Charlie and Meg's Roundhouse

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 05 Aug 2013, 22:42

hanks to so many for signing the petition already - as some people have said they don't carry weight in planning issues but we have already submitted letters of support with our retrospective planning application from locals, other figures within the local community and from all over really. The council won't accept anymore evidence to do with our application so please don't waste your energy on writing to them. We feel it is best to get the petition together so that in the event of an appeal we have something extra to show the Welsh Assembly (as that is where an appeal will go) - let's see how many signatures we can get....

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/ ... roundhouse

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 05 Aug 2013, 23:02

We understand that the planning system is there for a reason...

Why didn't they use it then?

I don't understand. I'm all for building low-impact dwellings, and challenging unhelpful parts of the way we our governed, but the planning system really is there for a reason. It may be seriously flawed, but that doesn't excuse people from ignoring it.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 05 Aug 2013, 23:17

UndercoverElephant wrote:
We understand that the planning system is there for a reason...
Why didn't they use it then?

I don't understand. I'm all for building low-impact dwellings, and challenging unhelpful parts of the way we our governed, but the planning system really is there for a reason. It may be seriously flawed, but that doesn't excuse people from ignoring it.

I would have no problem with planning restrictions, UE, if they were devised and implemented in a way that even remotely approximated fairness. As it is, they favour big landowners and big money. As it is, a farmer, without any planning permission, can receive subsidies for land that he can choose to bleed dry, land that he can denude with impunity of all life save for some hydrocarbon-subsidised mono-cultural crop. Meanwhile, if anyone was to even consider trying to gain planning permission to build a low-impact dwelling on that land and work it organically in such a way as to restore it to good health, they would not stand a snow storm's chance in hell because such degraded farmland would be deemed "green belt". As long as such inequity remains in operation, I feel absolutely no duty to respect it.

I say all of the above, mind you, whilst simultaneously experiencing a significant degree of instinctive irritation with Meg and Charlie. But, then, that's just my bullshit-ometer kicking off again.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 06 Aug 2013, 03:21

stevecook172001 wrote:....... such degraded farmland would be deemed "green belt". ...............

It's deemed Agricultural land.

Farmland is only Green Belt if it's within a Green Belt. These tend to be around cities.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 06 Aug 2013, 07:31

kenneal - lagger wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote:....... such degraded farmland would be deemed "green belt". ...............
It's deemed Agricultural land.

Farmland is only Green Belt if it's within a Green Belt. These tend to be around cities.

Maybe it's where I live in Yorkshire, but everywhere round here and upwards as far as the Boro or, even Newcastle, is designated either "green belt", "area of outstanding natural beauty" or "national park". In any event, from the few people I know who have tried to set up their own low impact smallholdings, they seem to fare little better on ordinary agricultural land anyway. Or, at least, those who aren't able to claim gypsy heritage. They seem to have a separate planning criteria applied to them.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 06 Aug 2013, 08:37

UndercoverElephant wrote:
Why didn't they use it then?

Because they would not have got planning permission.

The law is an ass. If only they had applied for permission to build an agricultural shed large enough to fit half a dozen such houses inside ...
Did I say the law is an ass?

Post by **clv101** » 06 Aug 2013, 09:44

UndercoverElephant wrote:I don't understand. I'm all for building low-impact dwellings, and challenging unhelpful parts of the way we our governed, but the planning system really is there for a reason. It may be seriously flawed, but that doesn't excuse people from ignoring it.

Are you suggesting they did the wrong thing? I'm pretty clear they have done the right thing, remember they haven't broken any laws at all. You can build anything, anyway without breaking the law. It only becomes illegal if you don't comply with the enthronement.

In many cases planning actually prefer you build then apply for retrospective planning permission - as they have done. It is a perfectly normal planning route and makes the inspectors decision easier as they have more evidence on which to base their decision.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 06 Aug 2013, 11:42

clv101 wrote:enthronement.

That may be appropriate but I think you mean enforcement.

RevdTess · Post by **RevdTess** » 06 Aug 2013, 12:22

biffvernon wrote:
clv101 wrote:enthronement.
That may be appropriate but I think you mean enforcement.

Great turn of phrase. I was really hoping he intended it

Post by **clv101** » 06 Aug 2013, 14:00

Not complying with enthronement may have its own penalties... but yes I meant the enforcement, which they have now been served. So if they don't comply they will soon, for the first time, be in breach of the law.

However, they have also submitted an OPD application so it's unlikely any enforcement action will be taken (or even can be taken) until this application has been resolved one way or the other.