I don't know... to me, it sounds like there were existing rules in place, the builders failed to check if their plan complied with these existing rules, and they are ordered to tear down their building because they did not follow these existing rules.
Maybe the existing rules need to be changed (ok, YES they do), but they shouldn't have built something that doesn't comply with them in the first place.
Yes, you can rest assured that there is no shortage of rules and laws in place. Dont break any or you may get fined.
It is illegal to be drunk on Licensed Premises (such as a pub or bar).
It is illegal to eat mince pies on December 25.
It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament.
It is illegal to go within 100 yards of the queen when not wearing hose, socks or stockings.
It is illegal for a lady to eat chocolates on a public conveyance.
It is illegal to stop and collect an animal you have hit with your car, however the person behind you can.
It is legal for a male to urinate in public, as long it is on the rear wheel of his motor vehicle and his right hand is on the vehicle.
A bed may not be hung out of a window.
With the exception of carrots, most goods may not be sold on a Sunday.
Women are permitted to go topless in Liverpool provided they work as a clerk in a shop selling tropical fish.
Placing a postage stamp that bears the Queen (or King) upside down is considered treason.
Any whale washed up on the shore is the property of the Queen, so she can use its bones for her corset.
A pregnant woman may relieve herself anywhere she likes, including (if she requests) in a policeman’s helmet.
Any person found breaking a boiled egg at the sharp end will be sentenced to 24 hours in the village stocks (enacted by Edward VI).
It is lawful to kill a Scotsman in York if he is carrying a bow and arrow.
In Hereford you can shoot a Welsh person on a Sunday, with a longbow, in the Cathedral Close.
You can shoot a Welsh person with a bow and arrow in Chester, inside the city walls and after midnight.
An English inspector may order a Welsh person to tear down his house if he desires to do so. (Not a law yet
)
My point is, until the laws are changed, a person should expect to suffer the consequences if they ignore them. Expecting any other outcome seems ridiculous. I think it's great these people wanted to build such an eco-home, but they should have lobbied to get the laws changed before pouring all this time and money into something that is going to now have to be torn down.
I don't know... to me, it sounds like there were existing rules in place, the builders failed to check if their plan complied with these existing rules, and they are ordered to tear down their building because they did not follow these existing rules.
Maybe the existing rules need to be changed (ok, YES they do), but they shouldn't have built something that doesn't comply with them in the first place.
Of course these rules need to be changed. Why is it the governments business what you do on your own property. And if you want to build something (on your own property) you need to ask them for permission, that is completely insane.
Not to be a statist or anything, but there are some regulations that I'd say are good things. Ensuring buildings are up to code helps prevent crappy houses from burning themselves to the ground, or injuring/killing the occupants in a variety of other ways. You could say that it is up to a person if they want to take the risk, but what if they sell the house to someone else? Or what if their house burning down also catches their neighbor's house on fire? You could say that anyone buying a second-hand house should get a thorough inspection, but there are some things that cannot be inspected once a house is built.
On a similar note, some communities want to keep a certain visual standard - by owning property in those communities, you are expected to adhere to those rules. If you don't want to adhere to those rules, that's fine - buy property somewhere else. I think Sisters, Oregon is a great example - all of the buildings in that community, you might be able to label as "quaint". It gives the town an old western sort of feel, and it's a great vibe. They couldn't do that without having standards and regulations for the town.
Don't get me wrong - I'm an advocate of small government, and think the governments in the world today are, generally speaking, quite corrupt and overreaching, but there are legitimate reasons to have building regulations.
