On the subject of Odey\’s chicken coop

These people at The Guardian really are stupid.

The hedge fund manager\’s plans to house his hens in a galline Parthenon are not just tasteless – they\’re clucking offensive

Sigh.

Planning laws for non-agricultural buildings and for agricultural buildings are very different.

Effectively you\’re allowed to throw up an ag building as long as the council passes the design. You have to ask permission to throw up a non-ag building, one that is often denied.

So, if you wished to build a folly in the grounds of your home, would you go to the council and ask for permission to build a folly? Or would you call your folly a chicken coop and ask the council to approve the design?

Quite.

20 comments on “On the subject of Odey\’s chicken coop

  1. In theory, what a private individual chooses to do with his or her money is nobody else’s business.

    He should have removed the first two words and stopped there.

  2. It’s just the same work around stupid rules regulations laws that has people doing things like building a garage before knocking down a house.

    Permitted development rights are restarted when you build so you use up the old house’s rights for the garage, then when you have a finished house you have a clean slate with regards permitted rights to do a bit more expansion in the future.

  3. Odey has applied for planning permission for his chicken house, and it has been granted.

    So in this instance it’s not the people at the Guardian who are stupid.

  4. @PaulB: all agricultural buildings have to go through the full planning process nowadays, its just that they can’t refuse them, other than in certain circumstances. But they would have far fewer grounds to turn down an application for a chicken coop (however ornate) than they would for a folly. So TW’s point stands.

  5. I would love to see him attempt to get this through the Dartmoor National Park Authority. It’s outrageous enough to succeed.

  6. There have been a number of cowsheds built, over the years, that looked remarkably like the bungalow that the farmer wanted to retire into. Many of them were bulldozed(!) as the design failed the aesthetic of the L.A.

  7. Actually there were some quite sensible and amusing comments.

    Maybe it really is just the grauniad columnists who are utter wankers not necessarily or always the wider readership?

  8. since when were we only allowed to comment on things that are “our business”?

    (imho, if some people are going to be vastly richer than the rest of us, awesome chicken accommodation is a fine thing to spend their riches on).

  9. In theory, what a private individual chooses to do with his or her money is nobody else’s business…
    In practice, this isn’t always the case, and with good reason. We are a society, not simply a collection of individuals, and our behaviour has ramifications. We participate in an economy, where our decisions about money affect others… media reports estimate the stone alone will cost more than £100,000.’

    So presumably some of the ‘others’ who Odey’s ‘behaviour’ ‘affects’ will be the people employed in quarries, transport, and building.

    ‘You are free to indulge silly fantasies, to treat yourself, to spend on things others might perceive as having no value.’

    I ‘perceive’ The Guardian ‘as having no value’, and I would dearly love to see a time when people stopped indulging in the ‘silly fantasy’ of reading it.

  10. Charles Schwab, who. at one time owned U.S. Steel (I think he sold it to Andrew Carnegie) had an estate which he gave (or left at death) for the establishment of a Catholic college (St. Francis)
    in Loretto, PA.

    During WWII, the military (Army, I think, but not sure) housed men in the all-brick chicken coops.

  11. >So, if you wished to build a folly in the grounds of your home, would you go to the council and ask for permission to build a folly?

    If it needs planning permission, yes.

    If it is Permitted Development (more the 5m from the house, less than 30sqm, less than 4m to the apex if not close to the boundary), no.

    > Or would you call your folly a chicken coop and ask the council to approve the design?

    The question is irrelevant.

  12. Well, if we’re discussing monumental edifices where the incumbents don’t merit the grandeur of the architecture……..you’d suppose a Guardian columnist would be keen on changing the subject.

  13. Aha, looks like Tim is right; see the planning inspector’s report:
    http://publicaccess.fdean.gov.uk/online-applications/files/FA8029967563B60DF1379886EE1B88D3/pdf/P0877_10_FUL–180583.pdf

    It’s in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, so Permitted Development Rights don’t apply (and the house is listed, although this seems to be outside the listed area).

    And yes, he is claiming it as agricultural use – “the land is required for agricultural use … land can revert to agricultural use without planning permission”.

  14. And as for the Guardian’s sneery comments on his use of classical architecture, it is designed to be “in keeping with the character and appearance” of the existing listed house.

    I thought the Guardian was in favour of planning rules and restrictions on what owners can do with listed buildings?

  15. Come off it, the council’s “reason for approval” doesn’t even mention agricultural use as a factor. Tim was just being gratuitously insulting to the Guardian because that’s what he does.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>