Maybe too idealistic

[Ferdinand]

15 minutes ago, ProDave said:

So what is that Interresting price?  They seem to have hidden it well as I could not see it.

 

The newspaper report says £290k.

 

Which means - that like everyone else - the most value was in the Planning Gain ?.

 

I would accept that they have built an impressive unit - the Planning has output conditions attached under the Welsh regime - and eg they have installed 1500sqft of glasshouses growing things like vines.

 

But £290k seems a little ambitious - I would say £150-200k potentially.

 

F

 

Edited July 10, 2019 by Ferdinand

[Jeremy Harris]

2 minutes ago, ProDave said:

So what is that Interresting price?  They seem to have hidden it well as I could not see it.

 

 

£290k, believe it or not!  Seems they didn't have insurance, as they had a Just Giving campaign that raised over £35k after the fire.  Overall, it looks like their five or six years of work paid off for them, as, according to the article, they only had £500 when they started.  Even if they get around £200k they will have done reasonably well from the project, an order of magnitude more profit than we have with our five or six year project.

[Ferdinand]

I am full of admiration for the creation of a smallholding from scratch in a decade of hard work, and that it is a working business by the look, and that it has been done inside the system.

 

But 290k plus the need to fund a house build puts it into Southern Hobby Farmer territory, which I think is a push too far. Might be 290k is the House was still there. I think they are deserving of a healthy gain, in return for the risk they have taken and the work they have done.

 

But, as ever, they can hope for what they would like, and the market will pay what it is worth.

 

Ferdinand

 

Edited July 10, 2019 by Ferdinand

[Sue B]

Just a thought - putting it out in the ether that one of your options is building a “hidden” house is probably not the most sensible way of laying the groundwork’s to a later claim of “my house was not deliberately hidden y’r honour - I didn’t know I was doing a bad thing“  

???

Edited July 10, 2019 by Sue B

[Patrick]

7 hours ago, JSHarris said:

 

I strongly suspect that the legal test would be the standard one for "reasonableness", "What would be the view of the man on the Clapham omnibus?".  That's generally the test that's applied when it comes to judging things like intent.  I suspect that the majority of people might judge that building an unlawful development in amongst trees would be considered to be an intention to conceal, but I may be wrong.

At the end, it is partly down to "the people" to decide what they want to allow. In this example, you as an involved person could just decide to allow  for someone (single person /family, not developers or companies) to build whatever they want.  This does not mean that its legal and also doesn't mean that they will be allowed, as there is others that can stop them from having permission, but in general we have to produce  the environment around us that we want to have . I, for instance think, that the planning laws and regulations are completely wrong, historically build to support the ruling powers and kept in place to prop up our economy. This might be a fact but it s certainly not morally right (in my eyes). And it's down to each of us to do something against that. (for example NOT report people breaching these rules, voting FOR change of use of land for private individuals) change the minds and the rest will follow.

Edited July 10, 2019 by Patrick

[reliqu]

1 hour ago, Sue B said:

Just a thought - putting it out in the ether that one of your options is building a “hidden” house is probably not the most sensible way of laying the groundwork’s to a later claim of “my house was not deliberately hidden y’r honour - I didn’t know I was doing a bad thing“  

???

 

 

Well, a large part of the reason why you can't just buy land and start building legally is because if you could, plenty of land would be ruined, eyesores would be created, other homeowners would be impacted without much say in the matter. People would be grabbing plots and throwing up their monstrosities. (I mean to be real, the other large reason is a stable housing market).

 

If you can go 4 years without being noticed, with neighbours not noticing or just being fine with what you're doing, then you're unlikely to be having a negative impact on the area. Further from it, you're likely living more sustainably and quietly than most. Living quietly also isn't the same as purposely hiding where you're living, which is why I used quotes, I wouldn't build a bunker buried in the ground or cover a hut in branches everytime I went out.

 

The 4 year rule is more or less an allowance for low impact living - if you can live somewhere for 4 years without being noticed, by definition it's low-impact. It's not quite comparable to building a hut in your garden and renting it out to a student for £400 a month, or building a giant house and surrounding it with hay bails only to unveil it Year 5 Day 1.

 

There's only so much you can respect planning laws. After paying off an absurd amount of student debt, then paying an absurd amount of rent in a renting market where landlords are barely if ever actually held accountable because there's such a demand in areas like London, I'm not a massive fan of going into further debt to buy a house and continue to be rinsed. So I think there comes a point where I'd have to decide: okay, if I can build something safe, with neighbours that are okay with it, while looking after the land I'm on, not changing the landscape much, living quietly and sustainably, while also still contributing to society through my career - Maybe planning laws just aren't set up for people like me, and I'm not really willing to wait the 40 years for them to get close, when land will be completely unaffordable anyway (and I'll be creaky and old).

Edited July 10, 2019 by reliqu

[Patrick]

8 minutes ago, reliqu said:

 

 

Well, a large part of the reason why you can't just buy land and start building legally is because if you could, plenty of land would be ruined, eyesores would be created, other homeowners would be impacted without much say in the matter. People would be grabbing plots and throwing up their monstrosities. (I mean to be real, the other large reason is a stable housing market).

This is what is always told/ hammered into our heads. "oh no, everybody would do what they want".

the real problem is the stable rising housing market. Banks would collapse without it. ??

 2007.anyone.

[SteamyTea]

10 minutes ago, Patrick said:

Banks would collapse without it

They didn't collapse then, and they would be bailled out again.

 

I have often wondered if you found a bit of common land, put some plastic pipes in it, cordoned it off with spikes and hi-viz tape, then put some signs up saying:

"Contamination Survey: Do not remove"

Then, if it does not get disturbed for a year, put a large box filled with concrete on it.

Then a shed, then a few piles.

Then a bigger shed, but with windows.

 

You get the picture.

[Patrick]

1 minute ago, SteamyTea said:

They didn't collapse then, and they would be bailled out again.

 

I have often wondered if you found a bit of common land, put some plastic pipes in it, cordoned it off with spikes and hi-viz tape, then put some signs up saying:

"Contamination Survey: Do not remove"

Then, if it does not get disturbed for a year, put a large box filled with concrete on it.

Then a shed, then a few piles.

Then a bigger shed, but with windows.

 

You get the picture.

Love it. It's the theory of hiding in plain sight. I'd say depending on the area it might work ?

[SteamyTea]

3 minutes ago, Patrick said:

depending on the area it might work

Mining area here, so all badly polluted, leaks radon, agriculturally worthless (good land is Grade 3b).

Or something like this:

USS West Mahomet in First World War dazzle camouflage

 

[Patrick]

Sorry. It might get a bit off topic here, but why not just hijack an old bunker/oil platform

 

 

 

 

https://www.sealandgov.org/

 

[SteamyTea]

35 minutes ago, Patrick said:

but why not just hijack an old bunker/oil platform

 

And set up a radio station.

The pictures are better on radio.

[Ferdinand]

2 hours ago, reliqu said:

Maybe planning laws just aren't set up for people like me, and I'm not really willing to wait the 40 years for them to get close, when land will be completely unaffordable anyway (and I'll be creaky and old).

 

There is some irony there ... the system came in with Attlee in 1947 and a major intention was to assure supplies of land for development.

 

The original wartime reports make interesting reading.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_and_Country_Planning_Act_1947

 

F

Edited July 10, 2019 by Ferdinand