Why, you built your house without permission, it must be destroyed!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080125/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_britain_castle
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080125/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_britain_castle
Man builds castle, government to tear it down
- Thread starter Pat H
- Start date
Rangefinder
New member
Not gun related, so it won't last long.
On topic though, it's not at all surprising. Building codes are a finicky deal, and for good reasons. It sounds like the problem was in the CC&R, and that's where it should have been handled. Tearing it down though is someone's way of making an example and demonstrating just how "important" they are. That house could be structurally verified easy enough without too much trouble or mess.
Gorgeous house, too.
On topic though, it's not at all surprising. Building codes are a finicky deal, and for good reasons. It sounds like the problem was in the CC&R, and that's where it should have been handled. Tearing it down though is someone's way of making an example and demonstrating just how "important" they are. That house could be structurally verified easy enough without too much trouble or mess.
Gorgeous house, too.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Not gun related, so it won't last long."
This is the legal and political section. Many of the threads are not gun related, but do talk about personal freedom/rights issues.
This is the legal and political section. Many of the threads are not gun related, but do talk about personal freedom/rights issues.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Can't say I have a lot of sympathy for him.
Can't say that I have any sympathy for him, actually.
"Tearing it down though is someone's way of making an example and demonstrating just how "important" they are. That house could be structurally verified easy enough without too much trouble or mess."
Uh, that's NOT the reason they're wanting to tear it down.
He built in an area where he legally couldn't do so without first obtaining permission of the local government board. He failed to do that, and built anyway. He also built the house in a greenway, which in Britain are heavily restricted.
Do you think you'd get a pass if you decided that you wanted a new house, didn't want to jump through the hoops, and were REALLY enamored with a particular area that just happened to be a recognized wetlands?
The guy was being a total prat and thought he could get around everyone by being a sneaky bastard and trying to use a loophole in the law. My reading of it is that he deserves to have the building shoved up his backside stone by stone.
Can't say that I have any sympathy for him, actually.
"Tearing it down though is someone's way of making an example and demonstrating just how "important" they are. That house could be structurally verified easy enough without too much trouble or mess."
Uh, that's NOT the reason they're wanting to tear it down.
He built in an area where he legally couldn't do so without first obtaining permission of the local government board. He failed to do that, and built anyway. He also built the house in a greenway, which in Britain are heavily restricted.
Do you think you'd get a pass if you decided that you wanted a new house, didn't want to jump through the hoops, and were REALLY enamored with a particular area that just happened to be a recognized wetlands?
The guy was being a total prat and thought he could get around everyone by being a sneaky bastard and trying to use a loophole in the law. My reading of it is that he deserves to have the building shoved up his backside stone by stone.
Rangefinder
New member
Wow, Mike. What got your nickers so bunched up? That's roughly what I already said...
That would be "Codes, Covenants & Restrictions".
It was my impression that he was the land owner, not someone "invading and claiming" a wetland or conservation area. So that seems more of a zoning and use restriction, usually covered under CC&R (or the British equivelant) for the area.
So the peasant didn't get master's permission to build on his own property; he must be punished. 
:barf:
If he has deminished someone else's property rights, that's what civil courts are for. Otherwise the public SERVANTS should mind their own business. If they don't, defend the castle like was done back several centuries ago.
Sic semper tyrrannis
:barf:If he has deminished someone else's property rights, that's what civil courts are for. Otherwise the public SERVANTS should mind their own business. If they don't, defend the castle like was done back several centuries ago.
Sic semper tyrrannis
Sigma 40 Blaster
New member
I read this about a week ago, the comparison between that country's controlling laws and our laws were a little bit surprising.
It does not look like this guy was in a bustling metropolis, it looks like he was out in what I (and others in East Texas) call "the country". I do not know about any other state but in "the country", which is outside of city limits, I am not sure there many, if any, building codes to adhere to.
I love going through "the country" out here. I've seen huge log cabins that are like palaces on the inside. Elevated homes that almost look like a huge tree house. Utilitarian metal building homes that are decked out on the inside. And of course trailer homes, brick homes, and manufactured homes. That means that people get to live within their means and build whatever type of home they can afford and desire...outside of city limits that is.
From what I've seen the building regs for inside city limits are in place to stop cheap and dishonest contractors/plumbers from building garbage and unsafe homes and selling them for top dollar to unsuspecting home owners. It's more about safety so the structure does not collapse, catch fire, or flood due to things being placed and /or installed in locations that make any of those things more likely to happen. There are laws that are more about appearance than safety but that's the main point of them I think...the appearance laws try to prevent a few houses from lowering the property value or appeal of the overall neighborhood. Too bad those laws are not uniformly enforced.
I think it's pretty telling how much more control that country wants over their citizens...or are they actually subjects...that this country does. The scary thing is that there are people who think those European countries are the "civilized ones" and was should strive to be like them. Even with all the bad stuff happening over here, as a whole, this is still a free country. There are forces who want to slowly take those freedoms away so we can become a colony again though.
It does not look like this guy was in a bustling metropolis, it looks like he was out in what I (and others in East Texas) call "the country". I do not know about any other state but in "the country", which is outside of city limits, I am not sure there many, if any, building codes to adhere to.
I love going through "the country" out here. I've seen huge log cabins that are like palaces on the inside. Elevated homes that almost look like a huge tree house. Utilitarian metal building homes that are decked out on the inside. And of course trailer homes, brick homes, and manufactured homes. That means that people get to live within their means and build whatever type of home they can afford and desire...outside of city limits that is.
From what I've seen the building regs for inside city limits are in place to stop cheap and dishonest contractors/plumbers from building garbage and unsafe homes and selling them for top dollar to unsuspecting home owners. It's more about safety so the structure does not collapse, catch fire, or flood due to things being placed and /or installed in locations that make any of those things more likely to happen. There are laws that are more about appearance than safety but that's the main point of them I think...the appearance laws try to prevent a few houses from lowering the property value or appeal of the overall neighborhood. Too bad those laws are not uniformly enforced.
I think it's pretty telling how much more control that country wants over their citizens...or are they actually subjects...that this country does. The scary thing is that there are people who think those European countries are the "civilized ones" and was should strive to be like them. Even with all the bad stuff happening over here, as a whole, this is still a free country. There are forces who want to slowly take those freedoms away so we can become a colony again though.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Wow, Mike. What got your nickers so bunched up? That's roughly what I already said..."
This: "Tearing it down though is someone's way of making an example and demonstrating just how "important" they are."
The concept that it's somehow the big bad government's fault because everyone is expected to follow the same sets of rules and this poor little God blessed, sunkissed man of the soil is being picked on because he wants some place to live. There's a distinctly opposite view of your statement: that the builder decided that the law shouldn't apply to him because he's so much better than everyone else who lives under the same regulations. I should be able to put up a nice house wherever I want because, well, because I'm me and I have money to put up a nice house.
"It sounds like the problem was in the CC&R, and that's where it should have been handled."
It's not a CCR, it's British law.
"It was my impression that he was the land owner, not someone "invading and claiming" a wetland or conservation area."
Wetlands protection areas in the United States are NOT "zoning issues," nor is this castle issue a simple zoning issue. As I noted above, it's British law at a national level. Wetlands regulations in the United States start at the National level, as well. If you have wetlands on your property, and you build there, you can be in a world of hurt from EPA on down.
It REALLY aggravates me when I see someone who consciously and willfully breaks the law, tries to hide behind a loophole to get around the law, and everyone rushes to his aid because he's just some poor little downtrodden individual beset upon by the faceless monster that is government. The guy with the castle made some conscious decisions. The wife admits to their ongoing activities designed to hide the fact that they had built the house. Now the owner needs to be man enough to face the consequences of his actions.
This: "Tearing it down though is someone's way of making an example and demonstrating just how "important" they are."
The concept that it's somehow the big bad government's fault because everyone is expected to follow the same sets of rules and this poor little God blessed, sunkissed man of the soil is being picked on because he wants some place to live. There's a distinctly opposite view of your statement: that the builder decided that the law shouldn't apply to him because he's so much better than everyone else who lives under the same regulations. I should be able to put up a nice house wherever I want because, well, because I'm me and I have money to put up a nice house.
"It sounds like the problem was in the CC&R, and that's where it should have been handled."
It's not a CCR, it's British law.
"It was my impression that he was the land owner, not someone "invading and claiming" a wetland or conservation area."
Wetlands protection areas in the United States are NOT "zoning issues," nor is this castle issue a simple zoning issue. As I noted above, it's British law at a national level. Wetlands regulations in the United States start at the National level, as well. If you have wetlands on your property, and you build there, you can be in a world of hurt from EPA on down.
It REALLY aggravates me when I see someone who consciously and willfully breaks the law, tries to hide behind a loophole to get around the law, and everyone rushes to his aid because he's just some poor little downtrodden individual beset upon by the faceless monster that is government. The guy with the castle made some conscious decisions. The wife admits to their ongoing activities designed to hide the fact that they had built the house. Now the owner needs to be man enough to face the consequences of his actions.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Inside every such victim is that schoolboy whose dog always ate his homework
WildhaveyouhuggedyourWebleyMarkIIItodayAlaska TM
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Sic semper tyrrannis"
So, when are you kicking off the Revduhlution and throwing off the chains of the oppressor monkey state?
So, when are you kicking off the Revduhlution and throwing off the chains of the oppressor monkey state?
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Inside every such victim is that schoolboy whose dog always ate his homework"
Friend of mine in elementary school, 6th grade, I think, tried that one.
Teacher was not buying it, until he pulled out his spelling book.
In multiple pieces, with lots and lots of teethmarks all over it.
They had a new puppy, and it just wanted to learn to spell...
Friend of mine in elementary school, 6th grade, I think, tried that one.
Teacher was not buying it, until he pulled out his spelling book.
In multiple pieces, with lots and lots of teethmarks all over it.
They had a new puppy, and it just wanted to learn to spell...
Ha ha ha, the peanut gallery has dragged down another thread. Whychange? 
Every regulation has a kernel of truth, a rightful purpose. The problem is, as always, .gov doesn't know when to stop. Built around this kernel of justification, bureaucrats create their own castles of meaningless regulations, more aimed at propping up their own authority, generating revenue, instead of adding anything positive to society. The stealth with which government bureaucrats wield rule-making authority, makes this fellows stealth castle pale in comparison. Can anyone appreciate that analogy?
Still and all, a certain segment will genuflect before each and every nuance of an ordinance, well, just because! They will claim it is "the law of the land"; when it is no such thing. They will assert that anything but blind obedience to each and every nuance of a regulation, is tantamount to utter anarchy. Destroy creativity rather than seek compromise. It will always be so.
From the photo, I thought this guy's house was pretty impressive.
Every regulation has a kernel of truth, a rightful purpose. The problem is, as always, .gov doesn't know when to stop. Built around this kernel of justification, bureaucrats create their own castles of meaningless regulations, more aimed at propping up their own authority, generating revenue, instead of adding anything positive to society. The stealth with which government bureaucrats wield rule-making authority, makes this fellows stealth castle pale in comparison. Can anyone appreciate that analogy?
Still and all, a certain segment will genuflect before each and every nuance of an ordinance, well, just because! They will claim it is "the law of the land"; when it is no such thing. They will assert that anything but blind obedience to each and every nuance of a regulation, is tantamount to utter anarchy. Destroy creativity rather than seek compromise. It will always be so.
From the photo, I thought this guy's house was pretty impressive.
Since I am not familiar with the laws in the UK, I can't comment on their righteousness.
Based on the size and appearance of the house, the "poor farmer" could have afforded to check with a lawyer about the legality of what he was doing. But I guess we know that the guy probably did just that and knew exactly what he was doing when he tried to "hide" his house for four years to fit in a loophole in the law. He gambled on beating the system and lost.
Based on the size and appearance of the house, the "poor farmer" could have afforded to check with a lawyer about the legality of what he was doing. But I guess we know that the guy probably did just that and knew exactly what he was doing when he tried to "hide" his house for four years to fit in a loophole in the law. He gambled on beating the system and lost.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
They went to great lengths to break the law and then to evade prosecution.
I have no sympathy for them what-so-ever.
If they had tried to get permission and the home would not negatively effect the region I would have supported them but now i see them as little more than criminals.
A doubt they are simple "farmers" to be able to afford such a structure either. More likely they had money to do it and thought the laws should not apply to them.
I have no sympathy for them what-so-ever.
If they had tried to get permission and the home would not negatively effect the region I would have supported them but now i see them as little more than criminals.
A doubt they are simple "farmers" to be able to afford such a structure either. More likely they had money to do it and thought the laws should not apply to them.
Rangefinder
New member
Some interesting reading involving the whole 'greenbelt' issue and viewpoints.
http://www.countrylife.co.uk/countryside/article/140008/Green_Belt_land_may_be_built_on.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2796808.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/11/wcostas111.xml
http://www.mashaestates.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=112&Itemid=61
I could be wrong in how I'm understanding, a "greenbelt" area is treated much the same as BLM or Forest Service land would be here in the US, except the greenbelt land is NOT owned by the community, provence, or national government, but rather by private citizenry. Correct me if I'm wrong. The concept is sound--maintain and preserve the natural habitat of designated countryside land. Great--no problem. BUT, the flaw is in the ownership. I can't just go out and claim a piece of BLM (public) land, and build on it. But if the government wants to "preserve" an area, it needs to "own" the area. In my opinion it's a bit like the BLM coming up and saying to someone here: "You own a 100 acre corn field, correct? Guess what--you have to keep it a corn field, because that's the view we like to see. Don't even think about putting a house on your 100 acre corn field."
http://www.countrylife.co.uk/countryside/article/140008/Green_Belt_land_may_be_built_on.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2796808.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/11/wcostas111.xml
http://www.mashaestates.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=112&Itemid=61
I could be wrong in how I'm understanding, a "greenbelt" area is treated much the same as BLM or Forest Service land would be here in the US, except the greenbelt land is NOT owned by the community, provence, or national government, but rather by private citizenry. Correct me if I'm wrong. The concept is sound--maintain and preserve the natural habitat of designated countryside land. Great--no problem. BUT, the flaw is in the ownership. I can't just go out and claim a piece of BLM (public) land, and build on it. But if the government wants to "preserve" an area, it needs to "own" the area. In my opinion it's a bit like the BLM coming up and saying to someone here: "You own a 100 acre corn field, correct? Guess what--you have to keep it a corn field, because that's the view we like to see. Don't even think about putting a house on your 100 acre corn field."
England isn't the only place where this is a problem. California is rife with this kind of imposition on private property rights. In fact, in the early 1990's, a man who owned property within the city limits of Pleasanton, CA applied for a building permit to construct a home, and was denied the permit. His property was high on the ridge line that separates Pleasanton from Hayward approximately, viewable from Interstate 680 just south of the 580 intersection for those that live in the area. Even though he'd owned the property long before the current zoning ordinances were in place, prohibiting construction on the ridge top, he lost his court case against the city. Grandfathered in? Nope, we don't care when you bought the property, we like a ridge line without evidence of humans visible, so no new homes up there. His property became nearly worthless overnight, and the city refused to compensate him for what was clearly an illegal taking.
The land on which the house in the OP was built was farm land, duly purchased and owned by the home builder. It was not in a subdivision with C&R's which are agreed to as a condition of purchase. That's a contractual obligation by the seller to the purchaser, enforceable in court within reason.
I'm in full support of the home builder in this instance. He owned the property, it was suitable for this house, and others wishing to gaze upon his property without their picturesque view being disturbed should be ignored, or even better, sued within an inch of their daily lives. The home is stunningly beautiful, the neighbors are most likely green with envy, which makes even more desirable that it remain in place.
I hope he can eventually prevail.
The land on which the house in the OP was built was farm land, duly purchased and owned by the home builder. It was not in a subdivision with C&R's which are agreed to as a condition of purchase. That's a contractual obligation by the seller to the purchaser, enforceable in court within reason.
I'm in full support of the home builder in this instance. He owned the property, it was suitable for this house, and others wishing to gaze upon his property without their picturesque view being disturbed should be ignored, or even better, sued within an inch of their daily lives. The home is stunningly beautiful, the neighbors are most likely green with envy, which makes even more desirable that it remain in place.
I hope he can eventually prevail.
Double Naught Spy
New member
The guy built the 'castle' knowing it was a gamble. As a gamble, he knows he may lose.
He took the risk and knew the potential costs. I don't understand the problem.
We have zoning restrictions here in the US as well in many areas.
He took the risk and knew the potential costs. I don't understand the problem.
We have zoning restrictions here in the US as well in many areas.