Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
tomandlu

Couple Lose Fight To Live In Luxury Barn

Recommended Posts

www.bbc.co.uk

A developer who built a luxury house disguised as a barn on greenbelt land has lost the final stage of his legal battle to live in his home.

What seems interesting about this one is how hard it's been pursued. As far as I can tell, he won twice and lost twice over four years. This can't be common - he had to hide the damn thing's change-of-use for four years, and it's obviously not an eyesore. Why did the council feel they needed to do this? It's not like it would have opened any floodgates IMHO...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What seems interesting about this one is how hard it's been pursued. As far as I can tell, he won twice and lost twice over four years. This can't be common - he had to hide the damn thing's change-of-use for four years, and it's obviously not an eyesore. Why did the council feel they needed to do this? It's not like it would have opened any floodgates IMHO...

Our latest South Cambs magazine had a section about law changes regarding planning and one change mentioned was the removal of the 4-year rule if you have been deceptive. There are people living in outbuildings close to where I live that intend to get planning approval under the 4-year rule.

I have an outbuilding and would do the same.

The farmer that comes to empty our septic tank built a house in a barn, got caught, but won on appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this couple, friends of friends. They actually lived in the house completely unnoticed for years. Only have one distant neighbour and they used to arrive at the house with headlights off to avoid attracting attention. I believe they first started by living in a portacabin inside the barn and they actually bought the land for their collection of horses, dogs and sheep, not with the intention of living there. Does seem a harsh decision as they don't impact on anyone and it's not the best building to live in. I think they have been made an example of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What seems interesting about this one is how hard it's been pursued.

They must have seriously p1ssed someone off at the planning department. The council must be spending a fortune in legal fees. A friend of a friend keeps building houses in his rather large garden without permission but is careful not to personally annoy anyone from the council. The council always found out and he just keeps them in court until they give up. Then he does it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our latest South Cambs magazine had a section about law changes regarding planning and one change mentioned was the removal of the 4-year rule if you have been deceptive. There are people living in outbuildings close to where I live that intend to get planning approval under the 4-year rule.

I have an outbuilding and would do the same.

The farmer that comes to empty our septic tank built a house in a barn, got caught, but won on appeal.

..did they get posted a census form? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

www.bbc.co.uk

What seems interesting about this one is how hard it's been pursued. As far as I can tell, he won twice and lost twice over four years. This can't be common - he had to hide the damn thing's change-of-use for four years, and it's obviously not an eyesore. Why did the council feel they needed to do this? It's not like it would have opened any floodgates IMHO...

Can't have the livestock acting as though they are free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

www.bbc.co.uk

What seems interesting about this one is how hard it's been pursued. As far as I can tell, he won twice and lost twice over four years. This can't be common - he had to hide the damn thing's change-of-use for four years, and it's obviously not an eyesore. Why did the council feel they needed to do this? It's not like it would have opened any floodgates IMHO...

This is one of the rare occassions where I am broadly sympathetic to a 'property developer'. These sorts of actions by TPTB are representative of the petty and vindictive nature of TPTB in response to situations where, heeavens forbid, a cheeky peasant has had the audacity to beat 'them at their own game/rules. At all costs much such upstarts must be dealt with lest we are all overrun with home built barn homes, etc.

By all means tighten the rules further, after the event, so this sort of thing cant be done again. But they cant have good grace and accept they have lost this one? No! They would sooner destroy a perfectly good home and pursue this end at my and your expense. Morally criminal.

FWIW I have always been under the impression that a major reason for turning down residential dwelling planning applications in rural areas are along the sort of lines that there is no existing structure on the land, it would be an eyesore, spoil the landscape, etc - and less that the structure is residential or not.

Surely a better way is to exercise patience. First get planning permission to erect a barn, running water and electricity merely to deliberately get a structure on to the land for the first time. Then come back 10 years later and apply to convert it. The neighbours wont be able to object on the grounds that the structure will spoil the surroundings, etc. Surely the odds will be better for the would be developer. A case of the old adage of 'patience is a virtue'?

I would also add that I think, in future, other similar people will simply keep shhtummm - and say nothing to let on that they have an illicit home. It wouldnt surprise me if, specially in rural areas, there were to be other such cases (probably involving more modest homes) of people living surreptiously - lest they incur the wrath of the authorities.

Edited by anonguest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These arrogant wan*kers deserve all they get. While planning laws undoubtedly need reform, the notion that 'the rules don't apply to me' can't be encouraged in a civilised society.

This was a cynical, premeditated attempt to use a legal loophole for personal gain. They failed, which is good for all of us if we value the rule of law.

If it sparks a debate on the limits of planning law, then fine, but I have no sympathy for the couple in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These arrogant wan*kers deserve all they get. While planning laws undoubtedly need reform, the notion that 'the rules don't apply to me' can't be encouraged in a civilised society.

This was a cynical, premeditated attempt to use a legal loophole for personal gain. They failed, which is good for all of us if we value the rule of law.

If it sparks a debate on the limits of planning law, then fine, but I have no sympathy for the couple in question.

The reason we are slaves is because idiots attack their fellow slaves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of the rare occassions where I am broadly sympathetic to a 'property developer'. These sorts of actions by TPTB are representative of the petty and vindictive nature of TPTB in response to situations where, heeavens forbid, a cheeky peasant has had the audacity to beat 'them at their own game/rules. At all costs much such upstarts must be dealt with lest we are all overrun with home built barn homes, etc.

How much effort have these people put into cheating the system and why haven't they channeled that effort into changing the system if they believe it to be so unjust? Of course, if the whole planning process were opened up, the gains from cheating would significantly decrease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These arrogant wan*kers deserve all they get. While planning laws undoubtedly need reform, the notion that 'the rules don't apply to me' can't be encouraged in a civilised society.

This was a cynical, premeditated attempt to use a legal loophole for personal gain. They failed, which is good for all of us if we value the rule of law.

If it sparks a debate on the limits of planning law, then fine, but I have no sympathy for the couple in question.

Whilst I broadly agree with the idea of planning law (the country would be even more hideously blighted without it, despite its many, many flaws) I don't agree with this take towards the law. The law does not automatically deserve respect and adherence. It's just another list of rules backed up by enough muscle to enforce them. That can all be for the net good, but does not equate to automatic acceptance, and a bad law does not deserve to be respected. Therefore any issue with people not respecting the law needs to be debated considering the rights and wrongs of what they wanted to do, and only that.

Not meekly obeying every single law is a sign of a civilised society, although it can also be a sign of an out-of-control uncivilised one. Blind acceptance of them is only for those incapable of independent thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They must have seriously p1ssed someone off at the planning department. The council must be spending a fortune in legal fees. A friend of a friend keeps building houses in his rather large garden without permission but is careful not to personally annoy anyone from the council. The council always found out and he just keeps them in court until they give up. Then he does it again.

Maybe a problem for a streamlined private sector company, but it's "chocs away" when you have the taxpayers cheque book on your desk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These arrogant wan*kers deserve all they get. While planning laws undoubtedly need reform, the notion that 'the rules don't apply to me' can't be encouraged in a civilised society.

This was a cynical, premeditated attempt to use a legal loophole for personal gain. They failed, which is good for all of us if we value the rule of law.

If it sparks a debate on the limits of planning law, then fine, but I have no sympathy for the couple in question.

So a free society is not a civilised one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I broadly agree with the idea of planning law (the country would be even more hideously blighted without it, despite its many, many flaws) I don't agree with this take towards the law. The law does not automatically deserve respect and adherence. It's just another list of rules backed up by enough muscle to enforce them. That can all be for the net good, but does not equate to automatic acceptance, and a bad law does not deserve to be respected. Therefore any issue with people not respecting the law needs to be debated considering the rights and wrongs of what they wanted to do, and only that.

Not meekly obeying every single law is a sign of a civilised society, although it can also be a sign of an out-of-control uncivilised one. Blind acceptance of them is only for those incapable of independent thought.

Why do people dream of living in character homes and so on then, rather than new build shit that conforms to planning?

Planning law is only there to keep the rich and the poor separate in this godforsaken country. This country is hideously blighted because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@sandman

Spoiling views is immaterial. The planners had no objection to the view being spoilt by a barn so long as they didn't live in it. Does a barn that is lived in spoil views anymore than one that holds animals? because right now farmers can build as many barns as they like and spoil as many views as they want (and most do). I bet the planners real problem is that this sort of development gives them no opportunity to extract enormous planning gains and thus must be discouraged at any cost. Planning permission these days is all about revenue.

Edited by Oki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would freedom look like.

Freedom would mean not being confined to my wheelchair.

Hey, what am I talking about. I don't have a wheelchair. Therefore I must be free.

Not really. All it demonstrates is that freedom is a relative term, there are an infinite number of freedoms which can all be gained or lost, and as human beings we're prisoners of an innate desire to keep climbing the freedom mountain, accumulating ever more "freedoms" along the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how do they know it is worth £500,000?

he is/was a property developer - boo :angry: - who was wanting to make money from cheap agricultural land

it is a 'luxury' barn not a hovel for a deserving homeless person (that would get my sympathy)

I am sure as soon as he got the cert of lawfulness the outside of the barn would have come down and he would sell it quick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how do they know it is worth £500,000?

he is/was a property developer - boo :angry: - who was wanting to make money from cheap agricultural land

it is a 'luxury' barn not a hovel for a deserving homeless person (that would get my sympathy)

I am sure as soon as he got the cert of lawfulness the outside of the barn would have come down and he would sell it quick.

He isn't a property developer, this is their only property, although he does own an estate agency if that makes you feel better :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

They must have seriously p1ssed someone off at the planning department. The council must be spending a fortune in legal fees. A friend of a friend keeps building houses in his rather large garden without permission but is careful not to personally annoy anyone from the council. The council always found out and he just keeps them in court until they give up. Then he does it again.

Correct. They made the error of messing with the state. Drive over the top of an old lady when you're drunk or steal someone's car and you might get punished - it's just a crime against another serf. Cross the state and they'll come down on you like a ton of bricks. It's how a "stable democracy" has been maintained for so long. An example is always made of anyone that messes with the state. Maybe this is in our interest, if you think about it. Or maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.