Save Charlie's house

People may have seen this place before

Pembrokeshire Council in Wales say this straw bale roundhouse is, “harmful to the rural character of the locality” and must be demolished. Please read this article where you will find a link to Google Street View that shows a typical rural view close to Charlie’s home and a link to the planning application on the council’s website where you can support Charlie’s retrospective planning application. You will also find a plan, video and pictures of the interior. PLEASE help Charlie, Meg and their child save their beautiful home. LIKE, COMMENT and SHARE to your friends have an opportunity to support Charlie too.

Harmful to the rural character?, what about these **** abysmyl pieces of utter soul destroying shite constructed out of prefabricated dog-turds that deserve to be razed to the ground and whatever planner allowed the development along with the architect/blind child who designed them needs their hands cut off so they can never sign their name to anything ever again

Sometimes i really get so **** wound up with officialdom in this country that i’d happily do time (again!) for the satisfaction of repeatedly punching them in the face

Why didn’t they apply for planing permission up-front ?

Sometimes i really get so **** wound up with officialdom in this country that i’d happily do time (again!) for the satisfaction of repeatedly punching them in the face

sickening isn’t it..?

I fear for the future of progression

They didn’t follow the rules.

That house is stunning like something out of a fairy tale.

They didn’t follow the rules.

Douglas Bader to the forum.

“There are no rules here, we are trying to accomplish something.”
Thomas A. Edison

It’s a sad story,and yes CG they did break the rules.
Let there never be any middle ground ,let us punish all rule breakers,let them watch as it gets flattened ,that will teach them.

They will come to their senses once they can get that 5% deposit saved for a Lego house.
Because lets be honest ,deep down ,they really want to be part of the BIG society.

Yunki : Needless to say i’m going to write a letter supporting Charlie, if you know him tell him to get in touch with an old mate of mine Dan Child @ Child & Associates Town & Country Planning, if anyone could possibly help him then Dan will do his utmost, this is why he became a planner.

Planning permission needs to be hugely watered down anyway, thanks to rural nimby’s we don’t have enough houses being built to replace loss let alone enough to cope with a rising population.

Surely it’s common sense to follow the rules in question? Planning permission has to be granted, come on we really can’t have a free-for-all now can we?

It’s nothing to do with the design surely?

It’s a sad story,and yes CG they did break the rules.
Let there never be any middle ground ,let us punish all rule breakers,let them watch as it gets flattened ,that will teach them.

They will come to their senses once they can get that 5% deposit saved for a Lego house.
Because lets be honest ,deep down ,they really want to be part of the BIG society.
Nail on the head.

I have written and supported them.

Surely it’s common sense to follow the rules in question? Planning permission has to be granted, come on we really can’t have a free-for-all now can we?

It’s nothing to do with the design surely?

http://www.audacity.org/JH-15-04-08.htm

CG : This is my opinion from what i’ve gleaned in my 40yrs living in this hierarchal society, From the day you are born to the day you die you are merely a statistic to be milked, taxed and abused for the profit of the government and anything you can do to be personally and truly independent of the state, including their rules and regulations will mark you out as being “outside of society” and bring upon yourself untold grief and worry as it is nigh on impossible to class yourself as “independent” or “free of will” in this country.

+1 for all the “charlies” out there, they should be supported and exalted as the new way rather than drawn into costly legal battles designed to wear down free will.

The Government Mortgage Guarantee scheme is a case in point – this will only result in inflating current housing prices even further thus shackling people with utterly needless and worthless debt that is unnecessary but keeps them toeing the line as “good consumers” for our country’s ruling elite.

I’m not a socialist by any means but there needs to be a revolution of sorts soon.

My outlook on this country is, & has been for a long long time…’Born free, ripped off all your life, taxed to death, & the weathers crap’

I reckon I could make money out of car stickers with that slogan.

Check out Albert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Dryden

Hmmmm, I don’t see a problem with them taking the house down sadly.

He has built a beautiful house,it is lovely. But he did it without permission and, in a position where he felt he would not get permission. So he’s gambled with his and his families future.

And to encourage him might be orally admirable but socially stupid. If everyone was allowed to do this I’d have spent a tenth of th value of my house building a perfect abode somewhere wonderful. I don’t think we should praise what we wouldn’t allow as a mass solution.

I do feel for the guy. He’s built a beautiful home in a lovely spot for his family for the fraction of the cost of a box on an estate. But there in lies the issue. Why do we tolerate him and not everyone else who wants a better life?

bwaarp – Member

Planning permission needs to be hugely watered down anyway, thanks to rural nimby’s we don’t have enough houses being built to replace loss let alone enough to cope with a rising population.

Rubbish.

There’s enough empy property available to house everyone.

Not enough backhanders in renovation though – more dirty money to be made from new builds.

I bet Charlie would go nuts if I built my idea of a great house on a field next door to his.

Please read this article where you will find a link to Google Street View that shows a typical rural view close to Charlie’s home and a link to the planning application on the council’s website where you can support Charlie’s retrospective planning application.

Ah, I think I see the problem. I agree that its all very nice, but a scant disregard of the most basic rules can’t be overlooked.

I do feel for the guy. He’s built a beautiful home in a lovely spot for his family for the fraction of the cost of a box on an estate. But there in lies the issue. Why do we tolerate him and not everyone else who wants a better life?

Agreed.

I am a little split though. I can’t really admire him, all he has done is ignore the rules to suit his own needs. We could all do that but I’m sure the regulars on here would be quick to lambast anyone who had a ‘don what you want’ mentality.

Personally I feel that it’s right for them to pull it down because you can’t pick and choose which rules and regs you wish to follow and quite simply it’s not fair on anyone else who does it by the book, but I agree entirely with the sentiment echoed by somafunk, you can’t do a bloody thing anymore, we’re all stifled, boxed in, compartmentalised and the notion that you can do your own thing, independently has all but gone.

That place looks awsum.

I think he should build a few more like that rent them out and use the money to campaing against **** planning laws.

Things like this make me dispair about the way we run our society. Let the poor bloke keep his house.

I am a little split though.

me too.. I admire Charlie’s act of rebellion, and I admire that he’s carried it out in such an elegant and lovingly crafted way, instead of just throwing something up and sticking two fingers up.. I also admire that he’s invested so much attention into making it so, err, you know… wholesome I suppose is a good word..

it’s not something that I would risk doing, simply because I wouldn’t want to see the hard work go to waste if it did all backfire..

all he has done is ignore the rules to suit his own needs. We could all do that

I strongly disagree.. we couldn’t all do that at all..

many of us disagree with what he has done, and even amongst those that admire his actions few, if any would do the same becuase we don’t have the right attitude..

And I think maybe for me, it’s for this reason that the work should be taken on it’s merits..
The craftsmanship is undeniable and the finished thing is undeniably, err.. wholesome (what is that word that I’m looking for here?)

He’s stood up for himself and made a fine job of doing so.. who the bloody hell are we, or some frankly dodgy planning procedures to judge him for that?

Like someone said about riding on footpaths

‘I agree that it shouldn’t be allowed, it keeps the numbers down and frees up the trails for me to ride’

I do feel for the guy. He’s built a beautiful home in a lovely spot for his family for the fraction of the cost of a box on an estate. But there in lies the issue. Why do we tolerate him and not everyone else who wants a better life?

He didn’t pay into the system when he built that house and for that he should be strung up. 😉

It looks very nice and all that and I agree that it’s much nicer than a load of concrete boxes but the rules are there to protect us *all*. This wouldn’t work if all 70 million of us did this.

The campaign should be about changing those rules so it works for everyone, not about this individual. Hippies always miss this point.

I watched that albert dryden live on tv one afternoon coming home from school, the tv reporter was shot I remember him running up the street and bleeding, the planning officer was shot and killed.

Essel, I’ll buy one of your bumper stickers.

The craftsmanship is undeniable and the finished thing is undeniably, err.. wholesome (what is that word that I’m looking for here?)

Twee?

So it’s okay to ignore rules if the result looks nice?

I think that it’s ok to ignore the rules simply if you happen to feel like doing so..

Fair enough. But you should also have to accept that your willingness to ignore rules should not translate to getting what you want though.

yunki – Member

I think that it’s ok to ignore the rules simply if you happen to feel like doing so..

I completely agree.

Providing you are aware how your actions affect others and are prepared to accept the potential consequences.

johndoh – Member

So it’s okay to ignore rules if the result looks nice?

When the rules are there (allegedly) to make sure things look nice, I would say yes. The purpose of the planning regs is to avoid things being built that shouldn’t be built. Now sure he’s broken the rules but when you apply them, has he really built something “harmful to the rural character of the locality”?

Twee?

As opposed to The fairways which is such an outstanding contribution to modern architecture as it has a spacious lounge with french doors.

I’m sorry but i do not consider 11ft x 14ft spacious, perhaps it’s spacious if you or your children suffer from stunted growth due to eating pre-packaged ready meals and french doors? – is this meant to be a selling point?.

FFsake folk, stop buying these lego houses, and how in gods name is that worth £115,000?, do you have any idea what that sort of money would buy you abroad? – the longer we put up with inflated house prices in this country the longer it will take to drag our indebted carcasses out of the current housing vs debt situation, fwiw i stay in a council house, nae interest in owning or rather being debt for the next 25yrs of my life.

I apologise – Infact that is a slur on lego, i used to build lego houses as a child that showed more thought and design than those pre-packaged family houses meat boxes.

piss/it/my/really/boils : rearrange as necessary

But you should also have to accept that your willingness to ignore rules should not translate to getting what you want though.

unless you’re a jolly good fellow which nobody can deny, which nobody can deny and all that..

When the rules are there (allegedly) to make sure things look nice, I would say yes. The purpose of the planning regs is to avoid things being built that shouldn’t be built. Now sure he’s broken the rules but when you apply them, has he really built something “harmful to the rural character of the locality”?

Seeing as it looks like something from Hobbiton, I’d say its harmful to the rural character of anywhere in the UK.

I think that it’s ok to ignore the rules simply if you happen to feel like doing so..

Yipee! Prison staff in ‘job for life’ shocker.

Seeing as it looks like something from Hobbiton, I’d say its harmful to the rural character of anywhere in the UK.

except Devon and Cornwall.. 😉

and it very obviously adds to the rural character.. to say otherwise would be being deliberately obtuse

Yipee! Prison staff in ‘job for life’ shocker.

You see..? I DO care.. 😀

From the article: With a baby on the way Charlie felt he had no choice but to build his house without the approval of the planning authorities, convinced permission for his home would be refused.

So what did he expect to happen afterwards? Retrospective permission should only be granted in circumstances where permission would have been granted in the first instance. It is a nice house, and at £15k it is a shame that there aren’t more low cost DIY builds around, and possibly relaxed rules for them – but whilst in many ways its nicer than the neighbours in the googlemaps link it is not really in keeping with the style so I can see the planners complaint. I think you might have won the planners over upfront by picking the siting / aspect / design details etc until their complaints were gone. Once its up – you can’t negotiate details.

Rubbish.

There’s enough empy property available to house everyone.

Not enough backhanders in renovation though – more dirty money to be made from new builds.

Too true, plus the vat rules that favor and the fact building new poorly designed housing that make poor use of land doesn’t help.

all he has done is ignore the rules to suit his own needs. We could all do that

Seems to me that ‘THE RULES’ only apply when it suits, for example, major power stations (wind farm) have been erected after failing planning, just because the Secretary of State decided otherwise.