You are reading a single comment by @Oliver Schick and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Oliver Schick-
Based on what I've seen so far, it doesn't seem that interesting to me. Might be a bit of legal tax planning involved, perhaps some careful use of permitted development rights, but nothing that would get me particularly outraged.
-
It’s that deadly combination of technical, boring, borderline invasive and inconclusive. And only tangentially related to the original story.
Bit of a turn off for the readers I would have thought. Sure if you hate Cummings then fill ya boots. Doubt many editors will die on a hill to give it oxygen.
Brommers
Howard
Someone has checked the Land Registry title. That won't tell you whether or not it's his second home, merely that he's one of the registered owners. Similarly, the absence of planning permission may be easily explicable. The additional building may have been built for agricultural purposes, in which case it wouldn't have needed planning permission, and then converted into a dwelling under Part Q permitted development, which wouldn't have needed planning permission either.