A man's home is his castle, except in England

Remove all ads!

This article made me laugh. I highly recommend clicking on the link as the pictures are beautiful. I hope this guy prevails as I believe he should be allowed to build whatever type of home he wants to on his property. It certainly doesn't look like it is deficent in building quality. It appears that the government is just upset that they didn't get to approve it.

 

I take a different approach. To me it was a brilliant move to circumvent what should be an overturned law. If the law says a structure is exempt if it is standing for four years, and his castle has been standing for four years, then it should be exempt. It isn't like he built a big middle finger and hid it for four years, it is a beautiful home.

Then again, I know I have a certain amount of distate for "zoning-thugs" that is probably tainting my opinion.

 

While we did break the rules, I must say, that's an awesome castle, and it shouldn't be knocked down. If anything, the guy should just have to pay a fine. Destroying such an awesome home is a crime in itself!

 

what? let him get away with it? so he can sell his land for 5 times what its worth for comitting multiple breaches of zoning and planning law?

how do we know this is even safe? he's built a heavy structure in the middle of a field, im willing to bet he didnt get experts to survey the spot because that record would be sent to the council, there has been no inspection, no planning and no health and safety laws observed.

Sure in this instance noone was hurt during its construction, and it hasnt fallen over and killed any innocent bystanders, but how long until someone else gets the idea and kills someone - follow the law, its there for a reason.

 

Tal,

You're absolutely correct, and that's predictably exactly why the city council will say and what will stand in the order for the house/castle to be torn down.
The thing about a building permits in Germany for instance is that you have to prove that the building is structurally sound, meets fire protection standards and environmental standards, safety distances. That as much protects the individual as it protects his neighbours. And these rules aren't drawn up by bureaucrats but by boards of experts who work in that field.

It reminds me of an uncle of mine who wanted to build a sleeping room over his garage and wanted direct access to his garage and to connect for that the garage roof with the neighbouring house (neighbour agreed). Roof connection was refused (because it would serve as a 'fire bridge'), just like sleeping room over the garage (for much the same reason). They allowed him to connect the garage with the house - if he would build in an expensive (read: fire proof) steel door. He was feeling treated terribly unfair, and was ranting and raving about the evil bureaucrats. I explained to him the reasoning behind safety distances between houses, fire safety and the like in the law. He then was angry at me Ah well. Alas, he is an insurance agent and should know a thing or two about fire protection, after all he's charging people more for not meeting safety standards when they buy insurances

The farmer is a fool, but with a very sympathetic spleen. I'd like my castle, too. Or a castle tower in particular, if possible on a rock needle, with a swarm of ravens, but that's a different story altogether.

 

And that is standard by which this home should be judged. If it meets all the standards, then forcing him to tear it down just because he didn't get prior approval seems absurd, and I agree that a fine would be adequate.

However, if this home isn't up to code, then it should be torn down.

Of course, I'm of the opinion that it probably isn't within the zoning codes, because if it were, there would have been no reason for the guy to try and hide it in the first place.

 

Yup, good point about the zoning codes. In that sense you should have said: "And that and zoning codes are the standard by which this home should be judged."

And you're probably right when you say that the builder's secrecy suggests as much. In German he would likely be in conflict not with zoning codes but with the 'Bebauungsplan', which is basically the same thing.

 

If you don't like zoning, then you should move here to Texas, a place where "trash-a-techture" abounds. Yeah, a lot of areas look like crap, and there are areas where people have their homes with a tireshop on the same street with all kinds of trash piled out in front of it, but then "business" can build just about anywhere it chooses to because there is no zoning.

Of course, some areas have the infamous Texas home owners associations. THEY can tell you just about anything they choose to, because many of them are not even government agencies, but private companies hired by builders, and there's not a whole lot you can do about it. And yes they are for profit and have no problem taking homes from 80 year old widows who are not "compliant," or not current with their payments to the corporation. It happens quite a bit here. It's a huge scandal here and many of them have tried to get away with all kinds of scams. But, hey, we have no zoning and no government oversite. Isn't that great?

 

He broke the law and should pay the penalty. It's a shame that the house has to be knocked down though. It looks great, and when I consider the hard work the poor bloke must have put into it I feel sorry for him. He's got to be punished, but is there no other way around it?

 

I don't know the whole story - what's the problem with housing permits and whatnot that drove him to hiding it in the first place? I'm imagining that there must be something horribly wrong with the law if it means that this man couldn't build his castle. Can someone give me a bit of perspective here?

So, assuming that there is something wrong with the law (as his actions and what came out of them seem to indicate - he broke the law and make a wonderful house...), a lot of people in this thread are starting to sound 'lawful stupid'. Simply because something is law doesn't make it a good thing, and if it's not a good thing then it should be circumvented. I find it quite disturbing that people are so willing to tear down this man's pride and joy over a law that seems nonsensical.

 

Chandos,
I agree that some democratic control and process over land use is preferable to private sector entities imposing their will. Especially the process part. Private entities are unaccountable, because they have business secrets and will not disclose them, unless ordered to by a court. The democratic process is supposed to guarantee transparency from the onset, after the idea that sunlight is the best disinfect against corruption. Of course that only works if citizens take serious their participation.

And Aik, zoning is not nonsensical. There are quite practical benefits of zoning. Just think of your house (iirc in the US a substantial part of the retirement plan) being devalued by, say, 50% thanks to some company setting up a garbage disposal plant or pig farm (relish the odour) next to you. By doing so they are not even stealing your money, they're throwing it to the garbage. Add to that mortage obligations (or housing bubbles) for extra fun. In 'residential area zoning' that would not be permissible, because there are other areas designated for business activities. That makes a lot of sense from a homeowner's perspective, and avoids infringement of property lawsuits because of emissions from one piece of land to others, and so serves to keep the peace.

 

I buy that, sure. So what is it about this guy's dream house that made him think that it was necessary to hide it? If, as part of the zoning laws, this guy's house wouldn't have been approved then it seems like there's something wrong with the law. It's certainly not going to decrease value or piss anyone off, except perhaps from jealousy.

Of course, perhaps I just don't know the full story. Perhaps this guy is just extremely paranoid or something and unreasonably didn't expect approval. Still, there just doesn't seem any good reason to refuse this guy a permit.

 

I think there is quite a bit of distortion going on. Many housing developments are run by "homeowner associations." They are not "evil" corporations as the shareholders are the homeowners who live in the development. Where these turn "bad" is when they elect a pain in the arse to be in charge. Then the entire development can turn into a bad reflection of junior high school. I am glad that in the northeast we don't have very many homeowner associations and there is a lot of diversity in what the properties look like instead of being cookie cutter.

As to zoning. Ragusa is correct and most zoning laws prevent mixing residential and industrial properties in the same geographic area. That is a good thing. I don't see that being the issue in this case.

In my opinion this case is about asthetics. He built a residential property in a residiential area. Let's assume that the castle meets all of the standards of construction as put forth by the government. That should be the only "hoop" that the owner needs to go through. The law in question (at least my intrepretation) seems that you need government approval of the design. To me, that is crap, and you should be able to build whatever you want as long as it is up to the building code. From looking at the pictures it certainly doesn't look like they "cut corners" and built a sub-par dwelling. I believe he found an innovative way to get around having people tell him what he could do on his own property. Bravo for him.

 

Well I do actually like the look of the place, although I'm generally anti - "mock" anything. I'd like to know how the hell he managed to build it for only £50,000, and how he can prove compliance with Building Regulations - who from a safety perspective need to approve all plans and workmanship before completion.

And I like the first posted "comment" on the website - the house does look better than a tall stack of hay covered with a blue tarpaulin.

@ Snook, I doubt it is classed as a "residential" area - it's on a farm. If my new house purchase goes ahead I'm going to be jumping through major hoops to get the 5 acres of arable farmland converted to garden. (In fact I won't be allowed the whole 5 acres, but hopefully can convert it to woodland, orchard and wild-flower meadow.)

 

I live in a new neighborhood, which does not have an elected HOA. It was hired by the builder. My builder informed me that they were the low bidder for the job. They don't do a very good job of anything. For example, at the end of my street the HOA put in a new playground and park. Yet, they never landscaped it or put in trashcans. So, with all the rain we have had, the playground is a swap of mud and water, and since peolpe have no place to throw trash, they just toss it on the playground. Many of us complained to the HOA, who did nothing.

I called the builder, who was very helpful, btw, and advised me that they had paid the HOA for the trash cans themselves and had also paid for the landscaping part of the project; they were curious themselves as to why the new playground was in the state it was in. So, yes not all corporations are evil, but many of them just don't know what's really going on. That, Snook, is why oversite and accountabilty are important, whether it's the government (elected representatives) or active homeowners, oversite is still vital - if you care about your neighborhood.

 

Is there anyone who knows the answer to this? That was what I was getting at in my previous post. If they are making him tear it down just because he didn't get a permit, that seems absurd. It should only be torn down if it doesn't meet all the regulations. If this guy didn't get a permit because he was overly paranoid and thought he would denied, that doesn't seem to be a reasonable explanation. If he wasn't part of a HOA - and clearly this is the case if this is a farm - then so long as it's up to code he should be able to build whatever he wants.

However, Carcaroth pointed out that the whole thing cost the equivalent of about $100,000. I, too, thought that sounded remarkably low, but I don't know about housing costs in Britain, nor the particular area in which this guy built it, so I didn't comment. However, there are very few places in the US where you can build even a small home for $100,000 - so building a mock castle for that price seems inconceivable. That suggests to me that he DID cut corners somewhere, and that the castle is in some way structurally deficient. Heck, if he used real stone, I don't see how he could have had the stone transported to the site for under $100,000.