Temp Posted August 26, 2021 Share Posted August 26, 2021 https://www.burnleyexpress.net/news/people/newly-built-house-in-cliviger-countryside-refused-retrospective-planning-permission-3360218 Newly-built house in Cliviger countryside refused retrospective planning permission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalvinHobbes Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 Why do people risk it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Valley Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 That looks like an expensive mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor Posted August 27, 2021 Share Posted August 27, 2021 (edited) No sympathy. We delayed 3months mid way through the build waiting for an amendment to put another story on a 3x4m flat roof that isn't even visible from the front. Wonder if there was an architect involved? Hard to believe there was. A glance at a proportions suggests a DIY design. That door on the LHS ffs... The copy and paste windows... Edited August 27, 2021 by Conor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilDamo Posted August 29, 2021 Share Posted August 29, 2021 Serves them right. If I was on the design team, I probably would have walked away after learning the applicant didn’t want to secure Planning in the correct way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe90 Posted August 29, 2021 Share Posted August 29, 2021 Yup, no sympathy, I hope they make them pull it down. Despite the fact I had to fight our planners I still abided by the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Posted August 29, 2021 Share Posted August 29, 2021 Pity they didn't hide it in a haystack. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieKLP Posted September 20, 2021 Share Posted September 20, 2021 On 27/08/2021 at 08:46, Conor said: No sympathy. We delayed 3months mid way through the build waiting for an amendment to put another story on a 3x4m flat roof that isn't even visible from the front. Wonder if there was an architect involved? Hard to believe there was. A glance at a proportions suggests a DIY design. That door on the LHS ffs... The copy and paste windows... Agreed there, this looks like someone just doing what they want with little skill or thought. If they had the money to build this they had some to pay a designer to break up the bulk, sort the windows out, pick a nicer brick. (And get them planning permission!) I hope they make them take it down, and I usually think that’s harsh, but this is a big scaley monster. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gc100 Posted September 21, 2021 Share Posted September 21, 2021 That’s one ugly house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToughButterCup Posted September 21, 2021 Share Posted September 21, 2021 (edited) Coming down off that ridge (via the Long Causeway) into East Lancs, its easy to imagine why the builder hoped to get away with it. The valley is deeply incised, full of hidden almost secret nooks and crannies. Beautiful. Living right next to someone who is doing the exact same thing - he built a house INSIDE a caravan (the Inspectorate are on the case) - the common aspect seems to be to the desire to shut out the rest of the world. I have some sympathy with that desire. But not quite enough to condone breaking the law. Edited September 21, 2021 by ToughButterCup 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonshine Posted September 21, 2021 Share Posted September 21, 2021 (edited) Here is the planning application https://publicaccess.burnley.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=QUHAIZDTFH400 It seems that the site had a ruined house on the site, and maybe the applicant wrongly assumed that because a house was once there a long time then planning would grant a new house at the same location. There are some more images in the officers report, in my opinion its going to have to get torn down, as i don't think the appeal will be successful. FUL_2021_0339-OFFICER_REPORT-326625.pdf Edited September 21, 2021 by Moonshine 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorenz Posted September 21, 2021 Share Posted September 21, 2021 Looks like it is the middle of nowhere, they should be glad someone wants to live there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gc100 Posted September 21, 2021 Share Posted September 21, 2021 What was they thinking. So much money thrown at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToughButterCup Posted September 21, 2021 Share Posted September 21, 2021 1 minute ago, Lorenz said: Looks like it is the middle of nowhere, they should be glad someone wants to live there. It is nowhere - and that's one of the factors that contributes, I think, to a Stuff-The-Planners approach. At that location, think desert with wind in it. Others who live there follow Planning regulations I sure . But if everyone in a remote location felt they could build without hindrance, many would. That road over the moor is stunningly pretty (when there's no mist and rain). Walkers regularly get lost on the ridge paths (in this case it might be The Burnley Way) - before you know it, you are in some steep-sided valley and completely disorientated. It's lonely, can be moody. And living up there means high dependence on neighbours. That in turn means strangers are viewed with more than a quizzical eye. I can quite see where the "Well aaahm jus' gonna fookin' doit, sod em" comes from. The point made by the Planner (in this case and in general) in terms of sustainability (the development is in an unstainable location) seems to me to be weakening. For those whose job is desk-based, we can all (even there) now connect to the Internet and get our food delivered. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry_angel Posted September 21, 2021 Share Posted September 21, 2021 The design and aesthetic is poor but the headline's a bit clickbaity - fundamentally there was a building of some size there previously. I thought this person had just knocked up a house willy-nilly, on the sly, but there's a fair amount to work with here both in terms of sq floor area and mass. It might be with some judicious design edits and removal of windows this could get over the line via repeated planning apps and working collaboratively with the LPA. Worth noting that the fact that the council said No is the very, very start of the process. This could end up being a 7-10 year enforcement job a la hay bales man, at vast expense to the LPA. The problem in these cases (and I speak as a person in a diet diet diet coke version of this right now) is that it's not as simple as saying: "the rules are the rules". Because the rules aren't the rules, are they? What constitutes "unacceptable bulk" to one planning officer is acceptable to another. Taking the same case of "unacceptable bulk" a step further....what is unacceptable to one inspector from the Planning Inspectorate is acceptable to another. The grey areas are large, and significant. There are lines, yes, and those who really take the p*ss deserve what they get if they step over said lines, but many LPAs behave disgracefully IMHO and need to be challenged, and challenged and challenged some more. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToughButterCup Posted September 21, 2021 Share Posted September 21, 2021 3 hours ago, harry_angel said: .... Because the rules aren't the rules, are they? What constitutes "unacceptable bulk" to one planning officer is acceptable to another. Taking the same case of "unacceptable bulk" a step further....what is unacceptable to one inspector from the Planning Inspectorate is acceptable to another. The grey areas are large, and significant. .... Exactly. Which is why the micropolitics of Planning matters. It really matters. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdf27 Posted September 21, 2021 Share Posted September 21, 2021 6 hours ago, Moonshine said: It seems that the site had a ruined house on the site, and maybe the applicant wrongly assumed that because a house was once there a long time then planning would grant a new house at the same location. Reading the report, it looks like the objections boil down to two: It's too ugly It'd too big If they'd applied pre-build with a slightly smaller and much more sympathetic design I think they would probably have been fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iceverge Posted September 21, 2021 Share Posted September 21, 2021 On 29/08/2021 at 22:36, Ferdinand said: Pity they didn't hide it in a haystack. Maybe they’re up to the same tricks by hiding a smaller fantastically hideous house inside....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorenz Posted September 22, 2021 Share Posted September 22, 2021 What it replaced was quite ugly, and ugly seems to be the winner with many new builds. Hiding it behind a haystack is what lost it for Fidler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliMcLeod Posted September 22, 2021 Share Posted September 22, 2021 16 hours ago, Iceverge said: Maybe they’re up to the same tricks by hiding a smaller fantastically hideous house inside....... Are the owners Russian? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now