So, no one cared about a giant mound of hay covered in blue tarps for 4 years, but they can't stand a house built to look like a castle?

So, no one cared about a giant mound of hay covered in blue tarps for 4 years, but they can't stand a house built to look like a castle?

Should he file a permit for the wall of hay to make it a "permanent" fixture?

I don't think the issue is just about ugliness. After reading the original article in ThisIsLondon, the bigger problem appears to be that the guy secretly built a house in the middle of one of his planting fields without applying for any building permits. Then, after keeping the house under wraps (literally) for 4 years, one day he throws off the tarp and shows up at the town council planning inspector's office to ask for a certificate of occupancy.

There may also be issues like accesss, disposal of garbage and sewage in addition to the lack of proper building permits.

I should have said there also may be zoning issues like access, etc.

So, no one cared about a giant mound of hay covered in blue tarps for 4 years, but they can't stand a house built to look like a castle?

Kudos for not actually reading the article.

No one cared about a giant mound of hay in a farmer's field for 4 years. People rarely care about things being where you'd expect them to be. They do care about things not being where they're supposed to be, like say an ugly castle in the middle of a farmer's field.

Kudos for not actually reading the article.

I read the article, and I wonder what you think is wrong with Eric's comment.

And responding to your comment, why would someone expect a castle-sized blue tarp with a 40 foot tall wall of straw to be on a farm -- for four years? They might expect straw and tarps to be on a farm, but I wouldn't expect that much straw and tarp. There is a picture of the tarp and straw on the same page as the article -- people would expect to see that on a farm? And why wouldn't people expect a weird (but not "ugly") house to be on a farm?