31 replies to this topic

[Cornish Gems]

OMG - in an idle moment whilst waiting for kettle to boil, did a search on eBay for straw and the search actual came up trumps - well sort of anyway.

[happymanoftheworld]

Yes - they regularly have Hay and Haylage as well - but you have to check delivery distance/charge or pick up. Usually goes fairly decent price.

[che]

WE found rolled barley and most important of all F2F good old ebay

[shepie]

what did you end up with ? was the guy at brandis corner no good?

[Cornish Gems]

Wheat and Barley straw is great thanks Shepie - picking up tonight. We do not think however that we need "IMV Technologies 20000 Pig Boar insemination straws HOG" or at least not 20,000 of them, although we suppose it would give us one or two spares for practice!

[hobbitmeadow]

Nice to see Ebay is coming up trumps as if all goes to plan our new house will be made of straw.

[Cornish Gems]

Will 20,000 of them be enough to make a doll's house? LOL

[hobbitmeadow]

LOL we Live in hope of building our straw build we worked it out at 104 bails give or take an inch or two.

We would of like to do a barn out of straw bail to but from what we have seen the planners hate the thought, due to it could be converted to a house to easily.

[Romany]

I'm thinking of making strawbale walls around the outside of my static to insulate it ... do you think that would tick the planners off?!

Romany

[hobbitmeadow]

I remember reading somewhere that buy doing that it could be classed as concealment, and gives planners ammo to have a static removed.

I will see if i can find the article.

[surreydodger]

That'll be, and I jest not, Mr Fiddler. He built a house without planning permission which was surrounded by straw bales. After four years he removed the bales of straw and claimed time expiry against enforcement action and applied for a certificate of lawfulness.

After repeated court action and various appeals, it was judged that becuase he removed the bales of straw, he had materially changed the original construction and therefore, the building was not the same one that had exisited for four years. He has been considering his options what to do next but I understand he intends to appeal that decision.

My personal feeling is that he could well win as the reason used to reject his claim is pretty weak. Afterall, if he replaced the bales, would it then be lawful . It would seem on the judgment that it would be and if that is so, then he is guilty of materially altering a building without planning permission but the original structure would be lawful.

What the case (and one other which escapes me for now) has done is to bring to the fore the problem of development by concealment. Again, it is a typical bit of legal work designed to keep the law practice employed as the definitions of what concealment may be is somewhat vague. Obviously if one surrounds ones illegal development to make it look like a hay rick or another legal construction, that is devious and intentional. But if one builds say a real straw bale house or builds in a woodland,,, is this deliberate concealment a well?

We will have to wait for case law to get a better understanding.

[hobbitmeadow]

I am sure SD that the case you mentioned was involved, I seem to recall new legislation that now prevents the concealment, Bev will probably be able to dig it out of the archives.

From memory it was in the local press ( East Anglia ) about any form of concealment of development will make the building Null and Void no matter what the time scale of being in place.

Will full removal if caught.

[surreydodger]

Yes Hobbit, that is now the regulations as I understand it. It is just not defined what intentional concealment is (apart from the blindingly obvious.

Some planners have been heard to say that if you do not tell them of any work you have carried out, then that is concealment. If this were to be the case then I despair.

[hobbitmeadow]

I wonder If we could claim half the salary of a planner as they obviously want us to help them do there job.

Then again if you put a sign up saying development in progress you would probably get an infringement notice slapped on it.
This seems as everything else as of late more rights taken away in the name of progress.

The question is who progresses.

[RichardD]

The other notable case than Fiddler, is Beasley - where planing permission was obtained for a barn and from the outside it was a barn - inside they built a high spec house - these idiots deserve everything they get - not least because it perpetuates the conflict between the planning system and those attempting to work lawfully within it!

Fiddler might well win eventually, I think the straw bale argument is nonsense but it's the only thing the inspector could hope to rely on and the judge couldn't think of much better than the argument for concealment in the Beasley case this has obviously caused so much of a stink that the government are/have introduced new planning law.

As for Alan Beasley, smug git and idiot! I hope the LPA applied for costs.

http://www.dailymail...nside-barn.html

[surreydodger]

Somewhere I read some more detailed notes on the judgement for Beasley (btw, thx RichardD, I knew there was another example) and within that lay one of the more important reasons for finding Beasley guilty of a planning breach.

As I recall, he moved into the barn and used it for residential purposes without ever using it as an agricultural building, thus his claim of 'change of use' could not stand. I wonder if also the Council might be able to consider a charge of fraud for if he used the building only ever as a residential dwelling but applied for it as an agricultural barn (which use was never implemented or possibly intended), did he not intentionally set out to decieve?

[RichardD]

I've read the Court papers and the substantial point the judge made was that he did set out with an intention to deceive from the start and never had any intention of using the building as a barn. This really is a case of where someone reads a little about planning law and thinks they can pervert it - And this of course only serves to perpetuate the "suspicion" the planning officers have when they come across agricultural development where it involves any kind of residential use.

I am 110% for a genuine agricultural use to be argued (although it shouldn't need to be) to the end, and if the use can be demonstrated the planners are obliged to approve it with reasonable planning conditions where necessary.

[billie]

Hi all, maybe we should get our heads together and write the planners a new textbook, along the lines of "small is successful" to give them a better understanding of intensive land use (smallholdings) as most seem stuck with the idea that farms need to be in excess of 100 acres to require substantial infrastructure. One example by the British Columbia board of agriculture, 5 acre mixed berry production, 1 acre each of blackberries raspberries strawberries and blueberries and one acre for buildings and hardstandings the planners need to be shown the other side of the coin!!

[RichardD]

'fraid a new text book ain't good enough, we have to work within the existing system (PPS7 and all that) but it's otherwise a great idea Billy! if the enterprise is sound enough and your site is over 5ha (and you don't "need" to live on the land) all you'll require is a prior notification and then only if you want to erect buildings (or otherwise don't meet all the PD criteria).

Now wrap that up nicely in a business plan and agricultural appraisal and include the justification to reside on the land if that's what you'd need to do and there you go

... if you need any help with the planning appeal just let us know!

[surreydodger]

I read up again on Beazley and on appeal (Court not Inspectorate) he won permission. This was despite Beazley being very open about his intentions to deceive but as the Judge said, it is not about the deception but the implementation of the law. I would advocate that approach, not the dishonesy but the implementation of the written law because the moment you have a society that just makes up its mind as you go along becomes a very dangerous one. In a perfect world with perfect Judge's, it would be wonderful to have judgements made on common sense based on each particular case. My view is that Judge's by and large live in Ga-Ga land and I see no consistency in there judgements.


Fiddler on the other hand continues to fight on and we await the outcome.