to think if you don't have planning permission, you should be prepared to face the consequences?

[ChucksAhoy]

Watching Damned Designs on C4 and although the programme seems to be very empathetic towards them, I can't help but not feel particularly sympathetic for those people who have tried to exploit loopholes in order to build their houses without planning permission.

If you're not sure, go for pre-planning advice but for goodness sake don't skip planning all together!

Planning law is there for a reason, and that's not to satisfy the whims of individuals (btw I don't work in Planning, but have been through the process!)

Agree. One case is relatively local and an arrogant twat who felt he was above the law.

I totally agree it is no coincidence that the Appeals' Board has just upheld an Enforcement Notice issues against our neighbours, no sirree.

Agree. It's very arrogant to assume that the normal rules shouldn't apply to you and your project.

I was just thinking the exact same thing. Especially the one where they built the house behind the wall of hay. The audacity of it!

The house behind the hay one got me too - kept thinking it was such a beautiful house and so much care and attention had gone into building it, but at the end of the day if they didn't have permission it's a bit rich to complain about the 9 year legal battle (or however long it was) putting a lot of stress on their family!

Yep, and lets be honest the only reason you wouldn't apply for planning is because you know you are going to be refused!

Agree. It's very arrogant to think you can just do what you like. The processes are there for a reason and if you don't follow them you should accept the consequences.

That black and white modern house that was overextended was gorgeous! I loved that

Agree with your point though

YES!!!! They deserve everything they get and I hope it costs them. How arrogant of them to think they can flout the law. If they are allowed to get away with it then it will open the floodgates for all sorts of 'monstrous carbuncles'!!

I agree, is it really worth the risk? I wonder why much the houses ended up costing them. Especially the straw one. And they'll end up with nothing.

Yes, particularly as every single house featured was an unbelievably hideous eyesore. Dreadful botch jobs to inflict on the environment.

Yes the "over-extended bungalow" was a blatant "the rules don't apply to me".

And arf at "I can't afford 100k to demolish the house", he said, with three 50k plus cars in the driveway.

We noticed the cars. The other houses were hideous (especially the faux castle built with grain silos) and the shark has been in the Oxford roof for at least 25 Years. It is in a road in Headington. We thought all the owners were wide boys and dodgy dealers. Arrogant too and had all sorts of excuses and hard luck stories about their problems, which, of course, they had brought upon themselves.

The pensioners ended up spending 300k on the land, caravans, legals and demolishion of the property. Why could they just have got a smaller second caravan?! They were the couple I felt sorriest for.

Mr Haybale and his wife seemed to completely disregard the fact that they acted in bad faith. They deliberately hid the house for four years, that 'loophole' was designed for properties out in plain sight which would give neighbours and authorities the chance to comment or object. I wonder if he ever got the planning permission through for the original conversion of the outhouse, which is how the whole thing started. I agree they should be able to build a modest property for agricultural purposes, but what I think my and the council's view on what constitutes modest would differ from theirs. Cool dome though.

Mr Bungalow was taking the hand. It looked ridiculous, the design of the place was crap. Which is to be expected, because he just seemed to decide on an ad hoc basis during the works that various flat roofs were a waste of space and that he should just whack another room on top and randomly move dormer windows about.

I felt a little sorry for the mobile home people. But maybe the council were fighting lots of other similar cases at the time and needed to make an example of someone.
The rest were just shysters trying it on with ugly houses!

I'd been wondering if I was being to harsh while I watched this last night because I didn't have any sympathy for the people featured.

The hay bale/castle couple kept going on about being little people fighting big people but, despite their attempts to play humility, they struck me as people who very much felt themsves to be a cut above. They didn't make an innocent mistake they deliberately set out to circumvent planning laws.

Bungalow man just seemed arrogant. He knew he was breaching planning when he moved dormer windows etc but did it any way. He gave me the impression that he is used to doing what he wants and being allowed to get away with it.

I missed the beginning, was there no compromise the Norfolk couple could have reached? I suspect that if they had made reasonable adjustments in the early days their home would never have been demolished. Arguments about how long somewhere has been your home don't stand for much if you know it's in breach from close to the moment you move in.

I'll be watching again next week!

If you go to the effort of hiding your house you know there's a chance it's going to be knocked down.

I did feel sorry for the older couple with the caravan, I did think there was room for compromise on that one rather than knocking it down.

I felt sorry for the older couple too.
I really wonder how many opportunities were missed because he was unable to read or write, did the Council just see him as arrogant, etc if he didn't reply to written correspondence or missed deadlines?
I know the issues that have arisen at a primary school level here when parents don't read or write and how the majority of people have assumed it was ignorance/not giving a toss when in fact a verbal request sorted it out simply.

Caught up with the last of these yesterday. Some of these people are unbelievably arrogant - 'I know I'm breaking the rules but they obviously don't apply to me' - then bleet about how hard done by they are. The couple with the log cabin who were told to take it down halfway through building it but carried on anyway and are now complaining about demolition! Mind you, I do think the councils should move quicker to enforce decisions rather than letting things drag on for ever.

If you don't apply for planning permission you deserve anything you get tbh. The people who build something they KNOW they shouldn't then try to hide it infuriate me. It's such a waste of money and time for the people who HAVE to sort it out...

I did feel for the poor sod with the bats though - Planning Dept saying house must be demolished, Environmental Dept saying bats mustn't be disturbed, classic case of left hand not talking to the right and him being stuck in the middle, having to cough for bat surveys etc. Even if he was a prat to build it in the first place it did seem very unfair.

I feel a bit guilty though - I live in a house that started as a two-up two down cottage and now has nine bedrooms, having been extended in all directions by everybody that lived in it over the last 150 years. You would never get it through planning today and it is a bit carbuncly Gormenghasty....

I did notice one common theme - departure of the long suffering partner. I wonder how often that was in exasperation at the stubborn man refusing to face reality.

I should add, we wanted to build on some land that was available at the in-laws but couldn't get planning permission, which is why we ended up buying this pile somewhere else. Which of course is the option available to all those in the programme.

Watched this programme and thought this the entire time...Yes I know its a shame you have bought land and you think you should be able to do what you want with it, but it doesn't work that way..

9 year legal battle?

I hope they have paid all legal costs, including tax payers. What a waste of public money and court time.

Unfortunately it does work that way if you are bigger and wealthier than the council. Tesco are notorious for applying for retroactive planning permission and then using its seemly unlimited resources to force it through.