Eco-couple told to pull down their 'hobbit home' made entirely out of natural materials

[redgreenandblue]

. . . but without planning permission.


A young couple have been left heartbroken after planners ordered their unique 'hobbit home' to be bulldozed, effectively leaving them homeless.

Charlie Hague and Megan Williams, both 25, built the roundhouse from scratch with their own hands, using only natural materials.

But the couple lost their appeal today against a planning enforcement notice telling them to tear their pride and joy home down.

Charlie and Megan, who have a one-year-old son Eli, built the house on private land in Glandwr, North Pembrokeshire, last summer.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2382684/Charlie-Hague-Megan-Williams-told-pull-hobbit-home-entirely-natural-materials.html

My opinion: This is over-the-top intrusion into people's privacy.

[BelgianMadCow]

1. Heartbreaking

and a bit surprising, given that there's a region in the UK which has made it legal to put up such dwellings on unused land, if they adhere to certain standards (the toughest of those is one needs to show to be able to "live off the land&quot .

I had seen that house before, and many more like it. Love them.

I hope there's a public outcry that stops the process.

[Chan790]

2. As with the last 5 times it was posted...

I'm with the planning commission on this one. It's shoddy dangerous amateur construction that does not meet minimum building standards, violates the local CLP (Community-led plan. Basically a master-plan document conceived and approved by the residents of a community) and is an eyesore.

I have no sympathy as Megan and Charlie did this to themselves when they decided not to obtain permits for a construction precisely because they knew their plans would not be approved and were illegal under their local code.

It's a shack.

[haikugal]

3. I disagree...

it's hardly a shack it's beautiful, unconventional and sound construction from what I can see. They should have gone through the planning commission, what a shame.

[theHandpuppet]

5. Then that's the coolest shack I've ever seen!

How the hell can anyone consider that "an eyesore"?

[B Calm]

9. Awful nice shack!

[redgreenandblue]

10. Hardly a shack.

It appears lots of work was put into it.

[gopiscrap]

12. Welcome to DU

[gopiscrap]

15. German culture is a very black/white yes/no right/wrong culture

and BTW Hitler was Austrian not German and my grandfather refused to fight for him and wound up in a concentration camp. So I would never use an implement on a child and between my wife and I we maybe spanked our kids a combined total of seven times and most of those were a swat or two when they were young.

[SammyWinstonJack]

16. wtf

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

19. You can always get the fuck out if you don't like it here. nt

[bhikkhu]

14. I agree, but then it gets complicated

One of the reasons that natural disasters lead to thousands dead in developing countries, but much fewer casualties and much less damage here, is that residences and commercial and public buildings must be constructed according to standard building codes. These have been rigorously developed and time-tested over the years, and ensure that our housing is safe to live in, our schools are safe for the kids, our businesses are safe for employees and customers, and so forth. A building that's not up to code is, by definition, not safe.

So, you could say that an individual should be able to build and live in anything he wants on his own property anyway, regardless of how safe it is, but then - what if they want to sell it? No bank would finance a property that's not up to code, and no insurance company would insure such a building either. And then - what if they want to have kids? Allowing people to live in dangerous buildings is one thing, but do we allow people to raise their children in dangerous buildings too? The building codes are part of the responsibility society engages in toward those too young to make their own choices. Kids have unique protections, and one of those is that we try to ensure that they are safe...so you could allow people to build whatever they want, but then they can't sell it or insure it, and they're not allowed to have kids inside either?

It was a neat building, but I wish they had taken the time to get an engineer to help with the design and sign off on it.

[gollygee]

24. The article doesn't say anything about it being dangerous or poorly built

just that it doesn't look right

Mr Lloyd’s report stated: 'The character and appearance of the countryside should be protected for its intrinsic sake.
'The benefits of a low-impact development do not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the countryside.'

[bhikkhu]

29. If you had an engineering background, looking at the pictures

a whole lot of very difficult issues and questionable methods are apparent, and the building would be a nightmare to really evaluate. Retro-fit would be possible, of course, but it would probably cost more to accomplish that than to start from scratch.

[gollygee]

32. I believe that might very well be true but that isn't why they're being made to tear it down

They're being made to tear it down because of how it looks.

[Hekate]

25. Well-said, bhikku. Those of us in earthquake country always wince when we see villages wiped out...

... in countries with no building codes, or apartment buildings pancaked in countries with no code enforcement. It's not a pretty sight. And that's before the fires start.

This couple could have saved themselves a world of hurt by jumping through the well-established hoops. I hope to do a remodel on our tract house (keep your fingers crossed that the GOP doesn't manage to plunge us all into the worst depression in history, or it will never happen) -- anyhow, I already know that it will be a royal pain in the tush to walk it through the city planning dept and the planning commission and all of the rest of it. However, I'm also informed enough to know that they may be anal-retentive, but they have good reasons for their rules.

Hekate

[Warren DeMontague]

4. It's hard out there for a Hobbit. nt

[pinboy3niner]

7. Thanks, Three 6 Gandalf

[DeSwiss]

6. K&R

- Bureaucracies are inherently stogie, intractable and mostly interested in fee collections and compliance with their rules, and they become even more so over time. Once an institution starts becoming more concerned with serving themselves instead of the taxpayers -- and I mean all of the taxpayers -- not just the ones who can afford or simply don't want to live in conventional housing, then this is what one is most likely going to get.

But there is usually an alternative solution available to address every problem, if one is willing to look for it......

[center][/center]

[NealK]

8. That sucks.

[ScreamingMeemie]

18. "the development harmed the character and appearance of the countryside."

Really? It's adorable!

[struggle4progress]

20. Opposition to zoning and permitting has long characterized the rightwing lunatic fringe. We had

a nice big fight down here over this with the wave of Republican wackadoodles who came into office in 94: they launched an attack on municipal zoning, intended to make it prohibitively expensive for towns and counties to regulate land use, on the usual libertarian theory "It's my land so I ought to be able to do whatever I want on it." The wackos didn't win that fight

It's fascinating to see this stuff posted and reposted at DU, invariably spawning tirades against "government bureaucrats" that sure sounds to me as if it's lifted from rightwing playbooks

This case dragged on a while. IIRC, Charlie and Megan lost their appeal in August and were given two months to demolish their home. The article in the OP is from August. Charlie and Megan pretty much disappear from the news after that. So perhaps the house has already been demolished

[Boudica the Lyoness]

22. I remember the 'Growth Management' debates.

The RW wanted to build what they wanted, where they wanted and with no codes. They did in fact build somewhere with no codes. I think it was Idaho. They got RW county commissioners in or something. Then they found out they couldn't get insurance for the buildings, lol.

[Baitball Blogger]

21. That's crazy stupid.

People were taking care of their own needs, not hurting anyone else, not encroaching on anyone's rights. It's not like they were filling in wetlands that might affect someone downstream, or taking over common areas.

It's just crazy stupid.

[ScreamingMeemie]

23. And actually adding to the charm of the

countryside

[Liberal_in_LA]

26. kick

[Pretzel_Warrior]

27. Count me as a vote for sane buildings that meet code

I can't believe all the individualist antigovernment weirdness on this thread.

[BlueStreak]

34. The thing is charming, unless it is next door to my house

I applaud their creativity, and suggest there must be a way to apply their creative skills and still work within the law.

[Jenoch]

28. I don't know if this is a good decision or not.

It's quite difficult to ascertain what the situation is from 3,000+, miles away and looking at a couple of photos and a news story.

[SheilaT]

30. Building codes exist for a reason.

Others have pointed out earthquake issues. Proper loadbearing walls and wiring and plumbing that will work correctly also matter.

Remember the Hyatt Regency walkway collapse in Kansas City in 1979? For those of you who don't, here's a link to the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse

Read down to the part about the investigation into the accident. What's important is that a change in the design left the load-bearing parts of the structure only able to hold 30% of the mandated weight. And this happened within the context of an otherwise competent engineering firm and codes and inspections.

Someone who has no background in construction who thinks it's okay to build without any oversight or knowledge? Not a good idea. It's been my observation that those who think they can build something just because they're willing to do it have absolutely no understanding of what's really involved.

I'm with the planning enforcement people. These two could have done what was needed to make it okay and safe long before this.

[dipsydoodle]

31. without planning permission

'nuff said. Issues like this would chaos here in the UK if such instances went ignored.

[bunnies]

33. IIRC, its right next to an eco-village filled with similar type houses.

Which makes the situation all that much more ridiculous.