Why should one not be allowed to build a structure on their own property?
And by "property", I mean actual property. Obviously you can't do it if you merely own a house in some cozy suburb of yours. You have your patch of grass and your backyard. I'm talking about property that people who've actually gone far in life and accomplished something would have. Acres of the stuff.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-surrey-34768403
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3310462/Farmer-hid-illegally-built-castle-haystack-claims-t-demolished-s-home-protected-bats-newts.html
Someone might decide to build the tower of babel and anger god all again
>>55438109
Because even if you've paid it off, you still don't own it.
Would you like to meet its true owners? Stop paying the taxes (rent).
>Inb4 alloidial title
>>55438109
Because nobody wants your ugly monstrosity ruining the countryside.
Only the elite are allowed to have property
>>55438109
>an Englishman's home is his castle
>banned in Britain
>>55438109
Because otherwise it would make planning permission laws redundant. Why we need planning permission laws I don't know. It must be necessary for the jews' global plan somehow.
>>55438165
sweden says something that makes sense
>break the law
>get btfo
seems pretty simple to me
>>55438357
What's more important?
>Right to see the things I want even if it's on property I don't own
>Right of property owners to build on their own land
Pick one.
>>55438287
>Believing in property tax
>>55439141
You seem pretty simple to me
>>55438165
But the tower already exists. It's called the Internet.
Private property is hardly an appropriate analogy for that.
>>55439141
>Own property
>Build structure
>Not allowed
It's "pretty simple" if you don't question the law or your rights.
ITT:
Slaves
>>55441795
Most people in this thread don't like what happened here. Brits sure don't though. I mean, just don't break the law, right?
Oh, the law now says you can't paint your house a certain color. Just don't break the law, silly!
>>55438109
Have you studied the possibility and asked? It will never be the case if nobody do it.
>>55439154
>>Right to see the things I want even if it's on property I don't own
this one.
>>55442818
Your rights end where my property line begins
>>55442818
This is why HOA is a thing. You should kill yourself.
>>55438519
my sides
>>55441529
You can own as many buildings you want. The building isn't actually the problem.
It's the land the building is on. He built upon green belt, he didn't meet the planning permission guidelines.
The law is very clear on this matter, he decided to troll the council and the council threw the law book at him.
Simple as this.
>>55445880
>Simple as this.
No, it's as simple as doing what you wish with your own property. Within limits. We're questioning those limits. Apparently you believe one can't simply purchase land and build a structure without going through a process.
This is what separates Americans and Britbongs. You can't even grasp our freedom. No I'm not trolling, that statement is true. It doesn't even seem like you people can even grasp the type of freedom Americans like when it comes to land that we own.
>>55446224
You have Green belt laws in the United States.
You cannot build on them, it is as simple as that.
Sure he bought a plot of land, but he should have done his research before he bought it.
You legally cannot build upon it, it's written as clear as fucking crystal.
Even a deaf dumb person knows this.
>>55441795
Stop posting the same response in every cop/law thread you loser
>> 55441705
>>55446224
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_growth_boundary
United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staten_Island_Greenbelt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barton_Creek_Greenbelt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle_(Seattle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boise_greenbelt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Necklace
>muh freedumbz
>>55446327
Do you honestly think anyone is arguing whether these laws exist or not?
We're questioning the laws, something you can't seem to grasp at all. The news will report cases like this because they don't agree with the laws either.
>>55446509
See >>55446634
>Do you honestly think anyone is arguing whether these laws exist or not?
I know these laws exist. Americans don't just talk about freedoms they have; they talk about the freedoms they desire.
>>55446634
The laws are needed to protect this country from becoming a concrete country.
We're a small island, we must protect our green land and space.
Also, why the fuck would I want the English countryside turned into immigrant housing for ungrateful rapist shitheads?
The law must apply to all, including the faggot who built this shitty castle.
If he wanted a castle he can fucking buy one in Wales or Scotland for under a million quid. No. Slippery slope, this country has already suffered enough shit, they're not taking the green land away.
End of fucking discussion.
>>55438109
>that feel when that shit has more character than your own home would ever have
Someday I'll have something that isn't pre-fab
>>55446751
To add.
It's a bit like America.
The constitution must apply to all to prevent the slippery slope scenario. Notably the first amendment.
You have absolute freedom of speech or none at all.
This case, you have absolute protection of the green land, or none at all and every shitskin in the nation can reproduce and build and shit up our countrysides.
Which is it?
>>55446509
The Boise greenbelt is a bike path on public land. It's not surprising a bong would confuse public and private
>>55438109
So companies can just build nuclear plants wherever they want?
>>55438109
You may think you "own" the land but in reality it is not. Every government probably has a inactive law that is when signed or active, gives property to the state. So pray you'll never have to fight a war in your own land.
>>55438730
To see what life is like without planning permission or zoning, visit Houston.
It's a shithole that is not fit for human habitation
>>55441529
Brits don't own their land, they lease it after Rothschilds scammed them off of it.
British taxes go directly into int bank pocket.
The British planning system is corrupt as fuck. They want this guy to demolish his house which looks fine, whilst at the same time approving literal monstrosities to be built across the country.
They get paid backhanders and bribes from all the big businesses to approve their shitty buildings, of course when one man builds something right in the middle of his own huge farm they make out it is an issue.
It is not a fucking issue, his house is fine, leave it there, just because he hasn't paid you £300k to approve it doesn't mean it is bad.
I'm going to suggest to my wife that we build a castle for our first home.
>>55438165
>he hasnt seen EU Headquarters
>>55447583
They already do.
>>55447680
Truth. My buddy used to be a construction manager there and he fucking hated the whole city. He no longer lives there
Panning permission laws in the uk are fucked. Doubly so if they are listed buildings. There is about half a dozen run down buildings in my town that will not be renovated because of these bullshit laws. see
>If a building is on the list, any building work will require 'listed building consent', according to the Planning Act 1990. This is obtained through the local planning authority. Even minor works, such as painting or simple repair work in some circumstances, falls under the scope of this act.
What they do is simply let these buildings rot and crumble. Its easer to build a new building on the old site than renovate the old ones because the planning authority is so corrupt.
pic related is a typical listed building.
Because kikes.
>>55448161
Besides being round they´re in no way similar
>>55448455
Yes they do.
>>55448167
No, they don't. There are very strict zoning laws about it.
>>55446327
>You have Green belt laws in the United States.
>You cannot build on them, it is as simple as that.
you also cant own it to start with
>hurr why does planning permission exist durr
>>55447583
yep
>>55438109
You might think it's your land, but it's really not.
>>55447680
>Houston.
>It's a shithole that is not fit for human habitation
you have not been to a lot of places have you
its a 7/10 place
>>55449191
maybe by your standards lol
>>55438109
You wont mind than if I built a mosque next to your property?
>>55448261
Exactly. It is a joke.
>>55449221
i have been to a lot of places
its 7/10
south Philly is 1/10
Chicago is 1/10
NYC 4/10
I'd rather there be woods and fields and pastures rather than fucking rows of houses.
>>55447157
>Which is it?
none, eminent domain
>>55438109
>he thinks all rich peopled earned their fortune
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Rinehart
>>55447680
you mean that city making money hand over fist, and showing no signs of stopping?
yeah what a dump
>>55449221
I've traveled the United Kekdom (I'm here now) and Houston. You guys live in houses like rats nests all squished together. The closest thing to a spacious property to rent is in excess of £1,000 in even the cheap areas.
>>55438109
you don't literally own the land. you have possession of it and you can profit from it. the land belongs to the nation/crown.
>>55439154
They know the rules when they buy the land. It's like this to stop people shitting up the countryside, we don't have unlimited land to cover in houses and factories.
>>55438109
>buy land on the green belt to enjoy the green belt
>understand what living in the green belt implies
>decide fuck dat amm bild any house i want
Just tear the monstrosity down already. It look slike barratt built a castle.
>>55441529
You don't need planning permissions in america?
>>55446224
>it's as simple as doing what you wish with your own property
Oh fuck off already. Its green belt, which means a level above normal permissions are required. Green belt land is a premium, you pay extra knowing that your area is protected. To then turn around and act like the laws you agreed to suddenly don't apply is juvenile. Rip it down.
>>55448167
They obviously don't.
>>55447157
>you have absolute freedom of speech or none at all
Except we don't have absolute freedom of speech, dumb bong fuck. In fact, the reason we have courts is because the law has so many grey areas. Absolutes are fucking retarded.
>>55447583
No, allowing people to build houses on their own property doesn't automatically lead to allowing companies to build nuclear power plants everywhere. Public health crisis != some ugly house. Kill yourself for using this "reasoning".
>>55449041
ITT: Confused Brits wonder why anyone would want someone to actually "own" the land that they purchase, so they make the assumption that we simply don't understand how the laws work.
If an American tried to talk to a Brit about freedom of speech, the Brit will wonder why the American is questioning the laws. His will response would probably consist of, "It's the law!" and "Well you should read up on the law and what you should and shouldn't say!" without ever following that the American is actually criticizing the laws rather than confused by them.
>>55450543
>suddenly don't apply
>questioning them
Really, you guys have no idea what this thread is about.
>>55451956
The guy built a shitty castle on land without permission, how is this questioning the law? The case has been ongoing for almost a decade and all the doors have been shut. Tear it down already.
Btw I live in a graded house meaning I have to get permission to change structure and appearance, I knew this when I bought it and it is one of the reasons I bought it. The area is not green belt but is a conservation area to protect the architecture and feel of the place.
>>55447680
That's more to do with the climate zone of texas. It'd be a shithole even if nothing had ever been built there.
