As James Dyson Is Finding Out, Your Property Is Not Your Own

4
1464

A useful definition of “property” is whatever it is that you’ve the right to decide about. If you can decide upon the disposition of whatever it is then it’s your property, if you can’t then it isn’t.

Of course, this all comes in something of a spectrum. It may well be my hand warmer and no one is going to dispute that it’s my property at all but there would be a certain societal resistance to my converting it to a hand held nuclear furnace. And, to be fair, rightly so.

And yet, that chunk of rolling greensward that has been the first purchase of every Englishman who has made it – to become country gentry in three generations time being the grand ambition – isn’t quite the property that many think it is or should be:

Sir James Dyson has lost a battle with conservationists after he was forced to abandon plans to build a man-made waterfall at his £20 million country estate.

The billionaire inventor lodged proposals to fit the water feature at his Dodington Estate in Gloucestershire as well as increase the size of one of three lakes that form part of the River Frome which flows through the grounds.

But conservationists from Historic England raised concerns the waterfall wouldn’t fit into the natural landscape at the 300-acre Georgian estate, while adding enlarging the lake would result in the loss of important green space.

The man-made waterfall, also known as a cascade, was earmarked to be built between two lakes, replacing a natural one already in place considered to be unsightly.

Have Historic England coughed up the money to purchase this estate? Has it been gifted to them? Nope, it hasn’t. It was bought, fair and square, by Dyson from the Codrington family. It’s his.

Except, it isn’t, is it? He’s not even allowed to change the damn waterfall in the middle of his park.

The next little estate down the road, Dyrham Park, is actually owned by the National Trust and thus they get to do as they wish with it. Dodington is private property except, as above, it isn’t really, is it?

So, the question becomes, how much privacy of that property do we have left? And how much of the ownership has actually been transferred to any little squirt willing to spend 20 years climbing the greasy pole of the civil services?

4
Leave a Reply

avatar
4 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
5 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
Quentin VolejghBloke on M4Michael van der Riet Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Michael van der Riet
Guest
Michael van der Riet

Even Anglo-Saxon doesn’t have a word for these ghastly little people.

Bloke on M4
Guest
Bloke on M4

I’m not against covenants on property, if they’re limited, upfront and clear, and for a good reason. Like I think people who buy a bit of the Royal Crescent should keep it that way. But Historic England are generally a menace. Apart from the questions of rights, they also get in the way of development. Broken buildings (like the old Corn Exchange and the Mechanics Institute in Swindon) sit as idle, crumbling wrecks because their demands make re-purposing the buildings into restaurants or hotels non-viable. The developers want to keep most of it, but things need to be knocked through… Read more »

jgh
Guest
jgh

So when is the retrospective planning enforcement going to be served on Chatsworth House?

Quentin Vole
Guest
Quentin Vole

If you’d like to do what you want with your own property, don’t buy a Grade I listed building. There, that wasn’t too difficult, was it? If he didn’t realise the implications when he bought it, his lawyers should have explained it to him.