Farmer has to demolish castle he built himself

[Bubbles]

.

[SqueakyVoice]

He deliberately broke the law. He's been through every court possible and they've found he broke the law.

The building  should  be demolished and if he won't do it he should be put in prison while the authorities do.

[ProfessorDavey]

Is it always wrong to break the law?

Planning law is there for a reason and needs to be upheld.

If you allow on person to build without permission and not be subject to retrospective legal action which may mean demolishing the building, then everyone will do it - as effectively you wouldn't need planning permission.

[Nearly Sane]

Is it always wrong to break the law?

No, but it cheapens it if it's something about planning. This isn't about an unjust law, it's about me me me.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, but it cheapens it if it's something about planning. This isn't about an unjust law, it's about me me me.

I agree - there are occasionally times when breaking the law - for example for a principled purpose, campaigning against injustice may be reasonable. But in this case the person should be aware that they are likely to be fined, jailed etc and also accept that as part of their principled objection.

This isn't like that at all - it is about a selfish person who simply disregarded the law and due process. He isn't taking a principled position, merely considering that the law shouldn't apply to him.

The building should be demolished, as if it isn't it simply gives carte blanche to others who think it is OK to build first and then perhaps pay lip service to planning if they catch up with them.

[SqueakyVoice]

Is it always wrong to break the law?

So far your argument for allowing this building to stand consists of 'other planning decisions are worse'  and the strawman above.

Do you have any decent arguments for allowing this particular illegally built building to stand?

[floo]

What a shame, it looks very interesting, better than the tiny boxes the planning dept pass, and expect people to live in.

'Hidden castle' petition builds support for it to be saved
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-34903224

Some planning departments are totally unreasonable and kick off even if you want to put up a polytunnel on agricultural land.

I tried holding a discussion once with someone on a local planning dept and he kept talking about those schemes where you buy a little plot of land and even though it was irrelevant to me, I couldn't get him to talk sensibly about a vegetable plot on agricultural land. ( which is how I know they object to polytunnels)

Sometimes planning departments get a bee in their bonnet about something, the guy I spoke to was barely rational, too busy foaming at the mouth about things that had nothing to do with me.

I can just imagine them getting their knickers in a knot because he didn't ask permission.

I think it should be allowed to stay, it looks better than the dreadful shoe boxes the planning departments do pass.

We have a new estate near us and they are finding it hard to sell the properties. They are all three or four stories high and extremely narrow and the whole effect is very claustrophobic.

With the narrow streets no one wants to buy them. What with the builders rubble the place looks like ground zero, ( which is our nickname for it)

Economic housing they call it.

 

https://www.change.org/p/reigate-and-bansted-borough-council-let-the-castle-at-honeycrock-farm-stay-standin

Serve the idiot right, he didn't get planning permission so is suffering the consequences! I have absolutely no sympathy for him whatsoever. Planning permission is required for a very good reason and should be enforced.

[Outrider]

Planning law is there for a reason and needs to be upheld.

Planning law as a concept, yes. Specific planning laws, and the specific judgments against them are probably for a reason in most instances, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're justified - the reason could be as arbitrary as personal taste in some instances.

If you allow on person to build without permission and not be subject to retrospective legal action which may mean demolishing the building, then everyone will do it - as effectively you wouldn't need planning permission.

Laws are only worthwhile if you're prepared to enforce them, I'd agree. That doesn't mean that laws aren't worth challenging - planning laws do, at times, seem rather arbitrary. In this instance, though, where he didn't just ignore planning laws, but deliberately tried to evade them knowingly, I'd be inclined to rule against him not on the basis of the building or the design, but just for the pre-meditated nature of his actions.

O.

[Rhiannon]

I can understand Rose's irritation given the ease with which developers get permission to build identikit housing schemes on other rural sites.

[Shaker]

I can understand Rose's irritation given the ease with which developers get permission to build identikit housing schemes on other rural sites.

Quite 

[Outrider]

I can understand Rose's irritation given the ease with which developers get permission to build identikit housing schemes on other rural sites.

Perhaps, but we have a need for housing - typically the housing that's being built is larger and more expensive than where the real pressure is on the market, because that's where the profit is for developers. That's an area where the planning regulations are seriously letting down the people they're supposed to be in place to protect.

This guy's house isn't intended to relieve pressure on the market in the slightest. It's a personal project for his own benefit - I like the look of the place, I think it's great, but there's obviously a reason he didn't think he'd get planning permission, which is why he went out of his way to avoid having to apply for it.

I think he should be punished primarily for the pre-meditated and deliberate attempt to bypass the legal process more than for the house itself - I'm curious as to why the planning permission wouldn't have been initially granted, does anyone know?

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

I can understand Rose's irritation given the ease with which developers get permission to build identikit housing schemes on other rural sites.

Given that there is a huge shortage of housing in the UK, leading to unsustainable house prices and rents I think we need a lot more housing, and the notion of complaining about 'idenitkit' housing is all very well from the persecutive of having housing security, but if you can't afford rents, nor to buy then I think you might be very glad of new housing, however identikit (which is of course much more likely to be of the affordable kind.

[Red Giant]

He wouldn't have got permission because it's green belt.  Councils are obsessed with green belt.  They have it for the sake of it where it's completely unnecessary, arbitrary and inappropriate.  A lot of it should be declared an illegal abuse of power.

In Yorkshire they have green belt next to 20 miles of moorland, like it's the only thing that stops then joining up with Manchester.  Even though the roads close every time there's a flake of snow.
 
I knew of somebody who enlarged his house plot with a 20ft strip off an adjacent field, and then built a granny annexe.  The council said he'd built on green belt, because they'd drawn the boundary along the original fence, two yards from the house.  Like it would have compromised the green belt if they'd drawn the boundary 10 yards from the house. 

And of course it's impossible to change these things.

And in that case the green belt was about 200 yards wide and separated a row of houses from the nearest small village.

[Maeght]

No system is perfect but planning laws need to be stuck to and if breached there need to be suitbale punishments or else where does it end - which law do we enforce and which not? This guy knew what he was doing and hoped to get away with it I guess but he can't be allowed to.

[Red Giant]

I don't see it as the thin end of the wedge.  Presumably it's close enough to the farmhouse to connect up the services.  If it had been a cowshed it would probably have been legal, however hideous.  It can only be possible to get away with minor infringements.

[Maeght]

I don't see it as the thin end of the wedge.{/quote]

Why not?

Presumably it's close enough to the farmhouse to connect up the services.  If it had been a cowshed it would probably have been legal, however hideous.

Would have been illegal if no planning permission just the same I would think.

It can only be possible to get away with minor infringements.

Not sure what you mean there.

[Maeght]

No, if you want to put up a hideous barn and you have over 10 hectares you don't need planning permission

Okay - but you do need to get prior approval I believe, which includes info on appearance, and buildings must be for agricultural use and not include dwelllings.

As I say, no system is perfect and it is fine to compain for changes but you can't just accept people knowingly breaking laws or else where does it end?

[Shaker]

The law shouldn't be one thing for wealthy people and something else for joe public 

It's never been anything else. But I do wish you every success in trying to change that.

[Red Giant]

The point of green belts is to prevent urban sprawl.  But they abuse their powers for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with urban sprawl.

Councils and council officials abuse their powers all the time.  Too many jobsworths and little people, authority goes to their heads.  One council (probably not the only one) used anti-terrorist powers to catch minicab drivers picking up in the street.

[Shaker]

The point of green belts is to prevent urban sprawl.  But they abuse their powers for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with urban sprawl.

Councils and council officials abuse their powers all the time.  Too many jobsworths and little people, authority goes to their heads.  One council (probably not the only one) used anti-terrorist powers to catch minicab drivers picking up in the street.

At least one council deploys people hiding in bushes and behind trees at night with night vision goggles to catch people not cleaning up after their dogs. And so forth.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

At least one council deploys people hiding in bushes and behind trees at night with night vision goggles to catch people not cleaning up after their dogs. And so forth.

.................oh, yes......tell on.

[Shaker]

.................oh, yes......tell on.

Google "council night vision goggles."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Google "council night vision goggles."

Oh, I thought you had a personal story about taking Rover out for his nightly evacuation.

[jeremyp]

I think that castle looks pretty hideous. If I were the neighbours, I would not be too happy to see that appear. I'd also not be too happy about the massive wall of straw bales he concealed it with because he knew what he was doing is illegal.

I have no sympathy in this case whatever.