Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
honkydonkey

Building A House Without Planning Permisson

Recommended Posts

I was thinking about this and would it be possible to build a house off the grid on some cheap land you bought up a hill that has access for the building but once built can be secured so there is absolutely no way to get an machinery to it? For example you could buy a cheap piece of land that a few explosives could completely seal in and therefore be totally uneconomical for the government to try and demolish. Or would you think they would come in with sledgehammers and just smash the place to pieces that way (and send you the bill)?

Edited by honkydonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in our village, a house was built with no planning

as well as no planning, several tpo protected trees were cut down and, as the site is a scheduled ancient monument, not a spade should have been lifted without express special permission from the secretary of state for environment etc.

however, the house is still there and was granted retrospective planning....

dodgy as dodgy can be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this and would it be possible to build a house off the grid on some cheap land you bought up a hill that has access for the building but once built can be secured so there is absolutely no way to get an machinery to it? For example you could buy a cheap piece of land that a few explosives could completely seal in and therefore be totally uneconomical for the government to try and demolish. Or would you think they would come in with sledgehammers and just smash the place to pieces that way (and send you the bill)?

I think there are people in the US who do that, they have beards and big guns. Total waste of time IMO, you don`t know what the outcome would be, they might jail you for obstruction or some other made up crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know someone that had planing refused for a stable/tack feed room where they wanted it, their solution was to built them on what you could only describe as a big sledge so its classed as mobile

From what i can make out this is a pretty common way of getting around planning concerning stables

I would of thought a shipping container home on a sledge would be doable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just make it mobile, so when they come round with the big hammers, move it :)

Indeed, I would suggest making it small as planners may br more forgiving.

I like the tiny hotel idea.

http://tinyhousehotel.com

Plenty of global food for thought (as mentioned before ) in Tiny House doc film

http://faircompanies.com/videos/view/we-tiny-house-people-documentary/

Edited by Saving For a Space Ship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in our village, a house was built with no planning

....

however, the house is still there and was granted retrospective planning....

That seems to be the way around here. If you have the nerve, the planning enforcement process seems to not be followed through. They have a limited budget which can be taken advantage of.

One neighbour claims to have used the 1960's caravan act to built a bungalow sized building. It's built on blocks so possibly moveable. The owner says he needed to make it lower than motorway bridge.

Enforcement initially tried to get him to take it down and wanted to charge him ££ in consulation fees. They stopped when he started charging for his time dealing with their enquiries.

Another neighbour sold his house but kept the land (10+ acres). He moved into a wooden chalet style building in the garden and converted the whole thing into a personal golf course. The council moaned initially but just let it slide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems to be the way around here. If you have the nerve, the planning enforcement process seems to not be followed through. They have a limited budget which can be taken advantage of.

One neighbour claims to have used the 1960's caravan act to built a bungalow sized building. It's built on blocks so possibly moveable. The owner says he needed to make it lower than motorway bridge.

Enforcement initially tried to get him to take it down and wanted to charge him ££ in consulation fees. They stopped when he started charging for his time dealing with their enquiries.

Another neighbour sold his house but kept the land (10+ acres). He moved into a wooden chalet style building in the garden and converted the whole thing into a personal golf course. The council moaned initially but just let it slide.

Home in one?.......I`ll get me club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't there a ruling about temporary structures? As in, if you can prove it comes down in a day, you can put it back up and they leave you alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't there a ruling about temporary structures? As in, if you can prove it comes down in a day, you can put it back up and they leave you alone.

There is a rule that you can live in anything you like for 28 days on your own land. You just need 13 places like that to live in and that's all year round sorted :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems to be the way around here. If you have the nerve, the planning enforcement process seems to not be followed through. They have a limited budget which can be taken advantage of.

One neighbour claims to have used the 1960's caravan act to built a bungalow sized building. It's built on blocks so possibly moveable. The owner says he needed to make it lower than motorway bridge.

Enforcement initially tried to get him to take it down and wanted to charge him ££ in consulation fees. They stopped when he started charging for his time dealing with their enquiries.

Another neighbour sold his house but kept the land (10+ acres). He moved into a wooden chalet style building in the garden and converted the whole thing into a personal golf course. The council moaned initially but just let it slide.

I think that the OP in this case is hinting at corruption.

Shock! Horror! In our wonderfully non-corrupt society too!

Basically, with the right friends in the right places you can more or less get anything you want as long as you don't go over the top and make it too blatant (to the point it offends public sensibilities).

Even then, I sense that the threshold for brazen acts of corruption is being raised all the time as the public seem content to put up with any amount of rubbish without complaining. I think that the banksters and troughing CEOs may well have raised the bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a rule that you can live in anything you like for 28 days on your own land. You just need 13 places like that to live in and that's all year round sorted :)

Could one perhaps sub-divide a piece of land and have each of the thirteen pieces owned by a different company?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could one perhaps sub-divide a piece of land and have each of the thirteen pieces owned by a different company?

Thirteen wedge-shaped pieces of land all meeting at a point in the centre of the house. You live for 28 days in a specific quadrant of the house. Perhaps mount the house on a turntable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"therefore be totally uneconomical for the government to try and demolish"

The government doesn't spend money like you and me...if they need to set an example the cost is of no matter to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My NDN built a sound-insulated party house for his teenagers about 5 years ago, behind heavy tree cover. No planning, still standing - and still attracts hoards of drunken girls in minis.

He's a quantity surveyor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a rule that you can live in anything you like for 28 days on your own land. You just need 13 places like that to live in and that's all year round sorted :)

As far as I know you can live on a certain size acreage for said 28 days a year (approx 5 hectares or 13 acres I think), although it needs to be a mobile home type,the mobile home could be huge though, something like 50/60 foot long by 20 foot wide. It needs to be able in theory to physically go on the back of a lorry, although that could be on two seperate lorries in halves, like a lot of park homes are delivered.

I'm not sure if you could divide the 13 acres up into 13 seperate lots/paddocks and rotate, probably not.

i think you can build a huge ****** off agricultural barn with no planning on this size plot of land, this is all for agricultural fields or grass paddocks, woodland is different though.

edit: the 13 acres doesn't have to be in one block, it could be in a couple or more lots as long as it's in a certain close radius of each other, a few miles. so i've read about. not sure how this would all pan out in practise.

Edited by motch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more difficult for landless peasants to build in densely populated countries because there are more nosey parkers per square metre than elsewhere. The mentality of "if I can't do it why should he" prevails in a self-policing system that's as old as the enclosures act. The NIMBY brigade represents the worst of all these, believing that "too much of the land is built on" but that their own corner is legitimate. They don't mind popping out children but they don't want them to have somewhere to live at a reasonable price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know you can live on a certain size acreage for said 28 days a year (approx 5 hectares or 13 acres I think), although it needs to be a mobile home type,the mobile home could be huge though, something like 50/60 foot long by 20 foot wide. It needs to be able in theory to physically go on the back of a lorry, although that could be on two seperate lorries in halves, like a lot of park homes are delivered.

I'm not sure if you could divide the 13 acres up into 13 seperate lots/paddocks and rotate, probably not.

i think you can build a huge ****** off agricultural barn with no planning on this size plot of land, this is all for agricultural fields or grass paddocks, woodland is different though.

edit: the 13 acres doesn't have to be in one block, it could be in a couple or more lots as long as it's in a certain close radius of each other, a few miles. so i've read about. not sure how this would all pan out in practise.

Connecting 13 units up to mains anything would be hugely expensive.

So the services would have to be movable as well. Not saying it isn't doable - chemical toilets, movable solar arrays, bottled gas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, I would suggest making it small as planners may br more forgiving.

I like the tiny hotel idea.

http://tinyhousehotel.com

Plenty of global food for thought (as mentioned before ) in Tiny House doc film

http://faircompanies.com/videos/view/we-tiny-house-people-documentary/

Like the video, thanks. If you started a family you could build 2 or 3, and have some system to link them together, all still separated on trailers but like lego.

Edited by honkydonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read of one dodge where the guy built a 'stable' on his land, no PP needed for that. It just happened to look like a bungalow. When the council bods came round, he had 2 horses in his 'stable'. :)

Another one was a plot of land that didn't need PP for pigsties. When the council rejected his PP application, he said ok, I'll fill it with pigsties, council relented.

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   212 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.