Kevin McCloud & The Grand Designs Chilterns House

Grand Designs Episode Information Chilterns Water Mill: The Story

Email this page

Contents:

Date Published:
04/02/2009

Chris Ostwald and his partner Jo live in North London with their children Lewis and George. With a third child on the way, family life is already promising to be even more hectic. As if the kids aren’t enough to keep them busy, Chris runs three shops and a cafe. But before this, he worked on special effects for big budget movies and now finds life as a shopkeeper a little frustrating.

Chris & Jo From the Chilterns Grand Design

20 years ago Chris chose a beautiful spot in the Chiltern Hills in South Oxfordshire as the place to build the home of his dreams. He bought the wooded hillside plot for its extraordinary views. But for two decades he has agonised over what he should build. Now he’s found inspiration in the most unlikely of places - he saw a replica of a watermill - in Glade Creek, West Virginia - on a yoghurt pot!

Now, working with a string of different architects, Chris has designed a full scale replica of the American watermill. But building it for real on a steep hillside will be something of a challenge.

The Plan

Chris’s solution is to first construct a level platform cut into the chalk hill, on steel legs. This steel frame will serve as a table on which the house can sit, as well as an under-house storage area. There’ll also be space for an entrance hall, cloakroom and staircase leading up into the house.

On top of this he’ll build the mill’s frame and skin, shipped over in authentic kit form from New Hampshire. Within this there’ll be a master bedroom with en suite bathroom on the ground floor, and a striking double height main living room with an open plan kitchen. This living room will be lit by rows of double doors at the back and full-height windows looking out on the views at the front. Upstairs there’ll be two further bedrooms, sharing a family bathroom but each with their own balconies.

Plans From the Chiltern Grand Design

A wooden bridge will link the house to the forest behind, while at the front a mill owner’s timber deck will take advantage of those views… And finally, the item no self-respecting mill could be seen without: a waterwheel.

Budget & Timeframe

His budget is £120,000 and he hopes to have it built in just over a year. The house is being built using a pre-cut timber frame from America. Although it's a kit home, the frame is usually assembled by a team of six skilled carpenters. Slightly worryingly, instead of tradesmen Chris has roped in an eclectic bunch of old work buddies and family friends.

Timber Frame From the Chilterns Grand Design

A Complete Disaster?

Disaster strikes - a neighbour complains to the council that the build differs in height to the dimensions given on the planning application. Even though Chris is convinced he’s built to the plans he originally submitted, the planning department aren't so sure.

Sadly for Chris, inspectors decide that his half-built house doesn't match the criteria he set on his consent - and that means he doesn't have planning permission for what he's built. Following much wrangling and a wait of 18 months after the original meeting, Chris’s house finally gets planning permission granted. But as ever, circumstances seem to work against Chris. With the UK economy slumping he has to return to London to take care of his retail businesses, leaving his Oxfordshire mill to sit empty.

In the eight months since getting the all-clear, Chris barely touches the house. On the bright side, he does attack building the focal wooden bridge with renewed vigour, and some help from son Lewis.

The house may not be finished, but its character and charm are there for all to see.

Your Comments

Post your comment

Please note: In order to post a comment you need to be registered and logged in to Channel 4:

Sign In Here or Register Here

Comments closed

Comments are closed at the present time

Your comments

Post your comment
By posting on this website you are agreeing to abide by our Comments Policy.
Mandatory Fields are marked with *
Your Comment (Maximum characters: 4000) *
You have

Comments

Thank you for your comment!

Your message will be reviewed and the best ones will be published below.

If you intended to make an official comment to Channel 4 please contact us.

Comments

  1. It would probably look nice; in America, on level ground, alongside a stream and not looming over its neighbour.
    Posted by Phil on 17/05/2009 06:50:26
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  2. Neighbours, we did take the opportunity to move the new house nearly 20 feet further away from your property than the original bungalow was, to allow for the planting of shrubs and small trees in between.
    Posted by Chris on 11/05/2009 00:43:04
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  3. It should be pointed out that the original property was a low level bungalow which would have been barely visible over the fence - whereas the "Watermill" is a three storey house. No explanation has been forthcoming as to why the opportunity was not taken to site it further away from the neighbouring property - which would quite probably have prevented all the subsequent and ongoing grief.
    Posted by NeighboursInTheWoods on 04/05/2009 00:03:02
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  4. Yasmin, you can see the proximity of the neighbours house in the background at the beginning of the show, when the frame is being erected. However the neighbours specifically requested that no shots were used in the program that would specifically show their property, which is why the program had to be made in that way. Also the position of the new house was on the same footprint as the original property, that had been there since the turn of the last century.
    Posted by Chris on 24/04/2009 08:52:19
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  5. Just watched this episode after missing it first time round. Am rather disapointed after a minute of Googling, that Grand Designs haven't been completely fair to the neighbours, and at worst very biased towards the builders of the mill, without even broaching the real problem of the proximity of the neighbours house. Surely you could have been a little less one sided..even just to show what can happenb when you breach planning reg's...after all they are there for a reason. I thought the house was a crazy idea, and not a very nice outcome for all involved. Not a good episode.
    Posted by Yasmin on 22/04/2009 15:02:11
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  6. FOLLOWING MY 1ST COMMENT...DIDNT WANT TO END OFF ON A NEGATIVE NOTE - SO WELL DONE TO THE FAMILY! TO CHRIS FOR YOUR PERSERVERANCE AND TO JO FOR PUTTING UP WITH IT! WELL DONE, YOU GUYS DESERVE IT. ALL THE BEST.
    Posted by HILLARY on 24/02/2009 21:50:07
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  7. Poor Design, doesn't sit well in its context. This is the basic fundamental principal of any design. I sympathise with neighbouring property.
    Posted by Griff on 12/02/2009 15:08:02
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  8. The "natural" materials etc do not justify what planners like to call "loss of amenity" - i.e. that which callie has (in part) nicely described below. It will be most interesting to see any objections if and when the time comes for us to put in our own planning permission.
    Posted by neighboursInTheWoods on 12/02/2009 13:04:38
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  9. A truly inspiring and remarkable build. I really felt for all the ordeals that had to be experienced and am relieved that the family had a successful outcome
    Posted by moya white on 12/02/2009 10:38:51
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  10. That's it on the right of the picture above - the one with the daffodils.
    Posted by Nem on 11/02/2009 12:15:04
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  11. I saw the photographs on the blog of the neighbour who complained and I have to say I'm not surprised he is spitting feathers - the 'watermill' looms forbiddingly over the fence like the lookout post in a prison and the walkway appears to be set in such a way as to allow pedestrians a premium view into the neighbour's house. Also the property seems to have been set only a couple of feet from the boundary, something that was not even hinted at in the programme. The way it was filmed it looked as if there were no neighbours for miles but in fact the house next door (a bungalow I think) is right in the shadow of this building. I would be gutted to see that spring up next to me and I am incredulous that the council gave approval for it in that form - if indeed they did which I appreciate is central to the ongoing debate.
    Posted by Callie on 11/02/2009 10:21:41
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  12. Plansman, I think the Planning Committee clearly felt that the "natural" materials and "traditional" shape of this design were particularly well suited to this site, otherwise the council wouldn't have recommended it for approval and the committee wouldn't have voted in favour of granting full planning permission TWICE!
    Posted by Chris on 11/02/2009 09:10:26
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  13. Kevin, your programme is great but when oh when are you going to tell us a bit about the building regs issues on the projects particularly all those glass walls!
    Posted by Ark on 10/02/2009 23:04:06
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  14. The planners must shoulder some blame here as am American water mill in the Chilterns is obviously 'out of character with it's surrounding' and should never have been given consent.
    Posted by plansman on 10/02/2009 23:00:09
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  15. dear kev/cris would it be possible to see the views from the neighbours house i did post a message but not printed still getting the hang of writing english again, never anygood then i read one comment who said he had seen the views from the neighbours house i think u should put them on site and i read cris!s comment that the neighbours new about the project so why were they so petty cheers tim (fed up of being cold builder)
    Posted by dad the builder on 10/02/2009 22:35:28
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  16. John, the steel platform was in fact officially approved as part of an amended set of plans. Originally the house was going to stand a brick base, at the same height as the steel legs and this relationship to the slope of the site and it's existing levels was officially approved. Here is a quote from the original 2003 planning permission design statement, which describes... "a design which relates to three different [existing] levels. The entrance is placed at the lowest level in order to minimise the climb to the front door (the base of the legs), the main level relates to the outside [rear] terrace and deck (as I mentioned in the show) and the upper level is connected to the upper terrace by a bridge." These levels had existed for over 20 years and as you can see in the photos of the bridge and rear terrace on this site, the house does in fact relate to them as originally planned.
    Posted by Chris on 10/02/2009 22:34:39
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  17. Watching the programme I thought the neighbours were exceptionally petty until I saw pictures of the water mill they had taken from their own house, which clearly show how intrusive and invasive the new building was. The bridge, for example, looks directly into their property and not from any great distance! Planning permission is required for a reason, and the failure to comply with what was granted was at best misguided and at worst, arrogant. Grand Designs were highly disingenuous in the camera shots they chose to use, and the programme was very misleading as to why the neighbours were unhappy. Knowing more of the background behind the planning dispute means that I no longer have the respect for Grand Designs that I once did - the integrity of the programme seems somehow tarnished now.
    Posted by Jess on 10/02/2009 21:55:08
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  18. I missed the Chilterns Water Mill episode last week - does anyone know if it will be replayed sometime soon? Unfortunately I'm having problems downloading 4 On Demand so I'm hoping to catch a re-run sometime soon! Thanks
    Posted by Katie on 10/02/2009 19:21:30
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  19. The original planning permission did not grant for elevated status on a metal platform. You work it out!
    Posted by John Wiltshire on 10/02/2009 15:25:39
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  20. I thought it was a great show... cant wait till tomorrow night...
    Posted by hotsausages on 10/02/2009 10:33:11
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  21. As an avid GD viewer, I watched this programme with interest. Whilst your presentation was supportive, perhaps even unusually biased towards Chris's efforts to thwart the local planners, the basic fact is that he failed to comply with the terms of his planning permission. As an architect I have had my battles with the planning authorities over the years. Hoewever, I firmly believe that our planning laws, although perhaps not perfect, are necessary to protect our environment and existing neighbourhoods. Therefore, Chris was at fault and I am sorry to say bought all his troubles on himself.
    Posted by Michael on 08/02/2009 13:26:33
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  22. For all the libertarian cheers and the 'good on yer Chris' comments, it's worth remembering that we have planning laws for a reason, and that Christ Ostwald chose to ignore them. to portray his flouting of the planning process as some sort of David and Goliath battle against the evil bureaucrats might make entertaining television but it does a disservice to the facts. And, on a purely subjective matter, I thought the house was absolutely hideous - it's not surprising that the developer had a background in set design, as the building was an absurd pastiche. As the plan was being shown on the programme I said to myself, "Please, don't let there be a bloody fake water wheel as well - that would just make it too kitsch for words!" And lo, as I said that, there was the wheel! Grand Designs? Sadly not - arrogant posturing and kitsch kits this week.
    Posted by Cauisplinius on 08/02/2009 13:18:28
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  23. There is, of course, the other side of the story to consider: that of the neighbour. I think he has legitimate grounds for complaint, really, having seen pictures from his property and read more of the problems.
    Posted by NB on 08/02/2009 10:31:35
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  24. Don't worry Ark, the bridge is not quite finished yet, it will have sides to stop the kids falling off!
    Posted by Chris on 08/02/2009 00:11:54
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  25. What's the bridge all about? I thought it was just a temporary lash up but OMG it's intended to stay! I just hope he keeps his children away from it because it's lethal and building control will hopefully have already condemned it.
    Posted by ark on 07/02/2009 22:42:10
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  26. I didn't see any evidence that the house was not according the original planning permission. An over site of GD possibly or of pencil pushing bureaucrats who don't know which end of a hammer you hold. Or is there an assumption that when a VIP neighbour and long time resident complains good civil servants always find something wrong, at least long enough to dissuade in comers who might make a unique contribution to a region. Oh, I forgot, in cotton-wool Britain eccentricity is a violation of Health and Safety.
    Posted by life, liberty, happiness? on 07/02/2009 22:20:35
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  27. I'm an irregular watcher of GD but I do enjoy it. This recent battle with the 'Planning Dept' regarding the latter phases of completing the water mill, appeared simply a question of dealing with the neighbours and their position in the area, rather than Planning Bureaucracy per se. From watching the programme, I assumed the planning people were just acting on the neighbour's complaints. Unfortunately the neighbours and especially their houses were never shown, at least I never saw them or their houses and consequently unable to take sides on the dispute. If another house began to rise up within earshot of Chris and Jo's millhouse, I would suspect that they would also complain to the authorities and indeed request that all the plans were double checked.
    Posted by Harold on 07/02/2009 21:36:24
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  28. i just want to say my heart goes out to chris and jo on the chilterns water mill build as i have just finished a new build in july after learning all the hard ways to build a house the planning the building regs the bloody builders oh my god and the house is still not finished due to the builders going bust taken the money and not paying the contracters i feel i have aged ten years on what was suppose to be a dream i hate the house and living in it i wish i could knock it down and have sold the land to never have experenced the agony of it all !!1
    Posted by jomorgan on 07/02/2009 21:10:33
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  29. With regard to the chilterns water mill where you are unable to put balconies, would it not be possible to erect 'temporary' balconies in the form of scaffolding?
    Posted by Alternative on 07/02/2009 21:05:14
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  30. Fabulous comments all round - its amazing how people polarise their views to suit. I missed the first half of the prog - but would have like to have known WHY the build was too high - Presumably if the kit was brought in from America then the spec must have been incorrect or the frame makers made a mistake. Shame this wasn't looked into (though apols if I missed this! Its a nice house - but at the end of the day its JUST a house - its a real shame the community could not have pulled together and sorted the problem together.
    Posted by Cava Junky on 06/02/2009 17:37:18
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  31. I love Grand Designs but was disappointed last night with the coverage of the planning issues. Despite intially insisting he had built the house to the approved plans, when the surveyors confirmed it was actually built considerably too high this issue seemed skirted over. Rather than addressing the issue that the builder had not complied with his planning permission the show continued in the vein of the builders battle against local government bureaucracy and seemed to want to paint the planners as the villians of the piece. As a local authority planner, I come across too many cases where the builder or developer thinks that once they have planning permission that is it and they can then carry on and build what they want, regardless of whether it is what the approved plans show. A programme with such influence on the self build community as Grand Designs should perhaps take the opportunity to stress the importance of complying with planning permissions, rather than paint planning as an unnecessary hinderance. We have a task of protecting the appearance of the countryside and neighbours amenities such as their right to levels of privacy. To be honest, I was amazed he got permission to build that monstrosity in this location as it was, but then to show a blatant disregard for planning procedures, even continuing the build whilst being advised to stop during the dispute as he had invalidated his permission and in staining it that awful colour without waiting for planning approval for the finish. From reading other comments on here there may have been legal reasons why the planning issues where not gone into more fully but I think an acknowledgement that the builder brought upon many of his own problems through either an ignorance or disregard of planning procedures would have resulted in a more truthful and balanced programme.
    Posted by GrandDesignsFan on 06/02/2009 16:48:15
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  32. Just to set the record straight, I did have FULL planning permission for the house, which was granted one year BEFORE the neighbours bought the bungalow next door, so they were fully aware of the new development when the decided to move there. They seemed horrifed when I started to prepare the site for the new building, as I think they assumed that I would never get round to it. They took a risk that it would never get built and then did everything they could to stop it!
    Posted by Chris on 06/02/2009 12:25:22
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  33. TheWomble, this is to you... You must know Chris well? No, I don't think so. The guy has many business's and these business's all have one thing in common and that is to serve people. People love what he does for them, the gifts, art and coffees and cakes he provides for them. I use to live in the same neighborhood that he lives, his dedications to his shop is amazing, I thought. If he spends most of his life to build his business so that his children and partner can have a life that they desire, then that partner should suck it in and support him when it is time for him to dedicate his time to something that he enjoys and that is building something that wouldn't have existed other wise. No body should consider the consumer as a conflict for what the creator does. The consumer, the partner/a girl friend/wife whoever you mentioned must train herself to have some common sense of appreciating and supporting him for what he does and how necessary it is that he does it. It is easy to seek, but hard to compromise and appreciate. One must learn how to appreciate.
    Posted by Darcy on 06/02/2009 05:48:56
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  34. I left a comment earlier, but it wasn't printed. I would like to try agian though. My husband and I have watched every episode of GD and love the program. Yesterday we really felt for the neighbours. Chris obviously did not think of them. Perhaps it is the neighbours 'dream' home, now blighted by a building built on retrospective planning. Perhaps their light, space, privacy and dreams have been ruined. We know beacause it happened to us in similar circumstances and it did blight our lives. I really think people who have commented on the neighbour's 'pettiness' jealousies' etc. should stop to think how they would feel if their dream home was ruined by selfish builders and developers.
    Posted by Viviane on 05/02/2009 18:17:31
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  35. Chris and Jo are to be congratulated on their tenacity in following their 20 year dream. The lesson here is "Beware Of The Spoilers" - they lurk everywhere. Spoilers are jealous and relish making other peoples'lives a misery - You know who you are!!!
    Posted by Stuart on 05/02/2009 17:55:20
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  36. We are the neighbours concerned. We should point out in fairness that Grand Designs did ask us to take part in their programme. Due to the extremely serious nature of allegations we have made against the council, specific employees and councillors, we were strongly advised not to comment on the programme. Rest assured, however, there is FAR more to this than GD showed - which we will discuss publicly in due course. Those who feel our actions are "petty" might like to wonder why we were forced to threaten a High Court Judicial Review (not something to be entered into lightly). Unfortunately the makers of GD chose to gloss over the issues. Additionally they got a few facts wrong - though we are not necessarily suggesting that this was not in good faith on their part.
    Posted by NeighboursInTheWoods on 05/02/2009 15:16:42
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  37. I have watched Grand Designs for years and was a bit disappointed by this episode. It kind of brushed over the real issue i.e. that the developer no matter how likeable he was, did not have permission to build his house. What were the planning authority supposed to do? Ignore a legitimate complaint? They acted well within their rights. Remember that the house was surveyed and was found not to be built in accordance with the approved scheme. Nobody can take the blame for this other than the builder. Perhaps a comment of the facts by an independant planning professional would have portrayed the matter in its true light rather than the issue that Chris rather cavalierly created for himself being brushed over as a bureaucratic hiccup. Its the usual storey. When things go well its an architectural triumph but when they go wrong its a planning disaster.
    Posted by Murray on 05/02/2009 13:15:36
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  38. Hi, I missed GD last night, can someone please tell me when it is repeated? Thanks Keith
    Posted by Keith Barber on 05/02/2009 13:00:17
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  39. I am surprised at some of the comments in praise of Chris and knocking his "petty" neighbours. Anyone who who experienced the stress and anxiety of living nextdoor to someone who is determined to push ahead with a pet project (with or without regard to planning permission) which has a detrimental impact on their own property would have a very different view. I agree that it is a shame that this otherwise great series skirted around the issue on this occasion, presumably in part not to antagonise the parties concerned. It would be nice if GD posted an explanation on the website as to what the facts actually were. In summary I agree that this was a great personal effort by Chris, although the end result was pretty bizarre to say the least.
    Posted by Graham on 05/02/2009 12:44:27
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  40. A truely excellent show. A fine example of determination. I wish this family all the very best in their beautiful home. But in the interests of fairness I would have loved to have heard more of the neighbour's reasons for ojecting as strongly as they did.
    Posted by Barbara on 05/02/2009 10:36:49
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  41. We are all currently discussing this in work and we cannot understand why a neighbour would object to such a beautiful building. I don't know the neighbour's circumstances and there could be an explanation. I really hope that the family can move into the mill and follow their dream. I have never been so touched by an episode of Grand Designs.
    Posted by Angeline on 05/02/2009 10:09:55
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  42. What an excellent show, well done to chris & his family. I hope that the neighbours are humbled enough to recognise the impact of their actions. I understand the build was higher than the submitted plan (verbally passed as ok), but thankfully common sense prevailed. However, this was after chris & family went to hell & back. The winners are Chris & family....not only a fantastic looking property, but the making of a 'home'.
    Posted by andy on 05/02/2009 08:44:23
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  43. I hope the neighbours were eventually reconciled to the building. They were made out to be very petty-minded and unreasonable. A shame they didn't put their point of view on the programme - it would've really added to the usual programme formula to have such conflict covered less subjectively. After all, it must be an integral part of many a Grand Design - how do the locals react, and how to reconcile conflicts of this nature. Personally I'd have made more of an attempt to blend the building into the hillside by staining it a softer colour. Perhaps it'll weather down.
    Posted by Nyree on 04/02/2009 23:33:52
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  44. I would like to say congratulations to chris for his steadfast commitment towards his dream home. I hope that he and his family will eventually move into the chilterns water mill. I am sure that his neighbour had their reasons for there constant arguments against the building. In my opinion the property is sympathetic towards the envirionment and the materials used are very kind towards the area. I could understand if the building was a concrete structure but that it is not. This project is something to be very proud of and i am sure that the whole family will thrive in such an outstanding area. Well done to you for never giving up on your dream.
    Posted by Susan on 04/02/2009 22:25:45
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  45. Hi there Kevin I have just watched your program on the Water Mill and I would like you to pass on my regards and best wishes to the builder and his wife for a great job. It gives you heart to see someone struggle against such problems and hopefully fall in love with their dream again, thanks for the the show and every other show, great entertainment. Steve Wookey.
    Posted by chilterns water mill on 04/02/2009 22:18:12
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  46. You were so brave and honest, we built our own eco straw bale house in Spain and know how exhausting, crippling, expensive it can be, but you showed great tenacity and courage "that which does not kill us makes us stronger", you did it, we did it, and all those people sat at home in their armchairs haven't - good on you!
    Posted by siobhan fogarty on 04/02/2009 22:17:54
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  47. After watching this episode on Chris's Millhouse self build I thought it only right to share my happiness at watching the build and it's many teething problems. Firstly I must say I loved Chris's positive attitude throughout all the problems and working so hard himself on realising his dream. He was an ispiration to watch and a true Brit! I really did feel for him when he was up against it. I always enjoy watching the program with my fiancee by my side, but this one stood out as a feel good positive strive in the darkness of the 'recession' Good job Chris. Best regards Simon
    Posted by Simon Le Geyt on 04/02/2009 22:17:54
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  48. I have just watched the programme on The Chilterns Water Mill with my wife and we have watched almost every Grand Designs programme ever made and I have to say that this was the most moving story - I hope that Chris and Jo "keep with it" and complete the dream home and try to forget the interfering busy body who clearly has nothing else to do but moan about what he is quite clearly jealous about. I hope when it is finished Grand Designs does a re-visit to show us the completed dream home - Good Luck.
    Posted by Alan on 04/02/2009 22:13:11
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  49. Lovely man, in fact amazing man - a complete super hero! Nosey neighbours let people live their lives and dreams!
    Posted by sharon on 04/02/2009 22:10:21
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  50. I watched this programme this evening. I was so pleased that Chris' family went to the house at the end. It actually made me cry. Please, please don't give up otherwise these people have won - carry on, finish it and be very very proud of what you have achieved. A lovely family and I am going to write to them as well with the hope that it will get to them at the Watermill.
    Posted by Eleanor Ansell on 04/02/2009 22:10:14
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  51. I think this story is a wonderfull idea and i think there should be more of them around the country and europe.
    Posted by colby gawman on 04/02/2009 22:03:56
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  52. It is a shame that this episode did not point out that Chris did not build the house in accordance with the approved plans in the first place. It would have saved him a lot of trouble ! The travesty is that an orange 'bonkers' house with bright white upvc lookalike doors and windows was allowed at all.
    Posted by Matt on 04/02/2009 22:01:54
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  53. I am amazed at the bias shown towards Chris in this episode. He didn't follow the planning permission, but seems to blame everyone but him for this mistake. No coverage was given to his neighbours who have been portrayed as being petty and as spoiling his dream, yet they may be justifiably annoyed at having a taller house than was allowed overlooking their home. What is the point in having planning permissions if they can be ignored? Why should the Planning Authority agree to changes that have been brought about in trying to rectify Chris' ignoring the original permission? This is nothing to do with failing to secure issues in triplicate but rather with the importance of following the planning permission in the first place. I usually love this programme but am disappointed with the way the planning issue was covered.
    Posted by Catrin on 04/02/2009 21:57:39
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  54. I seriously can't believe some people and the pettyness that they cause to people who have worked so hard for their whole life. Small minded people with nothing better to do than ruin others peoples lives. Get over it. The house is stunning and fits into the landscape perfectly. well done chris. you stood your ground against the losers that are rthe council. I'm sure that if it was their house being built and needed planning it would have happened in a instant.
    Posted by jamieeimaj on 04/02/2009 21:57:34
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  55. It is a tragedy that there are neighbours out there whose jealousy would deprive the country of a marvellous masterpiece. I am at a loss as to how a house that came as a kit could be different from plans. It is like saying that he built an Airfix Stuka instead of a Spitfire. The neighbours lost the most, for it certainly provides character to the area.
    Posted by Stu Christy on 04/02/2009 21:54:47
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment

Advertisement

More on 4Homes

4Homes Property Search

Over 300,000 properties to search, interactive maps, neighbourhood reports and more...

 

e.g. Notting Hill, SW3, Glasgow

Powered by: Nestoria

Kit Homes

A-Z of Self Build Guides

Grand Designs Fun

Architecture

Advertisement


4Homes

Skip Channel4 main Navigation
Explore Channel4
Food
Homes
Film
4Car
News
See All

Channel 4 © 2009. Channel 4 is not responsible for the content of external websites.