Huge Mansion Built Illegally | Damned Designs | Abode
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 сер 2021
- Damned Designs follows homeowners who have built houses and property without planning permission. In each episode, we see the homeowners appeal to the Planning Inspectorate in the hope of saving their properties from demolition. Beauty parlor millionaire Syed decided to turn his bungalow into a seven-bedroom mansion complete with a shark tank, while Surrey farmer Robert Fidler tried to hide a castle from the authorities, and elsewhere Bill Heine designs and installs a giant shark into his roof.
Abode is the ultimate design, home, and gardening channel.
Get inspired for your next home or garden makeover - or just lean back and pick up some DIY tips from renovation experts, following full home and garden transformations from start to finish.
Want to get started on your next project and be entertained at the same time?
Subscribe to Abode: bit.ly/AbodeUA-cam
And follow us on Facebook: bit.ly/AbodeFacebook
And Instagram: / theabodechannel
- for even more hands-on inspiration for home and garden makeovers.
Content licensed from North One.
Any queries, please contact us at:
owned-enquiries@littledotstudios.com - Розваги
Like This? Watch Million Pound Movers HERE: ua-cam.com/video/_vKXl9yQb-s/v-deo.html
Why can't any of these w@nkers pronounce the 'h's in the English words home and hear?
Robert, Sir, your castle is not only an incredible achievement, it's absolutely beautiful, huge respect mate, huge, keep on truckin' 🙂 🤝
The neighbor didn't mind living next to a giant mound of hay for 4 years, but became insanely jealous once the mock castle was revealed.
That's it, really it is. I agree they are all wrong, I would never feel comfortable invest in my home, without all the approvals obtained, but why exactly the gypsy with the slightly bigger bungalow had to be demolished. The castle is far from any other home, it's not like he is blocking my view, I wouldn't give him up, if he doesn't mess up my life, or the environment.
It's all just jealousy
Except in the story of the three little pigs, no one lives in a house of straw. Until the hay bales were removed, there was no reason to believe that there was a permanent dwelling on the site.
Credit to the farmer with the castle I am definitely his side. He built it himself he did all the work and in a weird way he followed the rules. 4 years no complaints its yours. The beauty shop owner on the other hand was just arrogant. I guess I'm going to be editing this a lot. The Oxford ex planning officer is just an awfull NIMBY sour pus. Oh god and Rodney and Pam is just disgusting 19 inches!! The horrible council jobsworths
@@kevinbyrne4538 but the point is that those hay bales took up a certain volume of space and apparently could remain there indefinitely. No one had any objections to a giant pile of hay breaking up the landscape, but boil over and find unlivable, a very unique house with mostly second hand/recycled parts including a piece of the old palace pier from Brighton.
Okay, that one guy that made a huge villa out of a little house without permissons, I can understand why they want him to demolish it, but that castle is amazing!
It looks 100% british and like its been there for 200 years, just let him live in his house wtf
That castle is beautiful and low key amazing. That man is husband and dad of the year! How could they demolish something like that. I would chain myself to the house.
Can we acknowledge this man building a castle?
love him to build another (permitted) shows real skill, taste and unbelievable energy
Not in a day.... The saying indeed wins.
The castle guy is a genius. I like his drive and ambition.
He's a thief.
He had to tear it down.
@@readhistory2023 Specify why he is a thie
Planners are generally embittered hitlers, people should be free to build what they like without this unelected corporation infringing people's natural rights.
@@GuardTower because he designed and built the home himself. Instead of hiring professionals he took what should have been their money and cut them out.
He even had the balls to recycle building material! A huge thief! People should never use their own drive and ingenuity, instead squirrel away money and use it to hire others to do work.
That castle is amazing. It should be listed, not demolished
So the beauty salon-tycoon gets to keep his multi-million dollar home while the others had to tear their homes down. What a surprise.
Yup. They only picked on the poor.
I feel so bad for Rodney and Pam. Planning Council taking pettiness to the next level. Seriously, 19 inches too wide? With no complaints from any neighbors? And I heard no mention of adverse effects on the local ecology? Petty, petty, petty.
Omgosh they took it down? The neighbors were happy with it..it’s a beautifully maintained home. My heart is heavy…so wrong 😑 💔sickening…sounds like prejudice to me
I haven't seen the video but from my understanding, you have to be precise with what you send to the council. Anything wrong and it's expected to be rejected etc...
It's so far beyond petty when they were clearly within reason to think they were within the laws. Petty would have been hitting them with a fine cause they did goof up and not dig deep enough into ridiculously nitpicky laws, before doing the reasonable thing and pointing them in the right direction for retro active planning permission (which if it isn't available for situations like that it definitely should be).
@@___Music_Is_Life___ the problem with retro permission is that people will always try to build more and more
@@UnseenSpirit there are rules, laws, and morals good sir. i suggest you decide which one you put first.
The councils have basically two speeds, ultra slow when you apply for permission then ultra quick when they want to punish you. As much as I agree that they huge 'beauty parlor' mansion is horrendous it isn't hurting anyone and I presume that he pays taxes that they accept and as for the castle well it is amazing and should even be listed for containing the dome that no one thought of keeping safe.
So can everyone stop following the planning rules?
The guy was just too confident that all would be ok. I had the feeling he'd been out for a good "drink" with the inspector.
Whats horrendous for you is pretty and gorgeous for someone else. I'm glad I don't live in the UK, cos to be seeing the same type of houses everywhere I go is boring, where is the creativity? where is the taste for beautiful designs and for personal tastes?
@@dwaggys3322 They are arbitrary and capricious.
@@dwaggys3322 i mean- yeah. the rules are rediculous!
keeps a giant hay bail for 4 years and no one complains replace it with a house and the complains start raining in xD the human brain is a remarkable thing
The castle was turned in by a neighbor complaining. But they didn’t complain about 40 feet of hay and a blue tarp.
I wish that farmer good luck to keep his castle. In my opinion it even should become a protected iconic landmark. does anyone know about another castle that was built by one man alone? INSIDE a hey stack?!
agreed
Jealous neighbors
Sad news... castle was demolished in 2016.
@@bigfarmerUK That's upsetting if true. Guy has some true skill.
@@ladouceurmatt I agree, the guy is a talented builder, such a shame. I reposted a new comment with a link to BBC news page.
That castle was amazing! And I can’t believe he built it himself and then hid it 😂😂😂
@Zain staric
Does that change the fact that he built it and hid it? If it was yet to have been built, then there’s nothing to hide. So he started building it, then when it got noticeably bigger he hid it.
@Zain staric what came first the chicken or the egg
Yes, be built it so well but unlawfully. Other people buy land, apply for planning permission and only if they get it do they proceed.
@@janesmith9024 i bet there are lot of homes that got permission just becose they are close friends or placed some money in pocket
@@doposud I don't think anyone has any issues with permissions as long as you meet the safety guidelines. Nothing to do with connections.
Rodney and Pam really hit me in the feels. 19inches? Taking down the conservatory would have been more than enough to keep it under code right? Some council are ridiculous and are not willing to work with the people.
It’s unfortunate that we choose rules over kindness and compassion. If they wanted to work with the people they could have found opportunities to do so. ❤️
The council seems like the only problem to me.
Why not let Rodney and Pam live out their golden years in their home and then take it down after they are gone? There are some truly heartless people on this planet.
OMG they did this to them, very sad. Over 18 inches
Welcome to the English government. (From England btw)
That is a very fair suggested outcome, I think that would have been best. Another one i thought would be to come and shave 19 inches off the home since they said it was too long. Absolutely ridiculous, they destroyed an entire family home over 19" too long of a caravan. I hope this couple did a go fund me
Or they could of stuck to the planning an everything would of been fine ......
@@karlc848 He doesn't know how to read... probably thought it was ok.
“I cannot believe the purpose of the planning laws is to enforce boring, mediocre design.”
-Michael Hesseltine.
Good guy, specially compared to that angry stuck up old man who was trying to get the shark removed. He wanted it removed because it was an eye sore, not a safety issue. Just look at the guy, you can tell there's zero excitement in his life.
Purpose of the planning is not to enforce boring and mediocre design. It is to limit construction to make land use more inefficient. This benefits the land speculators when available land for construction is reduced. Lower supply leads to higher prices.
@@tomi213 Yeah it can be used to drive up demand for sure. Look at California, there's areas where developers are trying to put multi unit buildings for more affordable housing, and the rich affluent single family home owners push back against it. They pretty much say they're for affordable housing, just not in their backyard. In the UK, your house is also more lucrative if it is near or in a green area, and you don't want other people building there. Most people are driven by self interest even if they pretend they're not, it is the reality we live in.
@@auby3901 ---I see the shark piece as an expression of creativity. Lot of tourists will come to have a look, & to take a picture. It will add more jazz for the city of Oxford.
I lived in an area where a bloke built a huge house with no planning (he owned a conservatory business) not long after he was granted permission and the local member of the planning committee had a new conservatory 🤔
Robert's 50,000 pound castle is amazing! Well done.
the guy is a freaking genius he built a home for his family by himself he outsmarted the system like a boss he wins period
Personally I didn't mind the "castle" but, he was never going to win that in a million years. He built a secret castle in a heavily protected greenbelt area without permission thinking he would get a loophole win. The fact that the secretary of state dealt with it gives you an idea of just how protected greenbelt areas are. He rolled the dice and lost, he had to flatten it in 2016. Had he been a little less ambitious with the design he just may have gotten away with it.
@@SuperDasbeast yeah at least he enjoyed it 4 a while and is not the castle is the taste of victory
@@SuperDasbeast and yet wealthy 'farmers' can 'bribe' /'work with' councils and build endless nasty housing estates over greenbelt farmland and woodland...
@@davidstuart4915 exactly
@@davidstuart4915 Very true, he played the game by their rules and won. So they decided to retroactively change the rules so he would lose. That is tyrannical behavior by a government.
The man that built the castle was a genius. simply amazing what he did, he did it very well beautiful home. Gives true meaning to the phrase a man's home is his castle. Too bad you have a power-hungry council and jealous neighbors trying to ruin your life it's his property leave him alone
I am shocked that the council is drunk on their power If the Gypsy”s house was 19 inches too large he should have been granted an easement for the 19 inches. It is like living in a communist country under a dictatorship. Yes, thank God for the American Revolution and I live in the United States free from English petty laws.
@@katherinealfaro8475 ever heard of HOAS in the US ?
@@andrewcorral3398 I cant understand how an American can be so shocked when most of them live in properties which are governed by HOA's. From the posts I see on Quora HOAs are far more petty and power hungry than you average UK planning committee.
@@andrewcorral3398 Yes and we avoid them like the plague.--( H.O.A.s), are a tool of the 👿. P.S. most people don't live under them, it just looks that way to foreigners who hear about them. To: dwaggys this post is for you.
Envy is a powerful emotion that practically defines us as a species. There are far more important issues facing this dying planet of ours.
@Mr Best Policy it's going to die eventually.
its NOT ENVY its one rule for him and one rule for me buying my ex council home with small building plot planning for small 2 bed home ,, when theres room for at least 3 small 2 beds to build ,, I was told NO NO NO one 2 bed is all that planning would allow me,,, so as the law states I follow it why should because you have mega dunds should you be any differant.. NO it has to be equal of who you are or how nice it might look it was told NO you dont have planning permission it has to go
@@carolsumner8029 Sure it is.
Why don't these planning councils figure out affordable housing or housing for the homeless instead of picking on perfectly fine standing buildings! Total waste of time and energy!
then they can benefit from high housing price. It's just tyranny in disguise
Nothing makes a policeman angrier than being defied.
ENVY
from petty officials in their dead end jobs and their rabbit hutch houses.
Exactly.
Hear hear!!
The guy with the castle I believe it's just a case of the council changing the law after the fact.
IT'S THEIR PROPERTY.
Theonly reason to demolish ANY of these homes is of they are built over property lines.
OMG, this castle is amazing and he built it by himself. He’s on his property so who cares. The city council should be ashamed and just let him be him. Love the four year rule!! Go guy.
He knew he was doing wrong correct that’s way it hide it or am I missing something. Next time it could be a junkyard
@@ratj4715 There is qualitative judgment of the final product that surly must come into play here!!!! Ignoramus!
@@TheSafetyman1000 You mean the hideous "castle" made of tin and concrete?
The fact the shark is making that guy so angry he can hardly contain himself just adds to it's awesomeness. I wish I lived in that street, I'd smile every time I saw it
Come on.that shark on the roof is so blooming ugly
In England, very often, the respect for private property is a joke and getting planning permission, a humiliating and manipulative abuse, hidden under the excuse of righteousness.
The farmer's house because of the loop in the law, was legal when he uncovered it. It is well built and is perfectly safe to live in it. Yet, instead of admitting that he was astute, they fight him for years. Personally, I only wished all farmers' houses were that beautiful, and all farmers so industrious and creative.
No, it wasn’t legal. Read the appeal decision
It sure looks better than hay.
41:38 so if one inspector says no, find one that will say yes. I understand now!
I loved how he was stood there saying how his family couldn't understand. I don't think he told them he had breached the planning rules & regulations that apply to everyone in the country apart from him.
Yeah I'd leave the country if they make me tear down my home, I'd go to a better country like America or Australia or basically any other country
The ruling on the caravan home should have been overturned by the inspectorate. That was a heinous act and I'm not surprised the council hid rather than giving a public interview. They should be ashamed. It was such a small deviation. I understand why the councils took issue with the other homes, but not the caravan home.
Truth they are always committing cultural genocide with the Romani people; sick!.
The 'travelling community' already enjoy a nice exemption from planning rules yet still he went ahead and built a home that was bigger than permitted. The council do not need to give further special treatment to someone who never pays council tax, who build a house that won't ever do any travelling.
Deviation is deviation, thats why there are rules. Follow the rules, no problem. Choose to ignore them; expect consequences.
@@cliveramsbotty6077 There isn't special exception of building bigger when a removable deck & side glass enclosure is placed. All over the world they are recognized as such, to think otherwise & waste money to proceed with mandate is tax payers money wasted. Any society with that mentality local or not is unproductive to economic value.
@@dwaggys3322 Deviation of rule to waste tax payers money sounds nice for the economy but never useful to the wellbeing of sustainability as a whole community.
I'm with the gypsy the shark in the roof guy and the castle guy. I was with the council on the bungalow guy until the council went back on their word.
Robert with the castle should just keep appealing. Even if it's a waste of time, it extends the time he can stay in his home.
He already won his case, it's only because it got overturned by a bigwig that he's being made to demolish it.
And a cannon..
He was told in June 2016 it had to come down and its down now
@@ziraza397 Yes it has - heartbreaking isn't it?
@@markmartin448 It was a beautiful building constructed in a retrospective style rarely seen nowadays. What a shame.
his castle was taken down.
Robert's house is a masterpiece. As someone that has fought councils many times myself the whole system reeks of envy with jobsworths with too much power getting one over on sucessful people they know to be much smarter than them!
The castle is stunning . The man is a genius.
Are you kidding? it's an eyesore.
The guy building his own castle reminded me of Crocodile Dundee ... just a proper man with no interest in technology lol.
Private homeowners need to jump through hoops to get anything approved yet historic town centres and pubs get destroyed by high rise flats.🤑🤑
IMO Planning committees should focus their energy on making sure constructed buildings are safe and habital…that’s all
That's what Building Control does. Why would you want two organisations doing the same thing?
Also, do you really want anyone building whatever they want wherever they want to? Maybe you do - but I don't. Planning is essential if it's done reasonably (there are laws and national guidance....)
@@danguee1 yes the person who owns the land should be able to build whatever they want on it as long as it is safe. We should stay out of other people’s business.
@@danguee1 I agree. But the farmer building that castle actually didnt break the Law. he was right about there was no law stating a construction must be visible to fall under the 4 years rule.. And adding that law after that 4 years period was completed doesnt have retroactive effect.
Their case is built on the complaint of the neighbor who didnt mind living next to a hay stack larger then the catle.
@@kylia2009 You clearly know very little about Planning Permission in England.
@@dwaggys3322 England isn't exactly large. If they let developers have their way it would wall to wall sprawl from coast to coast.
What a depressing show. Well done council for making people homeless.
Nothing more entertaining then watching bureaucrats. Absolutely terrible
Two mobile homes combined into a gorgeous home isn't allowed because it's 19" too wide.
But a pile of bricks and wood and general mess is perfectly acceptable for the council 🤷♂️
Police have made me jobless.... Now council pays for my expenses.. :/
@@GadgetAddict says it all..
@@GadgetAddict I was thinking exactly this, now the place looks like a mess over 19 inches, I mean so what. This is overreach for nothing.
first guy, I don't think his house is ugly the issue is he was approved for one thing and completely ignored it. He should have taken the extra steps to get full approval, then there would be no issue. Being rich doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
That second guy's home is amazing! He built it himself and it was recycled? That's awesome!!
The Commissions should work with these people to modify their properties to be just outside of compliance. They don't need to order Demolition for these families that live in the home. There had to be ways the Commissions could work with the homeowners to modify their homes to be just outside compliance and give them an exemption.
Omg! Leave these people alone!
Robert was so impressive ! How did he design and build the castle by himself??!!
My hot take:
Mansion Guy: House is much nicer, but he has not followed his permits, but the footprint argument is a good one.
Castle Guy: Genius, lovely house, impressive that he's done it himself
Caravan guy: I'm torn because technically it's too big, but I don't think it's an issue
Shark guy: Amazing, and fun, let it stand, pass ordinance requiring permits for new roof sculptures.
Nah, all of it should be allowed. If you own the land or property then you should be allowed to do what you want with it.
Robert, the castle-man, deserves an award and proper recognition. 👏 National Hero lol.
Ego plays a part in some councils decisions. Syed's house looks fantastic. Had he built on greenbelt land without permission, I'd side with the council. However he built onto an existing developed site. If I were a neighbour I'd be pleased. I suspect jealousy plays a part in their opinions.
What about these egos of the people who think the laws don't apply to them?
I think it's obnoxious, completely devoid of character, and doesn't suit the surroundings in the slightest.
It just looks like the typical American suburban cookie-cutter home.
Horses for courses, I guess, 🤷🏻♂️
The house looks fantastic, but he clearly didn't have permission for an extension of that scale. He's just a rich guy who thinks laws don't apply to him. He deserves the council coming after him.
For me its ugly and unpractical, for some its piece of art..
He had millions in pocket.. And tried to dodge more expensive approval / paperwork / regulation.. Whatever..
And instead of extending the house with maybe second floor he rebuilt it almost entirely 3 times larger..
Where im from there is an island with mostly gardening parcels that are regulated how big house you are allowed to build there... But some people have mansions there.. Guess why..
In my opinion this dude tried to do the same thing, but without bribes..
He is only victim of his own ego and stupidity
@@Jakommo It certainly isn't the most gorgeous of homes but the original bungalow was uglier was it not? It seemed to be a nice improvement over the original. I also don't understand the concerns that it was be "unpractical". What does this have to do with the legal right to build a house?
Wow 19” oversized and they destroyed a couple’s dream and home. That is sad and petty
19 inches is 49 cm, half a meter and it is not "little"
My brother just got finished with a similar situation in ROSS, avery hoity toity area of Sausalito, California.
One of his porches, on a very slightly traveled side street was THREE INCHES (according to the planning commission) too far towards the street. Ot was still 25 feet from the street.
After much fighting, he was "allowed" to keep it as is.
But they were also angry that he made his BASEMENT ceilings 8 feet.
They only allowed 7.
He was forced to raise the floor.
.Unbeblievable
@@thebentebr They could have made it smaller quite easily
@@thebentebr It is a little.
@@thebentebr that's nothing guy literally it's a f*cking dog house.
The people who ordered the destruction of these beautiful homes are horrible people who deserve to suffer a similar loss.
How does 18" justify destroying a small home? And how is it that the city is OK with trash piles but not OK with a beautiful home?
How does a new amendment to an old rule retroactively apply allowing a city to destroy a family castle and end an entire farm? Sure, it was built in deception, but what choice did they have? The city refused to do their jobs and never responded to building permit applications. They should have kept appealing. Maybe after a few more decades the city inspectors will die and be replaced by competent individuals.
How is a city OK with a giant hay stack covered in a blue tarp, but not OK with a castle?
how does ignoring the law for 10 yrs make them right? 10 YEARS they could have done something.. " No Warning " that was laughable after the huge pile of mail he showed the gov had sent him... warnings included. they played the odds they lost .
Elliander Eldridge - I couldn’t believe they tore the whole house down!!! It was only 19” too deep - why didn’t they just tear down the ‘offending’ 19” and leave the rest!? That makes no sense at all.
This is NUTS 🤣☺️ Poor home owners. Not an eye sore or hurting anyone.
Anyone see the irony of and Englishmen fighting over trying to destroy a castle?
IDK what got into me but that castle hiding in the hay and that shark got me cracking up uncontrollably. Some things are just too clever, they should let them be!
Susanne, the gate keepers @ the council lack humour entirely.
I understand if a decision favours planners when there's a legitimate problem that can't be sorted (ex. Health/Safety-related, or if it's so hideous that it's beyond intolerable for all around), but I get the impression here that the authorities have absolutely no willingness [much less desire] to work with these people. So much destruction and wasted resources over pride and principle when a more constructive cooperative solution would've granted a truly successful outcome.
Particularly in the case of the castle home design and the gypsy home, there was really no reason to create such a fuss. You have 2 beautiful proper local FAMILY HOMES (vs Airbnbs or vacant foreign ownership) that frankly suite/compliment their surroundings. There's no reason why a reasonable path forward couldn't be granted. Even a proportional fine would've been preferable to the needless waste and destruction wrought here.
The multi-millionaire business-owner Syed is another matter; far more muddy a circumstance. Even in this scenario though, surely there can be a middle way forward.
As of 2017 Syed agreed in an arbitration type agreement to shrink the house
I remember this...guy is a legend!!!! Stay blessed bro !!!!! A man is his castle!!
This is mind blowing! These "council" and those people who complains about someones house its too big, are such a sore jealous... why ruin someone's house??? Why????????
Why build something you know you don't have planning for? Why?
If you wish to see a person's true character give them power
@@sleepcrime English houses have no imagination personally I see no problem granting permission as long as the building is structurally sound
@@1mezion 🙄
There are building codes for many different reasons. I don't agree with all of them but I do agree with some of them. Say you spend everything you have to live in an area you can afford, then some rich person comes in and builds very high-end large homes beside you, then because of that your property taxes double, triple, or more, and so you're forced out because you can no longer afford to live there?
That's one reason there are building codes and why they must be enforced.
Same if you're rich and buy high dollar land and build yourself a mansion and then someone comes along and puts mobile homes beside you, and it drops your property value in half. So now something you just paid million$ for isn't worth but a few hundred thousand? That would suck! Building codes protect people from that.
They're jealous of his rebuild. He has the nicest house in the neighborhood. His neighbors are haters.
No, that’s not the point, whether the house is nice or not is irrelevant.
It’s in direct breach of the planning permit and development extension application.
He has to abide by the planning permission otherwise what’s the point of any rules and regulations.
And whether a house is nice or not could be subjective.
It's a nice house thats for sure. But he shouldn't have built it in the first place. So if he has to knock it down hes got no one to blame but himself. As a lot of these people think they can just build it and no one say anything once its built. But they need to realise that many people have had to knock down their houses because of not having planning permission in the first place. So no should feel sorry for them as we all got a follow these rules as silly as they may be.
@@KDips18 it's a horrible house in my opinion, but that's beside the point. He ended up having to remove the entire top floor and reduce the footprint to the permitted range rather than having to demolish the whole house. Serves him right.
Nope, they are just racist.
Jealous racists.
Robert is a genius, and an inspiration.
Such a beautiful piece of art! There should be more houses like that castle!
Credit to the guy that covered his house in 4 years in hay
why? he still lost and had to demolish it.
He is was a idiot all that toll and graft for nothing a stupid person who thought he was above the law .
Breaking News he wasn't ;-)
@@thetruthk5138 Tolerating that type of authority is insane! If the house was safe and would stand the test of time, why destroy it? Same for the couple that was living in a house that was 19 INCHES too wide! To destroy that and force them onto public assistance is worse than stupid, it is criminal! Especially when they neighbors LOVE it and aspire to have that type of property themselves, meaning the whole neighborhood would be improved.
So how is rubble and trash all over the place an improvement over a lovely home and property that inspired others to improve their own lot?
@@sortathesame8701 The house that was 19 inches or so out I can sympathize with.
But the idiot who was dishonest and hide his home in a hay barn that's why he did it because he knew he should not to bad for him.
In England housing regulations apply for a good reason to stop this chump and others building where and what they want ...
This is utterly sickening. The fact that they would require demolition rather than a fine is beyond comprehension .
Because if you let people pay fines, people would build regardless knowing it can't be pulled down, and they just pay a fine. No one will follow rules if fines gets you out of it
imagine being so motivated that you build a castle by yourself. And I think the shark is fantastic, the old guy who says no has boring life.
I was one day in a bus, and suddenly saw the shark on the roof. It is the last thing one would expect in that street. I remember it gave me a huge smile. I rubbed my eyes because I couldn't believe it was true :-) It is very well done, not tacky at all. It's just a bit of fun. Why do people need to be so much against it? "In case everybody starts doing the same", the man said. Well, if "everybody" does... doesn't it make it what society wants?
Surely Buckingham Palace too large and should be demolished too.
If it was in violation of planning permission it would be. But it isn't.
@@sleepcrime its only in violation of being built and maintained off the blood and misery untold amounts of human souls defiled by colonization around the world but I guess that's not under the jurisdiction of the permit department so it gets a pass.
@@israelb9938 much like how the pyramids were built by slaves. Go off.
To propose demolishing the Walkie Talkie is an easy way to get applause.
@@chrisyorke6175 is that what they call it?
o
Just telling someone to take down their multi-million dollar home as if it's no big deal, these people are evil.
They had the money to build. They thought planning rules & regulations didn't apply to them or they would get through on a loophole. Building on greenbelt is very strict. You would have to be an imbecille chancer to build without the proper permission. They rolled the dice big and lost big.
@@SuperDasbeast who rolled the dice -they won
@@DeFiDuke The council won, they all lost. The castle was flattened in 2016 and the bungalow has gone back to being a bungalow.
They knew they were breaking the law. If you let everyone who builds over then everyone will. Rules are rules. In mu neighborhood a house has to be a minimum of 1800 sq feet. If you want a smaller house build somewhere else.
@@susan49c bs
He built a castle for his princess, so sweet 🥰
they got no planning permission, imagine if someone just built a house next door to you i'm sure you wouldn't be applauding.
Karens just karenning 🤦♀️🤦♂️. Goshhhh
I was thinking the same thing. People just minding other people's business. That guy was complaining about something he seeing as he's driving on the highway. Why aren't you looking at the road fool 😞
Ok tanisha .
How do ya know it was a Karen? Seems to me like a bunch of men going at it. I really hate that the name Karen has turned into a racist dog whistle, I have an aunt names Karen and she is freakin awesome. I mean, gow would people like it if everytime they saw an angry black woman they said "Just a Shaquita being a Shaquita."
@@brandyb2931 Yeah ! It's getting tiresome 😶👋👍❤️
Or people respecting the rule of law against those who do not.
Beautiful building and the council wants to demolish it…..seems like the public should demolish the council
Agreed
Absolutely agree
If someone can help me with the demo trucks I say we get it done in a day and we can replace it with a septic tank so as to have not changed it and not vandalized it
The fact some of these councils are literally like "ahh yes, we can't let this get out of hand. building houses and all"
i don’t understand, whenever a person builds a cool big house in an american town everyone talks about how nice it is or how cool it is, like if their was a castle style home in my neighborhood everyone would love it
Love the castle. It’s quite charming ❣️
I am not British found it super tacky (Disney-ish) and the fact that it is built in a green belt in UK, makes it the worse. If everybody did that, the few green belts left there will be gone.
Love the castle too !!
@@thebentebr
I don't think you paid attention to the fact it's only about 1,500 square foot house so not super large. He's a farmer who needs a home to live in not developing his land for a housing. In order for the green belt to stay green you need a next generation of farmers to have a place to live. I think what he built is vary well done because honestly if you where to build yourself an home by yourself would it even look as half as cohesive as his does.
Yep, I believe the castle was the only one of the buildings that deserved to stay, because it was built using a loophole in the law.
The fact they updated the law after that to close the loophole for future people, is the proof that his build was within the law.
The main lesson is never ask for permission but rather look after your neighbours and build. You need to have it up for 4 years without enforcement and then they cannot enforce.
I live in Texas, USA, and we have zoning laws, but they're nothing like this. If someone built a beautiful small castle in my neighborhood, folks would cheer.
The castle should be designated some sort of special consideration as a work of art handmade by a man for his family.
These councils are petty tyrants who need to be treated like Charles II
What would be gained from inviting them to become the monarch of the UK? and allowing them to miss use massive amounts of public funds for their own enjoyment?
I think you mean Charles I
Planning departments are there to make it fair for all. There are clear rules for what is and isn't allowed and when people obviously and knowingly flaunt the rules, they must uphold the law.
@@utilitarian my you are naive, aren't you? Planning departments exist so that those with pull can get their projects approved, and their smaller competitors cannot. There is a clear difference between flouting rules, and following them to the letter to achieve a result that the powers that be do not like.
@@m1k3droid right ok pal. I don't agree with you at all. To me it sounds like you have permission denied and now have the belief that the system is against you.
I was just complaining about planning in California… then I saw this show and felt much better. Sure it’s not safe for people to randomly build without engineering and infrastructure… but the councils in UK seem to be like a huge HOA controlling the design and look of homes? And the neighbors who care so much… those are some boring old folks that care way too much about silly things regarding other peoples homes. One woman didn’t even live there she just felt annoyed to see it on the drive to work? Wtf
If you construct an eyesore, you depress your neighbors' property values, so you impose a harm on them, which is actionable.
@@kevinbyrne4538; if you buy property, you should definitely be able to build whatever you’d like. As long as it is up to date with the code, it’s yours to do what you please.
It sounds completely contradicting, but the code is for safety reasons. The building itself is for, “the look.” Not ok.
Building a cabin to live in is safe enough but it's illegal, I wanna know who gives people the right to own every bit of land in a country of nearly 70m people
There are to many from the USA on here who just have no idea of the population density of the UK. It may be fine to just build a large property in the middle of nowhere in the wide empty parts of the USA but you are never very far from someone else in the UK. Letting people build large homes just because they want to would mean in a very short time the whole of the UK would be one big urban sprawl. The USA has an area about 40.5 times that of the UK. In order to have the same population density the USA would need 5 times more people than they currently have. That is 1655000000 more people, makes the number of people currently trying to get into the USA look pitiful doesn't it.
@@justinbond558 You clearly know very little about English planning rules. FYI , we dont have "code" in England its equivalent is called Building Regulations.
Here's my questions - when did they get the complaint and actually look into it. If they took months after the completion to look at it then the building commission is the problem every bit as much as the guy who abused the rebuild authorization. He should be given a significant fine but it seems like the commission should all be fired and lose their pensions. The second guy did nothing wrong IMHO. The guy tried to play by the rules - they didn't even respond for over a year - but the moment they realized they had been tricked, they were johnny on the spot.
The council goes “we’re going to appeal this” basically we’re not giving in until we will demolish the home
Shark house: I attended Oxford for a semester and this place is awesome! However - tourists coming at all hours for photographs wouldn’t be my cup of tea either.
Robert the farmer should have planted permanent dense trees around his build. THEN build and waite 4 years.
The castle looks so amazing, I hope it can stay, the only one of those three that looks genuinely good, they only want to demolish it becuase they are crybabies and he didn't ask them and was sneeky. But it looks so awesome
Edit: Setting a dangerous precedent? as if everyone is gonna start building their castle from scrap material by hand -.-
The British council is something else. Makes me livid that they can legally destroy people’s homes for minor infractions.
It would be nice to see the british council members have their homes destroyed over petty ego's so they can get a taste of their own immaturity and god complex's.
As an American, I find I have a problem with this much control over someones home.
At least the UK doesn’t have HOAs they’re way worse than this.
Pffft. American HOA's make these cases look minor.
You need to know the right people and the right handshake too
I think we all learned a very important lesson: Never take the hay away.
I Love the shark!! I think its hilarious! I wouldn't mind living on that street at all.
Just tax them more. Theses Boards be on power trips. PeriodT
THE MANSION IS SUUUPERB.
"THE MANSION IS SUUUPERB"...demolish(2016)🤣🤣🤣
Aww watching that guy building the castle, all that effort, dedication and ingenuity! Just leave them alone ffs!
Wow he really is a happy man on a really good path of success. Lovely home.
These bureaucrats can dictate to the "little people" because it not their money they're spending on appeals etc.; it's the little people's money. The whole system needs a reboot.
19 inches???? Seriously? Brits need to get lives and Planning Commissions should be ABOLISHED.
You need to get a clue. We have laws and regulations for a reason. These people should apply for what they want to build, instead of blatantly lying and violating the permits.
One of my friend's dad built an extension on his home that included an indoor swimming pool. In the middle of the countryside. The terms of the planning were the build had to be completed within a certain time period. Unfortunately my friend's dad passed away before he completed it and his widowed wife and children couldn't complete it in time. Now the council have ordered it to be demolished.
25:20 .. okay, I'm almost convinced you did this on purpose for this reaction and I honestly love it lmao
The council seem like sith lords trying to kill peoples dreams =)
Bunch of money grabbing jobsworths trying to justify their easy over paid public funded jobs. I worked for them for years as a contractor. The money and sly operations going on is insane, their pension scheme would put a normal person in jail. They pay off people then move them to another office in the same building and employ them again at the rate payers expense.
44:41 he looks like Jabba, he's just mad about the awesome castle.
that shark tail thingy sure was a intresting thing 😀😀😀 i was laughing for how creative and hilarious it was at the same time
I love the castle and would love to live there.
Badmind Neighbour and a council of bullies
As a Gypsy he Should sue the counsel over RACISM!!!! Think its more to do with that than 19"!
Gypsy myself and I think it's racism that only Gypsies can live on wheels...I mean for the non-Gypsies...lol...and 19 inches is half a meter, so quite a lot actually. But besides being jacks of all trades, isn't that what we Gipsies were/are most famous for, thinking that following rules/laws is optional?
bill heini had his own bit on fox radio
it also made a part of visitors road trip to see it
loved every move he made
all on live radio.