5 ms·

That's a shame. It's a beautiful house. Another instance of beaurocracy failing the common man. I highly doubt he is hurting anyone or anything. Especially con

That's a shame. It's a beautiful house. Another instance of beaurocracy failing the common man. I highly doubt he is hurting anyone or anything. Especially considering it's placed in the middle of a field and no one noticed for two years.

Zak 17y ago
This sort of thing is inherent to the idea that you have to get government permission to build a structure for your own use on your own property.
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  Except it's not really "your own" property, unless you hold allodial title. Which, in England (and the US, and pretty much anywhere) individuals don't and legally can't.
ubernostrum 17y ago
Flip this around: if nobody knew it was there, then nobody checked that it was built to code. And, well, building codes are generally held to be as useful today as they were back when Hammurabi wrote down the first one (of course, in his day enforcement was a bit more strict...).
- holygoat 17y ago
  Codes exist to benefit the homeowner. Nobody should have the right to force you to tear down your newly built home because they think it's not up to an arbitrary standard. There's also nothing in the article to suggest that it's not up to code. I'm sure the electricians did their usual standard of work...
  - ubernostrum 17y ago
    Nobody should have the right to force you to tear down your newly built home because they think it's not up to an arbitrary standard. If you built that home illegally, then someone most certainly should have the right to take action. Also, building codes aren't exactly "arbitrary", ya know? I'm sure the electricians did their usual standard of work But you don't know. You can't know. Nobody knows and nobody can know, because -- by hiding the construction -- this guy almost certainly also hid it from the routine checks which would have provided that sort of information. Most work done by most contractors most of the time is probably fine, but inspections and other checks are there for the cases where the work isn't fine, because we've decided, as a society, that it's worth that overhead to avoid the nasty consequences.
    - scotty79 17y ago
      I wonder to what building codes are shanty towns built or trailer parks. I wonder why government won't go bother them.
      - ubernostrum 17y ago
        There's a tent city/shantytown here in my home town which is in a perpetual cycle of being torn down and rebuilt. Every so often someone dies or is seriously injured, and the police clear everybody out and tear it down. Then people come back and start rebuilding it for a while. Then someone dies or is seriously injured, the police clear everybody out...
        scotty79 17y ago
        That kinda illustrates what I mean. You can effectively perform legal action against single guy who was smart and rich enough built huge castle for his family (and probably did it smart way), but you can't do anything effective to protect people inhabiting most dangerous buildings because you don't have tools to enforce building code on them. Periodical tearing it down doesn't do anything good.
    - holygoat 17y ago
      You're one step down the "should" chain. You're saying it's illegal, so he should face the consequences. I'm saying it shouldn't be illegal to build one's house however one wishes. As one example: most building codes dictate the building materials you can use. Want to build a Compressed Earth Block or rammed earth home? Better hope it's in your state's building code, or that there is precedent for you to use to sway the inspector. I think that's wrong. Sure, impose building codes on buildings built for others (e.g., hotels, multi-family dwellings). Don't impose them on personal dwellings. If you want to be able to sell, you have an incentive to build it to code, but you shouldn't be obliged to do so. (Rammed earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rammed_earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rammed_earth)
  - Zak 17y ago
    I'm aware of some jurisdictions where building codes are only enforced when a building is sold. If you build it yourself and never sell it, there's effectively no building code. I think that's a happy medium between this sort of absurdity and a complete lack of regulation.

Zak 17y ago

This sort of thing is inherent to the idea that you have to get government permission to build a structure for your own use on your own property.

ubernostrum 17y ago
Except it's not really "your own" property, unless you hold allodial title. Which, in England (and the US, and pretty much anywhere) individuals don't and legally can't.

ubernostrum 17y ago

Flip this around: if nobody knew it was there, then nobody checked that it was built to code. And, well, building codes are generally held to be as useful today as they were back when Hammurabi wrote down the first one (of course, in his day enforcement was a bit more strict...).

holygoat 17y ago
Codes exist to benefit the homeowner. Nobody should have the right to force you to tear down your newly built home because they think it's not up to an arbitrary standard. There's also nothing in the article to suggest that it's not up to code. I'm sure the electricians did their usual standard of work...
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  Nobody should have the right to force you to tear down your newly built home because they think it's not up to an arbitrary standard. If you built that home illegally, then someone most certainly should have the right to take action. Also, building codes aren't exactly "arbitrary", ya know? I'm sure the electricians did their usual standard of work But you don't know. You can't know. Nobody knows and nobody can know, because -- by hiding the construction -- this guy almost certainly also hid it from the routine checks which would have provided that sort of information. Most work done by most contractors most of the time is probably fine, but inspections and other checks are there for the cases where the work isn't fine, because we've decided, as a society, that it's worth that overhead to avoid the nasty consequences.
  - scotty79 17y ago
    I wonder to what building codes are shanty towns built or trailer parks. I wonder why government won't go bother them.
    - ubernostrum 17y ago
      There's a tent city/shantytown here in my home town which is in a perpetual cycle of being torn down and rebuilt. Every so often someone dies or is seriously injured, and the police clear everybody out and tear it down. Then people come back and start rebuilding it for a while. Then someone dies or is seriously injured, the police clear everybody out...
      - scotty79 17y ago
        That kinda illustrates what I mean. You can effectively perform legal action against single guy who was smart and rich enough built huge castle for his family (and probably did it smart way), but you can't do anything effective to protect people inhabiting most dangerous buildings because you don't have tools to enforce building code on them. Periodical tearing it down doesn't do anything good.
  - holygoat 17y ago
    You're one step down the "should" chain. You're saying it's illegal, so he should face the consequences. I'm saying it shouldn't be illegal to build one's house however one wishes. As one example: most building codes dictate the building materials you can use. Want to build a Compressed Earth Block or rammed earth home? Better hope it's in your state's building code, or that there is precedent for you to use to sway the inspector. I think that's wrong. Sure, impose building codes on buildings built for others (e.g., hotels, multi-family dwellings). Don't impose them on personal dwellings. If you want to be able to sell, you have an incentive to build it to code, but you shouldn't be obliged to do so. (Rammed earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rammed_earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rammed_earth)
- Zak 17y ago
  I'm aware of some jurisdictions where building codes are only enforced when a building is sold. If you build it yourself and never sell it, there's effectively no building code. I think that's a happy medium between this sort of absurdity and a complete lack of regulation.