Englishman secretly builds castle inside Haystack

[Bounty]

Yay for people who knowingly and flagrantly break the law and then expect to avoid consequences because what they did is "cool"!

Or because they think loopholeism somehow makes them "right". He blatantly flaunts building laws, but now expects the council to follow planning code to the letter to save his pet project?

The planning laws are there for a very good reason: if you allow people to build mansions - and that's what this is, a mansion, some faux-battlements won't change that - all over the countryside you soon won't have any countryside left. Not to mention that there are reasons apart from aesthetics to stop people from building where they want, what if this monstrosity fucked up the water drainage of the fields? I'm sure his neighbours'll love it when their homes flood because the guy down the road thought rules didn't apply to him.

[Starglider]

Or because they think loopholeism somehow makes them "right".

Few things give me more of a thrill than seeing these pond-scum beurecrats being hog-tied by their own idiotic rules.

He blatantly flaunts building laws, but now expects the council to follow planning code to the letter to save his pet project?

Their idiotic petty rules and desperate need to force their conformism on everyone else result in endless rows of boring identical boxes. Unfortunately given how often they make exceptions for large developers, I imagine they'll take any opportunity to break their own rules to take down someone who dares challenge their authority, but with luck the courts will smack that down.

The planning laws are there for a very good reason:

No, they're not. Safety codes are one thing. Outside of a very few genuinely historic areas, 'character of the area' is a load of bullshit.

if you allow people to build mansions - and that's what this is, a mansion, some faux-battlements won't change that - all over the countryside you soon won't have any countryside left.

Bullshit. Crazy people building their own eccentric castles are a minute fraction of new buildings, somewhere under a tenth of a percent. Victorians doing /exactly this/ resulted in a lot of our most cherished historic buildings today (around here at least - just look at all the cool follies and historic country houses in the peak district). The actual threat to 'the countryside' is developers covering it in thousands of identical, soulless McMansions - and they have relatively little trouble getting planning permission, due to high-paid solicitors to game the process and contributions to local politicians.

Not to mention that there are reasons apart from aesthetics to stop people from building where they want, what if this monstrosity fucked up the water drainage of the fields? I'm sure his neighbours'll love it when their homes flood because the guy down the road thought rules didn't apply to him.

If it happens, they can sue and he will have to pay for it. Frankly though this has no correlation with whether planning permission was granted or not, given how superficial the process is and how incompetent they are at checking for compliance in non-blatantly-obvious ways.

[El Moose Monstero]

If the building is as harmless as everyone seems to be agreeing it is, why didn't he just go through the planning process in the first place?

There's nothing in the article about his neighbours complaining it was an eyesore, just that they were surprised when it turned up and irritated that he'd bypassed planning laws.

Nowhere in the article with respect to the farm, was there a mention of 'character of the area'. The building is on a farm, hardly a source of shining examples of architecture in the first place, I doubt there'd be much issue with 'local character'. So I'd be left wondering whether the building is in compliance with current building regs, and whether the standard of building is sound, or if he just built it on the cheap in order to bypass the need to pay more money for a building which would meet with current regulations.

Planning laws are there for a reason. Even character of the area considerations, which are likely to only be a genuine consideration by the council (excluding local resident complaints) in areas where there is a good reason for it, such as in areas with well preserved older buildings. Many of Newcastle's old edwardian terraces are preserved by a conservation area, for which planning permission is a bastard, but if it wasn't, then aesthetically pleasant older buildings would be contaminated by lowest-cost modern building work, which ironically enough would leave us with basically 'endless rows of boring identical boxes'.

[El Moose Monstero]

If I understand the situation, he lives in an area that is designated as some sort of country-side preserve, so it is basically illegal to build anything new there. As the one commenter indicated, a crippled boy had a huge fight just to make his family residence handicap accessible. If I understood the other article I read, his plan would never have been approved to begin with.

Can you post a link to the other article where they state that it's a country side preserve?

[Johonebesus]

If I understand the situation, he lives in an area that is designated as some sort of country-side preserve, so it is basically illegal to build anything new there. As the one commenter indicated, a crippled boy had a huge fight just to make his family residence handicap accessible. If I understood the other article I read, his plan would never have been approved to begin with.

Can you post a link to the other article where they state that it's a country side preserve?

Reuters story

The relevant bit:

"The couple would have been unlikely to get planning permission as the farm was in 'green belt' land where building was restricted, she [council spokeswoman] said."

[Darth Tanner]

why didn't he just go through the planning process in the first place?

Because no one builds on the green belt unless they have a written letter from God himself.

or if he just built it on the cheap in order to bypass the need to pay more money for a building which would meet with current regulations

The fact that he built it illegally on land that was not passed for construction will have meant he saved a fortune on buying the land as undeveloped land with building permission is worth its weight in gold regardless of the profit from being able to ignore safety standards and building codes.

At the end of the day he is profiting from an illegal act. The stupidity of the law in question is not really that relevant to that point.

Few things give me more of a thrill than seeing these pond-scum beurecrats being hog-tied by their own idiotic rules

Would your neighbour building an illegal extension on his house and blocking out your light give you such a thrill?

Their idiotic petty rules and desperate need to force their conformism on everyone else result in endless rows of boring identical boxes

You mean like the houses people actually live in? Each house being individually designed and built to whatever tastes someone wanted would be rather expensive and hideous to behold don't you think?

[Rogue 9]

why didn't he just go through the planning process in the first place?

Because no one builds on the green belt unless they have a written letter from God himself.

And the reason for this is?

[Zac Naloen]

why didn't he just go through the planning process in the first place?

Because no one builds on the green belt unless they have a written letter from God himself.

And the reason for this is?

To preserve Britain's countryside.

[Darth Tanner]

And the reason for this is?

Well the official reason is that it would lead to over urbanization of the south east, the destruction of pretty much all rural settlements anywhere near a major city and that some areas of inner city land would become barren wasteland because local crime is too much of a problem for them to be developed profitably.

Unofficially the middle/upper classes want nice country homes and high house prices, both of which are served by limiting development. Also even small scale encroachment into the green belt would immediately piss off both the environmentalists and the rural voters making it politically impossible for anyone to suggest, as Brown showed recently by pledging homes solely to be built on mythical 'brown field sites'.

The tabloids may be exaggerating with their headlines of 'paving over Britain' whenever this issue is discussed but the fact remains the green belt is the only real barrier to the south east choking itself under urban sprawl.