British Court Orders Man to Demolish His Family's Home

**HoreTore** · 02-07-2010, 14:03

Originally Posted by Fragony

In my opinion he really does. What service does he gets for his taxes over that specific piece of land, what is he paying for, and why don't people have to right to build something on a piece of land they bought.

....And when he bought that piece of land, he already knew that he would not be allowed to build another house. If he wanted to build a second house, he should've bought a piece of land which would allow him to do that. Again, what an idiot.

**rory_20_uk** · 02-07-2010, 16:50

There is recently a case where a rich person (a footballer I believe) wanted a house in greenbelt land.

So we went to the Architect and got in contact with the planners. Together they decided what would be allowed - as apparently there are some types of dwelling that are allowed on the Greenbelt.

Although not to my taste, the end result appears rather like a mound as most of the house is under a layer or turf and is a single level dwelling.

Another solution is to get a plot with planning permission and then either replace or alter to one's tastes - you can even get cellars to houses that have been built if you want!!

The person in this case is clearly getting his own way, and feels that rules do not apply to him. Instead of engaging and finding a solution he went off and broke the law. The higher they are, the harder they fall.

**Fragony** · 02-07-2010, 16:57

Originally Posted by HoreTore

....And when he bought that piece of land, he already knew that he would not be allowed to build another house. If he wanted to build a second house, he should've bought a piece of land which would allow him to do that. Again, what an idiot.

That makes no sense to me at all. Who are you buying it from in your opinion.

**HoreTore** · 02-07-2010, 17:00

Originally Posted by Fragony

That makes no sense to me at all. Who are you buying it from in your opinion.

Uhm..... The previous owner...?

**Fragony** · 02-07-2010, 17:03

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Uhm..... The previous owner...?

That's what I thought, not the state, what's it to them what he does with it. He build a pretty awesome house,

**HoreTore** · 02-07-2010, 17:06

Originally Posted by Fragony

That's what I thought, not the state, what's it to them what he does with it. He build a pretty awesome house,

His neighbors cares. So, the state have made regulations and laws to protect their rights.

The belief that nobody should have a say about what you do with your property is the same logic a 5-year old kid uses when he waves his arms in the air around his brother screaming "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you!!"

**Fragony** · 02-07-2010, 17:09

Originally Posted by HoreTore

His neighbors cares.

Then his neighbour is the type of person that should just be ignored.

**HoreTore** · 02-07-2010, 17:18

Originally Posted by Fragony

Then his neighbour is the type of person that should just be ignored.

So..... if you do something on your property which devalues my own property by say 100k, I should just shut up and take it? Nonsense.

This situation is similar to this; 5 people are having a wonderful time together, sitting around a table chatting. Then suddenly a large brute comes in, behaving like a barbarian and making everyone around the table miserable. You say the brute has every right to do as he pleases, without regard to what others think and if they don't like his behaviour, they should leave. I say the other 5 have the right to tell the brute to either behave in an appropriate manner or leave. The State in this example, would be represented by the bouncer who will throw the brute away if he doesn't play nice.