Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
CrashedOutAndBurned

Natural Home In Wales Faces Demolition

Recommended Posts

Two month death sentence because the, "benefits of the development did not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the countryside".

http://naturalhomes.org/save-charlies-house.htm

Fabulous home. So sad that young people's spirit, resourcefulness and desire take care of their own affairs is being crushed by the need to enslave them in dull low-paid jobs tied to high rents or brutal mortgage debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wales has become one giant national park with huge areas of Wales now almost impossible to build properties in - unless you are, allegedly, in the know, some politico or connected to politicos.... allegedly... :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://naturalhomes.org/save-charlies-house.htm

Fabulous home. So sad that young people's spirit, resourcefulness and desire take care of their own affairs is being crushed by the need to enslave them in dull low-paid jobs tied to high rents or brutal mortgage debt.

Yes. There needs to be more accountability for the people making the decisions. Not just 'it doesn't fit in, demolish it', we need to hear how they came about to their decision with more evidence.

People working in the planning department think they are untouchable. I have every reason to believe we need planning laws to stop abominations and impacting others, but a house like this that impacts no-one negatively, built on your own land should have no reason to be denied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not happy to read about this either.

The mantra from planning departments is if we let one persone get away with it then everyone else will try and build a house like that.

The planners are frightened of their property being devalued by the building of more houses - if only people cared about their money being devalued. Oh - they don't have any money just debt and a property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. There needs to be more accountability for the people making the decisions. Not just 'it doesn't fit in, demolish it', we need to hear how they came about to their decision with more evidence.

People working in the planning department think they are untouchable. I have every reason to believe we need planning laws to stop abominations and impacting others, but a house like this that impacts no-one negatively, built on your own land should have no reason to be denied.

Yesterday's abomination often ends up as today's listed building.. personally I don't have a problem with a few mad fantasy projects around the countryside.

But can you imagine, if people suddenly realize that they can build a family home for £20k? Won't someone think of the rentiers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not happy to read about this either.

The mantra from planning departments is if we let one persone get away with it then everyone else will try and build a house like that.

The planners are frightened of their property being devalued by the building of more houses - if only people cared about their money being devalued. Oh - they don't have any money just debt and a property.

TBH it just seems like a reflex in some people 'no changes allowed anywhere near me'. Justifications come later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. There needs to be more accountability for the people making the decisions. Not just 'it doesn't fit in, demolish it', we need to hear how they came about to their decision with more evidence.

People working in the planning department think they are untouchable. I have every reason to believe we need planning laws to stop abominations and impacting others, but a house like this that impacts no-one negatively, built on your own land should have no reason to be denied.

+1

Particularly since the family were already resident on the land, therefore considerations regarding the impact of increased population in the area on local roads and services etc would not be relevant.

It's a lovely home and it'd be a crime to have to demolish it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sad thing is that there's a village visible just down the hill and the area is already clearly a manmade landscape with its wire fences, telegraph poles, tarmac roads and rusting agricultural sheds. The house just down the hill has had an ugly white UPVC conservatory shoved on the back of it. A single, small, attractively designed dwelling does no harm at all and probably enhances the beauty of the area, as many cottages do. "Benefits of the development did not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the countryside" is simply a lie to cover up the real reason for refusing permission.

People who own property in an area should be prohibited from working in its planning department as there is too much conflict of interest.

Edited by Dorkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://naturalhomes....rlies-house.htm

Fabulous home. So sad that young people's spirit, resourcefulness and desire take care of their own affairs is being crushed by the need to enslave them in dull low-paid jobs tied to high rents or brutal mortgage debt.

The UK should try to be a little bit more Belgian when it comes to housing; Belgium, according to Jonathan Meades is the only country where architects regularly sue each other for plagiarism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would buy a 20 acre field and then build on it. So would a lot of other people. Is that a good thing?

I thought I'd like 20 acres too, but in reality that is too much. I have a few friends with the '20 acres surrounding their house and criminally, much of it is wasted and going back to nature - which is good too I guess.

So why 20 acres ?

Build an estate upon all 20 acres ?

or build a house on a few m2 and farm the rest ? Then the question is whether you would farm to be self sufficient, or to earn an income for things you want but cannot barter from your neighbour such as holidays, NHS and police etc.

If simply self sufficiency, why do you need 20 acres ? 5 acres should be ample as you should be able to grow plenty of veg on 3/4, and on the rest you could keep a horse and a few livestock - for transport and meat to barter, former and latter - and a small copse.

Edited by LiveinHope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK should try to be a little bit more Belgian when it comes to housing; Belgium, according to Jonathan Meades is the only country where architects regularly sue each other for plagiarism.

I'm sure that Barrat and Wimpy would be fine - Barrat use a very slightly darker shade of magnolia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would buy a 20 acre field and then build on it. So would a lot of other people. Is that a good thing?

Would they? Not everyone wants to live miles from anything and be responsible for a huge area of land. People would certainly build detached houses with significant gardens, but I don't see that as a problem.

And the majority would probably just buy existing houses..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then, in Wales, you have planning things like this:

Swansea marina: Auditors investigate Celtic Instrumentation land deal

Auditors have been called in to investigate a land deal in Swansea marina agreed between the city council and a business tenant in 2011.

Celtic Instrumentation Ltd, which had been involved in boat maintenance, was given a 250-year lease in October 2011.

Last year it applied for permission to build 50 flats on the boatyard on Trawler Road.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-23595364

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why 20 acres ?

Just that the field next to my house is 20 acres and I would like to own something real rather than paper money. I'd stick enough trees on it to avoid IHT. (one neighbour has done this).

I could get a huge mower, drive up and down like Forrest Gump all day, and have a countryside view for miles and practice going "ooh, aaar, get orrff my land".

Edited by VeryMeanReversion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would buy a 20 acre field and then build on it. So would a lot of other people. Is that a good thing?

Compared to what we have now, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people."

Whenever I see the government doing its best to grind someones face into the dirt it does make me think of that. What is the purpose of this little episode? Does the state think it's make the lives of us plebs better by doing this sort of crap? And if isn't, more people should know who the true enemy is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people."

Whenever I see the government doing its best to grind someones face into the dirt it does make me think of that. What is the purpose of this little episode? Does the state think it's make the lives of us plebs better by doing this sort of crap? And if isn't, more people should know who the true enemy is.

This. They really seem to have forgotten who and what they are meant to be working for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This. They really seem to have forgotten who and what they are meant to be working for.

Oh they know exactly who they are working for. Boomer nimbies who vote in high numbers and who don't want to see their pwopety values fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh they know exactly who they are working for. Boomer nimbies who vote in high numbers and who don't want to see their pwopety values fall.

I tend to be suspicious of attributing too much malevolence to the boomers. Did anyone actually object to this house?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   224 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.