Geekologie I Watch Stuff The Superficial

'Hobbit House' Being Demolished Due To Lack Of Permits

hobbit-house-1.jpg

You see this house? British couple Charlie Hague and Megan Williams built it with their own four hands. And now it's set to be demolished because they didn't bother getting any permits for the thing. Also, because the building "harms the character and appearance of the countryside", which I think we can all agree is complete bullshit because Hobbit houses are like the textbook definition of the character and appearance of the countryside.

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


Locals nicknamed it the hobbit home but most people did not even know it was there because it is so secluded.

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.

I'm guessing that somebody with a friend on the council happens to own a neighboring home with windows that face the Hobbit house and they just obsess about seeing it gone. First, they put up curtains, but that wasn't enough. Curtains only blocked the house from view, not from EXISTENCE. I imagine they were *this close* to burning the house down themselves before deciding to take the legal route.

Hit the jump for a couple shots of the soon-to-be-nonexistent interior.

hobbit-house-2.jpg

hobbit-house-3.jpg

hobbit-house-4.jpg

hobbit-house-5.jpg

Thanks to PYY, who wants to live in a treehouse. OMG, SAAAAAAAAME. SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME.

There are Comments.
  • pontefractious

    Make the punishment fit the crime.The message the council and inspector want to send is that you can't just build buildings and ignore local procedures. Well, they can do that just as effectively by making the owners take all the steps they should have gone through to build the home. If the building is indeed an eyesore (these things are pretty subective) then give them the option of planting trees or taking other measures to make the view more acceptable. Make them bring the building up to code. This may involve some messy work if it involves checking pipes and wires embedded in walls etc - so be it. Once that work is complete the owners should obtain the required certificates at their own expense. Only if the building is determined to be dangerous and the owners unable or unwilling to mitigate the danger should the building be demolished.
    Making the owners demolish the building just sends the message that the council and inspector are petty minded individuals frustrated in their jobs and out to take vengeance on anyone they can. If a company makes a car with faulty brakes we don't make the company destroy the car - we say "recall the car and fix it". If a bank sells a product with a misleading description we tell it to refund the money. We don't close the bank. Enforcement of laws is necessary but it must be rational and appropriate or people lose respect for the law.
    Of course, when something like this comes up, a responsible authority will also take a look at the current laws and costs of complying with same to make sure that they are appropriate.

  • And all they had to do was apply for planning permission first.

  • antalicus

    Someone should donate some money for them to get permits and build something that is actually ugly in its place.

  • Lu Cho

    isn't there any kind of petition to avoid this?

  • Beegeezee505

    I take serious issue with people who seek to destroy the labor of others. What do you think the earliest settlers would have said to a government that sought to demolish their home because it didn't meet their standards?

    This is flat out tyranny. How have we reached this sad state in our society that you can't build a thing without the approval of the almighty state.

    These brown nose, busy bodies need to die in a fire. This house is a magnificent creation, to which they hold no claim to. Whatever happened to individual sovereignty? Whatever happened to creativity?

    The soul of man is reduced and forced into conformity! REVOLT! RECLAIM YOUR HUMANITY!

  • Captain Matticus, LP Inc.

    You shall not pass...inspection!

  • You win the Internet, cap!

  • that's horrible!!! They were just featured on CNN, and I'm sure that's why they are getting the boot: http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/.... CNN should have left these ppl alone. I hope they run a story on these folks behalf!!!

  • $12217504

    I don't understand, did they own the land? Or did they build the house on someone elses property?

  • In America, some people don't get to build their dream homes in the first place - http://myfreedomfoundation.com...

  • brodan2013

    Aside from the argument - I just want to input that cases like this are when the community needs to be involved. The community should vote anonymously on whether the house is left alone or not.

    Because there really was just one bitter person who hated himself for never doing anything with this life, who made it his mission to get this couple in trouble. Let the community have SOME kind of say, as they aren't ALL bitter, jealous busy-bodies.

  • In THIS Middle-Earth, Sauron *always* wins.

  • Conrado Parra

    tearing peoples home is such a dick move /:

  • LauraF

    It kind of looks shitty and unfinished on the outside, but the inside is awesome! Too bad.

  • Bertw192

    "No other way for them to "afford their home"? The woodwork alone in that house has to be more expensive than most peoples entire homes. Hopefully the article misquoted them and should have said "no way for them to afford THIS home". Not like they'd be living on the street if they couldn't build a Hobbit Hole.

    I have no sympathy for people who try to "get away" with fly by night dealings and get caught. I hope that they actually tear it down and not disassemble it... teach people a lesson about trying to cheat. (yes, I'm bitter and angry).

  • Isaac King

    I don't think that it was simply "permits" that was the issue here.
    In order to get the permits, you also have to follow codes and
    procedures. Get blueprints approved, have structural engineers examine
    construction, etc. I don't think it would be easy to get something this
    strange approved. Just think what would have happened if they sold it
    and it collapsed on the new owners. It is a safety issue. Still, I don't think having no house will be better than having a shotty one.

  • brodan2013

    Something tells me all of your vitriole comes from jealousy. You can't get over what a good job they did on the interior with their woodworking, so you say nonsense like "They must have BOUGHT that furniture, how dare they insinuate they can't afford things".

    Tard.

  • Bertw192

    I'm not sure I would classify it as "jealousy"... Impressed? Most definitely.

    If you can point out where I said "They must have bought that furniture"... I will gladly retract that statement.

    I never said "they couldn't afford things"... I stated that if they could afford to construct that home, then most likely, they could afford to purchase a permit. If they can't afford to purchase a permit... then I guess the statement of "they can't afford things (meaning a permit)" is accurate

  • brodan2013

    "If you can point out where I said 'They must have bought that furniture...'"

    You serious? read your post. You accuse them of having expensive furniture when they said they couldn't afford a home, implying they could "afford" that woodwork or bought it themselves. You totally neglected the fact that they made their own furniture.

    I agree that fly-by-night dealings are stupid though, and they should have seen this coming. They will probably be able to dismantle everything of value easily enough, they should REALLY look into getting a permit though. That's a valuable house and the setting looks cool.

  • Bertw192

    Just because you make something by hand doesn't make it free. Some of my most expensive furnishings are things that I've made by hand.

    Wood doesn't grow on trees... oh wait... it does? Still... it's not free.

blog comments powered by Disqus