Take down your 'castle', twat told

[DotCommunist]

Planning rules are there for a reason (whether they're always applied sensibly, is a different matter entirely), and I'd imagine that anyone who sets out on a non-trivial building project knows full well they need to get permission first. I can sympathise with someone who builds a slightly over-the-top tree house and ends up being told to pull it down, but knowingly screwing the system's just asking for trouble.

How many of those with the "it's my land, I'll do what I like with it" attitude would be quite happy if all those around them behaved the same way? You don't like the authentic, WW2 style concentration camp I've built on the patio? Fuck you! it's my land, why should I give a shit what you think?

Either there has to be rules for everyone, or no one. I hate rules, but the world's full of inconsiderate wankers. Without the annoying rules, people would be forced to take matters into their own hands. Which is fine if you're capable of wielding a sledgehammer - doesn't exactly help the 80 year old granny who can't see out of her windows cos the tosser next door's built a 30 foot high "garden feature"...

Just so.

The problem with 'moi laaand' sorts is they seem to think they live in a vacuum where nobody else has to be considered.

Well, there are plenty of islands for sale where you can cock off to and enjoy your twatty castle. Oh, but then nobody would see it and you'd have to get a helicopter to the nearest mainland for your pint of milk.

Wankstains

 

[T & P]

The story of the bloke who installed a window in the shape of a middle finger salute springs to mind...

http://www.snopes.com/photos/risque/ventcover.asp

 

[isvicthere?]

BTW - thread title = epic win.

 

[paolo]

err

"The planners say they have never seen a three storey, pyramid shaped cow shed like it before. And they argue that if it is just a cow shed why is it rigged with lasers, powerful lighting gantrys and huge sound systems?"
- New Scientist, 1981 (via newbie)

 

[discokermit]

if some multinational company had owned the land they would have the lawyers and the resources to do whatever the fuck they wanted.

that castle looks a lot better than a fucking mcdonalds drive through.

 

[Stoat Boy]

I dont understand why the person who started this thread felt the need to label the man a 'twat'.

I dont think he has done any harm to anybody and if no neighbours object I dont see what the problem is.

From watching a couple of interviews with the owner he seems quite down to earth and not from a privilaged background and has no doubt worked hard to get what he has. Although in writing that I answered my own question about why a TUW would label him a 'twat'.

 

[rikwakefield]

Why didn't he just get planning permission?

 

[discokermit]

i like the craftyness. he was cheated.

 

[john x]

Why didn't he just get planning permission?

I can't remember all the facts but I think he had tried to skank a couple of things before and was in a 'state of war' with the local planning authorities and assumed that permission wouldn't be forthcoming.

john x

 

[claphamboy]

I dont understand why the person who started this thread felt the need to label the man a 'twat'.

Er, because he built a house without planning permission.

 

[goldenecitrone]

I think he should be boiled in oil. Medieval housing regulation breaches deserve medieval reprimands. Daft twat.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

So if your neighbour decides to build their own multi-story car park in their back garden, that's fine with you? It's their land, they can do what they want with it, right?

Legally and technically speaking it's not, it's "held from the Crown," pretty much all land in the UK belongs to the Crown Estate.

 

[T & P]

I dont understand why the person who started this thread felt the need to label the man a 'twat'.

I dont think he has done any harm to anybody and if no neighbours object I dont see what the problem is.

From watching a couple of interviews with the owner he seems quite down to earth and not from a privilaged background and has no doubt worked hard to get what he has. Although in writing that I answered my own question about why a TUW would label him a 'twat'.

Because he quite deliberately has gone to extraordinary lengths to flaunt the law and get away with it; and then stomp his feet in anger when his little dastardly scheme did not work.

As it has been said in the thread already, planning laws are there for a good reason. Though apparently this bloke thinks he's too cool for such trivial things as the law of the land.

Fuck him.

 

[EastEnder]

I dont think he has done any harm to anybody and if no neighbours object I dont see what the problem is.

When did his neighbours get the chance to object? 4 years after he'd built it and finally stopped hiding it?

If no one objects, and it doesn't contravene local building regs, conservation zones, etc, then there's no problem - that's why anyone with any sense applies for planning permission before building it.

I don't think the bloke's an idiot, he knew damn well what he was doing, and personally I don't mind the house - looks quite cool in an eccentric way - but he was stupid for doing it.

 

[john x]

If no one objects, and it doesn't contravene local building regs, conservation zones, etc, then there's no problem

If you study any of these cases, the planning authority will almost always insist that the 'property' is demolished even if every neighbour signed a petition asking for it to remain, because they know that just one example of leniency would lead to every mad landowner in the country trying it on.

In fact the subject of this thread probably built his 'castle' after hearing of another case where someone has 'successfully' hid their building from the authorities.

john x

 

[Dan U]

This isw the way to do it, this bloke used to be my Orthodontist when i was a kid and he's gone and built himself a 'new' medieval castle with moat and drawbridge!

he was always endearingly eccentric but what a loon

http://www.homebuilding.co.uk/feature/meet-mr-mew

As for this guy in the OP my initial reaction when i heard this locally was fair play to him but after a while i did think on more about why we have planning laws. it'll be a shame for the bloke if he has to pull it down mind

 

[XR75]

The planning laws are their for everybody's benefit and if you wind up having to demolish your house then tough shit quite frankly.

Are they?
It seems they benefit NIMBYs,government and business before the general public so I hope this guy sticks cannons in his castle or pulls a killdozer.

 

[john x]

Are they?
It seems they benefit NIMBYs,government and business before the general public

Is that right?

If they scrapped the planning laws you'd soon see a McDonalds on every street corner.

john x

 

[silverfish]

He'd soon object if his neighbours banged up some nasty monstrosity that blocked out his light

 

[Fullyplumped]

Legally and technically speaking it's not, it's "held from the Crown," pretty much all land in the UK belongs to the Crown Estate.

That's simply not true.

 

[Wolveryeti]

I have a fair bit of sympathy for the guy. The theory of planning regs/zoning laws are that everyone gets a fair crack of the whip etc. In practice, it's a dog's dinner of corruption and nimbyism. If you are wondering why housing is so expensive these days, look no further than regs like this.

 

[XR75]

Is that right?

If they scrapped the planning laws you'd soon see a McDonalds on every street corner.

john x

He'd soon object if his neighbours banged up some nasty monstrosity that blocked out his light

Are the planning laws appropriate in the situation with the castle.

 

[longdog]

Are they?
It seems they benefit NIMBYs,government and business before the general public so I hope this guy sticks cannons in his castle or pulls a killdozer.

So you wouldn't mind if the house next door was converted in to a pub, nightclub, mosque, abattoir or 24 hour car-park then?

 

[EastEnder]

I have a fair bit of sympathy for the guy. The theory of planning regs/zoning laws are that everyone gets a fair crack of the whip etc. In practice, it's a dog's dinner of corruption and nimbyism. If you are wondering why housing is so expensive these days, look no further than regs like this.

All true, always has been - it's local government bureaucracy after all. That in no way justifies this bloke's actions though. Everyone might be pissed off with the current system, but if it's ok for one person to ignore the rules, then everyone might as well ignore them - otherwise it'd be a bit unfair, don't you think?

 

[claphamboy]

So you wouldn't mind if the house next door was converted in to a pub, nightclub, mosque, abattoir or 24 hour car-park then?

I'll take a pub please, doggy.

 

[john x]

Are the planning laws appropriate in the situation with the castle.

Given that he never bothered seeking planning permission then we'll likely never know.

john x

 

[Part 2]

So you wouldn't mind if the house next door was converted in to a pub, nightclub, mosque, abattoir or 24 hour car-park then?

Or a paedo hostel.

 

[longdog]

 

[Wolveryeti]

All true, always has been - it's local government bureaucracy after all. That in no way justifies this bloke's actions though. Everyone might be pissed off with the current system, but if it's ok for one person to ignore the rules, then everyone might as well ignore them - otherwise it'd be a bit unfair, don't you think?

Well, no - I disagree. I've been in countries with much less stringent zoning laws (e.g. most of Eastern europe) and the bedlam that our lawmakers claim would be the logical result of permitting this kind of building is yet to materialise.

The current laws put all the power in the hands of fossilised old fucks with conservative views who basically want everything to remain the same - firstly because they own the existing stock of housing, and secondly because their inhumane attachment to the idea of 'unspoilt' nature (AKA fuck off proles, let me enjoy the moors unmolested by your presence while you stew in your slumland box-apartment)

 

[Citizen66]

Three pages and no mention of gypsies..?