I'd like this survey more if the choices were less detailed. This comment applies to all of the recent TreeHugger surveys.

terribly worded survey.

Don't force him to tear it down, tax and fine the crap out of him every year.

"I love the way all these posters think it is perfectly OK to tell this guy what he can and cannot build on his own property. You people would be right at home in the old Soviet Union."
"It's his property, he should be able to do damn well what he pleases on it. Let him keep his castle."
---What a hoot. Tell you what. Let me know what suburb you live in so that I can buy a property right next to you and exercise my God-given good ol US of A 'freedom' to build a toxic waste dump out your front window. My property, my choice - right? And if you have a problem with that, you can go cry to the 'mommy' that you wish were dead.

The two choices that mention agricultural land are essentially the same choice, and should have been merged together. Now the vote is split on those two issues, but we can still see that by adding those two together, most people in this survey agree that in his greed, he attempted to cheat the land use rules. If everyone started doing what he did, the environment would be destroyed.

"Zoning and planning rules are usually not random, but the result of policies designed to preserve greenbelts, watersheds and agricultural land for the good of all."

I see zoning laws in places like southern california completely opposite. I see zoning laws that bend to housing boards, that prohibit utilizing the land more efficiently, removing garages, downsizing of "mcmansions"...usually in the name of "Property Value"

Sounds like this guy should just be fined heavily, especially because the zoning laws in the UK seem to be so progressive and healthy.

People that claim being American means you have the freedom to do whatever you want obviously suffer from the nation's pathetic educational system.

What if this guy had build a very environmently friendly house and was hiding it in the same manner? Would you feel the same? There are people that do this in the US because of restrictive building codes that, as another has said, focus on increasing property values over being environmently efficient. Should these people be hunted down and comdemned for breaking the law as well?

This is a very slippery slope. This sounds to me like a power grab for people's right to property and pursuit of happiness that the consitution guarantees us.

If the gov't can get around that by claiming a bunch of environmental regulations and take the land or make its value less, I think we are giving the gov't too much power over us.

There must be a balance, but when we get the gov't and a bunch of environmental power grabbers in power I don't trust either one.

If the environmentalists or government want to purchase the property at fair market value, they can do whatever they want with it. We must not give the gov't too much power, they always abuse it.

'What if this guy had build a very environmently friendly house and was hiding it in the same manner? Would you feel the same?'
---I would. This guy built an illegal countryside home that damages the qualities of the countryside (in this case being agricultural and cultural) that the society there has decided they think is important to preserve. It doesn't matter whether this guy degrades and destroys the countryside with a non-green or with a green house. That the house is ecological doesn't give it a license to destroy those aspects of the countryside that society has deemed worth preserving.

'There are people that do this in the US because of restrictive building codes that, as another has said, focus on increasing property values over being environmently efficient. Should these people be hunted down and comdemned for breaking the law as well?'
---First of all, the US is a liberal democracy. While I am deeply opposed to building codes that basically force developers to build ungreen homes, the fact is that someone who wants to build a home has any number of choices. Nobody forces anyone to build a home in a community that has anti-green building codes. People who truly want to build a green home can find locations where they can do just that LEGALLY. Second, we are not talking about an individual who built an illegal green home where only non-green homes are legal - we are talking about someone who illegally built a home where NO HOME is allowed to be built. Third, we are not talking about an individual who irresponsibly broke an irresponsible law in some attempt to be responsible. We are talking about an individual who irresponsible broke a responsible law for highly irresponsible reasons. I am wondering if you are simply confused about the morality of this situation or if you are simply trying to confuse the rest of us about the morality. If it is the former, we are all human. If it is the latter, you picked the wrong website to try to promote immorality.

"What if this guy had build a very environmently friendly house and was hiding it in the same manner? Would you feel the same? There are people that do this in the US because of restrictive building codes that, as another has said, focus on increasing property values over being environmently efficient. Should these people be hunted down and comdemned for breaking the law as well?"

I've seen a few examples of this occur around here. A few HOA's were dumb enough to include garage space in the minimum square footage requirements, so several people built double depth garages or four car garages to skirt this, and saved a bundle not having to heat and cool excess space they don't need.

Others did upper stories that were never finished out with heat and AC and sealed off by an exterior door at the stairwell.

Just a few examples, but proof some people have other priorities.

Chad: Yes, these people should be condemned too. I'm not so sure about hunting them down, though. That was your idea.

If the zoning laws suck, they should be changed. If you can't change them, then you should move. Nothing else is a sustainable solution.

If you say "it's OK to break the rules if you're green", that opens the door to all kinds of greenwash. Rich people building inappropriate monster homes and attaching solar panels to the roof to get them approved. You'd have to judge each house on it's green merits individually and that becomes really hard (just look at the sorts of arguments you get on treehugger). It just makes sense all round to have good laws, and people following them.

@houston your straw man arguments are amusing.

'@houston your straw man arguments are amusing.'
---How so? I'd like to hear your arguments of why you think this is to see whether they are even more amusing than my own. Please do share you non-strawman arguments with me and the others. And thereby give me the chance at rebuttal. Or should we just anonymously bounce around one-liner bumper-sticker nonsense? I don't really like bumpersticker conversation, so please try to enlighten me with your arguments.

In case the politer way doesn't work, I'll be a little more direct: Don't be SCARED to express your beliefs, let me know what they are so that I can thoroughly comment on them.

The very fact the guy built this monstrous construction behind bales of hay suggests he knew exactly what he was doing, therefore I have no sympathy whatsoever.

All planning regs (zoneing implies the haphazzard system in the States) exist for good reason, to mitigate the negative effects of any new development...is that a bad thing? Or alternatively just to prevent ugly ass buildings like this from being built, planning reduces the impact buildings like this can have on everyone elses life including endangered snails!

p.s If the States had anything resembling decent planning regs you would not have people commuting 60 miles to work everyday. There is a reason Europe does not suffer your unworkable sprawling cities and souless city centers...it is called forsight!

peace.

If you don't like the chateau, don't look at it--or rather, don't look at pictures of it.

It's the guy's own land. And you guys are advocating robbing him or harassing him for building on his own land? That is vicious and immoral. Leave him alone.

Of course the guy "knew what he was doing" in trying to get around the immoral restriction. Good for him. Why should we meekly acquiesce in tyrannical attempts to violate our individual rights? The property belongs to him, not to any bureaucrat or tree hugger.