40 ms·
Heard this on NPR today while driving, they seemed to focus more on the fact that it was a castle and he hid it for four years by building a giant haystack wall
by dzlobin 17y ago
Heard this on NPR today while driving, they seemed to focus more on the fact that it was a castle and he hid it for four years by building a giant haystack wall around it, and not so much on the fact that the gov't is ordering him to tear it down.
- ghjkmjnb 17y agoThat because that's the legal point. He was denied planning permission, but built it anyway - relying on a rule that says if nobody reports it for 4years it's grandfathered in. But the court ruled that the four years only started from when he removed the concealing straw bales and people could see it. Otherwise I could bury some foundations, wait four years and claiming that nobody had complained I could 'complete' my 40 story apartment complex.
- blahedo 17y agoNot quite---the rule says (according to the BBC article on this) that the four years starts from completion of the building, which would prevent your scenario. The current judge appears to be arguing that the bales of hay, which were not structural and to my understanding didn't even touch the house, were integral and that the house was not 'complete' until they were removed. It's a bit of a stretch, and it sure sounds like the judge is just annoyed that this guy found a loophole.
- pmjoyce 17y agoMy understanding was that the point being argued was over whether the removal of the hay bales constituted continuation of the building project - which resets the 4 year time window - or if it was unrelated. Given that the only reason the hay bales were there was to conceal the construction of the property, I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that removing them constitutes part of the project.