A Welsh couple built their own home from scratch to give their 1-year-old son a healthy place to grow up in, but authorities have ordered what locals nicknamed the “hobbit house” be torn down because it was built without official permission.
Charlie Hague and Megan Williams were ordered by the Pembrokeshire County Council in western Wales to demolish the house, according to a report in Mail Online. Their appeal was dismissed by planning inspector Iwan Lloyd, who said the house harmed the character of the countryside.
“We were born in the area, went to school here, and have lived here all of our lives,” says Hague, a woodworker and sculptor. “We wouldn’t want to be anywhere else.”
The pair, both of whom are 25, admitted they built without official permission, but said it was their only option.
Says Williams, “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.”
Petition signers offer support
The little round house is as much a work of art as it is a shelter. It would be completely at home in J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings triology. Posts, stair parts, roof rafters, and railings are made from tree trunks and branches, and the structure appears to have few straight lines or 90-degree corners.
According to the website Natural Homes, Hague built the staw-bale house on land owned by his father. It took him about a year and cost $23,000.
A petition drive seeks to reverse the decision.
“In building the house, we have not caused any negative effects on the surrounding area or its population,” Williams says in her petition to local authorities. “We have simply created shelter as is our human right. We understand that the planning system is there for a reason; however, we feel that big steps need to be taken in order to make low impact living more achievable and accessible to the population.”
Williams and Hague have found ample support from the thousands of people who signed her petition. One woman said the house should be a “template for how low impact environmental housing could be.” Another signer said the house was “beautiful and inspirational.”
But as it stands, the Mail reports, the couple has two months to remove the house and return the land to its prior condition.
Fine Homebuilding Recommended Products
Fine Homebuilding receives a commission for items purchased through links on this site, including Amazon Associates and other affiliate advertising programs.
Reliable Crimp Connectors
Affordable IR Camera
8067 All-Weather Flashing Tape
-
Charlie Hague built this straw-bale house for his young family, but without official permission. Local authorities in Wales have ordered it razed.
-
Charlie Hague and Megan Williams with their 1-year-old son, Eli.
-
Hague built the house with natural materials, including tree trunks and branches, lime-plastered straw-bale walls, and a green roof.
View Comments
Checked the link and couldn't really see the location via satellite imagery b/c the latest shown was from early 2009 well before this was built.
Based off the pin, however, looks like they are somewhat close to a town. Not being a native, I'm uniformed when it comes to their laws regarding private property.
However, were it me with my child needing a home, I would look for ways I could change my house or screen it so that they wouldn't have the complaint of the, "benefits of the development did not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the countryside". I've not done work in the UK, but I would think most review boards, even a County Council, would be open to letting someone keep their home if they ended up abiding by the rules. Believe me, I've run into some loony, some extortive, and some ridiculous exercises in planning and zoning authorities, but surely it would take much to make a house like this disappear from view or at least blend in with the type of structures and fauna in the area.
I built my own house, also in a distinctive 'green' style. The difference is that my house is fully coded and permitted. I could never have imagined attempting this without closely working with town authorities, it would have been like building a house on sand. I'm not a builder, but I know what makes sense, and I made permitting and building to code as important to my planning as in getting the right materials. I regard the town building inspector an ally who works for my benefit. Doing one's paperwork is just as important as knowing rafter layout on a hip roof.
It's tragic, but this guy made a fundamental mistake in going rogue; what a silly investment in time and effort. The town had little choice but to condemn the house.
Do the codes REALLY make sense, or have they become a method of limiting personal choice while maximizing costs and profits, often while preventing smart new building techniques?
I tried to get a permit here for the "smart framing" techniques FH often raves about. Couldn't be permitted without an architect's stamp.
Fascist building codes and officials are just as bad as other fascists.
To an outsider, this appears to be a town tearing down the building to make an example of a family building without permission. One of the most important lessons we learn in life is to figure out what the rules are and learn how to play by them.
I would like to think that a reasonable community would find a way to correct the issue. Isn't there a way for the family AND the town to save face? Maybe the family could pay to have the home inspected by an engineer (removing finish surfaces where necessary) to figure out which elements do and do not meet code? The family should correct anything that is unfit for habitation, but be allowed to keep those elements that are safe.
Otherwise, this just seems like an extreme waste of resources and energy. What will be done with the debris if it is razed? After all, the construction waste will just harm the character of the countryside it's dumped in.
While the idea that we don't want "code violations" is admirable, in fact there probably isn't a tract house built that doesn't have violations. Inspectors can't inspect every part of every home during construction.
My own house has many and I've just discovered 16 more in the deck installed by the builder, that I'm replacing. What's more, the building department didn't care. "That was likely put on after the occupancy permit was obtained so it isn't inspected".
Furthermore, I wanted to put a privacy screen on my new deck. Since the deck is already 5 feet off the ground I was limited to a 3 foot high screen. The planning department suggested that I avoid the $800 application to the Committee of Adjustment for variance, and simply build the higher privacy screen as I want, after it is inspected.
Guess what? I won't be getting a $200 building permit or the $200 planning permit.
While codes, zoning, and regulations are important, because of their limitations and imperfections, they need to be flexible.
This is a good example of how we never own a home no matter if we pay cash for it. The state owns it, we only rent it from them. If we decide to build our home, the state want's you to get their ok and build it their way, so if they have to take it away from you, they wont have to spend a lot of money making it the way they want it, not the way you want it, even if you build it better than their way.
I was asked to look at three houses for sale that a person was interested in buying that were listed for a very reasonable amount. I did the standard document check for title, property lines, water, easements, sewer and immediately found a statement on the legal description of each lot stating the home was built without permits and with sub-standard construction practices. Stating structures could not be inhabited or rented until building permits were filed and work was approved by the local building department. I thought that was a pretty clear statement in an obvious place for anyone looking to purchase the homes and willing to accept the deferred responsibility, process and cost that previous owners dodged, as well as releasing the local building dept. from liability.
I have also been involved in completed natural building structures that were lacking necessary engineering. After finding an engineer to do the analysis, with stamped calculations and structural plans, the new plans were submitted, required reinforcement installed, inspected,signed off, and a legal occupancy permit was provided.
I say - Give the fellow a chance to correct any mistakes, instead of creating waste and a homeless young family !
If it's just about looks... I don't see any neighbors around, and plenty of permitted homes would fail the "pleasant aesthetics test"! Some well placed, fast growing, hedges and trees would create a visual screen - if looks are the issue.
Get media coverage, hire the right lawyer willing to work pro bono (or at a reduced rate)for a share in the spotlight, find the loopholes that almost definitely exist and exploit them. Or, re-brand it as art and let it fall under the protection of freedom of expression. The UK must have some such right enshrined, somewhere.
Or, play by the rules, like the rest of us have to.
Personally, I love it. I think it's absolutely brilliant. But get a building permit like every one of your neighbours had to. Yes, it's difficult working with orthodox rules and inspectors when building with unorthodox methods and materials. Circumventing the rules and authorities, however, does no one any favours.
It is their choice and need to do what they did. If they are not endangering or causing losses to another then leave them alone. We do not need the governments in our lives all the time.
If they are not endangering anyone else or causing losses to anyone else then leave them alone. I have been building for over 40 years and I build quality and believe codes are good to an extent. However in the US especially in CA the code is a special interest profit circus. It is sickening to see what should be a good thing turn into a big business and union force people to pay for something they do not need.
This is a simple case of human beings not standing up for their rights to a private live away from unnecissary government rule. These people own this land. It was built for them by them, not to rent or sell. If someone wants to try and forcefullt take this pure spirited plae away from these hard working people then they need to be taught a lesson in basic human rights. Sit on your porch with a gun in your hand and be damned if someone makes you tear your home down. Get your family, your friends, your community to stand with you. Stupid authoritarian rules NEED to be broken. That is what people should be willing to fight for. Why should a person HAVE to get a building permit on THEIR OWN LAND? If I want to live in a cardboard box or a cube of concrete or a masion built of the finest materials in the world, what business is it of anyone else how I do it? Now if I want to sell it to someone else then yes, for safety it should be inspected. But again, we are understanding that adults are buying it, not children that need their hands held. If my neighbor likes my cardboard box and they want it too and they are adults then who should require an extra step in the proccess? It should be up to the reasonable adult to decide if they want to have inspections, or any other costly extra thing involved in their property. This is why people have to be willing to defend themselves from tyranical rule and other aspects of corrupt government control. Yes, sometimes that means going to jail to take a stand but if the right amount of people get mad enough, stupid rules get changed. It is up to people to set their own level of acceptable community living. Not a government. Stand up and fight for it or just let them take everything you've worked for away!
Land use laws in the UK are much more strict than in the USA in part because the UK is a small island. This isn't the first home ordered to be torn down by local councils, just the best looking one. UK building rules are more like those of densely populated Boston than rural Indiana.
A few years ago someone stored their hay as a large wall blocking view from the road. Over the winter a house was built behind the bales and the bales were eventually removed. The county saw the new house and ordered it demolished. One goal of the counsels is avoiding urban sprawl.
Some in the UK are starting to question the extensive powers given to local counsels. Unlike the USA which have local, state, and federal governments; the UK doesn't really have an equivalent to our state governments. The result is a huge tug of war between powerful local counsels and the national government.
I'm a Building Inspector, and I have a real problem with the direction Code has gone over the decades. Code development is driven at least in part by insurance companies that want to protect their profits by requiring that structures be built to withstand every natural disaster imaginable. At what point does govt./society realize that stuff happens, and that sometimes it's just bad luck? It's getting to the point where the average middle class family cannot afford to have a basic custom home built due to the costs of permitting, engineering, and special required materials that are manufactured for the profit of a few at the expense of the environment. Govt. and insurance co's will have all of us average folks living in homogenized mass housing manufactured by the wealthy before long. I say people have the right to build themselves basic shelter. If they can make it happen without a mortgage, then they don't need insurance. If the house won't sell because it's not insurable or equitable, too bad. It was built for shelter, not for profit. If it blows over or falls down in a natural disaster, well then that's just bad luck and maybe they'll learn to build better in order to protect their own interests next time. And if people die in their own shelter during a natural disaster, well that's just the way of life. We've all got it coming, and the sooner we come to peace with that, the happier we'll be. It looks to me like this couple built themselves an economical and efficient home that is also very artistic and appealing. Good for them. May they enjoy their lives in it.