MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
one of the reasons i like coming on here is the diversity of opinion. my friends think like me, thats why they are my friends.
so what are your opinions of a house like this?
http://naturalhomes.org/save-charlies-house.htm
they have lost their appeal so it looks like they are going back to a static caravan on the same site
its a tricky one for me because i would hate planning to be a free for all, but at the same time, i have a real soft-spot for dwellings like this, and its almost impossible to get planning for them.
It's a bit sad, but without enforcing planning rules you could have had the same site turned into a Tesco super store......
yep that's the tricky bit for me too footflaps.
Charlie felt he had no choice but to build his house without the approval of the planning authorities, convinced permission for his home would be refused.
This is the problem really, he presumed, could have gone for permission and come up with compromises. At this stage does it meet any building regs etc.
but without enforcing planning rules you could have had the same site turned into a Tesco super store......
yeah but they wont give you planning for houses built like this. no stress loading specs for wood in the round etc. issues for resale value are often quoted as reasons for this but not everyone wants to be on a property ladder, some just want a home.
i thought it was interesting that Ben Law who built something similar (grander) on grand designs was allowed planning but wasnt allowed to sell.
It is sad.
On my commute I cycle past 3 of the most mind numbingly bland new builds I have seen in a long time,but they tick all the planning boxes.
Hmmm should have applied. Rubbish page with zip info about the actual build or reasons for demolition. Also "death" nope it's not alive.
That's a great house .....but like he said he didn't even bother with trying to get planning ...I wonder if it has any sort of building regs for it either ..........although I expect they would be slightly different regarding that type of dwelling......
i know what you mean fasthaggis, and what really gets me with those 'barrett' style estates is that the buildings are built to last only 25yrs ie. the length of a mortgage.
Having been through the planning process a number of times now (both as the applicant and someone who is against plans), I have absolutely zero sympathy. Yes its a nice house, eco friendly blah blah blah but he had no permission to build it.
On the other hand, its a shame the council have decided it should be pulled down with it being such a nice place whereas the a-holes living behind our old house who got planning permission despite every house surrounding theirs objecting to it, then built something even more obstructive to the plans and then applying for retrospective permission (and getting it) really shows the complete farce and non-standardisation that is the planning process in this country. All it needs is a builder who knows how to play the system and you're laughing...
I like it, and hope it can be saved.
ive not been involved with the build but i would doubt it would conform to regs straight off due to the timber being used 'in the round' since there are no regs to cover the strength of round timber. the u-values of straw bale means the insulation would've been exceeded though. and in the video he talks about the costs of plumbing/electrics being a large proportion of the build cost so he has used proper tradesmen there.
the other thing is, (i do restoration work) the 400yr old building i would be working on today if it wasn't raining, didn't have regs and that was fine until cement was added to it 😉
got to agree with daveyboywonder on the lack of standardisation with planning. from some of the things ive seen passed, anyone would think there was bribery going on
So would you object to others doing the same? Where would you draw the line when a precedent has been set?
How many individual 'developments'?
Twee and nice as it is (it is) and its a lovely place. You can see why he might have to (sadly) pull it down.
I agree with above - planning in this country has no consistency applied to it. Without more detail about the surrounding area it is hard to judge what impact the OP's example has but we have bitter experience of crooked developers. We bought a flat in a converted mill having seen the plans for the development - all character materials, facilities, bridge over the canal, footpath into the village blah blah.
Developer ignored everything, built as cheaply as he could and failed to finish all the facilities. He'd already sold the flats by then so couldn't give a toss. As the building was listed, the council then took the position that to change all the faults would be the responsibility of the council and residents! That's one thing but then he applies for more consents in the same village and gets them! System is run by amateurs.
They have to pull it down as you can't set the precedent that you can just build and then worry about permission as otherwise you'll get Tesco building super stores on all the SSSI in the UK and then applying for permission later....
I thought Tesco were well known for build-first-ask-permission-later as they can influence decisions afterwards by showing how many people they have employed?
Rachel
yeah i can see why it will have to come down. i do think it would be nice if low impact, self build houses could be given a different category of planning application though.
maybe one where they aren't allowed to be sold to protect the councils building control? and to prevent developers from using it as a loophole?
how much is a planning application for a house these days? £5k? thats a third of the build cost
tesco and the others simular corporate giants ARE well known for building without planning. and for avoiding regs
edit; allegedly 😆
I saw this. It's basically
"I couldn't be bothered to apply as I believe I'm better than you.I managed to get away with with while the one who applied didn't - suckers.I have no why they want to pull it down? If I cry and make enough noise maybe I can get away with with thus making a mockery of all past,present and future planning applications "
iolo, point appreciated, however (just out of interest) if the house was presented to you at planning application stage, would you pass such a building (on aesthetics and setting. i don't expect you to know about regs and i don't know enough about the build to comment on them myself)
[quote=iolo ]I saw this. It's basically
"I couldn't be bothered to apply as I believe I'm better than you.I managed to get away with with while the one who applied didn't - suckers.I have no why they want to pull it down? If I cry and make enough noise maybe I can get away with with thus making a mockery of all past,present and future planning applications "
you forgot about waving a baby at the camera
It's a lot easier to get planning permission for commercial buildings than for homes, the "tesco" argument is very weak.
It is about time planning permission took far greater account of individual needs for homes, instead of looking at everything as a commercial process.
mikewsmith - Member
iolo » I saw this. It's basically
"I couldn't be bothered to apply as I believe I'm better than you.I managed to get away with with while the one who applied didn't - suckers.I have no why they want to pull it down? If I cry and make enough noise maybe I can get away with with thus making a mockery of all past,present and future planning applications "you forgot about waving a baby at the camera
well next time it could be a childs face !
how much is a planning application for a house these days? £5k? thats a third of the build cost
£385 per dwelling
msp. yes that is what i would like to see (if i understand you correctly) a different process for self build homes than commercial housing estates etc
the tesco by me poured tarmac over contaminated land that it was a stipulation of the planning they had to clean up. it is a weak argument but it should be noted that those who can afford high end solicitors often flout the rules
ebygomm - Member
how much is a planning application for a house these days? £5k? thats a third of the build cost
£385 per dwelling
wow thats less than i thought, even with draughtsman costs etc that still not much is it
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrards_Cross_Tunnel ]Sometimes it goes wrong for Tesco too[/url]
If you don't bother to apply for planning permission or it is refused, you run the risk of having to have your house demolished if you build it anyway.
Tough shit.
iolo - Member
Sometimes it goes wrong for Tesco too
😯 oof
although that does seem to be dodgy civil engineering rather than planning avoidance
No sympathies whatsoever, the planning rules apply to all, why should anyone be exempt because they built a 'nice house'...
(Said the Planning Officer...)
There was talk of Gerrads Cross and a certain minister possibly helping a little bit too much :mrgreen:. I could never believe an elected minister would act in such a way. This was all alleged and of course no action was taken.
£385 per dwelling
Thought it was less than that, think my workshop was about £140.
I think as humans we should very nearly be sensible enough to be a bit more flexible in our approach to law and order and regulations..
If someone decent with a genuine concern and love for humanity makes something or does something that doesn't necessarily meet a strict criteria then take each case on it's merits..
similarly maybe it's about time that various regulation was relaxed and became more adaptable to encourage more people to make an effort at stuff without having to adhere to some bollocks guidelines drawn up with little more in mind than protecting investors..
basically what I'm saying is that I think we're mature enough as a species to recognise a **** when we see one and tell him/her to piss off..
we don't need an abominably anal and pedantic conflagration of toxic bullshit in our way at every turn..
Thought it was less than that, think my workshop was about £140.
Workshop != Dwelling
(no matter how over engineered it is 😉 )
He built a house without permission - what did he expect to happen. Nice house in a hobbit kind of way but a bit of a muppet to think it would be OK.
isn't there some loophole, whereby if no-one dobbed him in for a certain period (seven years? ) then the dwelling can stay..?
It just looks like a load of kindling. There's no allowance for a fire exit. He has a lovely family. Why put them at risk?
Fine him a shed load of money but leave the house.
Personally I think a caravan does more "harm to the character and appearance of the countryside" than that house.
Planning in the UK is a farce, regardless of the rights and wrongs of this case. If you have enough money you will get approval, and it doesn't actually matter where you build.
For centuries houses have been built then someone at the end of the second world war decided that everything needed to be planned, to be zoned. Now look at where we are, you have a housing estate, an industrial estate, a retail park. Rather than trying to get people not to drive the whole system is designed to keep people driving, to keep the volume house builders in work.
Have a look at how many houses in the UK are NOT built by volume housebuilders and then have a look at most other countries. Then have a look at the houses, in the UK they are tiny, the build quality is woeful, yet because they tick some hypothetical box they are fine.
Yes he should have gone through the right channels, but then again what is the point because you know that unless it is a mock georgian/tudor barrat box you are going to fail.
I thought it was interesting that Ben Law who built something similar (grander) on grand designs was allowed planning but wasnt allowed to sell.
I quite like the concept of being able to build what you like, but not sell it.
I imagine getting rid of all the legal loopholes to stop sales by other means would be difficult though.
It's all about land values and village spread. The land he built it on, if agricultural, is probably of the order of £2000. With PP for residential, it would be nearer £70,000. Most of the nice places we like to ride our bikes would be endless sprawl if PP wasn't enforced. Admittedly this keeps house prices high, but that's life. If I could just go buy a field and put up whatever I wanted, of course I would. There'd be a shortage of fields in about two weeks flat though. Hard cases make bad law.
Yes he should have gone through the right channels, but then again what is the point because you know that unless it is a mock georgian/tudor barrat box you are going to fail.
The issue isn't so much with what he built as where he built it. They'd have refused him permission for a mock georgian barrat box just the same.
Yes he should have gone through the right channels, but then again what is the point because you know that unless it is a mock georgian/tudor barrat box you are going to fail.
I guess the point would be that you don't go to all the effort to build a house, and then have it knocked down?
I thought Tesco were well known for build-first-ask-permission-later as they can influence decisions afterwards by showing how many people they have employed?
A la Stockport/almost to the T. They even said 'jobs may be threatened'. Basically built a store TOO big (err oops?) and were told part of it couldn't be used so went on the offensive.....
The issue isn't so much with what he built as where he built it. They'd have refused him permission for a mock georgian barrat box just the same.
If you have enough money you will win though....
If you want to as a private individual want to build a home you can build one almost anywhere, just has to be of sufficient merit.
Standard Tesco policy is to play the game, break the rules and the council will give way eventually.
That the differential in price between agri and building land is so high, that house prices are ridiculus, suggests that there is a problem with planning!
Also consider that if you can't afford to buy a house you are at the whim of private landlords and a system that states you can only have any security for 6months.
The system sucks....
Charlie felt he had no choice but to build his house without the approval of the planning authorities, convinced permission for his home would be refused. The lack of affordable homes and strict planning regulations touches many lives.
Why did he even start?
I suppose he could have just done nothing..
Why did he even start?
if something is wrong, you can either shut up do nothing and moan, or try and do something? Everyone needs somewhere to live, not enough houses are being built and in many rural areas in particular the situation is totally obscene.
What is better building houses or expecting people to spend half there life commuting? What is the point in building 5 bed houses when the average family is nowhere near that big? How much of the current housing stock is under-occupied? a couple in a three bed semi and a family in a one bed flat?
If someone decent with a genuine concern and love for humanity makes something or does something that doesn't necessarily meet a strict criteria then take each case on it's merits..
I'll just employ someone with dreads and a face you like to front up my scheme then.
what is the point because you know that unless it is a mock georgian/tudor barrat box you are going to fail.
No - use the system. I know quite a few people who have built / are building with rammed earth, roundwood timber, straw bales etc. They did their homework and did a good job. They have succeeded because a few clever people with ideals worked hard to get the materials and designs tested and approved. There are even loadbearing straw bale council houses in Lincolnshire. Not many, and there could be more, but it is a start.
If you have enough money you will win though....
Didn't work for these people
I'll just employ someone with dreads and a face you like to front up my scheme then.
😆
I think we're mature enough as a species to recognise a **** when we see one and tell him/her to piss off..
Except if it is some ridiculous hobbit themed piece of retro nostalgia rubbish built with no consideration for petty things like building regulations, in which case some of the species appear to think they should be allowed to do whatever they want.
Not that I necessarily think it is rubbish, just that to some people (a lot of them presumably), a 'mock georgian/tudor barrat box' looks attractive, whereas something like that looks terrible, so 'as a species', we should surely be applying some kind of rational logic to whether people can build things, rather than just saying 'ooh it looks like hobbit land, allowed', and spouting out a load of snobbery about the tastes of the masses who presumably like their 'barrat boxes'.
There's no allowance for a fire exit.
Are you sure? I don't think you're that familiar with the B Regs are you?
Not sure what he expected without getting planning, deserves to be ripped down IMO.
What happens if he doesn't pull it down?
If it's on private land, could he not just put a locked gate at the entrance?
joemarshall - you're a planning officer aren't you..? 😆
Some other stiff and starched bureaucrat perhaps.. But it's that grumpy lofty outrage that marks you out as a **** under the reign of yunki..
Piss off and buy a barratt house in town, case closed.. NEXT!
[img] 
[/img]
Some random thoughts:
1) nice hobbit hole, I guess
2) without much privacy for any new arrivals in the family
3) eco materials, crack on
4) build without permission, expect problems
I guess the thinking was "this eco spunkfest ticks all my ethical boxes, therefore I must be allowed to build it" - not "how can I make a house that both fits the rules and my personal ethics".
How about if I thought a big cubic bright green block with a huge yellow smiley face on each size, that looked like a large lego brick after swallowing a trip, was the last word in aesthetics? I guess I should just go right ahead and stick two fingers up at the system, man.
Or maybe I'd have to compromise.
Which seems to be the missing word in charlie's endeavour.
it's a shame IMO, what he did wasn't right but he'd have never got it built on that budget if the building reg's were involved regardless of if it is safe or not. yes it was against the rules but it is a modest eco friendly dwelling which in the real world affects nobody! it is not a massive Tesco's plonked in the middle of a national park.
+1 for if you have enough money you can do what you want, a lot of the time. I live in the New Forest and the planning rules here are somewhat more restrictive than normal. The laudable aim is to maintain a cross section of housing stock. i.e make sure rich people don't come in buy up all the houses and turn 'em it into massive places forcing out locals on lower incomes out.
A very clear example just round the corner from me a guy bought a small 2/3 bed bungalow and has turned it into a massive 4/5 bed house with outbuildings bigger than my house and turned it from an already overpriced £350k, to a property worth well in excess of a million pounds. To do it he took the national park to court 2/3 times until they couldn't afford to fight any longer.
I on the other hand want to make my 2 bed into a 3 bed and build a garage and it looks like it's going to be fight from beginning to end all for 30% (which includes conservatory's and attached garages) on the original size. Thing is next door (originally identical to mine) is already 60% bigger + massive attached garage + conservatory.
I don't think you're that familiar with the B Regs are you?
No, But I'm damn sure I would want another way of getting out if there's so much wood around me. It looks that he seems to have salvaged from a field so I'm not so sure it's been fireproofed. That house does not look like a good environment to be when your family is at risk.
Here in Somerset Tesco used the wrong tiles on the roof of the store in Wells but got away with it .Probably by bunging the council a bit more towards the swimming pool they were helping fund .At the same time 20 miles away a bloke had to take down his dormer roof extension because it was 15 inches too high.Double standards seem to apply often with planning
The twee little film says living in the future when it looks like an upmarket Saxon hovel!
Snowdonia National Park insists all properties must have locally mined slate on all rooves.
Where do you think the slates are from for the roof of the National Park head office?
That's right.
Spain.
They have been allowed to keep them.
No sympathy whatsoever.
It's not the Planning as much as it is the lack of Building Control.
I think as humans we should very nearly be sensible enough
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
tinybits - MemberHa Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
😆
hmmm.. yes
This thread is all the evidence we need, to show that I was perhaps being a tiny bit optimistic.. 😳