Illegal house extension demolished

Page 2 of 5  

wrote:

LOL. How witty they are in Sarf Landan.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You must know Del-Boy
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I think that you are looking at a different country from my UK!
--
A T (Sandy) Morton
on the Bicycle Island
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

IT must be. My UK is the one between the North Sea and the Atlantic Ocean.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 22:11:24 +0100, Sandy Morton

No. Having flown over much of the UK, I can confirm that the majority is pretty flat, with some exceptional areas in parts of Wales and Scotland. I can also confirm that the vast majority is open fields and woodland.
I would be extemely surprised if as much as 10% was impossible to build on due to topography.
Obviously the major road systems run between villages, towns and cities, which gives the car driver an incorrect perception of the ratio between open space and built-up areas.
--
Cynic


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Very astute observation and very correct. Get off the A roads and onto the back B roads and tracks and only the odd falling down barn you see. Get out and walk and sometimes you are lucky to see the odd building. The UK is very open and unbuilt upon country.
I would be extremely surprised if 3-4% was impossible to build on due to topography. After all the highest mountain in Wales has a railway running up to the top.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

True (and some of us like living in the more "open and unbuilt upon" parts).

How many people, though, would want to live at the top of the highest mountain in Wales?
Even if the UK's planning laws were revolutionized, I imagine that the results would be even greater concentrations of population - for example, every piece of open land within easy commuting distance of London (and Manchester, and B'ham, and ...) would be built on.
Julian
--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And that is true.

Put executive hillside homes with dramatic views and they will be lining up my boy. Lining up. With modern communications you don't need to be right in the work place any more. That is a point the 1947 T&C planning act does not address and curtails advancement.

The "urban spawl" propaganda emotive statements again. I doubt that would happen at all. The drift away from major urban centres is still going on in the UK. The UK was the first to concentrate the population in urban centres the Industrial Revolution and the first to de-urbanise after WW2. This process is still going on. For example, Liverpool was about 1 million strong just after WW2, it is now about 550,000. Virtually all other cities have seen the same population reductions too, including London.
People want easy access to open spaces, space immediately around them and easy access to facilities. Many, mainly those without families, want to be out in the fields and woods. the problem is they won't let you build on subsidised open fields that only contribute 3% to the economy. people actually want to be a part of the countryside, but that are prevented from doing so.
As only 7.5% of the UKs land mass is built on, urban and rural, then if the urban footprint was doubled, that is still only 15% of the land mass. The likelihood of reaching 10% is very slim, never mind 15%.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<snip>
Not in significant numbers, they won't ... unless, of course, those "executive hillside homes" are being bought as weekend cottages :-)

True, but unless someone puts massive investment into infrastructure then its exactly those "empty" spaces that don't have modern communications (whether it be broadband 'net access, high speed efficient rail links, proximity to int'l air travel, ...).

Thought experiment: remove all planning restrictions in (say) the Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District. Just how many people do you imagine are going to be clamouring to build/buy new homes there (assuming that there are no changes to the distribution of economic activity, improvements to infrastructure, etc.)?
Hint: compare the price of a 4 bed detached house, in half an acre of garden, in Cumbria with one in your beloved Essex.

Not at all ... I'm simply saying that people *want* to be able to live relatively close to their places of work (often, as close as they can afford to). Remove planning restrictions and they will go to new homes built close to existing towns and cities, rather than those in the Welsh mountains, Dartmoor, the Lincolnshire fens, etc.

Right. So that's why every road, rail, and air link to/from London is full to over capacity every morning and every evening.

... and where have those people gone? Satellite/dormitory towns and villages in Cheshire and Lancashire -- most of them will still be commuting in/out of L'pool or other major urban centres.

You *really* don't get it, do you? Even if every "subsidised open field" was available for building, nothing would happen: people want (in many cases need) to live close to their places of employment. Those places are overwhelmingly in towns and cities.
And quite where you get the idea that "those without families" have specific interest in being "out in the fields and woods" I haven't a clue ... (unless your source book for rural life is "Winnie The Pooh"). The only parameter that's different is the issue of access to schools, and in my experience it is exactly families *with* children who are most interested in living in / having immediate access the country rather than in large towns or cities -- but will compromise on this if proximity to schools, supermarkets, etc. becomes a problem.

My point is that is exactly what would happen - an increase in the urban footprint - cities and towns become larger (in terms of area occupied), with reduced population density. Opening up the other 85% of the land for potential building is going to result in ... absolutely nothing.
Julian
--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I beg to differ.

I omitted to mention that the era of the autonomous house is here. No sewers as septic tanks can be used. Power by LPG or oil, electricity via Comboined Heat and Power which can be a fuel cell. Vaillant are doing some major work in this area. Communication via wireless. The days of the ribbon development following the sewers, power, telephone, water and gas lines are near gone. The countryside can be opened up for people to live, if the bastards will let you.

I don't know, as I know little about the district. If people,want to build houses there, let them. If they want the new house built from local stone to the local vernacular then fine. I can't see an issue except NIMBYism.

Value. This obession with value.

Because of business. You notice that people are living elsewhere and travelling to do business. Nothing new there.

Of course some people;el commute to the local large towns and cities, nevertheless local industries crop up and local services employ a lot of people. The new, or expanded towns, are a far cry from the overcrowded slums they replaced.

That is not necessarily the case. There are countless small industries in rural areas. Also the T&C planning act forced commercial and industrial concentrations.

Many people without the burden of a family are quite prepared to live out in the wilds, if there is such a thing in the UK.

Let's pretend your view is the case, then why prevent people building in the countryside as we presently do? You require some linear thinking lessons.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Running in telephone cables is chicken feed to running in all the other services. Fast wireless Internet is here already.may be not in your street yet.

I'll see what I can do.

That is their choice. And it is the choice of people to live near a wood in the wilds if they were allowed to.

Those areas are mainly national parks so no one even applies.

And less in Cornwall too.

<snip>
House prices reflect the local economy and wages. A house in Cumbria may be less than Essex, yet the people in Cumbria earn less to suit.

That is more to do with under investment in infrastructure rather than a housing/land problem. Compare the infrastructure around Paris to that of London. No comparison.

No just de-regulate planning, full stop.

Depends on what era of post WW2.

Colectively quite a lot and it would be far more if the planning system did not push industry and commerce into towns and cities.

Economic considerations dictate where they setup. A friend of mine is the legal man in a company that has been in the City for around 180 years. They have realised that the land they own is worth a fortune and that they don't need to be in the City any more as modern communications dictate otherwise. They looked around and homed in on Milton Keynes for the excellent transport networks and housing, either in the city or the surrounding villages. They considered having temporary accommodation in MK and then moving out to the edge of one of the surrounding villages with a complex surrounded by trees, etc. Great for image and the employees, etc. Could they get permission? Could they hell! They are still assessing the move.

Rewriting the planning laws would certainly make matters far better for the average person in then UK that is certain. Redistributing land or introducing Land Value Tax, Liverpool is trying to get the government to allow them to introduce it. would also improve matters considerably too. Not Utopia, but far ,far better than the Stalinist system we currently have that only benefits large landowners and large developers.

If the odd person makes a killing here and thee so what. The end justifies the means. Better is the means were fairer too.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

/street/village-and-surrounding-area// :-(
Anyway (as I'm sure you know) running cables isn't the issue. BT were happy to lay a new connection from here to the local exchange to ensure that my ISDN lines worked correctly; however, their own short-sightedness and the restrictions placed on them by the gov't and Offtel mean that they can't / won't enable ADSL at the same exchange.
"Fast wireless" internet connections have issues with security and reliability -- and still require a moderately local connection into the BT infrastructure.
As with most of your "solutions", waving a magic wand is not going to solve anything over night :-(
Julian
--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The solutions are there though and that is the main point. Working on them can make matters better.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 16:41:21 +0100, Julian Fowler

And latency. A major issue if you want to run a VPN (Virtual Private Network) into another location. Satellite is, by all accounts, useless for this application.
And then there's the gamers.....1
--
Mike Pellatt
Just use R(eply) (from a standards-compliant newsreader)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 19:51:49 -0000, Mike Pellatt

That depends on the technology used. My wireless internet connection (3.6-4.2GHz) shows pretty respectable latency to the router at the base station - below 20mS for most of the time. Some of the terrestrial connections beyond it are not much better.

It can be, but not typically at the kind of latencies involved in this type of connection or even WiFi.
Jitter can be an issue for certain traffic types.

It isn't really intended for interactive operation, but is fine for bulk data transfer. Encryption can be made to work over satellite quite successfully.

Quite. These people seem to want to bitch the most about the odd millisecond or two of latency and yet want to pay little or nothing for the connection. In my view they should be surcharged for a higher class of service.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 19:51:49 -0000, Mike Pellatt

That depends upon the equipment. If the satellite router is capable of intelligently buffering data and ACK spoofing, the throughput of a large file download is identical to a low latency link. The same is true if the machines at each end have a data window size larger than 2 X path delay X data rate - which I'm sure would soon happen if the demand were high enough.
So long as that is taken care of, the biggest hit due to path delay is in the initial connection delay, which can be several seconds per TCP/IP connection.
There are no special problems associated with UDP connections, so streaming audio and video are just as good across a satellite link.
A satellite link can have a megabyte of data *in transit*.
Anyway, a wide area wireless network does not have to be satellite based. We already have good coverage for mobile phones. Another idea that has been suggested often would be to have a few high-altitude airships to act as transponders instead of satellites. The economics are far more favourable than satellite, and such a project would technically be very feasable. Even staying with satellites, we could use a network of low orbiting satellites instead of geo-synchronous satellites. The technology would be more complex, but the latency would be lower.
--
Cynic


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 16:41:21 +0100, Julian Fowler

That does rather depend on the technology used. I have a wireless internet connection in the 3.6 - 4.2GHz band based on Alvarion (Breezecom) equipment. The wireless part of the connection is very reliable under all weather conditions, even though I am towards the edge of the service area and not in an ideal location. The terrestrial part of the network is certainly no worse than for other ISP connections that I have used, and again is quite reliable.
Different methods of security are used to WEP in 802.11, but in any case with a public internet connection, security should not be assumed. If that is required to any worthwhile level then it should be implemented as a VPN or equivalent solution at the IP level not below. So wireless connections can be criticised for security risk, but in reality this is only the case because the inventors set out to do something that doesn't belong at their level in the stack.

.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes

Just look at e.g. the Alps, there are loads of homes far higher than Snowdon or even Ben Nevis. I remember getting to the top of Faulhorn in Switzerland years ago only to find that there was a hotel built at the top of that !

It might help if you were e.g. a factory worker or a dustman
--
geoff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Maxie, they are not likely to live in executive homes, except the emergency plumber of course.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 05/08/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.