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

[Serpo]

Eco-couple told to pull down their 'hobbit home' made entirely out of natural materials . . . but without planning permission

Family of three is made homeless by planning inspector's decision
They built their home from scratch, but have been ordered to tear it down
The couple admit they built it without first getting planning permission
Their labour of love was branded 'harmful' to the countryside

By Stuart Woledge (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=&authornamef=Stuart+Woledge)
PUBLISHED: 19:30 GMT, 1 August 2013 | UPDATED: 14:12 GMT, 2 August 2013


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/01/article-2382684-1B193761000005DC-146_306x462.jpg Homeless: Charlie Hague and Megan Williams, with their only child Eli, have been left homeless

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.
Locals nicknamed it the hobbit home, although most people did not even know it was there because it is so secluded.
But Pembrokeshire County Council ordered the couple to demolish their home because it was built without planning permission.
Charlie and Megan, who live a self-sufficient lifestyle, fought the decision claiming it had a low impact on the environment because of its unique construction.
Charlie, a sculptor and woodworker, said: 'We built this house to provide our son with a healthy environment to grow up in.

'We were born in the area, went to school here, and have lived here all our lives. We wouldn’t want to be anywhere else.'

The pair acknowledged their property was built without prior consent but said there was no other way for them to afford their own home.

Megan said: 'I know it’s not a possibility for everyone, and our situation here is unique, but if young people are to live and work in the area they need somewhere to live.'


The couple’s appeal was dismissed by planning inspector Iwan Lloyd, who ruled the development harmed the character and appearance of the countryside.
The inspector upheld the council’s enforcement notice, which requires the roundhouse and all associated work, including the timber decking, be demolished.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/01/article-2382684-1B193746000005DC-741_634x364.jpg Middle Earth: Charlie Hague and Megan Williams' home has been compared to a hobbit's. The couple have been ordered to tear their idyllic dwelling down

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/01/article-2382684-0260F52700000514-448_634x422.jpg Hobbits: The three-foot tall manlike creatures were made famous in JRR Tolkein's The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings books. Picture here, Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey



The order gives the couple two months to return the land to its previous condition.
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.'
Friends said the couple were half expecting their appeal to be turned down but were still 'devastated' by the decision.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/01/article-2382684-1B193924000005DC-594_634x421.jpg Unique: The couple's front room, complete. They started building their house using only naturally resourced materials last year



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/01/article-2382684-1B1937F5000005DC-258_634x420.jpg Treebeard: The couple have used a whole tree as a supporting structure for their home, fondly nicknamed the 'hobbit house' by locals


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/01/article-2382684-1B193876000005DC-230_634x420.jpg Killjoy council: The couple have been unable to convince the authorities of the merits of their eco friendly house

One friend said: 'They are heartbroken - the roundhouse is a thing of great beauty which they put their hearts and souls into.
'They are a young couple who should be applauded for solving their own housing issues by creating a sustainable home out of local materials.
'Instead they are now facing the prospect of watching it being razed to the ground.'

The couple have one last chance - they have applied for retrospective planning permission but their friends said they feared it was a lost cause.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/01/article-2382684-1B19379E000005DC-990_634x420.jpg Darkness falls: The lights will go out on the couple's home for good unless they can overturn the Planning Inspectorate's decision



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2382684/Charlie-Hague-Megan-Williams-told-pull-hobbit-home-entirely-natural-materials.html#ixzz2bKkAAJXp

[palani]

Poor ole England has ventured far from its common law roots. A man's home is his castle and you don't apply to a planning commission for permission to build a castle. Kid would do well to study his history and law.

[Ponce]

In any other country they would have recieved and award and a thank you from their government.....in the US? the death sentence......by the way, the couple do fit the house.

V

[palani]

in the US? the death sentence...

U.K. ... The commie version of England.

[Serpo]

My house is made of mud and the walls are basically the same color ,but its not so hobbity and bigger

[Libertytree]

If they tore down my home it would cost them 10 of theirs.

[General of Darkness]

I saw a documentary on these young folks about a month or so ago. Pretty shitty.

[Cebu_4_2]

In the USi there are still areas where there are "unrestricted" areas. Only thing is there are restrictions to a septic system relating to the amount of bedrooms. Buy some land, pop in a big septic and then build a few houses... If you don't need electricity I think you would be completely off the charts in relation to a septic.

[madfranks]

Poor ole England has ventured far from its common law roots. A man's home is his castle and you don't apply to a planning commission for permission to build a castle. Kid would do well to study his history and law.

The man didn't apply to the planning commission, hence their order to tear the house down. Of course, their order to demolish the house is illegitimate, but they will do it anyway, because they overpower him.

[Hitch]

The man didn't apply to the planning commission, hence their order to tear the house down. Of course, their order to demolish the house is illegitimate, but they will do it anyway, because they overpower him.

He should have built his home on the water. There are no permits or regulations for watercrafts. Other than a few simple coastguard safety requirements, fire extinguishers, pfd's, etc. No permits, nothing. My boat is a canvas that I have complete freedom to build upon. If my boat is not seaworthy, it's my responsibility, not anyone else's.

I feel for these folks. This is a sad story. It would be nice is these planners would have a little sense of empathy. No rules or regulations need to be followed by the letter. Some common sense, and human spirit, should be allowed.

[ShortJohnSilver]

Can't have people living debt-free now can we?

[Atocha]

All because of D*ckhead

[Ponce]

Poor ole England has ventured far from its common law roots. A man's home is his castle and you don't apply to a planning commission for permission to build a castle. Kid would do well to study his history and law.

That came from owning a Land Patent..... I already asked an attorney.........I don't need a city permit to build anything that I want in my private property......as long.......it doesn't hurt anyone living around me.

V

[Son-of-Liberty]

Well if they have two months then that means they have two months to rally the hordes of other Eco-friendly and low income people to swarm Pembrokeshire County and make life a living hell for inspector Iwan Lloyd.

[Neuro]

The mistake they did is to call this construction a 'house', it is clearly a piece of art, which this inspector has no jurisdiction to regulate...

[palani]

In the USi there are still areas where there are "unrestricted" areas. Only thing is there are restrictions to a septic system relating to the amount of bedrooms. Buy some land, pop in a big septic and then build a few houses... If you don't need electricity I think you would be completely off the charts in relation to a septic.
You start using any legally defined words and you start your problems. Yours begins with 'septic'. You put in an outhouse to collect nightsoil instead. Septic tanks hold sewage and sewage is a mixture of human waste and chemicals. Sewage is regulated. Nightsoil is not.

[palani]

The mistake they did is to call this construction a 'house', it is clearly a piece of art, which this inspector has no jurisdiction to regulate...

People need shelter so this is a good word to start with. Thing is ... it is the commerce that they regulate so the answer to 'why did you build this house here?' is 'this is my shelter from the weather.' Don't engage your shelter in commerce.

That is another reason why you don't want involve yourself with commerce either. Isn't that what hookers do?

[brosil]

There was another article I read about a couple in England somewhere that built their own home without permit. The inspector didn't find it for over ten years a nd so it became legal. Evidently, they didn't hide well enough.

[Ponce]

There was another article I read about a couple in England somewhere that built their own home without permit. The inspector didn't find it for over ten years a nd so it became legal. Evidently, they didn't hide well enough.

I believe that you are thinking about the one that on the outside looked like a barn, it even had a tractor and a couple of old cars parked on the outside.

V

[Neuro]

There was another article I read about a couple in England somewhere that built their own home without permit. The inspector didn't find it for over ten years a nd so it became legal. Evidently, they didn't hide well enough.
Maybe the couple wanted mail delivered to their residence, which is of course an invitation for trouble if you haven't jumped through the hoops of permits etc...

[Horn]

Looks well built enough,

though I'd hate to be the guy who paints it every 4 years with poison lacquer to keep the termites away.

[Horn]

That is another reason why you don't want involve yourself with commerce either. Isn't that what hookers do?

Let alone finding the required Homeowners Insurance Company that's not been leveraged from all sides of the lobby.

[iOWNme]

The STATISTS of GSUS gather around to proclaim 'How' or 'What' this guy should have done different. All of the proposed ideas do nothing to adress the underlying problem and continue to ENFORCE THE MYTH that 'Government' has some type of moral Right to rule over people.

Its actually amazingly sad that people are so stuck inside their authoritarian mindset, that the best they can come up with is to 'work around' the Masters EVIL decrees. All of which make you not 1 inch closer to actual freedom, and LEGITIMIZES the Masters rule over you.

[iOWNme]

That is another reason why you don't want involve yourself with commerce either. Isn't that what hookers do?


You mean a person who only deals and sells in property she OWNS with another consentual individual who VOLUNTARILY wants to pay for her services? And you call this 'commerce'? I call it a voluntary transaction between two consenting individuals. You know, the very thing ALL HUMAN MORALITY is based off of.

Gee you make it sound like she is some type of criminal, when in reality she is MUCH MORE honorable than any tax paying American who votes Democrat or Republican.

[palani]

All of which make you not 1 inch closer to actual freedom, and LEGITIMIZES the Masters rule over you.

Do you mean to say you measure freedom by lineal measures?


I call it a voluntary transaction between two consenting individuals. You know, the very thing ALL HUMAN MORALITY is based off of.
ALL HUMAN MORALITY is based upon a hooker consenting to get paid for SEX?

You might be right as I don't have a high opinion of hue-mens (color of Man) to begin with so if they got to pay for their jollies then they must not be providing anything of comparable value themselves.

[Horn]

ALL HUMAN MORALITY is based upon a hooker consenting to get paid for SEX?

ob·tuse
adjective \äb-ˈtüs, əb-, -ˈtyüs\


1
a : not pointed or acute (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acute) : blunt (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blunt)
b (1) of an angle : exceeding 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees (2) : having an obtuse angle <an obtuse triangle> — see triangle illustration (http://www.merriam-webster.com/art/dict/triangle.htm)
c of a leaf : rounded at the free end

2
a : lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insensitive), stupid (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stupid)
b : difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression

[Son-of-Liberty]

People need shelter so this is a good word to start with. Thing is ... it is the commerce that they regulate so the answer to 'why did you build this house here?' is 'this is my shelter from the weather.' Don't engage your shelter in commerce.

That is another reason why you don't want involve yourself with commerce either. Isn't that what hookers do?

Just because you use their terms does not put you into commerce. It only makes it easier for them to assume that they have authority. You are right in that you can save yourself from trouble but using alternative wording for the same thing but should we have to when most of the "legal words they use are used frequently in common English?

It is very obvious that a hand made house built from natural materials is not in any way commerce. I would ask them to prove they have jurisdiction. If they can't who gives a shit if I call it "my house."

[palani]

ob·tuse
adjective \äb-ˈtüs, əb-, -ˈtyüs\


1
a : not pointed or acute (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acute) : blunt (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blunt)
b (1) of an angle : exceeding 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees (2) : having an obtuse angle <an obtuse triangle> — see triangle illustration (http://www.merriam-webster.com/art/dict/triangle.htm)
c of a leaf : rounded at the free end

2
a : lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insensitive), stupid (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stupid)
b : difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression

Perhaps you failed to recognize the significance of the question mark at the end of the sentence?

[palani]

Just because you use their terms does not put you into commerce.

If the state is about anything then it is about commerce. That seems to be their only reason to exist ... to figure out new charges. 'Legal' is considered a foreign language. It is not English or any other language. You try to speak it and you will not be heard unless you have a BAR card to show you have been admitted to the commercial society that speaks this gibberish. So best forget your GED or high school diploma and presume that everything spoken of in statutes or in court has meanings that you are not LICENSED to understand. If the word STUPID or OBTUSE come to mind for someone who follows this practice then be aware that the more stupid or obtuse you appear to be the harder it is for someone who is licensed to understand everything to deplete your pile of silver.

[steyr_m]

That's a decent looking house!!!

[Neuro]

The STATISTS of GSUS gather around to proclaim 'How' or 'What' this guy should have done different. All of the proposed ideas do nothing to adress the underlying problem and continue to ENFORCE THE MYTH that 'Government' has some type of moral Right to rule over people.

Its actually amazingly sad that people are so stuck inside their authoritarian mindset, that the best they can come up with is to 'work around' the Masters EVIL decrees. All of which make you not 1 inch closer to actual freedom, and LEGITIMIZES the Masters rule over you.
Sure, what kind of dwelling do you occupy? Does it have planning permission, is tax (rent) payed on it? What is your suggestion for this family? I certainly don't think that the state should have any say in what you build on your own land. I had a small house built on our land in Turkey last year, without any permits, from the state. I realize I am always going to have the threat of the states retribution over us, and thus never be totally free... I also realize that the state could crush me and my family, if I resisted their retribution, so I would rather try and find ways trying to avoid that retribution, to begin with. We don't pay any taxes on this property, so at least we are not supporting the beast. The house has almost two feet of stone walls, and if I don't make too big waves I think it is likely to survive at least a few government cycles of liberty-tyranny...

[iOWNme]

Sure, what kind of dwelling do you occupy? Does it have planning permission, is tax (rent) payed on it? What is your suggestion for this family? I certainly don't think that the state should have any say in what you build on your own land. I had a small house built on our land in Turkey last year, without any permits, from the state. I realize I am always going to have the threat of the states retribution over us, and thus never be totally free... I also realize that the state could crush me and my family, if I resisted their retribution, so I would rather try and find ways trying to avoid that retribution, to begin with. We don't pay any taxes on this property, so at least we are not supporting the beast. The house has almost two feet of stone walls, and if I don't make too big waves I think it is likely to survive at least a few government cycles of liberty-tyranny...

I dont use legalese terms. I live in a house that i pay taxes on.

What does my home have to do with the family in question? Nice obfuscation.

I pay out of fear just like you. I guess the difference is I DONT IMAGINE it to be legitimate.

I cant tell this family what to because they own themselves and can make their own decisions. But what i do know is this: All of the suggestions given do NOTHING to fix the problem, and do EVERYTHING to re-enforce the Masters legitimacy over them.

Here were the ideas members gave:

- 'Move on the water' - This ADMITS the Master owns the land and if you move away he might not mess with you. LEGITIMIZATION.
- 'Building out of this material' - This ADMITS the Master has a legitimate Right to regulate what materials you use to build your home. LEGITIMIZATION.
- 'Changing the name of what he calls his house' - This ADMITS the Master owns your home, and if you change the name of it, he might not notice. LEGITIMIZATION.
- 'Moving to an unrestricted area' - This admits the Master owns the land, and if you move off of his land you might be safe. LEGITIMIZATION.

Unless you can show me how these ideas DONT LEGITIMIZE the Masters Right to rule, Im pretty sure you agree with me.

[gunDriller]

That's a decent looking house!!!

people are scared about their survival.

do-it-yourself houses threaten a bunch of industries, just as do-it-yourself medicine (or self-medication) threatens the revenues of 'health care providers'.

it's not unlike the thinking that leads 6 cops to 'roll out' because -1- (yes, one) homeless guy walks out of a restaurant without paying for a meal.

got to justify their jobs.


like they said in Dune, Fear is the Mind-killer. it leads people to do ALL SORTS OF STUPID SHIT, and a lot of that behavior is related to keeping their jobs in an age when jobs are hard to come by.

[Neuro]

I dont use legalese terms. I live in a house that i pay taxes on.

What does my home have to do with the family in question? Nice obfuscation.

I pay out of fear just like you. I guess the difference is I DONT IMAGINE it to be legitimate.

I cant tell this family what to because they own themselves and can make their own decisions. But what i do know is this: All of the suggestions given do NOTHING to fix the problem, and do EVERYTHING to re-enforce the Masters legitimacy over them.

Here were the ideas members gave:

- 'Move on the water' - This ADMITS the Master owns the land and if you move away he might not mess with you. LEGITIMIZATION.
- 'Building out of this material' - This ADMITS the Master has a legitimate Right to regulate what materials you use to build your home. LEGITIMIZATION.
- 'Changing the name of what he calls his house' - This ADMITS the Master owns your home, and if you change the name of it, he might not notice. LEGITIMIZATION.
- 'Moving to an unrestricted area' - This admits the Master owns the land, and if you move off of his land you might be safe. LEGITIMIZATION.

Unless you can show me how these ideas DONT LEGITIMIZE the Masters Right to rule, Im pretty sure you agree with me.
No obfuscation, you accused us for being statist, so I therefor asked for your non-statist position. You didn't have one!

I agree that those things legitimizes the Masters right to rule. But I would argue that it does that, less so than getting all permits and paying all taxes, or letting the Masters come and knock your non-permitted house down. Of course the only thing that would make you the real master of the land, would be if you successfully could fend of any foreign invaders (read government goons), but if you are unsuccessful and they kill or jail you, and knock down your house, you would lend legitimacy to their actions. They proved to your neighbours who was the Master of the Land!

[iOWNme]

No obfuscation, you accused us for being statist, so I therefor asked for your non-statist position. You didn't have one!

You honestly cannot tell the difference between someone who IMAGINES there is some sort of legitimacy behind 'Government', and someone who knows the STATE is illegitimate in ALL FORMS and who understands that they own themselves?

Statism is a MINDSET. Nothing more. If you think there is a group of men, no matter how small and no matter how nice, that have the moral Right to rule others, Constitutionally or otherwise, YOU ARE A STATIST. On the other hand, if you actually understand that there is only 1 species of humans and that they are all equal when it comes to individual Rights, and that no man is above another, YOU ARE AN ANARCHIST.

Which one are you?


I agree that those things legitimizes the Masters right to rule. But I would argue that it does that, less so than getting all permits and paying all taxes, or letting the Masters come and knock your non-permitted house down. Of course the only thing that would make you the real master of the land, would be if you successfully could fend of any foreign invaders (read government goons), but if you are unsuccessful and they kill or jail you, and knock down your house, you would lend legitimacy to their actions. They proved to your neighbours who was the Master of the Land!

Again you seem to have a confusion between the use of violence and the LEGITIMATE use of defensive force. One is moral and one is not. Do you really put all violence into the same moral category? If you choose to violently resist the aggression of 'Government', it may cause you (probably will) physical harm, but that IN NO WAY legitimizes the aggressor. So are you saying that the only way to not legitimize the aggressor is to win the fight? Morality DOES NOT depend on 'winning' the fight. It depends solely whether the violence used falls into the 'defensive' category or the offensive category. (Initiation vs Defensive)

I just made a video on this subject, that apparently seems to be true considering most people still do not grasp this idea. (not saying you)

[mick silver]

thanks sui

[palani]

You honestly cannot tell the difference between someone who IMAGINES there is some sort of legitimacy behind 'Government', and someone who knows the STATE is illegitimate in ALL FORMS and who understands that they own themselves?

Your perspective is that of a person who has the knowledge and ability to be self governing. Everyone needs good government. The question is whether you provide your own or you choose to let an external organized government provide this need.

Believe it or not there are people who really cannot govern themselves. These people accept benefits and make themselves subject to external government. Do you object to these people? Isn't it their choice to let others provide guidance to their lives and livelihood?

And there are other people who are disciplined and knowledgeable enough to not need external guidance, benefits or statutes. You might be one of those people. Now if you got in an airplane and started doing touch and goes at O'Hare airport without the benefit of a license then you are irresponsible. There are limits to how far self-governing goes.

I get the feeling you are just testing the boundary of acceptable limits while putting down anyone who makes a comment on the subject. You seem to be narrow minded when it comes to others ideas and comments while you are being two faced in trying to keep under the radar yourself. A fence straddler. If you were black you might be termed 'an oreo cookie' ... black on the outside and white in the middle.

[Jewboo]

On the other hand, if you actually understand that there is only 1 species of humans and that they are all equal when it comes to individual Rights, and that no man is above another, YOU ARE AN ANARCHIST .




http://doseng.org/uploads/posts/2011-12/1323401200_podborka_11.jpg

YOU ARE AN ANARCHIST



:rolleyes: Freedum

[Horn]

You're all annoying peasants of the GSUS Anarchosyndiclist Commune,

and I am your repressive King Arthur.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA

[Hatha Sunahara]

I'm disgusted with the behavior of the authoritarians in this case. I'm usuall;y disgusted with their behavior in any case. And I feel for this young couple. Their Hobbit house reminded me of a house I had seen when I was researching alternative house construction methods. One of those methods I discovered was the sprayed concrete structure, and in that category, I ran into this house:

5205

At this URL:

http://www.monolithic.com/stories/feature-home-tassell-magnolia-texas.

I'm pretty sure this house costs MORE than a standard house in a land development, but it has a lot of art applied within it. What the couple in the OP were being hassled for was their inventive approach to avoiding slavery to the money lenders. We are not allowed to opt out of this system. Ve hef to konform und obay!


Hatha

[Neuro]

You honestly cannot tell the difference between someone who IMAGINES there is some sort of legitimacy behind 'Government', and someone who knows the STATE is illegitimate in ALL FORMS and who understands that they own themselves?

Statism is a MINDSET. Nothing more. If you think there is a group of men, no matter how small and no matter how nice, that have the moral Right to rule others, Constitutionally or otherwise, YOU ARE A STATIST. On the other hand, if you actually understand that there is only 1 species of humans and that they are all equal when it comes to individual Rights, and that no man is above another, YOU ARE AN ANARCHIST.

Which one are you?



Again you seem to have a confusion between the use of violence and the LEGITIMATE use of defensive force. One is moral and one is not. Do you really put all violence into the same moral category? If you choose to violently resist the aggression of 'Government', it may cause you (probably will) physical harm, but that IN NO WAY legitimizes the aggressor. So are you saying that the only way to not legitimize the aggressor is to win the fight? Morality DOES NOT depend on 'winning' the fight. It depends solely whether the violence used falls into the 'defensive' category or the offensive category. (Initiation vs Defensive)

I just made a video on this subject, that apparently seems to be true considering most people still do not grasp this idea. (not saying you)
I see you take the theoretical route, while the rest of us take the practical route. The mistake you make is that you think power should rest on a moral legitimacy, it doesn't, and it never did. The moral decision on your part should be to stop paying taxes on the house you live in, and when the state use offensive force to collect those taxes, you should defend yourself until you have taught your neighbours a valuable lesson on what happens if you don't pay your ransom to the oppressor!

Practically there are better ways of not supporting the beast, but right, everyone who uses those are statists...

[midnight rambler]

There must be some level of (evil) satisfaction for whatever member of the Death Cult who condemned to utter destruction this couple's labor of love.

[Cebu_4_2]

Two month death sentence because the, "benefits of the development did not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the countryside".








http://www.naturalhomes.org/img/onfacebook.gif (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=528584853861250)
http://www.naturalhomes.org/img/ongoogleplus.gif (https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/113652313720760355181/113652313720760355181/posts/7pSFhVKjFkv)
http://www.naturalhomes.org/img/ontwitter.gif (https://twitter.com/naturalhomes/status/363650704470065154)
http://assets.pinterest.com/images/pidgets/pin_it_button.png (http://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnaturalhomes.org%2Fsave-charlies-house.htm%3F1&media=http%3A%2F%2Fnaturalhomes.org%2Fimg%2Fcharli e1.jpg&description=This%20is%20a%20beautiful%20straw%20ba le%20roundhouse%20in%20Pembrokeshire%2C%20Wales.%2 0Pembrokeshire%20County%20Council%20has%20issued%2 0an%20enforcement%20notice%20saying%20the%20proper ty%20is%2C%20%22harmful%20to%20the%20rural%20chara cter%20of%20the%20locality%22%20and%20must%20be%20 demolished.%20Click%20the%20picture%20to%20read%20 the%20full%20story%20and%20help%20save%20this%20ho me.%20More%20on%20www.naturalhomes.org%20)


Official petition to save Charle's house (https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/pembrokeshire-county-council-and-the-welsh-assembly-grant-retrospective-planning-permission-to-charlie-and-meg-s-roundhouse)







Charlie, who built this beautiful straw bale roundhouse, is a young man with a young family and like many finds it impossible to afford a home. In Charlie's case he had three things going for him. First his father owns a big enough plot of land for Charlie to build a home. Second, the land was right next door to Lammas ecoVillage (http://www.lammas.org.uk/) in Wales where there is plenty of natural building experience, inspiration and community spirit to help Charlie.

http://www.naturalhomes.org/img/charlie1.jpg












Finally, Charlie had been living with his partner Megan in a damp caravan for the past 4 years. 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. The lack of affordable homes and strict planning regulations touches many lives.

Hundertwasser (http://www.hundertwasser.at/english/texts/philo_verschimmelungsmanifest.php) the famous architect, designer and artist wrote, "The individual's desire to build something should not be deterred! Everyone should be able and have to build and thus be truly responsible for the four walls in which he lives".

Jon Jandai, Director of Pun Pun Organic Farm (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Pun-Pun-Organic-Farm/181581223532) said at a TED presentation in Thailand,





"I want to be equal to animals. The bird makes a nest in one or two days; the rat digs a hole in one night, but clever humans like us spend 30 years to have a house... that's wrong."





Charlie's home is designed from the natural resources available on the land rather than by building industry professionals that often specify homes using processed materials with high embodied energy (http://www.level.org.nz/material-use/embodied-energy/).




This method of building is what SunRay Kelly (http://sunraykelley.com) calls
Evolutionary Architecture and what Ben Law (http://ben-law.co.uk/) teaches to architects who want to learn about sustainable natural building.

It took Charlie a little over a year to build his home with a reciprocal green roof (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.156844521035287.39968.147479555305117) and lime plastered straw bale walls. All in all it cost Charlie about £15,000 ($23,000). Watch this short video from film makers Living in the Future (http://livinginthefuture.org/index.php/45) where Charlie tells his story.





http://naturalhomes.org/img/vid-charlie.jpg (http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=49451225&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&autoplay=1)




Charlie and Megan applied for retrospective planning permission from Pembrokeshire County Council who decided that this wonderful, unobtrusive, sustainable home should be demolished consigning Charlie, Meg and their child back to their cold and damp caravan.

As of the 1st August 2013 Pembrokeshire County Council's enforcement say the property must be demolished within 2 months because,
"benefits of the development did not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the countryside".
This is the rural character close to Charlie's home on Google Street View (http://goo.gl/maps/QbZZI).







http://www.naturalhomes.org/img/onfacebook.gif (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=477049995681403)
http://www.naturalhomes.org/img/ongoogleplus.gif (https://plus.google.com/b/113652313720760355181/113652313720760355181/posts/CWWNoC7EBTY)
http://www.naturalhomes.org/img/ontwitter.gif (https://twitter.com/naturalhomes/status/315469659476488193)
http://assets.pinterest.com/images/pidgets/pin_it_button.png (http://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnaturalhomes.org%2Fsave-charlies-house.htm%3F11&media=http%3A%2F%2Fnaturalhomes.org%2Fimg%2Fcharli e11.jpg&description=This%20is%20a%20beautiful%20straw%20ba le%20roundhouse%20in%20Pembrokeshire%2C%20Wales.%2 0Pembrokeshire%20County%20Council%20has%20issued%2 0an%20enforcement%20notice%20saying%20the%20proper ty%20is%2C%20%22harmful%20to%20the%20rural%20chara cter%20of%20the%20locality%22%20and%20must%20be%20 demolished.%20Click%20the%20picture%20to%20read%20 the%20full%20story%20and%20help%20save%20this%20ho me.%20More%20on%20www.naturalhomes.org%20)













The picture above is a poster you can use in your social circles (at full size) to invite your friends and followers to support Charlie. Follow the buttons to Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=477049995681403), Google+ (https://plus.google.com/b/113652313720760355181/113652313720760355181/posts/CWWNoC7EBTY) and Twitter (https://twitter.com/naturalhomes/status/315469659476488193) and/or click the Pinit button to share it with your Pinterest followers.

[iOWNme]

Your perspective is that of a person who has the knowledge and ability to be self governing. Everyone needs good government. The question is whether you provide your own or you choose to let an external organized government provide this need.

'Government' is the MONOPOLY on the use of pro-active offensive violence. Something NO mortal man has, yet you continue to opine about. THERE IS NO SUCH THING. How many internal contradictions can you hold inside your head at once?


Believe it or not there are people who really cannot govern themselves. These people accept benefits and make themselves subject to external government. Do you object to these people? Isn't it their choice to let others provide guidance to their lives and livelihood?

You say they 'accept' benefits. As if these 'benefits' just fall from the sky. Where do these 'benefits' come from? They come from the 'Government' (That you advocate for) STEALING from its own people. Yes it is their choice to let others 'guide' them, but they do not have the Right to ask the 'guiders' to use violence against non violent people in order to get their 'benefits'. Can you make this distinction? (I DIRECTLY answered your question, can you do the same for me?)


And there are other people who are disciplined and knowledgeable enough to not need external guidance, benefits or statutes. You might be one of those people. Now if you got in an airplane and started doing touch and goes at O'Hare airport without the benefit of a license then you are irresponsible. There are limits to how far self-governing goes.

I dont 'own' the airport so i might have to abide by their 'license' regulations. But if i have my own plane, and i want to land it on an open field that nobody owns and there are no other people around who i might injure, i would have NO MORAL OBLIGATION to abide by anyone else's 'Laws' regulating my actions. Again, you seem to gloss over the SIMPLEST of ideas and principles in order to make yourself look right.


I get the feeling you are just testing the boundary of acceptable limits while putting down anyone who makes a comment on the subject. You seem to be narrow minded when it comes to others ideas and comments while you are being two faced in trying to keep under the radar yourself. A fence straddler. If you were black you might be termed 'an oreo cookie' ... black on the outside and white in the middle.

You get the feeling? I seem narrow minded to you because i ALWAYS stick on the side of the moral principle. I know this may seem foreign to you. If someone has an idea that is in DIRECT contradiction to the morals they claim to live by, i point that out......Which to you makes me 'narrow minded'. I find it ironic that you call me the 'fence straddler' when I 100% admit exactly what i do, while YOU speak in parables and tongues when faced with the same questions. Dont try and equate the decision for self preservation as 'two faced', or every other human in history that decided to live instead of die was 'two faced'. It is not immoral to have an instinct to survive.

You have been asked a million times about how you 'survive' outside of the system and you always reply with riddles about $20 silver tokens, secret parchments from the dark ages and magical political rituals which exempt you from all 'laws'. Basically, you are too chicken shit to admit the truth, so you claim to be a 'guru' on all of the Masters rules and claim to have a 'secret knowledge' of why the Master does what he does, and claim to know the 'work arounds'. When in reality all you have done is LEGITIMIZE the Masters 'Laws' by researching and studying all of them.

Basically we have been invaded and occupied. I am claiming that the invaders are ILLEGITIMATE and anything they say or do is to be viewed as such, while you are claiming that if we understand the enemies rules, we can play political square dance and the Masters will leave us alone. Im saying they CAN NEVER be legitimate, while you say they actually ARE legitimate, they are just abusing their power. This is the difference between STATISM and actual individual FREEDOM.

[palani]

'Government' is the MONOPOLY on the use of pro-active offensive violence.
GOVERNMENT is MANAGEMENT. You may MANAGE yourself but if you are incompetent at your own self MANAGEMENT then don't be surprised if others don't step in and abate your nuisance.
My use of the concept of GOVERNMENT is PROPER MANAGEMENT. Should you happen to be INSANE then you have proven to be unable to properly manage yourself.

By the way ... your user name (sui juris) ... do you go around explaining to everyone that you are not insane? For that is what this latin phrase means. Along the same lines of Nixon proclaiming 'I AM NOT A CROOK'. That approach didn't really work out well for him either ... did it?

You say they 'accept' benefits. As if these 'benefits' just fall from the sky. Where do these 'benefits' come from? They come from the 'Government' (That you advocate for) STEALING from its own people. Again your perspective is flawed. You don't view things as being benefits I suppose because to do so would not suit your agenda. Yet you accept benefits all the time and then rail against 'the system' for providing you with those benefits. Two faced.

if i have my own plane, and i want to land it on an open field that nobody owns and there are no other people around who i might injure, i would have NO MORAL OBLIGATION to abide by anyone else's 'Laws' regulating my actions. How many open fields are you aware of that nobody owns?

It is not immoral to have an instinct to survive. Survival is not an instinct and it is not a right. It is a duty. If it were a right then you could stop trying to survive and by doing so commit suicide.

you claim to be a 'guru' on all of the Masters rules and claim to have a 'secret knowledge' of why the Master does what he does, and claim to know the 'work arounds'. When in reality all you have done is LEGITIMIZE the Masters 'Laws' by researching and studying all of them. I make no such claim. I examine pieces of a large puzzle and occasionally fit a piece or two together. I examine laws of others for the purpose of extracting the underlying reason from those laws. Some laws with solid reasons I agree with and if no logical reason can be discovered then these laws get ignored.

Basically we have been invaded and occupied. The same system has been in effect for thousands of years. What has been invaded is your concept of leaving the womb to find an environment that you consider harsh and unforgiving. Again ... your perception of reality experienced a dirac delta function upon your short ride down the birth canal and your bell must have been rung really hard because it is still ringing.

I am claiming that the invaders are ILLEGITIMATE and anything they say or do is to be viewed as such, while you are claiming that if we understand the enemies rules, we can play political square dance and the Masters will leave us alone.
Are you suggesting the 'enemy' does not play by their own rules? First, who are the 'enemy'? I am aware of no declared war and so have no 'enemy' to combat. I refuse to chase shadows or tilt at windmills.

Im saying they CAN NEVER be legitimate, while you say they actually ARE legitimate, they are just abusing their power.
Whoever 'they' is .... if you are a member of their group then 'they' ARE legitimate. If you happen to be a Brownie then you might want to follow all the rules of the Girl Scouts. You don't get to pick and choose what color uniform you wear. Is declaring the uniform of the day an abuse of power? Maybe so if the Girl Scouts could dictate to the Boy Scouts.