Man's 'secret castle' ordered destroyed by British authorities;

its a lovely looking house, it was on itvs new homes from hell.
he built for £70,000 largely using his own time, i think it took 2 years? i dont believe he used substandard resources to bulid his house,why would you if you intend living in it!
it is possible to build a very nice house for your self for that kind of money, if you have time and talent.

its a shame, that local government are going to vandalise such a nice house, built to live in, not to be sold off as an investment, simply because they can.its his OWN land for gods sake.its not like its a blot on the landscape!

How sad. I just saw the photos of the construction and it is breathtaking. How unfortunate to destroy art due to a bloated bureaucracy. Hopefully it can be retro-approved. It's truly a work of craftsmanship.

This is another example of pure insanity on behalf of the government. If he owns the land there should be no-one who tells him how or why to build anything he wishes. He owns the land god-damnit!

But no, we have all kinds of restrictions and regulations on every possible scenario anyone could come up with. Where is the freedom of the people? I tell you, nowhere!

I have to add that even though he did not get planning permision he did use a loop hole in the law that states that if the building is not contested within 4 years it can legal stand.

It was not contested they have decided that he carried out substantial building work in removing the hay bales.

They are tryin to re-write the law an make the change applicable to him.

In saying that if any of you have ever had dealings with a council department in the UK they are generally filled with the most loathsome hell bent on filling there pockets and running a mountrus bureaucracy types of people.

I wanted to put up a non load bering wall with a door in my house and the council wanted £250 just to give me permission. The cost of the work £300.

I can see why he did it but he does admit himself he was taking a chance.

Also people seem to think that the plannning laws keep the local archtecture looking nice and fitting in with its surrounding, my answer to that is try traveling through a large city in Scotland or even a large village and it is not the case.

reply to post by malcr


Well, I think that's just sensationalist paranoia, to be honest. People are not going to start making shanty towns all over England if they let this man's house stand. Bogus.

I think we can all agree that this is a special case. They can reprimand the man given the situation, file the appropriate fines, etc.

It's already been said that he is legally allowed to keep his home after a set time, should it be proven safe to reside in. I hardly think it will spawn a home invasion across the fields of Britain.

I wouldn't have issue should this have been some crack-pot construction project and everyone had problems with it. They can stop those cases, if they arise. It's already been said that this has been a story for years and years... so where's all the other houses that are supposed to spring up because this man is "challenging the law"? Seems people are content, and not going buck wild with houses.

I disagree with the setting of a precedent. He broke the law, that's all. He is still legally able to keep the home without breaking any laws. If he is REFUSED appeal on the grounds of deception alone, then a law is being broken. The only people trying to circumvent and dodge the law are the councilmen and the court.


[edit on 4-2-2010 by SyphonX]

reply to post by SyphonX

I think we can all agree that this is a special case. They can reprimand the man given the situation, file the appropriate fines, etc.

Have you read the thread? Perhaps you should apply for planning permission for an ill-formed conclusion. It'd be declined on the basis of shoddy workmanship

It isn't a special case. It isn't a precedent. He's knowingly tried to deceive the authorities, took his chances and lost. Yes, there's too much bureaucracy and red tape in the world, but this guy's house isn't the stick we can beat it with.

Little idea.....I wonder what he'd think if someone tried the same trick adjacent to his land? Maybe a squatter builds a small shack and went unnoticed for...hmmmmm.....4 years?

Would he:

A - Celebrate the freedom of the individual.
B - Contact the authorities and complain.

reply to post by Kandinsky


Do me a favor. Stop trying to bring my reading comprehension into question every time I don't agree with what someone says. Doesn't work, never will work.

The man broke the law. However, there is still a law that states he can Keep His Home if an inspection proves it's up to code. For the authorities to deny him this, and order that he is denied the right to keep his home.. when the law clearly says he can, then THEY will be breaking the law. Not him.

If he keeps his house, there will not be an invasion of "squatters" as you put it, building shacks all over the place. They didn't do it years ago when people knew about the "castle" and they wont' do it now. That's just drama, and it doesn't lend any credence to what's going on here. If he keeps his home, it won't set a precedent to repeal the planning law that he already (and obviously) pleads guilty to.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Little idea.....I wonder what he'd think if someone tried the same trick adjacent to his land? Maybe a squatter builds a small shack and went unnoticed for...hmmmmm.....4 years?

A squatter doesn't own land. If a "squatter" tries to build something on or next to his property, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they hid the construction or not, because they didn't own any property to begin with.

I'm still waiting to see where are these crazy squatters and dimwitted house builders are hiding, collaborating in secret amongst themselves to build houses illegally. They must be on the horizon somewhere, ready to pounce at a moment's notice.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by SyphonX]

Originally posted by SyphonX
Well, I think that's just sensationalist paranoia, to be honest. People are not going to start making shanty towns all over England if they let this man's house stand. Bogus.

UK law is based on precedents.

If the house is left to stand, a precedent has been set that others will choose to exploit.

This property is NOT a castle by any stretch of the word. Thats some journalistic nonsense. Its a folly. It holds no cultural or national significance - in fact its ONLY significance is that of belonging to a person who wanted to screw the system because he knew that he wouldn't get permission for it if he asked.

Its not overblown bureaucracy, its common sense. As Fang pointed out earlier in thread the UK has a population of over 60 million people, contained in an area not much bigger than New England, where you reside (According to your profile info)

Should the precedent be set that you can build a house without the relevant permissions and oversight from the Local Authority it will be exploited, either by individuals or corporations looking to expand onto greenbelt land.

Despite people's attitudes that this sort of thing is acceptable, one has to wonder, why can't a man build what he wants on his own land? This just goes all the way back to the fact that nobody really 'owns' anything, not if other people can tell you what you can, or can't do with it. Some of the responses on here are downright mean, some people on here act as if they were personally injured by this ordeal. What does the appearance of the home have to do with the price of tea in china? Honestly, this all boils down to greed, as it usually does. Because the man didn't grease the right palms, he didn't hire the appropriate construction 'experts' (an oxymoron in some cases surely), so his home has to go. Pay through the nose for something, or build it with my own two hands? Hmmm, seem like and easy choice to me.

Chrono

reply to post by neformore


No it's not a precedent. He's already broken the law, and the law already states he can keep his home if it has stood for a set period of time. No precedent there, he already has the right to appeal, which he is.

Saying that he can't appeal it and that it must be destroyed, is a precedent, not the other way around.

We'll see how it pans out.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by SyphonX]

Originally posted by SyphonX
reply to post by neformore

 

No it's not a precedent. He's already broken the law, and the law already states he can keep his home if it has stood for a set period of time. No precedent there, he already has the right to appeal, which he is.

Saying that he can't appeal it and that it must be destroyed, is a precedent, not the other way around.

Allowing him to keep the property in less time than the law previously allowed sets a new precedent.

A good barrister would then be able to argue that any timescale imposition is unreasonable - as the previous one proved to be - and therefore new properties can be constructed without the relevant permissions which may then be obtained at a later date.

reply to post by neformore


Good points.

They are saying the time he spent in the home is void because nobody had ever seen it, so I'm assuming they mean that it was never inspected.

How exactly would that rule apply then? It's clear that nobody would ever be able to ever use that rule given how expedited any case like this would be. How does a house stand for 4-5 years if the court will never allow it to happen? That's pretty much what makes his case, and explains why he built it in "secret".

Just wondering where they can stop the clock though. Did it stop when they "became aware" of the building, or can the rule keep running as long as his case does?

Either way the case goes, something is going to be changed.


[edit on 4-2-2010 by SyphonX]

Originally posted by neformore
This property is NOT a castle by any stretch of the word. Thats some journalistic nonsense. Its a folly.

Well, I don't know! It looks like a fix between a small castle and a house to me. The first definition for "castle" on dictionary.com is:

a fortified, usually walled residence, as of a prince or noble in feudal times.

Look at the pictures. He could fit about 40 to 50 archers along the crenelation of those battlements and hold against several medium to semi-large groups of armed peasants for about a week.

Or...

reply to post by Cadbury


Well, these are feudal times indeed, and he could most certainly stand a better chance of fending off an attack with that home rather than a standard 1-floor Ranch house.

He should level 1/3 of the middle of the house and put up a decent trebuchet on the ground. Just need somewhere to store the projectiles.

Originally posted by SyphonX
Just wondering where they can stop the clock though. Did it stop when they "became aware" of the building, or can the rule keep running as long as his case does?

I'm guessing that the clock stopped as soon as they discoved it and wrote to the guy telling him he was in breach of planning regulations.

When it boils down to it the guy got caught with his pants down.

I'm aware of at least two other attempts at doing this from an Authority I used to work at - one guy built a barn, then a house inside it with the intention of taking the barn down after the time limit had expired, and another built a single storey property and hid it behind an earth mound and scrap tyres. He also tried to claim that was a barn when he was found out, but I remember the planning inspectors asked him what use pigs had for a fully fitted bathroom

reply to post by SyphonX

Do me a favor. Stop trying to bring my reading comprehension into question every time I don't agree with what someone says. Doesn't work, never will work.

I'm going to bring your reading comprehension into question just one more time. You misunderstood the post. It's not personal, just clearing up a point.

When I mentioned squatters, it wasn't suggesting that squatters would appear and squat all over his land. I was pointing out that if he's allowed to dodge the law of the land...so can anyone else. If someone tricked the law and built a property on or near his land....how would he react? Would he applaud their sneakyassness or would he report them to the authorities?

The essence of law is that it applies to all of us.

reply to post by Kandinsky


Well, someone can't build on another person's property, period. That's rather silly to suggest.. Hypothetically, someone manages to do it, he would obviously object because it's his property.

If someone was sneaky and built near his land, i.e. on their own land exercising their own property rights, then I can't imagine what issue he would have? He would probably support them to a degree, if the property they built was respectable enough.

Apparently nobody in the area had a problem with his home, nobody really objected. From what I gather, the only objectors are the council, no surprise there. The people in the area apparently deemed his property respectable enough not to raise a stink about it.

He built it on his own land. I'm trying to understand this "green belt" ideal. He owns the property, yes? Are people not allowed to post homes on 'green belt' land, but they are allowed to construct barns and pastures, etc.? Are owners expected to build cheesy low-profile farm homes or are they expected to live outside of the 'green belt' and travel every time they want to play farmer? If it's a question of 'preserving the green belt', then why are people even granted property rights in the first place?



[edit on 4-2-2010 by SyphonX]

Originally posted by SyphonX
reply to post by Kandinsky

 

Well, someone can't build on another person's property, period.

Yes thats exactly right.

By the way all land in England belongs to the government of England (except for a very few select places). We (the citizens) just rent it long term. The 'he built it on his own land' arguement doesnt hold weight, there is no 'his own land' really, I suspect its probably the same in america. Here you own buildings not land.

Greenbelt land is not necessarily farm land. It is specifically land you ARE NOT allowed to build on. Exceptions can be made (such as the legal house already on his farmland) but generally they wont give permission to build because they dont want permanent structures on the land.

en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 4-2-2010 by gYvMessanger]

This guy knew the law infact he knew it so well he surrounded the build with haystacks so nobody would know; and now he is crying like its an injustice. It's a beautiful house and a shame to tear it down but he tried to pull a fast one and should face the consequences. The laws are there for a good reason not every illegal build is as nice as that one and if you give an inch people generally will take a yard.

Originally posted by CRB86
Absolutely no sympathy for this bloke whatsoever. Why didnt he just apply for planning permission?

This is no "TPTB" *shudder* conspiracy. Britain is a small country. If everyone just went round building whatever they liked wherever the liked we'd run out of land very quickly. So you have to apply for planning permission. I see no reason why he wouldn't have been granted it, so the fault is entirely his for not going through the proper channels.

People reading too much into this. This isn't the all pervasive state, it's just a common sense approach to land management, when land is at a premium.

Right, you'd run out of land because his land would have a castle on it... Or NOT.. still his land, which he would live on...

If people were just plopping castles up on any old land, sure, thats an issue. I don't see the govt. then giving them any time to take it down, if it's govt. land, I see them just coming along and knocking it down.

Why can't he do on his own land what he wants?

I don't get this.. more boxes for us to live inside of..