Man’s Home Is His Castle
A farmer who built a castle hidden behind a stack of straw bales has lost a High Court bid to save it from being demolished.
Robert Fidler, of Salfords, Surrey, built the home - complete with turrets - without planning permission.
He kept it hidden until August 2006 but was ordered to tear it down by Reigate and Banstead Borough Council in 2008.
Mr Fidler appealed on the basis that his house had stood for four years without anyone objecting to it.
When Mr Fidler removed the bales he believed the structure would no longer be subject to planning enforcement because of a legal loophole.
Like the article said, it will all come down to the definition of ‘substantially complete’. I would think that arguing that the fact that the structure was weater-tight, wallcoverings in place (paint/plaster), electrical and plumbing connected and a majority of fixtures installed, would constitute substantially complete and inhabitable.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 03, 2010 at 1134 hrs
I don’t understand why he refused to ask for planning permission. It seems silly to spend about a hundred grand when you know you are running the risk that your house will be torn down. Yes, he claims he wouldn’t have been allowed, but I’m not sure why.
The court’s decision, though wasteful, seems wiser than encouraging others to do the same, since that will have the planning authorities investigating everyone’s tarps and haystacks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 03, 2010 at 1213 hrs
Gambling with the amount of money it takes to build or rebuild a house is a game for only the foolish or the wealthy, and is probably best played by those that are a little of both.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 03, 2010 at 1232 hrs
I guess what got my attention on the story was the legal aspect, but also the moral aspect.
Clearly, the farmer is a crank and deliberately sought to circumvent the law.
At the same time, he spent a lot of money building a building that appears to be structurally sound and of no danger to the community.
What do we do with this?
I think the punishment is too extreme. If the building is safe, built on his own property, and was funded with his own money, what business is it of government to force him to tear it down? Yes, he violated an ordinance to get permission to build it, but couldn’t that be dealt with with a fine or other measure? Is the violation of a building ordinance justification to deprive the guy of thousands of dollars of property (without just compensation)?
Posted by Owen on February 03, 2010 at 1334 hrs
I wonder why he thought he would be forbidden to build at that location. That would make a difference to me on whether I thought he should pay to tear it down or just be forced to pay a very large fine, large enough to discourage others from copying his strange behavior. I realize that it is unlikely that anyone will try to duplicate his feat, but still I see no reason to reward him, either.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 03, 2010 at 1408 hrs
Looking at the photos, I don’t see what’s so particularly offensive about what this guy did. But the law is the law, and I doubt any of us really knows the specific parameters of the law in this instance.
The fact that this guy kept all of this stuff hidden is an implied admission that he knew what he was doing was illegal. Whatever people think of zoning laws or building restrictions, we have them for a reason, and that reason is generally to protect the interests of the whole against the sometimes capricious actions of the individual. It’s what protects you from your neighbor’s desire to turn his house into a strip club or shooting range. At some point elected officials must balance the interests of that property owner with the interests of surrounding property owners in maintaining the character and aesthetic of their neighborhood and protecting the value of their property.
It would be terrible precedent for government to not come down heavily on this guy. Anything less is tantamount to government endorsing requests for forgiveness instead of requests for permission. It’s not like this guy accidentally built too close to the lot line. If that were the case, I’d say sure, pay a fine and whatever compensation a court decides is owed to your neighbor.
But this guy knew what he was doing was illegal from the very beginning. No mercy for idiots.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on February 03, 2010 at 1500 hrs
I agree with you in part, but again I question the severity of the punishment. I liken it to a homeowner in Wisconsin finishing his basement without a permit. Yes, it violated the applicable law. Yes, he should be punished. But does it have a negative impact on the community? Presumably the whole purpose of the law is to prevent a homeowner from doing something that is either hazardous or negatively impacts the property value of the neighborhood. Has the spirit of the law been violated in this case?
I think they could hammer him pretty hard for his idiocy in a way to provide a substantial deterrent without forcing him to destroy tens of thousands of pounds worth of property.
Posted by Owen on February 03, 2010 at 1523 hrs
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/564099/robert_fidler_and_the_castle_siege.html
This article has a litle more information. Seems the land is restricted-use and Mr. Fidler had applied for building permits and been turned down at all levels.
Looks like he may be a scoff-law after all who tried to use a loop-hole to circumvent a series of denials he had already received.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 03, 2010 at 1718 hrs
Is anyone going to question the very idea of ASKING for permission to build on your own property?
Oh wait we need an organized society based on rules and regulations with bureaucrats determining who does what. I mean what someone else does on their own property (such as not getting a permit for a basement) is obviously an important issue that the rest of us need to stick our nose into and give our blessing for.
No even better, when someone does something that is strange to us, it must be fined and punished to discourage the behavior we find strange…even if no one else is hurt or intruded upon.
Reading the goose-stepping comments that desire control and punishment is sickening. Conservative is obviously just a different type of big government nanny stater. I suppose while the left hand is robbing me the right hand can find new reasons to punish and imprison.
We’re so free!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 03, 2010 at 1952 hrs
Jay, you seem to forget that there is zoning all over the place and that the price of the land and the taxes on it reflect the value of the land based on the zoning.
So, let’s say that you owned some ag-only property and you sold it to someone based on that zoning. Wouldn’t you be pissed if he immediately started to build homes on it and could sell it for the price of developable land? If you had petitioned to have your part of the township made ag only so there wouldn’t be developments, wouldn’t you think the buyer had betrayed you and your old neighbors?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 03, 2010 at 2029 hrs
Free Lunch: No I didn’t forget. I oppose zoning and hate the very idea that other people who do not own my land can hold a popularity contest to decide how my land will be used. It’s private property and I don’t consent to others believing they have some right to determine how I use my private property. Of course the others will use the guns of government to force me to behave how they see fit otherwise they’ll steal my property from me and lock me in a cage.
Land of the free indeed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 03, 2010 at 2148 hrs
Jay, I hope someone builds a CAFO next to your house. Then when 80% of the value of your home disappears overnight, you can let us know how you feel about your neighbor’s freedom to singlehandledly destroy your net worth.
Zoning exists to balance competing interests and to allow individuals to know that the value of their property is based upon certain conditions that are unlikely to change. The protection of wealth is actually a very conservative concept.
Also, I’ve only noticed your comments recently and yet you’ve gone to that “locked in a cage” card like three times already. I get that you’re a Johnny one-note, but perhaps you could at least do those of us suffering you a favor and mix up your verbal repartée a little.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on February 03, 2010 at 2259 hrs
Jay, I think you’re a little unclear on some basic concepts. You don’t like zoning, organized society, or governments, and yet these structures are exactly what enable, define, and indeed defend your right to own private property.
Maybe you should move to equatorial Africa. Nobody will tell you what to do, but if the Masai decide to use you as a pin cushion, don’t expect any help from intrusive government.Posted by Charlie Hillman on February 04, 2010 at 0101 hrs
Charlie,
The idea that any of us in Wisconsin owns our own property is laughable. Property taxes ensures that we are mere renters. As far as Jay’s comments go he is correct. The country was predicated on the individual being sovereign and being able to own and control their own property. Zoning laws, DNR, the Kelo decision, and property taxes all undermine that basic tenet. That does not mean I agree with nor did Jay state that you should not be responsible for your actions regarding your property and its affects on others. If someone believes they were harmed (i.e. that castle lowered my property values) they are allowed to seek redress. If there was no harm to anyone, the law is merely the tyranny of the majority.
Tad
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 0636 hrs
@Tad: In your scenario, a third party is still the ultimate arbiter of property disputes - in this case, likely a judge or some quasi-judicial body. Some entity needs to be empowered to hear these cases, rule on them, and most importantly, have sufficient force behind said ruling to ensure that the verdict is honored.
I’m not saying government doesn’t make some stupid decisions on land use issues from time to time, but at least these decisions are being made by elected officials or individuals whose departments are overseen by elected officials. And if people don’t like what’s going on, they’re empowered to vote people into office whose views might be more in line with their own.
As a private property owner, I would be far more concerned in your scenario, where you build something to suit your tastes but are then potentially subject to endless litigation from neighbors and community members. If you build something and it depresses property values in the neighborhood by 20%, should you be responsible for paying that 20% to all of your neighbors, even if there was no way you could have reasonably known such devaluation would occur? Likewise, if you build something and it causes your neighbor’s property value to appreciate, should you be entitled to a portion of that increase when they sell? After all, you generated the increase. And wouldn’t all of this uncertainty actually discourage development?
It is far better for all parties involved to have reasonable expectations laid out up front than it is to subject property owners to the highly inconsistent nature of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on February 04, 2010 at 1134 hrs
RE: Whatever people think of zoning laws or building restrictions, we have them for a reason, and that reason is generally to protect the interests of the whole against the sometimes capricious actions of the individual.
Yes, the reason for zoning law is to convert freeholds into fiefdoms, and citizens into serfs. The purpose is so the masters in the manor can allow the serfs to stay on the non-private property of the .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) provided the hovel is up to code and the .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)is paid.
Posted by John Washburn on February 05, 2010 at 1826 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 104
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 11:31 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).