Triumphrat

mistermellow001 · 01-25-2008, 02:06 PM

Being a land-use planner, I found this story kind of amusing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../nhouse124.xml

Skyblue62 · 01-25-2008, 02:19 PM

I knew of a farmer, who applied for planning permission to build a new house on his land, there were other houses around and it wouldn't have looked out of place, however it would have had a sea view - planning permission was refused.

So he build a new cattle shed 4 times the size the house would have been, locals were in uproar, but there was nothing they could do.

Farmers don't like to be beaten

mistermellow001 · 01-25-2008, 03:39 PM

I promised myself I'd never get into discussions on this forum about the ups and downs of land-use law, urban/rural planning, growth management, and the ever-graying property rights penumbra, etc. I won't break that promise here. All I'll say, Skyblue, is that your cattle-shed story is funnier than hell, and says a 1000 words about what can go wrong in trying to regulate land use. Before I let this one go, however, I'll say that there is a lot to be said for good land-use planning as well.

And that is all.

Tbirdnz · 01-25-2008, 03:44 PM

As a farmer I tend to sympathise with this guy, that's a good looking castle/house that fits in well but then again he's built in a green-belt area. That's why green-belts are created to stop constant suburbanisation.

Here too a farmer wanted to build his house on a hill overlooking tremendous scenic sea and rural views (the whole country is like that) and he was refused and only given permission to build it much further back and out of sight of the 'unrestricted views of natural coastline'.

I've recently dug out with a tractor around 600 bucket loads of earth/clay off a small hill-mound in a paddock to use as fill in widening a creek road. I've been hoping I wouldn't strike oil, gold, or some historic burial as I would immediately lose my farm. The oil and gold and anything below the surface becoming the property of the state.

Landowners are only the temporary custodians of land, you can spend a life-time looking after it but it never really belongs to you, you can't take it with you !

----------------
Ride on !

brolane · 01-25-2008, 03:56 PM

Just another example of your tax dollars at work. I hope the guy gets to keep his house. It's beautiful and it's on his land.

Old Scratcher · 01-25-2008, 04:51 PM

I can't believe how dumb his neighbors were.
I mean, it would have took a lot of men & materials to build that castle. So there had to be a lot of comings & goings to that hay stack, over the last 6 years!
& no one got suspicious?

The council's a bit slack too.
They have easy access to satelite photos, which would have to have showed that castle quite clearly.
No one in the council's planing dept payed any attention until the complaints started rolling in.

So he's got a good chance of keeping his castle, I reckon.
& I sincerely hope he does.

HospiceRN · 01-25-2008, 04:55 PM

Great story!

Baltobonneville · 01-25-2008, 07:04 PM

We have people in Maryland who pull that kind of stuff (although not on such a scale) on Chesapeake Bay shore property all the time, in knowing violation of the law. Most of the time, they get away with it, which doesn't do much for the health of the Bay.

Lee · 01-25-2008, 07:30 PM

He needs to get the moat in place and some cross bows to protect the invading hoards. We all know a man's home is his castle, but it has a double meaning this time.

stanegoli · 01-25-2008, 10:18 PM

Tbirdnz you wrote "The oil and gold and anything below the surface becoming the property of the state".

Excuse me?

Are you saying that anything below ground in NZ belongs to the state?
What's up with that?

If that is correct you folks need a good ol' revolution to put things right

What about buried people? Do they become property of the state?

This sounds like something from the Theatre of the Absurd.