-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Man builds secret castle, British authorities discover it, tell him to destroy it
- Thread starter Escape Goat
- Start date
- Status
Count Dookkake
Member
Should've built it behind a dentist's office.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Only if he accepts the towel.Aegus said:
Patrick Bateman
Member
King Arthur must be spinning in his grave.
or whoever build Buckingham Palace.
or whoever build Buckingham Palace.
Hari Seldon
Member
gofreak said:
I just don't understand why there can't be some flexibility here. That probably costs a few hundred k to build that. Fine him 20k and buy a new garbage truck or school bus and be happy.
Graf Nudu said:
You mean at this so-called castle?
I'd say he'd be marching up to break down the walls himself.
This is awful faux-disney-esque stylings. Except worse. Disney did a better job. There've been some very good castle restorations in England lately, he should have took some pointers from them. As is this looks like two oversized circular protrusions affixed to a farmhouse with awful detailing, awful clashes of styling, and some battlements put on top. That's not a castle.
It's kind of a good thing it is what it is. If it had actually been a nice building this news would be sad.
Hari Seldon said:
But again, a system like that means that anyone with money can ignore the planning laws.
What is the UK government mad about? That some bureaucrat didn't get paid enough to allow this man to build something on his own land? Fuck that! If I understand the article correctly, it isn't even a castle. It's a farm with the two grain silos bricked in to look like they are part of the house. He's not living some socialite dream in there. He's a farmer with a family contributing to the national economy.
Leave him the fuck alone and leave the lesson teaching to schools. The notion of a national government trying to make an example of someone and inflict some sort of vengeance for being tricked, is preposterous.
Leave him the fuck alone and leave the lesson teaching to schools. The notion of a national government trying to make an example of someone and inflict some sort of vengeance for being tricked, is preposterous.
1. Fine him
2. Check structural/engineering integrity
3. Check lines of sight, local covenants
4. Have him adjust to code if possible
We're only defending it period, because it's a castle. He broke a very obvious law, on purpose, a law that does serve a useful purpose, however annoying it is.
If he built a 3 bed 2 bath bungalow without planning permission, there would be no thread, no story, no problem.
2. Check structural/engineering integrity
3. Check lines of sight, local covenants
4. Have him adjust to code if possible
We're only defending it period, because it's a castle. He broke a very obvious law, on purpose, a law that does serve a useful purpose, however annoying it is.
If he built a 3 bed 2 bath bungalow without planning permission, there would be no thread, no story, no problem.
AVclub said:
Yes, we should let him blot the landscape with this shit while others go through the planning process and abide by the law. That's fair!
Now we could argue for and against a planning process and planning authorities, but as is they exist, and it would not be fair to let him slip through with his ugly while others get shut down.
As for whether there should be a planning authority or not - if it stops awful buildings like this from being built, then yes please, let's having a planning authority! This isn't about some bureaucrat in government telling people what to do. It's about agreeing there should be rules so that neighbours and people around you are respected, so that you do not blot the context that you share with them. What he did was thumbing his nose up not at government, but at the people around him first and foremost. You can think you're being 'anti-authority cool' by doing stuff like this and by supporting it, but you're really just being anti-social.
This dude walked into this predicament with both eyes wide open. He knew exactly what he was doing. He has my sympathy to the same degree someone who walks out into traffic willfully has my sympathy...it's a tragic lapse of human intelligence and rationality.
Rural planning is a lot tougher than in the city. Farm buildings don't need permission and neither do temporary structures, but apart from that you need a PPS7 contemporary country house clause to get around the rule banning development in rural areas. To get PPS7, you need an architect to give you something 'exceptional quality', which is rather vague and only 14 practices has achieved that.
The UK is rather crowded and if farmers can build whatever they want, they would just fill their land with houses since letting out houses to city folks already generate a lot more income for land owners than farming.
The UK is rather crowded and if farmers can build whatever they want, they would just fill their land with houses since letting out houses to city folks already generate a lot more income for land owners than farming.
AVclub said:
It depends on the degree. I know people who have been forced to tear down a house because they did not file the proper paperwork in America (although in this case becauese they built a house abutting a creek without a retaining wall and it was judged structurally unsound).
Patrick Bateman
Member
gofreak said:
Wasn't Buckingham Palace the first castle King Arthur built in Britain?
gofreak said:
The pictures don't make it look like he has neighboring houses on either side of his. He isn't "blotting" anything. Matter of fact, his house appears perfectly normal from the front.
If anything he's just covered up two unsightly grain silos with something that looks much nicer. Aesthetic appeal isn't the issue here though. The issue is paperwork. I know people who have built homes in residential neighborhoods and had to deal with planning committees. It isn't so much that they prevent people from building what they want. It's that they take a really long time to do anything. For a farmer, time is money. Having to wait until someone approves something for him to build onto the back of his house is stupid. I wager that the bails of hey he used to hide the structure while building it were far more unsightly. Yet nobody had a problem with them, did they?
This man is guilty of skirting the system, I get that. I'm just saying his hard work at building something nice shouldn't be punished with tearing down the structure. Make him pay a fine or something and be done with it. Why make an expensive court case for the tax payers?
Count Dookkake
Member
Graf Nudu said:
:lol
Jayge said:
I don't have that right, but the planning authority does - and in this case I think they would have had problems with its aesthetics in terms of its contextual consistency among other things.
And if I were a neighbour, if he had engaged in the planning process, it would have given me the opportunity to object to his plans on any grounds I wished. But he didn't, because he clearly has little respect for the people around him.
AVclub said:
I've heard about this happening before. And in far more tasteful contexts. People who did work on old buildings - and good work too - but who ultimately had to restore the building to its original derelict state because they flaunted planning rules. If they didn't get away with, this guy certainly shouldn't.
And he didn't simply not file some paperwork. If you do that, you usually run into trouble during a project - you'll usually get flagged. And most people at that point with suspend work until the issue is resolved. But he went ahead and finished the project without a care for the process at all. If you do that they will without a shadow of a doubt come down on you like a tonne of bricks (no pun intended). If they didn't, people would just build whatever the heck they liked, and they'd have no authority. Fines aren't enough teeth either, again, it means there'd just be a division between rich people and ordinary people in terms of who can build things with impunity.
People can do what they want with the land they paid for is a dangerous precedent? Dangerous for whom? The government gets sales tax, income tax and property tax from me. I should have every right to build any kind of structure I want on my property.Timbuktu said:
Out of curiosity, what happens if people refuse to tear down the structure? Will the feds come with a wrecking ball and bulldozers? What if he and the family are still inside?
The dangerous precedent is allowing the government to control us instead of the other way around.
AVclub said:
The proportions and aesthetics do look more appropriate from the front. However from the back, it is awful. And in terms of neighbours..in the country your neighbour may half a mile away across fields from you. A structure like this could thus be a blot on the landscape for them if they have a line of sight to your house.
AVclub said:
Bales of hay are not even structures, let alone permanent ones...
If the planning process is slow, it's slow for everyone. You have to deal with it like everyone else. His time is no more precious or valuable than any other farmers, or anyone else's really.
As for the expense of the courtcase, I assume he's been taken to court because of his own non-cooperation. If he refuses to respond or cooperate he's the cause of the courtcase.
His sobstory is intolerable. His is an awful arrogance and undeserving of pity.
AVclub said:
There are good reason for planning laws. It comes down to respect for neighbours, for context and for heritage.
They're not arbitrary exercises in 'government control'. The construction anarchy you advocate would lead to a lot of crappy construction going on and a lot of tension between neighbours. Your property and land doesn't exist in a vacumn where only you exist, there's a commonly held context and the planning laws seek to respect that. The processes may be slow, and tedious and trying and could perhaps do with improvement, but the principle of it and reasoning for it is sound.
You're a fucking idiot. I asked him a question based on his repeated comments about how ugly he apparently thought the castle was, because it half seemed like he was only objecting due to that. I wasn't trying to debate with him nor will I attempt to rebut him. He answered the question a few posts up and that's all I wanted to know; I was just wondering what his feelings about it were. You don't even have the balls to put your location up apparently, which makes me think you're possibly American yourself. In which case I'll still call you a fucking idiot.Chinner said:
Hari Seldon
Member
The issue here is making the punishment fit the crime. The dude put up some fancy stonework around grain silos. Ok fine him. Give him 10 days in jail or something.
He didn't put up a 30 story apartment building or surround his farm with the great wall of china. In that case he should tear it down.
He didn't put up a 30 story apartment building or surround his farm with the great wall of china. In that case he should tear it down.
Vennt said:
So the people who attempt to get around the system are stupid because they will lose? Maybe some people are willingly challenging the stupid system. Hope he takes it as far as the Euro courts and wins. We shall have a feast in his honour. I even spelled it with a u!
Guy is fucked, though.
Dark Knyght
Member
He should secede from the country and form Robertia
He actively avoided the discovery of his work by placing bales of hay and tarpaulin to try to get under the statute of limitations. The precedent that would be set would require the government to hire more people to visit every single home to make sure the property owner is not hiding anything, instead of a quick visual inspection.Hari Seldon said:
Hari Seldon
Member
numble said:
Oh wow that is a terrible crime. We should send him to guantanamo and water board his ass so he can tell us who else is actively pursuing such evil doings.
Hari Seldon said:
That, if anything, would be overly harsh.
Getting him to put back what was there before seems fitting and fair IMO. He can do it brick by brick, keep the stonework and rebuild something more appropriate with planning approval. If what he's constructed here isn't such a big deal it won't take long or a lot of money. Better he pay money to rebuild something more fitting and in tune with the law than to pay a fine to the government.
Bullshit. I'm all for safety standards and having inspectors check structures to make sure they don't pose any dangers. However, this "respecting of neighbors" thing you're talking about is pure nonsense. I don't give a fuck what my neighbor thinks because his aesthetic tastes might be different from mine. Respect is earned. It isn't mandated by the government. Someone a half mile away shouldn't get to tell me how my house can look.gofreak said:
These planning laws you talk about aren't fair to everyone. The people with the most money get to dictate what can and can't be built anyway. Here in the US, we constantly hear stories about a family's property being destroyed and devalued because a large corporation wants to build a high-rise office building or a strip mall or a new road to their remote facility. Nobody consults with those families to ask them if it's okay.
This structure doesn't hurt anyone. It doesn't obstruct anything. It's on the back of a farmer's house. Essentially, what we're talking about is a wall of bricks around two silos. If the bricks weren't there, the silos still would be. They would look worse.
Your view of planning boards assumes that government officials have the community's best interests in mind. In today's world, that just isn't the case. they have their own interests in mind. Someone already said in this thread, this is just happening so that the government will be feared/respected. That's a bullshit reason to rip down a man's building and home.
Ultimo hombre
Banned
OuterWorldVoice said:
Yeah but he built a CASTLE. So he wins.
Good to see people are happy with huge tarps and stacks of haybales insteaed of a bad ass castle.
While they oftentimes aren't inherently fair, you still have hearings and process, requirements for environmental impact assessments and public consultation. The corporations don't just buy land and go do whatever they want. You can still go to the board hearings, you can still vote for laws to limit what can be done (as the reaction to Kelo v. New London demonstrated), you can still go to court for an injunction even after the board grants or denies the permit. There are tons of cases of boards denying permits to corporations out of local protests and concerns, they just aren't reported very much.AVclub said:
The logical conclusion of what you're arguing is that corporations don't have to go through all these processes, and can build whatever they want.
- Status