[DanaC]

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.

it is claimed it is harmful to the rural character of the locality

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).

not essential to provide accommodation for an agricultural or forestry worker

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.