TheCountOfNowhere Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 AKA, A Barn or Shed http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-38860839.html Just half a million quid for the privelege of owning the land on which you can built, well, what looks to me like a shed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveinHope Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) A train shed on the outside and a museum or a modern-day office / workplace on the inside. A place to live it isn't, but a place to feel good about yourself, momentarily, perhaps. I'd be happier in a decent, insulated, off grid caravan on the 6.5 acres. Edited January 5, 2016 by LiveinHope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeeky Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 To me I have no issues with the design. I suspect it is a developer trying to get around planning permission and only has permission providing it is a green eco home or similar that is sympathetic with the local environment. We had something similar locally where the developer could only get planning permission for an eco home. Tried for a year or two to shift the land similar to this one, then managed to get the planning permission restrictions lifted and promptly put 4 standard new build houses in the same space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeryMeanReversion Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 My guess would be that is has got automatic planning permission using the recent Permitted Development changes for agricultural buildings (class MB or Q, cant recall). My neighbour just did this although his is only ~800sqft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirGaz Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Looks like there is a powerline going right through where the house would be, still, would probably save on extension cords. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveinHope Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 To me I have no issues with the design. I suspect it is a developer trying to get around planning permission and only has permission providing it is a green eco home or similar that is sympathetic with the local environment. We had something similar locally where the developer could only get planning permission for an eco home. Tried for a year or two to shift the land similar to this one, then managed to get the planning permission restrictions lifted and promptly put 4 standard new build houses in the same space. I am sure it has to look like a barn to minimise it's impact. I'm in favour of eco homes. But the pictured design is either an architect out of control or a clueless client IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crouch Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 AKA, A Barn or Shed http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-38860839.html Just half a million quid for the privelege of owning the land on which you can built, well, what looks to me like a shed. Flight path to Birmingham Airport? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zugzwang Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 A pair of semaphore flags at each end of the house might come in handy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esvdx Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I've been tracking this plot for a while. It started at either 750k or 795k about 18 months ago so even with the now high price, there has been quite a drop. It has also been on with 4 agents now. Each new agent has seen a price cut, but not this most recent one, suggesting they think it has reached it's price floor... Knowing the local market I think the problem is that it is just too big (I.e. Land + build = 1.4M) for a developer profit and too much for self build. The description was updated a few months ago to suggest you could build it in stages, perhaps to encourage a smaller build. However the council has confirmed that only that ''design' can be built, they currently won't entertain anything else (it got PP due to the exceptional 'design'!). Not sure what they would say if you just built half! It's on my watch list to view when it's another 150k cheaper.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saving For a Space Ship Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) Oh the humanity !...One Time Offer!... Free Zeppelin Parking, if you buy this land & build this hanger ! Our roof top camouflage design is included for free Edited January 5, 2016 by Saving For a Space Ship Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I like it. Looks in serious need of some landscaping though - I don't think I've ever seen anything literally so 'green field' as this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spunko2010 Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 My guess would be that is has got automatic planning permission using the recent Permitted Development changes for agricultural buildings (class MB or Q, cant recall). My neighbour just did this although his is only ~800sqft. Class Q is the new name for MB more or less. It's not automatic though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear Hug Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 6 bedrooms with en-suite showers and not a single bath between them? Was this designed as shared accommodation for BTL?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) Battersea Power Station without the chimneys. They'll be building them everywhere - for Chinese investors. To be fair it looks like it's just landed and the tripods are about to emerge. Edited January 6, 2016 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear Hug Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 I am slightly confused about why it is only allowed to have small windows on the side. Did planning explicitly require it to look like a barn just because it is in a field where otherwise barns would normally be? Who exactly would be offended if this house looked like a proper house? Sheep? Planes above it? I understand a need to compromise if they were squeezing this on a tiny plot of land overlooking neighbors' bedrooms, but forcing it to be a farm building when it's located the middle of nowhere?!! Madness. Similarly, who would need internal garden when it's all green externally anyway? If this was in a city, then yes, it should have more green inside but not when it's already in the field! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) From the OP's link It is of course incredibly rare to have permission for such a substantial building granted on what is green belt land. The fact that permission was given is a testament to the imaginative and engaging design created by Sheppard, which was seen to be a welcome addition to the local landscape. Indeed - why hot build a single massive building in the "power station/shed" style to accommodate one family on green belt land when it could have been used to accommodate hundreds if not thousands. At a time when there's supposed to be a serious housing problem. At least infrastructure won't be presented with much of a problem - that problem will be elsewhere.. Edited January 6, 2016 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCountOfNowhere Posted January 6, 2016 Author Share Posted January 6, 2016 From the OP's link Indeed - why hot build a single massive building in the "power station/shed" style to accommodate one family on green belt land when it could have been used to accommodate hundreds if not thousands. At a time when there's supposed to be a serious housing problem. Nail....Head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oki Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 From the OP's link Indeed - why hot build a single massive building in the "power station/shed" style to accommodate one family on green belt land when it could have been used to accommodate hundreds if not thousands. At a time when there's supposed to be a serious housing problem. Because this house is for the right kind of people (rich). Also 'award winning architect' HA!, first go on 3D Studio more like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spunko2010 Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) Class Q homes are invariably ugly carbuncles. The thought process seems to have been that it must try to retain the existing structure, i.e. it must be a barn with the original concrete and metal structure. I've seen 2 homes where the planning permission was granted with the proviso that you cannot knock the building down. Essentially they were both Atcost ugly agri barns, the frame needs to remain as part of planning, or oyu need to replace like for like. From the outside it must look like an Atcost barn with a few small windows. Quite honestly if I lived in an old house in a rural location I'd much prefer a 'normal' looking new build to go up in the local vernacular style, rather than the metal Atocst 1960s barn next door be converted into one of these abominations. There are loads of them for sale round here, in rural Kent, even here in this climate where many are motivated by aspirations of building their own "Grand Design", they take ages to sell. No idea why? Edited January 6, 2016 by spunko2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sawitcoming Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 From the OP's link Indeed - why hot build a single massive building in the "power station/shed" style to accommodate one family on green belt land when it could have been used to accommodate hundreds if not thousands. At a time when there's supposed to be a serious housing problem. At least infrastructure won't be presented with much of a problem - that problem will be elsewhere.. Because the planners favour an occasional "interesting" architectural design over the needs of people. After approving a stream of dross that is the usual standard of modern british house design they need this to keep them from total despair I guess. I'm not a particular fan of this design though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeryMeanReversion Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Class Q homes are invariably ugly carbuncles. The thought process seems to have been that it must try to retain the existing structure, i.e. it must be a barn with the original concrete and metal structure. I've seen 2 homes where the planning permission was granted with the proviso that you cannot knock the building down. Essentially they were both Atcost ugly agri barns, the frame needs to remain as part of planning, or oyu need to replace like for like. From the outside it must look like an Atcost barn with a few small windows. Quite honestly if I lived in an old house in a rural location I'd much prefer a 'normal' looking new build to go up in the local vernacular style, rather than the metal Atocst 1960s barn next door be converted into one of these abominations. There are loads of them for sale round here, in rural Kent, even here in this climate where many are motivated by aspirations of building their own "Grand Design", they take ages to sell. No idea why? I would build a nice house on the inside and let the outside "accidentally" fall down later. As long as its not a conservation area or AONB then I don't see how they can stop me. Or you can just build it as they insist, Then when finished, change the cladding and add windows to look how you want. Again, they cant stop this. There is no change of use. On my next project, I will be extending an outbuilding. The outside will look like a basic barn with one small window. The inside will be designed so the cladding can be easily removed and windows added. The key is to find a way to do each stage legally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spunko2010 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 There was a discussion on this forum last year about adding windows and doors later, but it's extremely risky. I can't remember the username of the person but I seem to recall he was a planning consultant who specialised in Class MB/Q conversions and said it was likely to be contested. Also, most of them (at least round here) seem to be in AONBs or conversation areas, hence why they have gone for Class Q in the first place. If you view the planning history you'll see a lot of the owners tried to go through conventional planning routes but were refused so then opted for Class Q. Several of the architects round here boast of "never have a Class Q refused". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.