This doesn't make much sense.

[Boxlicker101]

Why do the authorities say this house has to be torn down?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_britain_secret_castle

 

[frdrcnjohn]

It is stupid but he probably had no building permits and inspections for electrical and plumbing codes Goverment red tape

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

A while back I observed a similar action at court. A junkyard owner went to court to appeal the county's decision to deny his permit application to expand the junkyard. The county attorney told the court that a fence around the property was the reason for the denial. The fence would be an eyesore.

So I whispered to the man, 'Tell the judge there is no fence ordinance in this county and that you intend to erect the fence anyway."

The county attorney shit his pants and the judge approved the junkyard.

 

[Handley_Page]

Why do the authorities say this house has to be torn down?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_britain_secret_castle

Because he did the construction by deception, not via the correct planning rules (they are very strict in some parts).

 

[oggbashan]

Why do the authorities say this house has to be torn down?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_britain_secret_castle

He knew that he wouldn't get planning permission if he applied for it because:

1. The area was scheduled Green Belt and buildings can only be allowed if they are used for farming, and then strict guidelines have to be followed, and

2. He had already applied to convert an existing building and had been turned down because of 1. above.

There is a provision in Planning Law in England and Wales that allows a building to be given a Certificate of Lawfulness if it has been occupied for more than four years without any objection. That does NOT apply in the Green Belt.

What he did, knowing that planning permission would NEVER be granted, is build his "castle" behind and underneath a casing of straw bales and tarpaulins so that it couldn't be seen. He then moved in with his family, lived inside the wall of straw and tarpaulins for four years, then took the straw away, revealing the "castle" and said "We've been living here for four years. Now you can't refuse a Certificate of Lawfulness."

The Planning Authority disagreed. They argued that Certificates of Lawfulness are not intended to cover deliberate deceit, but sins of omission such as not realising that you needed planning permission for an extension to a building that was slightly too large for deemed consent, or for a building that was erected many years ago and was occupied without realising that it needed planning permission to be used as a house.

They also argued that the special provisions of the Green Belt legislation override the Certificate of Lawfulness provisions.

The castle-builder's appeal to the Planning Inspector, who is independent of the Planning Authority and can overrule them, failed. The High Court upheld the decisions of the Planning Authority and the Planning Inspector.

Og

 

[where]

Because he did the construction by deception, not via the correct planning rules (they are very strict in some parts).

and it is an ugly monstrosity.

 

[patrick1]

Interesting that he is generally described as a 'farmer'. Well, he owns farms and farmland. His other well-known place is a 10-bed castle in Ghana worth half a million ten years ago.

I see that besides (and beside) the charming mock-Tudor turreted castle he also constructed a Tarmac racetrack. Obviously a man who loves the traditional pursuits of the country and stands for all that is great about the English upper classes. I mean, he could have wasted some of that money on the local community.