Jump to content

Because they can.....


Recommended Posts

It's a sad indictment of our society that we cannot allow a few people to live their lives ''off piste'' if that is their rather unusual desire without invoking the Gypsy, non tax payer, why should he be allowed to get away with it when I can't attitude that will always, it seems, arise on MF?

It's a one off situation that could be settled with a lease to continue, with conditions, that would solve the legal,  neighbour and Dept concerns.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, A fool and his money..... said:

I think you'd be surprised what's allowed under permitted development these days, no planning permission required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well I know for a fact that people have been  refused planning. There was a woman not so long ago wanting to build a small hut for her business in her garden and it was refused. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kopek said:

😄

She should've said it was a potting shed????

Quite right tho, putting a shed in your garden/back yard for personal use is different from 'business use'??

No different from having a glampimg business I would say.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kopek said:

It's a sad indictment of our society that we cannot allow a few people to live their lives ''off piste'' if that is their rather unusual desire without invoking the Gypsy, non tax payer, why should he be allowed to get away with it when I can't attitude that will always, it seems, arise on MF?

It's a one off situation that could be settled with a lease to continue, with conditions, that would solve the legal,  neighbour and Dept concerns.

As for the non-tax payer argument, I have no problem with someone who decides to "live outside of the system", providing they don't cost the system and don't interfere with others' rights, which this guy has.

It is a one off situation, but could set an unwelcome precedent for very many other situations.  So, it could not have been settled with a lease as an easy answer.  How could a lease solve the neighbour issue of him accessing his shack over the neighbour's land?  It is not DEFA's land to give a right of access over. 

I get that many people like his pioneering spirit and ecologically sound intentions, they are admirable.  But, he should have done it right in the first place and got legal advice before building his shack.  That may have saved a lot of this and given him something more permanent. 

Having said all that, no-one is stopping him from living as he wishes, just not on someone else's land. 

Edited by Gladys
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Gladys said:

But he was invited to live there, and it is probably our government's obligation to provide it.  If that is the best counterargument you have, then I'm out. 

Ok, first of all I'm a mate of Dan's, so I'm not an impartial observer.

I also listened to the arguments in court.

The sole objector is the same bloke who encouraged Dan to live up there in the first place and whose builder levelled some ground where the cabin sits and provided timber etc for the build. His house does not overlook Dan's cabin and all access to Nut Glen is via a public footpath. There is very limited noise from Dan's as he lives out there to commune with nature  and has no electricity. If this same objector fulfils his plan to build houses up there, then he may be somewhat further put out, but hey, the money will soften the blow.

Who actually owned the land at the time is still somewhat of a moot point, the case eventually came down to one possible claimant, the objector, saying to defa that he did not want to make claim to it.

Defa, those wonderful stewards of the land (Whose land? The government's? Who do they work for, the people?), who ensure public access and maintenance to this wonderful amenity, did not know they owned this land which had become a dumping ground of old vehicle parts and barbed wire. Dan cleaned the place up in the preceding years when he was the caretaker for the now objector, not as an act of possession, but because that's what he does. Word of warning, if you go for a walk on the beach with the bloke, you'll end up walking back carrying armfuls of plastic!

This is the same department who praised his act of trying to live sustainably while initiating the action of eviction. What you do, and what you are seen to do, may not be the same thing. On the subject of sustainability, Dan gets groups of kids from the high school coming up to visit him, genuinely interested in his style of life and workmanship. This bloke is a resource, not a threat. Give him a license to live there. He doesn't want ownership.

The new minister, once seemingly supportive, is now apparently beholden to her officers. She's learnt quickly that one, and I wonder at the point of voting when the upper echelons of the civil service give the orders to our elected representatives, not the other way round.

The whole case also, as mentioned by another poster, raises questions of the ownership of land in modern (!) society. We still seem to doff our caps to the wealthy and offer no opportunity to a growing minority who will never have a place to really call their own. Planning favours the super rich. Bring me your gambling pounds, your laundered pounds, your roubles. The Department of Enterprise will not be backing Dan's planning application, as they did John Moore's. Now where is that brown envelope emoji?

One final point (I could go on - don't stand next to me in the pub), I don't think Dan does defecate anywhere and everywhere in the nude, I think he wears clothes and uses his compost toilet. But, if he does, I suggest he bags it and chucks it off Peel breakwater, which appears to be satisfactory, 'in the swim' even!

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Elms-gate' (remember that one?) was proof that our 'planning application system' is inconsistent and flawed. For spurious reasons, some applicants are not allowed to build a garden shed whilst others were seemingly being able to get away with 'environmental vandalism', until the public got involved, and won.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Kopek said:

It's a sad indictment of our society that we cannot allow a few people to live their lives ''off piste'' if that is their rather unusual desire without invoking the Gypsy, non tax payer, why should he be allowed to get away with it when I can't attitude that will always, it seems, arise on MF?

Edge cases are tough. What he's achieved up there is impressive. But it's not his land and he's not got planning consent.

The problem is you can't go "oh he's a good egg, we'll let him off" because the use of discretion does set precedent. And so next time, when the next person isn't such a good egg and we don't want to let them off, it becomes much harder to enforce the rules. "You did it before" is a surprisingly strong argument when it comes to statutory decision-making; governments can't be capricious and can't fetter their discretion.

I also really don't think we'd be having this conversation if it was a group of Travellers living "off piste" up there, even if everything else was the same.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

But we don’t have to put the boot in on him and kick him off the land. A peppercorn lease with DEFA could have been put in place to give him the means to stay there.

It could, but then you've then set a precedent that you sonetimes give your land up to squatters. So when next time you say no to a squatter, it's harder to make it legally justifiable.

Edge cases are tough. Nobody will be enjoying it. But what are DEFA meant to do when a) They have a squatter and b) they have received complaints about the presence of said squatter.

Edited by Ringy Rose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's there for four years FFS. It's taken that long for DEFA to realise it owns the land and get around to doing something about it and he still hasn't been evicted.

If somebody wanted to live somewhere for free, or some travellers wanted to move over and set up camp, a four year free reign on DEFA land is a pretty good deal. The enforcement precedent has already been set, just move on every four years and you're fine. But nobody has used it, nobody is likely to use it either.

Setting another precedent that nobody will use either is a pretty weak argument to use in evicting this fella. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, A fool and his money..... said:

Setting another precedent that nobody will use either is a pretty weak argument to use in evicting this fella. 

I think it is fairly obvious DEFA were turning a blind eye until the noisy complaints started coming in. But once the complaints did come in from nearby landowners there's not much choice.

It's rough, but also them's the risks when you build your home on land you don't own.

Edited by Ringy Rose
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complaint singular. They still have choices. They can have a look at what the complaint is about. Is it about him accessing his hut via a public footpath? Is it about the lack of planning ( he has now applied retroactively)? 

Some people will complain about anything. It doesn't necessarily mean their complaint should be upheld.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

I think it is fairly obvious DEFA were turning a blind eye until the noisy complaints started coming in. But once the complaints did come in from nearby landowners there's not much choice.

It's rough, but also them's the risks when you build your home on land you don't own.

They weren't turning a blind eye, they didn't know they 'owned' the land, or that Dan was there. He's not easy to find if you don't know where to look.

If you read my earlier post, both the complainant and Defa have actively encouraged the fella to live there. He did the land register checks, it took quite a complicated court case to come to an agreement that defa own that land, and that was more to do with the other person who could have claimed ownership relinquishing any claim. We still don't really know who owned the land at the time Dan moved on to it. This could have led to a possible appeal, but I think Dan was drained by that time, having conducted his own defence.

Interestingly, the claimant's desire to move Dan on seems to occur at the same time he starts considering trying to develop land he own's round there.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Boris Johnson said:

Hey, Hey, they are not plastic..................

"The Rack" is totally natural and one of, if not the best racks, in modern day internet photography.

I challenge anyone to post a pic of a better, more in proportion and just, well hanging rack than hers.

The Baroness should be Queen of this island and rule over us with her considerable assets.

 

Good lunch was it? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...