XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, alt.internet.wireless, comp.mobile.android   
   From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   On 2025-12-04 11:20:38 +0000, J. P. Gilliver said:   
      
   > On 2025/12/4 0:43:14, Marian wrote:   
   >   
   > []   
   >   
   >> What I love about Usenet is we all work together as a team, where each   
   >> individual brings a completely different perspective to each discussion.   
   >   
   > This "minimum size" thing is certainly a different perspective! I don't   
   > _think_ anywhere in the UK has a minimum property size rule. (I vaguely   
   > remember - some decades ago - some people wanting to hinder development   
   > in some area sold off a field in square-yard patches, ideally to people   
   > abroad, thus making it difficult for any potential developer to even   
   > _contact_ all the owners, and something might have been done to prevent   
   > _that_, but we're talking many orders of magnitude different here!)   
   >   
   > []   
      
   There are minimum land sizes for residential development in New   
   Zealand. The actual figure depends on which regional city council it is   
   as well as what the area is designated as (high density housing, low   
   density housing, 'life-style block', etc.).   
      
   I can't find any similar rules in the UK, but there is a minimum house   
   size rule (depending on how many bedrooms, e.g. 37sqm for one bedroom   
   house), and there is a quasi-rule as to how much land is required for a   
   house (roughly 1.5 to 2 times the size of the house).   
      
      
      
   >> The point is that we have such large parcels that we use Wi-Fi to reach   
   >> hundreds of feet, which is easy for us since our radios go for miles.   
   >   
   > Whereas here the matter is more likely _preventing_ access by others,   
   > either accidentally or deliberately!   
   >   
   > In the UK, we limit building on agricultural land by what is generally   
   > referred to as planning permission, planning regulations, etc.; to a   
   > first approximation you need planning permission for any building work,   
   > anywhere (and in extremis if you build without it, you can be forced to   
   > take it down again, and probably fined too). There are exceptions and   
   > variations: you are allowed a certain amount of extension to existing   
   > buildings, and farmers need _less_ bureaucracy to erect agricultural   
   > buildings (e. g. barns) than dwelling-houses. In certain areas even the   
   > _type_ (style) of things is controlled, to preserve the character of the   
   > area; this may (and is!) sometimes seen as draconian, but the converse   
   > argument is that it is the character of the area that attracted you to   
   > it in the first place, and if you wanted to build a lot of concrete or   
   > tin boxes, you should have bought land somewhere else. But I'm getting   
   > off topic even from our off topic: basically, agricultural land is   
   > protected from being built on, basically on the basis that we need to   
   > preserve what ag. land we've got, at least where it's _good_ ag. land.   
   > (Also AONBs - areas of outstanding natural beauty - and national parks -   
   > even if not actually _good_ ag. land.)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)