Jump to content


ebuild is sad to announce its closure - it has become too time and resource intensive to develop, manage and maintain.

However, ebuild will remain on-line in archive mode (ie no posting facilties) for several weeks so that users can use it as an information resource.

Illegal Builds, What Happens Next...


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#21 Nickfromwales

Nickfromwales

    Short cuts take three times longer.....Fact

  • Moderators
  • 8,182 posts
  • LocationSouth Wales

Posted 12 May 2015 - 07:49 PM

View PostProDave, on 12 May 2015 - 07:46 PM, said:

there is a legal definition of what constitutes a "caravan" ans that sets out the maximum sizes. That does take into account a twon unit, so the maximum width is about 6 metres.

In fact the English and Welsh definition of "caravan" allow a slightly larger unit that the Scottish definition for some odd reason.
Maybe I will get that static after all then :lol:
Regards, nick.

#22 ProDave

ProDave

    Self build in the Highlands

  • Moderators
  • 5,960 posts
  • LocationScottish Highlands

Posted 12 May 2015 - 08:43 PM

View PostNickfromwales, on 12 May 2015 - 07:49 PM, said:

Maybe I will get that static after all then :lol:
Regards, nick.
I've just watched it.

He's his own worst enemy. He had a bespoke static caravan made, but unfortunately larger than the legal definition of a static caravan. Surely the people that made it should have known that and advised him it was over sized?

#23 jsharris

jsharris

    Please ignore all posts by me, some are erroneous

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,461 posts
  • LocationWiltshire/Dorset border

Posted 12 May 2015 - 08:54 PM

It was an interesting mix of some people you could feel sympathy for, and others who were quite clearly taking the mickey.

Interesting to see that the odious Pickles decided to interfere and over-rule a planning inspector. Given that the planning inspector presumably has a signicant level of knowledge and understanding of planning policy and guidance and Pickles is simply an interfering politician, one has to question quite why he felt the need to get involved. My guess is that it was only because the case had received publicity, something that attracts odious politicians, like flies to ****.............

I thought the bloke with the massive "extension" to his bungalow was the biggest chancer. Who in their right mind spends that much money building something so far removed from what might be considered reasonable for an extension.

Edited by jsharris, 12 May 2015 - 08:55 PM.
typo


#24 Nickfromwales

Nickfromwales

    Short cuts take three times longer.....Fact

  • Moderators
  • 8,182 posts
  • LocationSouth Wales

Posted 12 May 2015 - 09:34 PM

Who in their right mind sticks a shark in their roof? :D.
The shark is still there :wacko:
Regards, nick.

#25 declan52

declan52

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,087 posts
  • LocationCo. armagh

Posted 13 May 2015 - 07:00 AM

View PostNickfromwales, on 12 May 2015 - 09:34 PM, said:

Who in their right mind sticks a shark in their roof? :D.
The shark is still there :wacko:
Regards, nick.
Think he was a Yankee doodle do which says it all.

#26 fuzzy

fuzzy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,229 posts

Posted 13 May 2015 - 07:39 AM

View PostProDave, on 12 May 2015 - 08:43 PM, said:

I've just watched it.

He's his own worst enemy. He had a bespoke static caravan made, but unfortunately larger than the legal definition of a static caravan. Surely the people that made it should have known that and advised him it was over sized?
why is it the manufactures responsibility? you don't know whether they said "if you're over 6 metres in width you'll need planning permission" to which the owner could have said "i'll take my chances". buy beware and all that isn't it?

#27 fuzzy

fuzzy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,229 posts

Posted 13 May 2015 - 07:40 AM

wasn't there another example in Croydon or somewhere like that which had a tank in the garden or on the roof? i'll have a google and see.

#28 fuzzy

fuzzy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,229 posts

Posted 13 May 2015 - 07:43 AM

it was a giant marlin and then a spitfire. http://www.google.co....93112503,d.ZGU

#29 ProDave

ProDave

    Self build in the Highlands

  • Moderators
  • 5,960 posts
  • LocationScottish Highlands

Posted 13 May 2015 - 07:51 AM

View Postfuzzy, on 13 May 2015 - 07:39 AM, said:

why is it the manufactures responsibility? you don't know whether they said "if you're over 6 metres in width you'll need planning permission" to which the owner could have said "i'll take my chances". buy beware and all that isn't it?
I was just commenting that he can't really plead ignorance of the law.

Not only would an oversized static caravan need specific planning permission (not just PP for a "static caravan") but it would also be outside the building regulations exemption for a caravan, so as well as needing specific planning it would have needed building regulations, and it would almost certainly not comply with some requirements.

I'm just saying that a static caravan manufacturer would know the regulations and limits and if someone came along and said they want a bespoke one made larger they ought to point out to him that it would not comply with the regulations.

I know in this case the guy could not read or write, but I assume his partner could?

Edited by ProDave, 13 May 2015 - 07:52 AM.


#30 Nickfromwales

Nickfromwales

    Short cuts take three times longer.....Fact

  • Moderators
  • 8,182 posts
  • LocationSouth Wales

Posted 13 May 2015 - 07:56 AM

View Postfuzzy, on 13 May 2015 - 07:43 AM, said:

it was a giant marlin and then a spitfire. http://www.google.co....93112503,d.ZGU
Just when you think you've seen it all. :D

#31 SteamyTea

SteamyTea

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,322 posts
  • LocationCornwall

Posted 13 May 2015 - 08:30 AM

I do think this programme highlights the 'oddness' of our planning system.
All the houses were ok really, probably not ruining the countryside at all. If you build anything, somebody somewhere will complain, just the British way.
I can understand that if you let one person get away with it, then it may encourage others, but our country side is very underdeveloped. I can't believe that a local authority really cares two hoots about the countryside, but an individual planner might.

I remember standing in a field with a rather left wing teacher who was complaining that he could not afford to buy a house. I pointed out two thing:
1: They could build 1000 houses where we were standing and it would not really affect anything.
2: He could afford to buy my house
His replies where that if they build houses in the countryside they would be too expensive because they were in the countryside and he did not like where I lived.
I think he really wanted an isolated cottage for nothing.
People are funny, they think that rural areas are somehow different, nothing as industrialised as agriculture.

#32 fuzzy

fuzzy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,229 posts

Posted 13 May 2015 - 09:02 AM

View PostProDave, on 13 May 2015 - 07:51 AM, said:

I was just commenting that he can't really plead ignorance of the law.

Not only would an oversized static caravan need specific planning permission (not just PP for a "static caravan") but it would also be outside the building regulations exemption for a caravan, so as well as needing specific planning it would have needed building regulations, and it would almost certainly not comply with some requirements.

I'm just saying that a static caravan manufacturer would know the regulations and limits and if someone came along and said they want a bespoke one made larger they ought to point out to him that it would not comply with the regulations.

I know in this case the guy could not read or write, but I assume his partner could?
I agree but we don't know that the manufacture didn't give this health warning to the bloke and he chose to ignore it. he did seem to think he had a god given right to do what he wanted so he may have had the warning and ignored it.

#33 stones

stones

    Advanced Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
  • LocationOrkney

Posted 13 May 2015 - 06:25 PM

Watched this last night.

Loved the shark in the roof, and hats off to the guy who built the 'castle', by himself for £50K.

I suppose there is sympathy to be felt, but for those that have really pushed the boundaries, ultimately they only have themselves to blame when it doesn't go their way. There probably could be a little more flexibility in terms of some of the enforcement action shown. I really fail to see what was achieved by demolishing that caravan. We don't of course know the ins and outs of the 3000 odd documents involved in the case, but you would have thought an accommodation could have been reached - remove the conservatory and decking for example, grant conditional PP (such as applied the chap who built the cruck framed forest house on Grand Designs) so that if they ever move, every trace of the caravan and use of site has to be removed etc. It may of course be that the caravan owner refused to do anything at all.

Edited by stones, 13 May 2015 - 06:26 PM.


#34 ProDave

ProDave

    Self build in the Highlands

  • Moderators
  • 5,960 posts
  • LocationScottish Highlands

Posted 13 May 2015 - 06:48 PM

Re the Castle.

Some odd things about that case.

Why is there a farm without a farmhouse in the first place?

Secondly he first tried to get permission to convert an existing outbuilding into a house. For some reason that was "ignored" it seems he never got a determination to that application. So out of frustration he built his hidden castle. If the council had allowed what seemed like a perfectly reasonable conversion of an existing building then there would never have been the castle saga.

Edited by ProDave, 13 May 2015 - 06:49 PM.


#35 jsharris

jsharris

    Please ignore all posts by me, some are erroneous

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,461 posts
  • LocationWiltshire/Dorset border

Posted 13 May 2015 - 06:57 PM

View PostProDave, on 13 May 2015 - 06:48 PM, said:

Re the Castle.

Some odd things about that case.

Why is there a farm without a farmhouse in the first place?

Secondly he first tried to get permission to convert an existing outbuilding into a house. For some reason that was "ignored" it seems he never got a determination to that application. So out of frustration he built his hidden castle. If the council had allowed what seemed like a perfectly reasonable conversion of an existing building then there would never have been the castle saga.

It's quite common to find farms without farmhouses now. During the various property booms over the past 40 years there were people buying up small farms, doing up the (often large) farmhouse, selling it on with a small parcel of land, then leasing the remainder of the farmland. Come the inevitable recession after the boom some of those people decided to sell the land and so there are quite a few farms with no farm houses. I know of three near me, all run from some distance away.

#36 joiner

joiner

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 10,718 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands

Posted 14 May 2015 - 06:28 PM

Yup, it ceased being an issue when agricultural contractors started to "farm" themselves out with the greater efficiency available with the bigger machines that wouldn't be viable for anyone except the big boys on supermarket-owned spreads. What used to take a few days can now be done in a day, sort of thing, so the machinery can (and needs to) be moved around to pay for itself.

#37 ferdinand

ferdinand

    Advanced Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,031 posts

Posted 29 May 2015 - 12:18 PM

Watched Episodes 2 and 3 of this this morning.

A similar mix of knaves, fools and eccentrics.

There was a one where a chap built himself a straw bale house in the country and made a retreat centre, all without PP.

By the time he had been enforced on, fined twice by the Magistrates etc he had split up with his partner and son.

One of the fines was for not demolishing his straw bale barn-house, which he couldn't demolish because it had been occupied by bats, which would have been a criminal offence if he had obeyed the Court.

In the end a storm ruined it for bats so he could demolish it.

There is also the Carlton Arms in Maida Vale which a developer demolished Firestone Factory style, and have been ordered to rebuild brick by brick.
http://www.bbc.co.uk...london-32233610

And also a chap in Walthamstowe who was ordered to remove his building from his site by teh High Court, so he got a crane and moved it next door.

And an out of place whinge by about a cottage not being allowed to be puce rather than baby doll pink.

All here:
http://www.channel4....emolish-my-home

Ferdinand

#38 ProDave

ProDave

    Self build in the Highlands

  • Moderators
  • 5,960 posts
  • LocationScottish Highlands

Posted 29 May 2015 - 12:46 PM

I don't have much sympathy for most of these people.

The one where the guy had PP for 2 static caravans. Instead he built a massive log cabin type house that in no way met the definition of a static caravan. We have discussed on this forum before that a building does not actually need to be on wheels to qualify as a mobile home, but it must fit within certain well defined size limits and must be moveable even if that just means picking the whole thing up with a crane.

I thought the straw house and bat issue was just plain daft. It was wrong to build it without PP but then one part of the council saying demolish it or we will fine you, and another part saying if you demolish it we will fine you was just plain daft. The fact it blew down in a gale means it as never any good as a house anyway.

#39 ferdinand

ferdinand

    Advanced Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,031 posts

Posted 29 May 2015 - 01:48 PM

Have to admit I enjoyed the chap in Walthamstow in a Foghorn Leghorn kind of way, but patently he is a bully.

Ferdinand

#40 bitpipe

bitpipe

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 747 posts
  • LocationBerkshire

Posted 29 May 2015 - 02:30 PM

View PostSteamyTea, on 13 May 2015 - 08:30 AM, said:

I do think this programme highlights the 'oddness' of our planning system.
All the houses were ok really, probably not ruining the countryside at all. If you build anything, somebody somewhere will complain, just the British way.
I can understand that if you let one person get away with it, then it may encourage others, but our country side is very underdeveloped. I can't believe that a local authority really cares two hoots about the countryside, but an individual planner might.

I remember standing in a field with a rather left wing teacher who was complaining that he could not afford to buy a house. I pointed out two thing:
1: They could build 1000 houses where we were standing and it would not really affect anything.
2: He could afford to buy my house
His replies where that if they build houses in the countryside they would be too expensive because they were in the countryside and he did not like where I lived.
I think he really wanted an isolated cottage for nothing.
People are funny, they think that rural areas are somehow different, nothing as industrialised as agriculture.

Ireland used to have a very relaxed planning regime in that respect. Unlike the UK much of the rural land is held within families and it was quite common for a son or daughter to get a 1/2 acre plot as a wedding gift and build their own house.

Many of my friends have done this and as a result there's quite an established self build mentality over there - telling someone that you're building your own house would not raise an eyebrow whereas over here I get the 'are you going on Grand Designs' reaction and am seen as terribly brave/stupid etc..

However the down side of this was the spread of bungalows across the countryside in a fairly uncontrolled fashion and I understand the planning regime has been considerably tightened up.