Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Fez Findie, Feb 4, 2010.
UK man's castle won't be his home, court says - Yahoo! News
So it really all boils down to he failed to pay the state and now the state has a hard on for him. Why couldn't he just pay the fine and then enact some sort of legislation to ensure it doesn't happen again? Sucks to lose the house.
Off with his head
What I find interesting is that not once in the article do they state that the house is structurally unsound or unsafe. It seems to have more to do with the fact he didn't jump through the administrative hoops.
If the house is unsafe and liable to collapse then yeah, I agree with this decision. But if not then this is pure horse crap.
I want one.
Leave the poor man alone. Figure out what the taxes would be for it and charge him. Don't make him tear it down.
Look, if he wanted to build a fortress, he should have become a feudal lord. That's how it works.
It IS entirely possible that his castle violates numerous building code laws, though, so the reasons for it being torn down may be more than political.
I don't understand why he couldn't build that if he wanted to. It's his land, right? It's just a house, and a nice one at that.
I guess building laws in the UK are pretty strict.
Never know if he's going to try and raise an army against her majesty, and that's a chance they don't want to take.
This is what happens when we don't outgrow our D7D phase by the time we have a wife and three kids.
Is that really why? Castle-like houses aren't permitted because of potential coups?
He didn't get planning permission to build it. It's this thing we have over here that says that even if you own your own land, you can't necessarily use it for what you want to just in case it annoys someone else.
He knew they'd never go for it (despite it not annoying anyone), so he tried to hide it for 4 years (the amount of time that has to pass before a structure can become exempt from this twatty law). This would have worked, except some bureaucratic f*cknut decided that pulling off the tarp he'd covered it with constituted "finishing building it".
yeah, i'd be appealing it if i were him. it's obviously well past the 4 year limit or whatever foolishness is involved. have an architect come in and check to make sure it's structurally sound and be done with it.
Nice to see that American prosecutors aren't the only ones in the world who waste taxpayer's time and money with dumbass personal missions.
Planning persmission laws are ridiculous. Basically anyone can lodge a complaint about your planning application too.
When my family moved to their current home, which is in the countryside down a private lane, they put up a fence. We had to make it lower and a metre further into our property becuase people complained. I re-iterate, private road, they basically complained that they couldn't see into our backgarden anymore.
A lot of people build extensions or structures assuming they'll get retroactive permission (which is possible) but then don;t and have to pay to have the whole thing torn down again. The law makes some sense, but not in the way it's applied.
Thing is, if you know a person or two on the planning board you can get permission for practically anything. But the law is applied haphazardly all over the place. A radio DJ moved in a bit further up the lane and was allowed his very tall fence right next to the road, but then in the case of Cheryl Cole (A footballers wife, judge on the X-Factor and supposedly a singer) tried to get permission to build a swimming pool underground on her property as she and the husband were getting hasseled by the paps at normal gyms, council said no. They said no to something that was underground and effected nobody, but they still said no.
A lot of our laws are ridiculous...
I work as a professional Land Planner.
The laws are as strict (in most places) in the US. It's your land, yes. It's your house, yes. Laws govern these things. Ownership of an item does not preclude regulation of said item.
I see a lot of people getting their ire up over something like this. That's all well and good except for two things:
-The law is the law. Zoning and regulation are legitimate legal authorities in the same vein as any other local ordinances. They are agreed upon by representitive officials of the people until such time that they are changed. Just because you don't like a law doesn't make it irrelevant. If reasonable means of changing laws or proceedures are available, then the system is sound and government actions are considered to be in good faith.
-It's fine to say that this is ridiculous...until it happens next to you. "People should be able to do what they want with their land." This guy's example may not be the most severe, but what if something more subtle resulted from it? What if his overbuilding resulted in the grading of the property changing and all of a sudden your basement floods everytime it rains due to the run-off water from his overbuilt property?
YJDK, and if you think you do, if you think you know better, pursue the legal means available to enact the change.
Part of me admires his ability to hide it in such a clever way and loves how the hose looks, the other part of me recognizes that the guy is kinda an asshole for trying to pull this off. Tearing the house down is a bit extreme IMO. It would be nice if he were given some sort of steep fine to discourage other people for trying this, its a shame to tear down such nice work if it is indeed safe to live in/structurally sound.
There's one guy in my hometown who built his house to look a lot like a castle. It's nowhere near castle-sized, of course, but it looks freaking awesome.
Separate names with a comma.