Why can't you just build on your own land? (e.g.Rural plots)

[SimonH2]

It's a catch 22. Most people like the idea of freedom to do what they want, build what they like, where they like, but virtually nobody wants the countryside littered with horrible little shacks and shanty towns.

More accurately, everyone likes the idea of having the freedom to do what they want - but not the freedom for others to do what they want. Or, I like the idea of being able to build me own house free of officialdom telling me what I can and cannot do, but I don't like the idea of someone else having the freedom to build something that I might not like.

There are two ways round the problem here :
1) Live in a country where there's so much space that many people can build things so far away from the neighbours that no-one is bothered.
2) Have some form of body that regulates what can be built where, so that there is (at least in principle) some sort of "fairness" to it.

BTW - According to one old Grand Designs, if you can live on a site for 10 years without "the authorities" complaining it seems you then gain the right to live on it. Don't ask details, I only know what was said in the program - the guy had lived on site (part in a caravan, part in a room at the back of his workshop) and so he had a legal right to live on the site. That meant that they couldn't refuse planning on a "change of use", only on style etc which is harder for them to justify. He was building a timber frame that came as a kit from somewhere in Scandinavia.

 

[tony1851]

2) Have some form of body that regulates what can be built where, so that there is (at least in principle) some sort of "fairness" to it.

If you are an essentially urban population, as we are, some form of regulation of building does become necessary. That's where Building Regulations comes in, and where they concern structural stability, fire safety and efficient sanitation, that's very necessary.

But when you get to the point of society deciding what shall be built and where, it becomes a matter of principle and that's where I personally take issue.

Incidentally, for many years before the Town Planning Acts, we had a private system of building control; it was called the restrictive covenant.

 

[SimonH2]

But when you get to the point of society deciding what shall be built and where, it becomes a matter of principle and that's where I personally take issue.

So you'd see no problem whatsoever if you had a nice little house ina nice quiet area, and someone came and plonked a tall block of flats on all sides with balconies that overlooked your house and garden such that you couldn't even break wind without people watching you ? And they shut out so much light that your garden died, and you needed the lights on indoors all the time to see anything, and so on and so on. And for good measure, you couldn't afford to move as your house is now worth a fraction of what it used to - and you're in massive negative equity.

I can see that often LPAs are overly restrictive, but I can also see that they have a very necessary function to perform. The big problem is as I pointed out above - no-one wants rules and regulations they have to follow, but they want rules and regulations that stop others screwing them over. Thus the LPA is the people's enemy for what they permit, and the people's enemy for what they reject.

Incidentally, for many years before the Town Planning Acts, we had a private system of building control; it was called the restrictive covenant.

So a planning system in effect, but without common standards, local plans, or the right of appeal.

 

[munchingB]

the whole system is decided and set up by and for the benefit og the rich who increasingly lower the wages of the workers, restrict our natural rights and lower our standard of living year on year. so where is the 'semi' in semi communist.

this is a socialist nightmare run by rich people who eat babies in care : /

build your house, hide away for a while and then stick it to them!

 

[munchingB]

the whole system is decided and set up by and for the benefit og the rich who increasingly lower the wages of the workers, restrict our natural rights and lower our standard of living year on year. so where is the 'semi' in semi communist.

this is a socialist nightmare run by rich people who eat babies in care : /

build your house, hide away for a while and then stick it to them!

 

[tony1851]

So you'd see no problem whatsoever if you had a nice little house ina nice quiet area, And for good measure, you couldn't afford to move as your house is now worth a fraction of what it used to - and you're in massive negative equity.

Untitled

• tony1851
• 24 Apr 2014
• 1

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But when you get to the point of society deciding what shall be built and where, it becomes a matter of principle and that's where I personally take issue.

That's what societies do. It's part of what makes them societies.

If you want anarchy and no society then you need to move country.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

this is a socialist nightmare

Our current socio-economic environment is a socialist nightmare?

I take it you mean it's like a nightmare a socialist might have?

 

[cjard]

According to one old Grand Designs, if you can live on a site for 10 years without "the authorities" complaining it seems you then gain the right to live on it

4 years in the case of a dwelling, 10 in other cases (such as a change of use).. The development of the land as it stands becomes lawful and the occupier can apply with supporting evidence for a lawful development certificate to ensure the council agree and will not take enforcement action.

That meant that they couldn't refuse planning on a "change of use", only on style etc which is harder for them to justify. He was building a timber frame that came as a kit from somewhere in Scandinavia.

Can't believe that the LPA folded that easily; hiding a caravan away in a wood for X years, then getting an LDC doesn't then mean the planning authority will find it acceptable to build a 4 bed detached house on the site of the caravan - the occupation and subsequent granting of LDC didn't make the site acceptable for any residential use in planning terms, it just made that particular caravan, at that particular spot not illegal in planning terms. If you change the caravan, the clock starts again. If you extend it, the clock starts again, and so on

 

[jeds]

It's a catch 22. Most people like the idea of freedom to do what they want, build what they like, where they like, but virtually nobody wants the countryside littered with horrible little shacks and shanty towns.

More accurately, everyone likes the idea of having the freedom to do what they want - but not the freedom for others to do what they want.

Good point. And that's precisely the reason I find those people, who build their lovely fluffy little stick built dens in the woods helped by dozens of sops who come and do the work for them for a bowl of lentil soup and a sing song around the camp fire with a lute, extremely irritating. All very nice but they'd be straight down the town hall if you tried to come along and build your own stick built den right next to theirs.

 

[cjard]

they'd be straight down the town hall if you tried to come along and build your own stick built den right next to theirs.

you talk like you know this to be fact. Personal experience or just lack of belief that not every human being is a pure hypocrite?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Because we live in a semi-communist state, where an army of local government officials, of no useful abilities whatsoever, get paid wages (de-facto 'unemployment benefit') to sit on their a**e$ all day deciding how to stop as much development as possible

I've seen a number of stories on TV where the officials, i.e. the paid professionals, have given the go-ahead only for planning to be refused by the democratically elected amateurs on the committee.

 

[SimonH2]

Can't believe that the LPA folded that easily; hiding a caravan away in a wood for X years, then getting an LDC doesn't then mean the planning authority will find it acceptable to build a 4 bed detached house on the site of the caravan - the occupation and subsequent granting of LDC didn't make the site acceptable for any residential use in planning terms, it just made that particular caravan, at that particular spot not illegal in planning terms. If you change the caravan, the clock starts again. If you extend it, the clock starts again, and so on

Well all I can remember was that this was effectively the "back yard" to a sizeable workshop in an old building somewhere rural-ish - it wasn't "hidden in the woods". He'd spent some time (with his family) living in a caravan, and some of it in some rooms at the back of the workshop. All they said was that he'd earned the "right" to live on the site - I'm assuming he applied for and got planning for the house (which was a nice house BTW).

Ahh, I think this was the one. It mentions "with the help of an ancient planning law". Don't have time to listen to the whole thing to see what else was said.
And it is rural - seems to be in the middle of nowhere, and secluded which would presumably have helped the planners decide it wasn't going to annoy anyone.

 

[tony1851]

Because we live in a semi-communist state, where an army of local government officials, of no useful abilities whatsoever, get paid wages (de-facto 'unemployment benefit') to sit on their a**e$ all day deciding how to stop as much development as possible

I've seen a number of stories on TV where the officials, i.e. the paid professionals, have given the go-ahead only for planning to be refused by the democratically elected amateurs on the committee.

The vast majority of domestic extensions are determined by planning officers (ie paid officials) under delegated powers.

 

[munchingB]

BAS-dont be confusing corporatism and capitalism. there is nothingn capitalist about leaving so few crumbs for the little man that he can only dream of making some progression while the rich eat your kids.