Jump to content

Yet Another Wealthy Landowner usurps the law.


TIGHTCHOKE
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, NoBodyImportant said:

This.  Its all about some guy trying to prove his job is important.  

Some time back I was asked if i'd stand for the local. Council, did, got elected and served on the planning committee. Being the town council were not empowered to make decisions, only recommendations. Decisions were made at district level. In my opinion all possible parties to any planning application need watching and without some control we'd get in a muddle PDQ. Sculls says that if we had planning committees back in the day many of our treasured building would not exist. This is often quoted. When, for example, St Pauls Cathedral was opened in c1705 the population of London was c0.6 million and for England 5.1 - loads of space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I trained as a planner but did very little DC work. The problem with this is not what is built but where and how it is built. I suspect that the land may even be agri land that he has purchased off the adjacent owner and may not even have consent for resi use. If i were a Planning Officer for the site I would be looking at encroachment. Today's garage (two storey?) could easily become tomorrows proposal for another house.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NoBodyImportant said:

I actually just looked that up.  I never realized that England was so small.  Still doesn’t change my thoughts.  You guys need to fire up that navy and get more land mass.  

Can we have the lump we had over there back then, please. :whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, moondoggy said:

Would you feel like that if you were a red indian?

I am white Indian 😂.   My grandma had a house on the reservation and when she offered it to me I politely refused.  I spent enough time on the reservation to know that I don’t want anything to do with it nor would I ever raise my children there.  Luckily I’m white enough to pretend to be full blooded European.   I still struggle with it though. Every time I pass a bicycle I have a desire to steal it and sometimes I catch myself wanting to quit my job and collect government checks.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, NoBodyImportant said:

I just look at it like this.  If you don’t want something built there then buy it and leave it vacant.  If a man want a tennis court in his back yard then it should only be his decision.  

"Every time I pass a bicycle I have a desire to steal it and sometimes I catch myself wanting to quit my job and collect government checks."

We've got  quite a few of these guys over here and it's why your quoted plan will never work as  as soon as it's spotted they'll move in and then your trouble really starts - just ask Scully. Mind you, you'd get your woodland road tarmac''ed  after a fashion at an extortionate price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NoBodyImportant said:

I am white Indian 😂.   My grandma had a house on the reservation and when she offered it to me I politely refused.  I spent enough time on the reservation to know that I don’t want anything to do with it nor would I ever raise my children there.  Luckily I’m white enough to pretend to be full blooded European.   I still struggle with it though. Every time I pass a bicycle I have a desire to steal it and sometimes I catch myself wanting to quit my job and collect government checks.  

😂👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

I believe it is called the law and either everyone complies or nobody does.

Agreed. Moreover in agreeing to it now the Council will set a precedent. Soon someone else will come along with a similar proposal and say you let that person have it so it's my turn now. Then another person will come along, then another, and another etc etc and the whole area is at risk of being covered with blots on the landscape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobba said:

Agreed. Moreover in agreeing to it now the Council will set a precedent. Soon someone else will come along with a similar proposal and say you let that person have it so it's my turn now. Then another person will come along, then another, and another etc etc and the whole area is at risk of being covered with blots on the landscape.

Just like on the coast of the Algarve. The coast is ruined with half built properties every few hundred yards and on every headland. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bobba said:

Agreed. Moreover in agreeing to it now the Council will set a precedent. Soon someone else will come along with a similar proposal and say you let that person have it so it's my turn now. Then another person will come along, then another, and another etc etc and the whole area is at risk of being covered with blots on the landscape.

But if someone owns a piece of land, pays tax on that land, should they not have the right to build a house and live on the land? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NoBodyImportant said:

What if my family owned the land for generations?  

In most cases that is irrelevant. In brief, the underlying philosophy is to prevent urban sprawl in the countryside. Too long to explain here. If you're interested Google "what is the green belt uk" or visit the website "Campaign For Rural England".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Bobba said:

In most cases that is irrelevant. In brief, the underlying philosophy is to prevent urban sprawl in the countryside. Too long to explain here. If you're interested Google "what is the green belt uk" or visit the website "Campaign For Rural England".

:good:

Also see the already mentioned AONB. The one you're after specifically is South Devon. The key word is sympathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NoBodyImportant said:

What if my family owned the land for generations?  

That policy has led to the build anywhere (almost) policy in the States that allows for the hollowed out doughnut cities like Detroit. Where the areas effected by the riots in the past are left burnt out and in decay.  Its always easier to build on the next piece of land leading to urban sprawl and vast tracts of devalued properties and the death of centers. Leap frog development  reduces the economic value of older development making it more difficult to invest in clearance and rebuilding of urban decay. In turn this leads to fragmented low density development that cannot easily be served by public transport. Ultimately these will be unsustainable.

In the UK we have a green belt policy that try's to protect undeveloped land around cities (not in my back yard policy). Unfortunately it has the same effect as above where development leap frogs into the countryside, and encourages urban sprawl. The classic demonstration is to fly over the UK at night and look down on the myriad of developments across the landscape.  

It's like an economic cancer of the land eating away at the countryside that we value so much. Land is a finite resource when its gone its gone. 

 

Link to comment
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...