What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
$9 t-shirts today only view!
threadless.com - Today's the day to snag a deal on t-shirts! Threadless.com. $9. Every. Single. Tee.
516 Comments
- TuxedoMax, on 01/27/2008, -4/+736Let's hope he can hire some archers to defend the place against the planning dept.
- GoneGreen, on 01/27/2008, -7/+566Let the man have his ***** dream!
- RyukShinigami, on 01/27/2008, -8/+368I think planning permission laws, albeit with a purpose can be a real infringement on civil liberties. What harm is this man doing in living in a house of his choice on his land. God i hate bureaucracy
- turricanz, on 01/27/2008, -8/+322"Planning" regulations? please... If someone builds his own CASTLE and it meets the demands of the fire department and matches safety and durability requirements, then he should be free to keep his castle and live his dream. The regulation is getting rediculous. No, i dont want a 4m x 5m garden and the same color fence as my neighbour and exactly 3 rosebushes with 15 roses each.
- rev3nant, on 01/27/2008, -8/+306***** all those who oppose him. If it's his land he can keep it. Everybody is just jealous.
- a1532b, on 01/27/2008, -2/+227Honestly, I can't believe they want to tear the place down. The guy put a lot of time and effort to build something that won't bother anybody, but since he didn't do it while holding the government's hand they want to just bulldoze it. It's on a farm far away from other people. It's just horrible they could be so callous to destroy a families home not because it's unsafe but because he built it without filling out forms first...That's the government for you I guess...
- thelastcivilian, on 01/27/2008, -3/+206...and now he's got cannons to keep the building inspectors away.
- KidDeath, on 01/27/2008, -13/+193how can the govt take away someone's house?
they do this in USA too, they even take away shelter from those who don't have homes to live in.
I thought owning land, meant YOU OWNED the land. You can build a house on it if you wished, but nope. Not with out the proper permits and request forms, and the govt has to be involved every step of the way. You even have to claim it on your taxes.
land of the free? I think not. - Chaoticfist, on 01/27/2008, -4/+162This is pretty cool. I hope the house does not get knocked down. i would say they should send the inspector in have him take a look at it. If there is any issues with the building have the dude fix it/ Also you can fine the guy to and have him do some community service. Anyway the house looks absolutely beautiful.
- diggduggjoe, on 01/27/2008, -8/+152This a case that shows why liberty is so important. You should be able to build anything on your land. Of course, modern governments do not accept you own anything.
- parasight, on 01/27/2008, -0/+143“Bureaucracy is the death of all sound work” - Albert Einstein
- yongfook, on 01/27/2008, -3/+132"He and his wife Linda went to extraordinary lengths to keep it secret. That included keeping their son Harry, now seven, away from playschool the day he was supposed to do a painting of his home in class.
"We couldn't have him drawing a big blue haystack – people might asked questions," said 39-year-old Mrs Fidler."
Brilliant. - Eryin, on 01/27/2008, -6/+132Dugg for "We don't think the four-year rule applies because it had been hidden behind bales of hay."
- AHammer16, on 01/27/2008, -4/+119So what is the big deal? If it meets buliding code why must it be removed? I think the house is beautiful from the outside. Just needs a moat.
- kr0n0s82, on 01/27/2008, -1/+112Obviously the town did not have a problem with ugly-ass piles of hay with tarps and a tire. Surely whatever he may have built could not look that off putting.
- dwcharn, on 01/27/2008, -0/+75I find it funny that nobody seemed to have a problem with a giant wall of hay big enough to hide the house. Everyone seems much happier with an ugly gross wall then a house that is not too bad looking. They now have a few options I see:
1. Build a smaller house behind the castle. Show that the castle is nothing more than a wall (which it seems they can have) to the house.
2. Perhaps it was the blue tarp that hypnotized the neighbors... Throw a tarp over the house to confuse them.
3. If they have to knock the house down, I say make a new goal... Build the tallest hay stack that has ever been built. Apparently this is fine to do.
4. Give the house for free to a specific board member and see if an argument can be established.
I should say I agree that they should have tried to fight the fight initially. Bringing a kid into they hiding is not the most brilliant thing either but hell, if they can't come up with a strong reason for not having the house, and it is his land, get everyone together and change dem laws. - RedHerringHack, on 01/27/2008, -1/+71Who pays them to think? There are LAWS. If 4 years passed, then GTFO of my yard. So the big pile of rotting hay wasn't "offending" some douchbag? To me it looks like all of the property values around this work of art just shot through the roof.
- freezeout, on 01/27/2008, -4/+60Digg army ASSEMBLE! UK diggers get off your bum and man those cannons! this is not WoW this is the real thing
- inactive, on 01/27/2008, -2/+56Planning commission? WTF? Defend your castle sir.
- KyferEz, on 01/27/2008, -2/+52He knew the rules, yes, and found a legal way around them. The country is being a dick.
- Tazmaster, on 01/27/2008, -0/+48It's the same ***** in the USA, too. You don't actually own the land. The government retains ownership and you pay taxes for the "privilege" of renting it. And if you want to build anything on it, you have to pay money for the permits to do so.
- diggduggjoe, on 01/27/2008, -6/+53You must accept it. You and your neighbors are mere drones to the elite. You will be equal. If, you stand too tall you will be hammered down. You need nothing special in life. You will live exactly like your neighbors for we all must be equal. Dreams? Those are for the elite.
- Herostratos, on 01/27/2008, -3/+48Laugh as much as you want, I know that you yankees will adopt our policy anyways. You've already adopted our imperialism; our central banks; our disregards for individual rights; even when it comes to construction you've implemented the "zoning regulations" which is really just the light-version of housing regulation. Soon you'll copy our universal healthcare and your tax levels are approaching ours.
Oh, and everything I've mentioned above has been *demanded* by the American people. So, you silly yankees don't really have much understanding of liberty either, you just started out more free so the freedom takes longer time to demolish. - inactive, on 01/27/2008, -5/+48Jesus Christ, those government officials seem ridiculous. When did our freedoms evaporate? Why does the government have to approve of everything we do?
- NailerNforce, on 01/27/2008, -0/+42Ok, how on earth is that castle any worse than a 40 foot tall haystack?
He didn't get any complaints about the outrageously huge haystack, why the hell should anyone care if he put up a beautiful castle instead.
Sure, the haystack isn't subject to the same regulations, but I don't see how the neighbors can complain seeing how they spent 4 years looking at a mountain of ugly blue plastic. - LordVoldemort, on 01/27/2008, -0/+36Can't he just put the hay back up? After all... nobody complained about that structure, and it WAS visible for those 4 years.
- Motodog, on 01/27/2008, -1/+36Why they are bitching about knocking down a beautiful house, when a four year old, 40ft tall pile of hay didn't bother them is ridiculous.
- inactive, on 01/27/2008, -5/+38It's his own damn property so he should be able to build whatever the ***** he wants on it as long as it doesn't violate the public's health or saftey.
- greevar, on 01/27/2008, -0/+33Exactly, the huge mound of worm ridden hay wasn't worthy of complaint. Why should the beautiful mock tudor castle be of contention? Hell, I'd love to live in a place like that. It's gorgeous!
- Johnwelby, on 01/27/2008, -0/+32Google Maps view of the castle's hay bails. http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q=en=&time=&date=& ...
- TuxedoMax, on 01/27/2008, -0/+32Wow, a Wuthering Heights reference? Can't say I expected to find one here.
- BlueScreenOD, on 01/27/2008, -5/+34I disagree. Imagine waking up one day and seeing the large blue tarp you've come to know and love replaced by a castle. The neighbors have every right to complain.
Bundles of hey covered by a big blue tarp: Classy
Epic looking castle with cannons: Tacky - cygnus2112, on 01/27/2008, -2/+31The owner should have clearly found the proper planning permission sign-up forms on the display in the basement of the Reigate and Banstead Council building in Surrey, down the ladder and no working lights, behind the door with the sign reading 'Beware of the leopard.'
Now he'll have to deal with the bulldozers. - RedHerringHack, on 01/27/2008, -0/+27And a drawbridge. Let's see em get across *that*.
- OverlordXenu, on 01/27/2008, -5/+31This is Britain, aka the current major totalitarian government.
If it's a safe structure, leave it be. - fiestycrumbler, on 01/27/2008, -0/+25apparently they like looking at a rotting pile of hay more
- MrSir, on 01/27/2008, -1/+26eminent domain was for public benefits, like roads and schools. not because they just don't like your house, or because the new mall they will put there will give them more tax revenue. this guy deserves to live there if he built it. maybe permits for the public safety and all are ok, just so someone dosent use something highly toxic or flamable for a building materiel, and don't dump thier waste into the streets.
- LokitheComplex, on 01/27/2008, -1/+26It is the UK paper equivalent of Fox News.
- chiefbandit2200, on 01/27/2008, -3/+27That house looks awesome... i hope they don't knock it down
- da5id, on 01/27/2008, -1/+25A man's home is his castle!
- grimward, on 01/27/2008, -3/+27Come to rapture :D
Nah, seriously though, if the building meets the requirements for safety and whatnot, I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to keep it. This is what civilization does to people :( - mabhatter, on 01/27/2008, -0/+24It doesn't look like there is another house in line of sight from this one! This isn't about "neighborhoods" it's about the elite with country manors keeping common folk from building a manor on "only" a dozen acres. City folk don't want NEW city-like houses built out side where it's cheaper. It seems to be a European thing that you have to ask permission on what your house LOOKS like and not just size, shape, zoning, safety rules.
- Zalyster, on 01/27/2008, -8/+31Of course, if you buy property, you must accept that others can own property too.
So when your neighbor builds a huge castle, you should NOT complain because it's on his damn property! - notthemama, on 01/27/2008, -1/+23I was going to make a similar comment, but you beat me to it. What really gets me how the neighbors bitch that everyone else has to live with the planning commission, so that means the farmer has to also. Well, everyone else has to have a rolling pin across the face, so the farmer has to also! Doh. People are stupid.
- diggduggjoe, on 01/27/2008, -3/+25It was wrong from a legal perspective, but morally he is in the right. All humans have inalienable rights to property. I hate to say it, but the world may need to do the revolution thing all over again for too many have forgotten what liberty means.
- diggduggjoe, on 01/27/2008, -2/+23Narcofiche, do you need a government official to escort you to the *****, too? Why does anyone need permission to build their dream home on their own land. If, it is a piece of crap, the next owner may raze it. My guess is it was built with more care and craftsmanship than most McMansions in the US.
- inactive, on 01/27/2008, -20/+40That's alright, if things don't work out, he and his family can come and hang out with me at Thrushcross Grange.
- JettaMan, on 01/27/2008, -2/+22That is his call. He owns it, he can do what he wants with it.
- Elliuotatar, on 01/27/2008, -3/+22You don't own land. You can buy the right to build on land from someone else, but you still have to pay the local government "rent" in the form of property taxes every year, and if you don't, they'll evict you, and sell the land to someone else who WILL pay the "rent".
Also, out west, a lot of places people own the "land" but they don't own what's under it. The mineral rights. So some coal or oil company can come along and demolish your house to get at the coal or oil, because their mineral rights trump your land rights.
It's assinine, but that's the way it is, and people continue to choose to live this way for god knows what reason. - rankftw, on 01/27/2008, -1/+19knock you down!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 518 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is