Mother Fucking Government Types
 

Bruce sent me this because he knows this stuff chafes my unsightly...

http://arbroath.blogspot.com/2013/03...ave-rural.html

It's not always better to ask for forgiveness than permission. Building your dream house by hand, and then asking for retrospective planning permission is a risky move.

That said, it's a pretty house, and the quotes in the article don't seem to make much sense - " it is claimed it is harmful to the rural character of the locality", and "not essential to provide accommodation for an agricultural or forestry worker". However, I get the sense that it boils down to them building a residence in an area that has zoning restrictions on new residences.

Should have sought planning permission.

Used to really piss me off when people built stuff and then retrospectively sought planning permission, after they'd been approached by planning officers because a disgruntled neighbour had grassed them to the council.

We weren't allowed to take into account the retrospective nature of the application. We had to make our decision on the basis of whether the application met the relevant criteria (of which there were fucking thousands and within that different possible permutations and subclauses, and exceptions and special circumstances etc etc). Fair enough...except when it comes to decisions on structures which are already built, then the potential cost and disruption of enforcement and demolition had to be weighed against the extent to which the application breached regulations.

So, some people managed to push a fait accomplice through the planning system.

That, is not fucking fair. I have seen people sit in front of that committee and watch their dream of having their mum come live with them in a separate little dwelling in their large garden, orbuilding their perfect little cottage in the patch of land their uncle left them, shattered by the same regulations some other bloke just walked right through. Relying on the fact that enforcement is difficult, costly and almost entirely disincentivised for local planning authorities.


Usually in planning regulations (certainly over here) that doesn't just refer to a generic rural character but the specific rural character of the locale. Something might be beautifully in keeping with the countryside, but not necessarily in keeping with the style of building traditional to that area. Something which generally only applies here to places with protected status (not a 100% protection, but means someone would have to show a compelling special circumstance or very high degree of benefit to the area).

In our regulations the purpose of the land is tken into account. Green belt land is a tricky one, because there is a general leaning towards protection of the current levels of open countryside from further building. But, the farms (and industries which are in that environment) are generally allowed to build for the purposes of agriculture, including a possible need for accomdation.

I sat for one application for exactly that. They wanted to build a small cottage which would house one of them or one of their workers during particular stages of cow stuff (that's about as much detail as I recall :p).

It ended up in a really technical farming discussion (several of the committee were farmers it's that kind of place) in which it became clear that this was not necessarily the best solution to the problem they claimed the application was intended to resolve. It would, however, have allowed them to build a small, seldom occupied cottage in an area where people might want to rent a holiday home :p

. We had a case over here a few years ago of a man who built his dream home and then tried to fight it out as a media battle in the local press. Retrospective planning application was turned down, he appealed, it went to two stages of appeal and enforcement went through several stages after that. In the end his beautiful house was torn down. He had spent a lot of money trying to prevent that and he had cost the tax payer a lot of money as well.

The house in the picture is lovely and it's a real shame. And maybe the reasons for refusal were specious, i dont know. But: If it's your dream home don't build it on sand. get the relevant permission or understand that it may be taken from you.

In the States, what is happening is that owner-builders are forced through planning and inspection hoops that can only be met by using professional builders and indebtedness. It blocks capable people with limited resources from home ownership. I grew up in a time and rural area where property rights were meaningful. That no longer being the case, I slipped my dream through just in time. It may be different in Wales but the push for planning in the US aligns with much else that happens here, its about banks, business interests, forced conformity, controlling others, and locking out the dispossessed.

Over here, sometimes if you build something that isn't council approved, you can say that it's for storage purposes only, and then that means it's only subject to more lenient restrictions.

I think it's a lovely little building, but still, it's a mistake to do something like that without getting permission first.

Style traditional to the area? All that gives you is;What's the chances of getting planning permission without a design the commission is familiar with, that's been done a thousand times, that's like every other damn house? I'll bet in order to do anything different, you'd need a pile of documents by lawyers, architects and engineers, costing more than the building. THAT, is not fair.

I agree before issuing what we call an occupancy permit, the powers that be have a right to inspect the building to make sure it's structurally safe, and the wiring/plumbing meet the codes. But style? That's bullshit, and only applies to the little people with limited funds.

Look at London, ferchristsake, the Gherkin, the Eye, City Hall, even Royal Albert Hall. Are they, "in the style of building traditional to that area"? Hell no!
It took money, big money, money not available to the schmuck on the street.

Invoking "Little Boxes" is, on my own personal scale, as bad an offense as Godwin's Law.

The song about which Wikipedia says:
Precisely, right? Chris Hitchens invoking Tom Lehrer, that's pretty goddamn impressive right there.

I was weighing against D's position but after the use of "Little Boxes" to defend your position, xoB, I now have to think she has a good point, and shame on you. Shame on you. Think about it, won't you?

C'mon, Malvena Reynolds? The day the freeway froze?

I think Tom was just cross that he didn't write it.

I have some hippie friends.

They are running a holistic center. Their property was originally a farm. I don't know for sure, and I probably won't ask them, but i suspect that their zoning is residential/agricultural, not commercial.

I made mention of the need for doing the paperwork before they added a large structure to their property, and, like many treehuggers, they said, "Oh, it doesn't matter."

So they did let the township know, I think, that they were building a gazebo on their property. What they failed to tell the township was that the gazebo is a 1500 square foot electrified octagonal building, with a second building behind it with four bathrooms and showers. Neither building meets ADA code. They have smoke detectors, but no fire supression system (other than a nearby garden hose), which I believe is required for any public meeting space. Particularly a meeting space that often involves candles and the occasional outdoor bonfire.

I expect they will cry eco-green tears when their township finally notices and bulldozes the "gazebo" and bathhouse.

Fuck you, ya hipster. http://cellar.org/2012/bwekk.gif
It became wildly popular, and I used it, because it's a perfect description, and a mental link to people's memories about a subject many have thought about in depth, sometime in the past. As a matter of fact, that ticky tacky is exactly what the authorities in Wales claim they are trying to prevent.
You of all people should grasp it's significance, since you just sold one of those ticky tacky boxes that was crumbling before your very eyes.

There's a cluster of $400,000 houses right up the road from me, that I can break into with a jackknife. No shit, drywall, Styrofoam, and vinyl siding... a stray branch in a strong wind would pass through the wall like shit through a tin horn.

Dana's point comes from watching people unfairly gaming the system, and I agree that should be thwarted. But what happens is the same thing that keeps Kinder Eggs out of this country. They make a law so broad it covers every loophole they can think of, (and write a few in for campaign contributers), but there should be provisions for cases like Griff and the couple in Wales. For people who are doing something unique, but safe, instead of trying to crush them as a danger to society.

By the way, that house in Wales has been on the internet dozens of times. The whole process of building was documented on a bunch of sites, hardly a secret. And these are their next door neighbors.

As I said, I was talking about the regulations over here. We don't have mad amounts of open space. And some of our townscapes are extremely old.

The little boxes made of ticky tacky: fair enough. But that's not what i am talking about. Specific areas have protections. Only if an area is protected do the buildings have to conform to a local style. Otherwise they just have to conform to ordinary building regs.

What isn't allowed, on the whole, is for a town or area with a strong visual identity and distinct style to be changed by new developments without some kind of oversight in play.

In terms of London: yes, actually, all those things comply with the 'style' of London's city scape: a random jumble of different eras and styles. Within that there will be specific parts of that city scape which are specifically protected: it would not be possible to pull down one of the white fronted, four story townhouses in Chelsea and replace it with a block of flats.


As I said before: the reasons given for refusing permission on that little house may be specious, I don't know. And I in no way hold up planning regulations as the epitome of fair play. God knows, I have seen enough major companies walk through and enough little people get caught up, to know that isn't so. But...

Unplanned and unguarded development has consequences. Probably more of an issue here than in the USA, just because we are a smaller land. For example,
we have to protect our countryside...(known as 'greenbelt') because the impact of losing that greenspace to building is much sharper here.

The consequences of unplanned development are longterm. Once an area has been brought into development it tends to stay that way. And once a townscape, possibly one that has stayed almost the same for a century or more, is altered it tends to continue that trend. The protections aren't just about the here and now. It's about what we leave behind for future generatins too.


It sounds petty. But we are still dealing with the impact of largescale, unplanned/unregulated development from a few decades ago.

Having spent almost five years involved with the planning system as a councillor, I have a very different perspective. I actually find planning law fascinating. And some of the theory behind it equally so, especially when coupled with regeneration efforts. It's a lot more complex than I ever realised. And one of the things I have a very healthy respect for now is the potential unintended consequences both of over regulation and under regulation.

One final point: there are loopholes and exceptions to most restrictions. The council authority could have taken that route. I am pretty sure they could have argued successfully for this property to stay on the grounds of special circumstances.

Standing between planning law and property development are planning departments and highly politicised planning committees. That's where most of the problems come from.

Final points then I'll stop I promise ;p

You have to remember that the UK is not the same as America. If you 'Go West' here, you'll hit the sea in a day. Greenbelt building restrictions were hard won. They protect the nation's landscape. Those people may own the piece of land on which they build, but the landscape they affect belongs to all of us.

The same regulations preventing that young couple from building that lovely little house for their children, also protect their landscape from other, less welcome incursions. A line has to be drawn and that is where it was drawn. Everybody knows that's where it was drawn, everybody knows you cannot build in greenbelt land without a fight. This was a victory (or rather a series of victories) won by those concerned with the over development of the countryside and the loss of untouched land, for future generations as well as the present. Often against the opposition of moneyed land developers and big business.

This is a lovely little house and pushes the envelope on environmentally safe building. But one of the reasons land in the countryside is so cheap to buy is because it is so heavily restricted in development terms. They took advantage of that and then built anyway.

I really, really hate when people build on greenbelt without permission and arbitrarily change the landscape for everyone. The system as it is imperfect and is currently being rewritten (again) to take greater account of local need for areas with serious housing shortages (as an example). But it is there to protect all of us. Without those protections in place we'd have lost many more places of outstanding beauty or environmental importance.

It matters. If we build on all the fields and valleys, then we have stolen the green and pleasant land from under our children's feet.

I know many, many people who had to change their plans or sell the plot they'd bought and try and find somewhere else to develop, because they played by the rules that are in place to protect us all. I also know of major developments which have had the wherewithall and resources to push planning authorities over a barrel on exceptions and special need and got their own way in the face of largescale popular opposition. Something that is much harder to do for an individual.

But those people knew what they were doing. You cannot live in the UK and not know that building in the countryside is heavily restricted. There are other options. Land which has been used for residences in the past and has returned to green land, but is not considered 'green belt' is often made available for development, but restricted in terms of the density: this is exactly the sort of project which would sit favourably in that kind of area.

But, as far as I can tell, they chose to use untouched land in an agricultural part of the green belt. That is about as close to hanging a sign on the door saying 'please demolish me' as makes no difference.


[eta] and planning departments know all this too. In my experience, planning officers will go to enormous lengths to help an applicant find a way to make their project happen. They will liaise with applicants and agents and architects, assist them in finding alternative sites, and scour the regulations to find a way to allow useful and environmentally helpful buildings to be built. And anyone with an application can go to their local councillor and request it be heard at a planning committee, where the decision is made by vote by elected members, as indeed any application which requires a complex planning decision. These meetings are open to the public. Appeals can be taken to a national authority which can rule against the council.

I understand and respect your points Dana. We have different world-views, yours being in tune with your society and government mine not so much. I'm pragmatic enough to live with it but not enough to actually engage with the public discourse to attempt to impose my beliefs and attitudes on others. I suppose to democrats that means I'm part of the problem.

My world view is in tune with some aspects :P

But it's also borne of a very different physical environment. There is open countryside in the states into which the whole of Wales could be dropped and lost.

Population density of the UK: 260 pop./sq km
Population density of the US: 34 pop./sq km

My general points I stand by but:

That's quite a compelling argument. Having now read the article properly (;P) I am less critical of the couple. I hadn't realised it was right up against an eco village. I still think they should have tried for permission in advance. Given it is next to the eco village, and given the distinct regulation for Wales, then they probably would have got permission. And as I understand it, it is in the appeals process now. Which means they may well end up being allowed to keep it.



[eta] I am equally annoyed by 'nimbyism' too. If you think your area is special, organise as residents and apply for protected status. if you can make a case for it and it gets through, good on ya. And if the patch of land that stretches out behind your garden and onto the next block is home to rare wildlife or protected species, then it needs protecting. But the fact that three new houses will spoil the view from your living room is not material to planning consent. Nor is the fact that you consider your area to be just right as it is a reason to stop new homes being built. It can't all be shunted onto the poorer, built up areas of town.

I live in a tiny village which is slowly joining up with surrounding connurbations. I have no problem with that. Some parts of it, where the older buildings are, or at the edge on one side where it leads into farmland, are protected. The rest isn't, there's just a general assumption that building materials will be in keeping with the area. Many of my neighbours object to each new spurt of housing. They want it all to stay as it is. It can't. We need houses. Other people should be able to come and live here. There is a balance to be struck between protecting our heritage and environment and facilitating development and innovation.

you go to hell and you die

I started out disagreeing with your point of view, Dana, and then rethought it as you made your argument. While in this particular case I suspect there may be local personalities or agendas that make the decision inappropriate (given the location of the eco-village right next door), I agree that green space, endangered species, and sensitive ecosystems must be protected for future generations. It's our responsibility. While there's a great deal of open space in North America, there are also ecosystems here that are incredibly fragile. Unfortunately, big corporations and developers have been allowed to destroy them with impunity for the most part.

People do need a place to live; that being said, if we don't act as a community with a long-term view to respect for and protection of our surroundings, we'll destroy what can't be replaced and our entire society will eventually collapse (possibly the lesser of the two evils, but not much of a legacy for our children). Britain, being so much smaller geographically, is confronted with the issue more immediately than we think we are here, but it applies to everyone.

I have to say, Dana - I have very seldom met anyone who presents an argument as cogently as you. Even when I don't agree I learn something and have to respect your point of view.

Two different examples here in Arlington.

My friend lives in an old farmhouse in Arlington. It's been modernized and is a very nice house. About a decade ago, the county widened the cul de sac in front of his house, bringing it close to his front porch steps. Years later, his front porch steps were crumbling. They needed to be replaced. He wanted to replace them with a covered front porch that would have steps that would come down to within a foot or so of the curb. The county forbid it. Too close to the road. But his house predated the road. He's an attorney, and he was motivated, so he fought them and won. He built his new front porch, and it fits perfectly with the house and the neighborhood and looks very tasteful, and the front steps work fine. The government was a hindrance in his example. They did absolutely no good.

Second example is that a developer came in to the street one block from me and tore down 3 old small adjacent houses and built 4 giant McMansions in their place. The old houses were 1.5 stories. The new houses were 4 stories. He did this at a time when it was in the news a lot that McMansions were being crammed in to neighborhoods and really ruining the character of them. And he built them taller than the land was zoned for. He had to know what he was doing. After they had been framed, everyone in the neighborhood was like WTF? Complaints were made. The county came out and measured them and informed him that they were too high, and he chopped off parts of the roofs to make them come into some semblance of compliance. They look like hell. The roof lines are all wrong, and of course they are too big for the land they are sitting on. The developer didn't give a shit. He was in compliance now. The thing that amazed me is that people bought them. And they weren't cheap. So the County in this example tried to fix the problem, but they were not effective. They were a nuisance to the developer, which pleases me, but that was about it.

Proving once again, that you cannot legislate morality and ethics.

How do you think they got, "So Rich".

We legislate morality and ethics all the time. Some of the morality and ethics are questionable or negative, as in the case of corporations like Haliburton being given free rein to wreck environments and lives ... :mad:

We try to legislate morality and ethics, but morality and ethics are dynamic and situational and that leads to the age old problem of the letter versus the spirit of the law and the never ending quest for loopholes in order to circumvent the law. Sometimes the loophole allows one to do what is morally right despite what the law requires and sometimes it allows the opposite.

When people manipulate the laws with a view to what is best for themselves it is usually the death knell of morality and ethics.

Thankyou Ortho, that's a lovely thing to say.

I think my time as a local councillor and doing a higher degree have both really helped me build a more effective communication style. That might be why i don't get into as many board fights as I used to :P

Nah, it just made you jaded and bitter. Maybe a little complacent too. :lol2:

Age has more to do with it. In particular, how a prefrontal cortex grows. With age, we think less with our emotions (those lower level functions that children use). And more from a brain lobe less influenced by emotion. It is the process of becoming an adult. Or more adult.

That paragraph includes a perfect example. You were called old. The emotional would feel insulted. You were called older. And the underlying science says why that is good. An adult who is still more of a child would be insulted. An adult thinking logically saw what was only posted in that paragraph.

hmmm... I think I've become meaner with age. I attribute this to the increasing audacity as well as sheer numbers of the idiots we now must all deal with on a daily basis. I believe science wants to study whatever it is that passes for my prefrontal cortex these days. For all the good THAT will do anyone.

I visualize Dana as one day becoming like one of those Buddhist monks who just float around in the mountains of Tibet - only she'll be floating around the Cellar!

I hope not, things floating around in the cellar means a burst pipe or backed up sewer. http://cellar.org/2012/nono.gif

Learn how to use a prefrontal cortex from the World Wrestling Federation. Head butting.