-
-
He says the castle is "terribly large," with two round turrets, a kitchen and a main bedroom.
This is so out****ingstanding I don't have words to describe it. -
that is turbo sweet.Comment
-
I'm still having trouble grasping the law against this house.Comment
-
I still dont get the whole government mentality of "you cant do this/that" with your land. Guess im just stupid.Comment
-
Weeeelllll......the house itself may be sweet, but he didn't follow the correct process.....
In the UK , you have to get "Planning Permission" before you build anything signficant. You submit the plans for the house, the local authority evaluate them and tell you either "yes", "no" or "make some changes". If you build without it, they have the authority to make you stop, and remove what you've done. If you refuse, they can send in the bulldozers.
This is basically to stop people building stupid things like castles next door to somebody else's house and blocking all the light, or to stop somebody building a casino in a residential neigbourhood etc, etc.... Or just to make sure the proposed building fits in well with those around it and doesn't piss off the neighbours.
The UK is pretty damn small, and we have 60+ million people, so we need to be careful as to whats get built where. We can't just have any old chap throwing up castles wherever they feel like it, or we'd be overrun with the sodding things.
Anyway. This guy applied for Planning Permission and was denied it, but decided to go ahead anyway. He'd read there was a loophole that says if you live in a finished building for 4 years and nobody complains, then the LA has to grant retro-active permission.
So being a slippery ****er, that's what he did. Then after four years, he unhid the building and said "Da Da! That's four years up, now give me my planning permission". The LA turned round and said "No. **** You, you deceitful prick. We consider the removal of the camouflage as the last stage of the building process, so you haven't been living in a finished building for four years after all. Knock it down, or we will...."
Funny as hell though.....in the end, he'll probably go to appeal court and be allowed to keep it as that's what normally happens.Comment
-
Originally posted by Condor
Yah I get that they want to be able to make sure everyone doesn't build castles and shit but in reality, why the hell can't you build a castle on your own property? I mean especially on farm land.
This has always been the problem with europeans... they have no respect for property rights. We had a good property rights thing going on here for a while untill somewhere down the line we decided to try and emulate europe in everything it does.
If I buy a plot of land, I fail to see why I can't build a house in whatever shape or color I want, as long as it's on my land.Comment
-
I'm generally fairly libertarian in my perspectives, but you need some kind control on what people build. They take things too far currently, but what would stop me from building a mini nuclear reactor on my property? How about an animal barn that's 25' from a major creek? Maybe I'm loaded, and want a skyscraper so I buy 4 lots in a subdivision, and recreate the Empire State Building on the lots....Originally posted by sgreger1
Edit:
What I mean by "too far" is most of it is setup to generate money for the government. They setup hoops to jump through so they can make money. It's racketeering plain and simple....Comment
-
Originally posted by lxskllr
Oh I agree there is always a need for some level of organization, even a certain level of regulation. I think they should have zoning laws such as residential, comercial etc so that some level of organization is miantained. That way you cannot build a big farm next to a creek, you can't build a liquor store on either side of my house etc.
But they have taken it to the level of, you have to get a permit and approval from congress just to add another bathroom on your house now, you know? It's out of control. Like with government, some is needed to maintain order, but micromanaging seems a bit over the top. If I want to build a castle instead of a house, and I own 10 acres of farm land, I should be able to build a house of my choosing on that land.
And now they have that new law saying that any bodies of water, even those that occur during a rainy season in some ditch, come under control of the government, and is not longer your property. They just keep pushing the envelope.Comment
-
We have a crazy local story. This guy owns the restaurant, been there for years, and he also owns this house next to it. This house is a falling down piece of ancient crap, and he wanted to tear it down, and extend his parking, yet the city won't let him, and he can't sell it, as no one wants it, and now they are threatening him with jail. So, while technically he "owns" this junk, he really doesn't.
http://www.courier-journal.com/artic...+or+go+to+jailComment
-
A picture of the house...Originally posted by tom502
I'd be interested in it if the price were right, and it was fixable.Comment
-
Originally posted by lxskllrA picture of the house...Originally posted by tom502
I'd be interested in it if the price were right, and it was fixable.
A house like that would sell for $400k-500k easy in California.Comment
Comment