and get caught have to pay the penalty.

This chap got caught, I still think its a great shame, but as the old saying goes 'you do the crime, you do the time'.

Colin

[zazen999]

Exactly the ones who choose to break the law and get caught have to pay the penalty.

This chap got caught, I still think its a great shame, but as the old saying goes 'you do the crime, you do the time'.

Colin

Not necessarily. Sometimes people get off on a technicality. It's not set in stone what the 'time' is either. Plus there is the appeals process...

[SarzWix]

So will you be equally as happy if a plot holder at your allotments adopts the same cavalier attitude to the site rules ?

Yes, if the site rules are unjust and discriminatory in favour of those with power. And I'd fight to change the rules.

[bearded bloke]

So what part of applying for planning consent is unjust and discriminatory in this case ?

[binley100]

Well , I have given my support. We have seen the way developers work and what they've managed to push through with the houses behind us. It's on his parents land , not at the bottom of my garden in the middle of a town. He hasn't built it to sell on and make a mint from it's somewhere for him and his family to live instead of a caravan . Looking at the video it seems to me that they people involved know what they're doing and to be honest the finish on it looks fantastic and I'm sure he wouldn't put the lives of his young family at risk .
I say good luck to him.

[zazen999]

So what part of applying for planning consent is unjust and discriminatory in this case ?

Who knows? That would be up for the appeals process to decide...

[SarzWix]

Retrospective planning permission is treated the same as prospective, so if they're refusing permission now, they would have refused it before also. And the reason for their refusal isn't that it's badly built or unsafe, it's because it doesn't fit in with the character of the countryside. And that's not unfair? Who decides what 'fits in'? Not the property's nearest neighbours who will be looking at it all the time but a bunch of middle-class professionals with a tick-list.

The planning system as a whole is inherently unfair and discriminatory. It favours those with wealth, developers or individuals, who can afford to appeal many times and resubmit the application with minor tweaks until its accepted, It isn't set up for individuals who want to do something a bit different.

[bearded bloke]

Retrospective planning permission is treated the same as prospective, so if they're refusing permission now, they would have refused it before also. And the reason for their refusal isn't that it's badly built or unsafe, it's because it doesn't fit in with the character of the countryside. And that's not unfair? Who decides what 'fits in'? Not the property's nearest neighbours who will be looking at it all the time but a bunch of middle-class professionals with a tick-list.

Quite possibly that is the case in general,but in this specific case it cannot be used as an argument.He never bothered to apply so how can you say definitely that it would not have passed.

The planning system as a whole is inherently unfair and discriminatory. It favours those with wealth, developers or individuals, who can afford to appeal many times and resubmit the application with minor tweaks until its accepted, It isn't set up for individuals who want to do something a bit different.

Getting planning permission really is not that hard,showing consideration of others is a good start,,I built my own bungalow,wife drew her ideal floor-plan which was given to an architect who drew it & added construction detail notes,I took that draft plan & showed it to the rest of the residents in the street & asked for comments,I then took it to a parish council meeting.The only point raised was the type & style of the roof tiles,the detail notes were amended accordingly & then submitted for approval by the county council & passed first time.

[marchogaeth]

There's more to this than meets the eye! Yes the house is amazing but - it was built without planning permission. If you look at the Lammas initiative - which is said to be next door, you'll see a whole eco-village of similar houses that are being constructed on the understanding that the community can sustain itself. Pembrokeshire seems to attract folk who want to live off-grid - great I'm all in favour of that - but in the process they build first then, when found out, seek retrospective approval. If this were a conventional house, built in the middle of open countryside, most people would object to it on principle.

I realise I am joining this debate very late. (As many of you know I really worry about joining these sort of debating threads cos I'm here for the gardening and think too much depends on what's written rather than what we we say if we were face to face, however......) VC is correct. Lammas residents have to stick to very strict rules as their whole eco village is evaluated. As I understand it, the area available is being extended with a second set of plots being offered on the same basis of sustainability. Many of the houses currently on the Lammas site are "first builds" and are destined to be replaced with "more permenant" structures once people get their sustainability from the land up and running.

The house does look and indeed is beautiful but built from hay bales. The hay bale structure tried at Lammas had to be abandoned as a house because hay's tendency to "walk" made it unsuitable as a home. I've been in that, it's now a barn/workshop. I can see how you could argue it's perfectly liveabale in. However, the couple who built have accepted that it is not a suitable for a home even in the short term.

I think one line has been lifted from the planners' ruling to suit the campaign - I'd do the same.

I live in a beautiful part of the world. It's a National Park, the restrictions on planning can sometimes seem crazy (Sometimes they are, I could list lots that seem stupid and inflexible.) but they are there generally there to ensure the safety of the people using the building and to preserve the lanscape. In the twenty years I have lived here, I feel the local planners both in and out of the Park have come long way. The Lammas and Brithdir eco villages are testament to this as are other individual properties that are being worked on.

It is true that, locally there are too many people trying to go under the wire, building and converting and hoping to establish themselves for four years so that they can keep the property as a house. It is hard when you know your children probably can't afford to get on the property ladder but why should it be any different here to in less rural areas? If someone in town built a house in their garden without correct consent people would be up in arms even if it was a "Frank Lloyd Wright" of a building. If you own land you can't just do with it as you want and ignore society's rules, can you?

Those of you who bother to read this far can read into this what you like:- One of the strongest and most vehement protestors against the Lammas Project being established now has a structure in his garden, built by his son which the planners want taken down. As VC says more to this than meets the eye.

That's me finished! I'm back to gardening now.

Ignore the stuff about hay bales - I double checked and Charlie's house is straw bales. Sorry should have done it first.

[out in the cold]

You're not comparing like with like... And in fact the 3-Storey building at the bottom of the garden would be much more likely to get planning permission as several round here have recently, because that's the way the system is set up.

Sorry Sarz, but you are not comparing like for like either with your comparisons to Mrs Pankhurst.

I don't agree with a lot of what is passed either, but like all laws there is room for
interpretation and you hope they are interpreted fairly.

IMO, the retrospective element should be done away with, as it would eliminate anyone trying to drive a coach and horses through the system. "Ignorance of the law is no defence" as they say

[Newton]

Marchogaeth....I love your description......a Frank Lloyd Wright of a house......the adjective FLW.....wonderful.

I hope to go to falling water one day........

Very interesting about WHO built that beautiful house!!!! Speaks volumes........

[SarzWix]

Okay, look at it this way. I live just outside the Yorkshire Dales National Park. Within the park, just about every application for planning is refused, it's nigh on impossible to build anything because it might 'affect the character..' blah blah blah. Instead, all the development quota for our district is shoved onto the villages which are outside the NP. Hence the village I'm in has had 3 massive developments of lego-box houses in the last 5 years, and the next village up has had 3 too. People here are totally fed up. Our infrastructure isn't able to cope, we're getting flooding from inadequate sewers/drainage and the local dr's and primary schools are getting overwhelmed too. However, we've still had to spend the last 3 years fighting off another development proposal for 70+ houses on the outskirts of the village, going into green fields. There are legitimate objections on the grounds of access, infrastructure, lack of local need. But because the developer has the money to appeal, and appeal, and appeal, and appeal, and appeal, this development has now been given the go-ahead by someone so far removed from the area that all they can see is 'quota being met, boost to the economy'. The developer is claiming all sorts of incentives and grants for providing a small proportion of 'affordable housing', but there is no restriction of this to local people. What do we get out of it? Nothing.

That's what the planning system is set up for. If you dance to their tune, build a house that looks like a 'little box on the hillside', then you're a-okay. Step outside of that in any way, you've had it. Personally, I'd rather see 70+ houses that are low and blend in with the hillside, than 70+ 'made out of ticky-tacky and they all look the same'.

[SarzWix]

Oh, and I agree, the fact that the person building the house in question is related to a major protester about Lammas makes it all a bit fishy indeed. Unless he's miraculously 'seen the light' since it was built.

Thanks for that local insight Marchogaeth

[bearded bloke]

IMO, the retrospective element should be done away with, as it would eliminate anyone trying to drive a coach and horses through the system

There is no way that that building will get retrospective,if for no other reason than there is no practical way to check the footing piles under the padstones for the "pillars" that hold the structure together.