British Court Orders Man to Demolish His Family's Home

https://img682.imageshack.us/img682/...rs1468x255.jpg

From the BBC.

Quote:

---

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.

After the hearing, Mr Fidler pledged to take his fight to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary.

He said: "This house will never be knocked down. This is a beautiful house that has been lovingly created. I will do whatever it takes to keep it."

---

An earlier article.

Quote:

---

Councillor Lynne Hack said: "We're pleased that deception has not been rewarded.

"Clearly it is unfortunate that Mr Fidler will have to tear down the property he built, but he already had a home on the site.

"Planning law doesn't distinguish between one man building a house and developers building 200 houses and everyone has to abide by the same rules.

"We have to protect our green belt land from development."

Mr Fidler had claimed he only started building the structure when the council did not answer his planning application to turn a cowshed into a house.

---

What a bunch of spiteful, petty, fools in power over in Britain. The idea that a man has to get permission from some planning council to build a home on his own property is outrageous. It makes citizens nothing more than caretakers for the government of any property they "own", like medieval serfs, forced to pay to live on it (if there's property taxes) and not able to do anything unless they get permission from their feudal lords.

I detest the idea of some "green belt" being protected from development. What right does the government have to take control of a person's property by declaring it part of some "green belt" and then forbidding people from building homes because it goes against the idea they have constructed? Why should the owners of the property suffer for this idea, this paper construct?

It can't be because of any real, actual effects from this house. If there were any effects used as an excuse to take people's rights, they would have been noticed in the four years this house remained hidden.

Perhaps the worst part is that this man cleverly exploited a loophole that would have let him keep the home he built, but the judges and politicians rejected the legalities and demanded it be demolished because they couldn't have him getting away with the crime of building a lovely home for his family.

I hope he wins his fight against an oppressive nanny-state government in the end.

CR

They should let it stand simply because they couldn't find a castle in a haystack in four year's time. :laugh4:

Seriously, they should inspect the place, require the owner to make any necessary changes for building codes and then slap on a fine for having cheek. Tearing it down seems rather harsh and spiteful.

Green belts do have some value. Endless city sprawls aren't good for anyone.

Of course, I think what has been done is spiteful. Won't stop the Tories using it as an example to bash Labour's "nanny state" though, despite the fact that it was in a, uh, Tory controlled council.

We're all far better off with zoning laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Green belts do have some value. Endless city sprawls aren't good for anyone.

Of course, I think what has been done is spiteful. Won't stop the Tories using it as an example to bash Labour's "nanny state" though, despite the fact that it was in a, uh, Tory controlled council.

---

I don't think it's spiteful, he willfully broke the law and covered it up. The dwelling is illegal and therefore should be pulled down. Otherwise, people would never bother with planning, especially rich people who could hire security for four years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

https://img682.imageshack.us/img682/...rs1468x255.jpg

From the BBC.



An earlier article.


What a bunch of spiteful, petty, fools in power over in Britain. The idea that a man has to get permission from some planning council to build a home on his own property is outrageous. It makes citizens nothing more than caretakers for the government of any property they "own", like medieval serfs, forced to pay to live on it (if there's property taxes) and not able to do anything unless they get permission from their feudal lords.

---

Bingo, welcome to Britain, one of the few feudal states left in the world, and yet it is your country that executes people.

Quote:

---

I detest the idea of some "green belt" being protected from development. What right does the government have to take control of a person's property by declaring it part of some "green belt" and then forbidding people from building homes because it goes against the idea they have constructed? Why should the owners of the property suffer for this idea, this paper construct?

It can't be because of any real, actual effects from this house. If there were any effects used as an excuse to take people's rights, they would have been noticed in the four years this house remained hidden.

Perhaps the worst part is that this man cleverly exploited a loophole that would have let him keep the home he built, but the judges and politicians rejected the legalities and demanded it be demolished because they couldn't have him getting away with the crime of building a lovely home for his family.

I hope he wins his fight against an oppressive nanny-state government in the end.

CR

---

So much hot air, Green belts exists to prevent Manchester swallowing Liverpool.

Quote:

---

I don't think it's spiteful, he willfully broke the law and covered it up. The dwelling is illegal and therefore should be pulled down. Otherwise, people would never bother with planning, especially rich people who could hire security for four years.

---

Let's imagine an alternate scenario, where you go 1 mile over the speed limit and the judge orders you to destroy your ferrari, saying "Traffic law doesn't distinguish between one mile over the speed limit and 200 miles over the speed limit and everyone has to abide by the same rules. We're pleased that Philipus's deception has not been rewarded"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Let's imagine an alternate scenario, where you go 1 mile over the speed limit and the judge orders you to destroy your ferrari, saying "Traffic law doesn't distinguish between one mile over the speed limit and 200 miles over the speed limit and everyone has to abide by the same rules. We're pleased that Philipus's deception has not been rewarded"...

---

Well, I'm pretty sure that British law allows 5 miles or 10%, and they don't destroy your car. In any case, are you suggesting he could claim he accidentally built a mansion?

Yeah... But, want is a nice rich Muslim decided to built a very big Mosque in the middle of his property? Crazed Rabbit will agree that he has the right to keep it, even built illegally?
The same who complain (nota: not aim to Crazed Rabbit) about the loss of the "Englishness", whatever it is, will agree that every body can built whatever he want on his/her property? A Swiss chalet in Yorkshire? Or a carvan serail in Derbyshire?
I prefer when the law, wisely, probibides such exesses.
And a man who built a casttle could expect (and he did, reason why he hide it) retribution. He gambled, he lost. Next time, he will follow the law...

Zoning laws are the difference between the pleasant - lovely in places - British landscape, and Las Vegas. Or between Switzerland and third world urban sprawl.


Even if I wouldn't be in favour of zoning laws, I'd still have little sympathy for this man, who sought to break the law by sneakily trying to build a 'fait accompli', and who is now trying to have the law suit him by shedding crocodile tears that they should be so cruel as to want a finished house torn down. This is not a matter of 'pity, he should've thought of this before'. This is a case of 'sorry mate, you knew the law all along, hence the covertness, but sneakyness doesn't create more law especially for you'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well, I'm pretty sure that British law allows 5 miles or 10%, and they don't destroy your car.

---

Yes, I would imagine so. I imagine you don't own a ferrari either.

Quote:

---

In any case, are you suggesting he could claim he accidentally built a mansion?

---

No.

How would you feel in the case I suggested? We can make it so that you purposefully went 6 miles/11% over if you wish.

This is kind of like the moh winner flag thread...

And I find myself with the same feeling. Don't care too much about someone who can afford to take a chance building themselves a castle. Not going to hate him for "wanting to be above the law". I guess it's the perfect news story though, either you can be pissed at the smug judges or at the self centered home owner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well, I'm pretty sure that British law allows 5 miles or 10%, and they don't destroy your car. In any case, are you suggesting he could claim he accidentally built a mansion?

---

Who's saying the driver accidentally went 1 (or 6, though I hear there's no exemption in Britain) mph over the limit?

Also, what about someone ticketed for not being in control of his car on the road? Should their car be seized?

Quote:

---

PRESTWICK, Scotland, Jan. 28 (UPI) -- A Scottish motorist who was ticketed for blowing his nose while his car was stopped in clogged traffic said he will take the charge to court.

Michael Mancini, 39, of Prestwick, said he was in stationary traffic with his parking brake on when he reached for a handkerchief to wipe his runny nose, leading police Constable Stuart Gray to issue him a $97 fine because he was "not in control of his vehicle" while blowing his nose, the Daily Mail reported Thursday.

"I was in total shock. I was stuck in traffic with the handbrake on and my nose was running," Mancini said. "It's beyond a disgrace. Surely it would have been more dangerous to drive with a blocked nose?"

---

Quote:

---

I don't think it's spiteful, he willfully broke the law and covered it up. The dwelling is illegal and therefore should be pulled down. Otherwise, people would never bother with planning, especially rich people who could hire security for four years.

---

Why is it that some people always demand strict punishment for anyone who doesn't follow preposterous laws, instead of suggesting the whole permitting process be made simple and easy?

Quote:

---

So much hot air, Green belts exists to prevent Manchester swallowing Liverpool.

---

And who decides that should be a priority? Certainly not the people who actually live there. No, it's people who want to visit there and therefore impose restrictive laws on the people who live there for their own pleasure.

Quote:

---

Yeah... But, want is a nice rich Muslim decided to built a very big Mosque in the middle of his property? Crazed Rabbit will agree that he has the right to keep it, even built illegally?

---

Yes, absolutely.

Quote:

---

We're all far better off with zoning laws.

---

Zoning is theft; it destroys the rights of the property owner, and takes away from the monetary value of their land with no compensation.

This man didn't set out to break the law; he set out to build a home. What terrible consequences was the law supposed to prevent, that we must cling blindly to it? What bad effects have his illegal actions caused?

Why is another house being built so terrible? Show me the harm in his actions, and don't cite oppressive laws as reasons to stop him.

CR

Unlike in America, we don't have vast tracts of land. So buying up a field then just building Walmart or a bunch of buildings without planning permission is pretty serious.

He didn't get council permission to erect a structure on his land. What did he expect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Let's imagine an alternate scenario, where you go 1 mile over the speed limit and the judge orders you to destroy your ferrari, saying "Traffic law doesn't distinguish between one mile over the speed limit and 200 miles over the speed limit and everyone has to abide by the same rules. We're pleased that Philipus's deception has not been rewarded"...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

How would you feel in the case I suggested? We can make it so that you purposefully went 6 miles/11% over if you wish.

---

If you are going to draw an analogy to driving, a few miles over would be like adding a small room to his house without permission, building a whole :daisy: castle is like drag racing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

In America, we don't have vast tracts of land. So buying up a field then just building Walmart or a bunch of buildings without planning permission is pretty serious.

---

In Britain we have even less land, America is deserted by comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Yes, I would imagine so. I imagine you don't own a ferrari either.



No.

How would you feel in the case I suggested? We can make it so that you purposefully went 6 miles/11% over if you wish.

This is kind of like the moh winner flag thread...

And I find myself with the same feeling. Don't care too much about someone who can afford to take a chance building themselves a castle. Not going to hate him for "wanting to be above the law". I guess it's the perfect news story though, either you can be pissed at the smug judges or at the self centered home owner.

---

My Uncle was caught for drunk driving by the police whilst asleep at home, because the doorman tipped them off when he left; he got home no problem. He was arrested, charged and convicted; he lost his license and thence his job. We all agreed that was fair enough really; even though we felt the Police should have been out on the road, not drinking tea in the station.

So, sorry, I have no sympathy for this man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Who's saying the driver accidentally went 1 (or 6, though I hear there's no exemption in Britain) mph over the limit?

Also, what about someone ticketed for not being in control of his car on the road? Should their car be seized?

Why is it that some people always demand strict punishment for anyone who doesn't follow preposterous laws, instead of suggesting the whole permitting process be made simple and easy?

And who decides that should be a priority? Certainly not the people who actually live there. No, it's people who want to visit there and therefore impose restrictive laws on the people who live there for their own pleasure.

Yes, absolutely.

---

In Egypt, houses are built on the Nile Delta, and this harms food production. In Spain, many houses were built illegally, ruining coastlines and creating deathtraps. They are now being pulled down.

Quote:

---

Zoning is theft; it destroys the rights of the property owner, and takes away from the monetary value of their land with no compensation.

This man didn't set out to break the law; he set out to build a home. What terrible consequences was the law supposed to prevent, that we must cling blindly to it? What bad effects have his illegal actions caused?

Why is another house being built so terrible? Show me the harm in his actions, and don't cite oppressive laws as reasons to stop him.

CR

---

He set out to break the Law, not to build a home. It was deliberate and malicious. This man is a "Surrey Farmer", this means he owns a vast arable farmstead, and makes lots of money off things like wheat and Oilseed Rape. He is no sort of victim, he could have applied for permission for a part of his land not designated for farming, but he did not. We have a lack of good arable land in the UK and overcrowding is already a serious problem in Surrey.

As for "Zoning is theft" that's complete nonsense, because you can't take away something someone doesn't have. UK land is all either Common Land or farming land with a private Leasehold unless stated otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Seriously, they should inspect the place, require the owner to make any necessary changes for building codes and then slap on a fine for having cheek. Tearing it down seems rather harsh and spiteful.

---

This seems the best solution to me.

Yes. But the thing is they already _did_ that. I am pretty sure the local building code reads "no buildings here". So making necessary changes amounts to same: taking down the house.

Louis put it best. This is not just ignorance; this is willful, malicious.

I don't care about the legal aspect, I'm just looking forward to the siege... :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I don't care about the legal aspect, I'm just looking forward to the siege... :thumbsup:

---

Me too!

CR:

I loathe such things too. However, legally, I think this chap is in trouble and will be forced to raze the home.

As I understand it, with the rare exception of true "freehold" property, all property within the borders of a sovereign state is technically the property of that sovereignty under the doctrine of "soveriegn rights." This is the basis of eminent domain, whereby the state can confiscate a property. Ultimately, you do NOT really own your property, only the use of it, and property taxes are the fees for its use and estate taxes the fee paid to have it transfer to your heirs and not escheat to the state.

One of our legal beagles can probably give you some more precise sourcing for this, I picked it up (loathing every word I read) while doing continuing education in estate planning for my insurance license.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

In America, we don't have vast tracts of land.

---

Whoah, you gotta be joking me, right? :laugh4: If America does not have vast tracts of land, then who does? Like PVC said... US is basically empty by European standards, and roomy by most world standards (especially if you consider that US is not covered by deserts, hot or cold). Sure, Canada and Russia have more space, but much of it is not comfortably habitable, especially in Canada. Brazil is the last choice, as China is too thickly populated...

Beskar meant britain instead of america...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Yes. But the thing is they already _did_ that. I am pretty sure the local building code reads "no buildings here". So making necessary changes amounts to same: taking down the house.

Louis put it best. This is not just ignorance; this is willful, malicious.

---

Willful yes, but why malicious? What is the negative of this particular house?

I think Beskar meant to start his post with "Unlike" (Unlike in...).

@Sasaki, again Louis explained it already:

Quote:

---

This is a case of 'sorry mate, you knew the law all along, hence the covertness, but sneakyness doesn't create more law especially for you'.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

As I understand it, with the rare exception of true "freehold" property, all property within the borders of a sovereign state is technically the property of that sovereignty under the doctrine of "soveriegn rights." This is the basis of eminent domain, whereby the state can confiscate a property. Ultimately, you do NOT really own your property, only the use of it, and property taxes are the fees for its use and estate taxes the fee paid to have it transfer to your heirs and not escheat to the state.

One of our legal beagles can probably give you some more precise sourcing for this, I picked it up (loathing every word I read) while doing continuing education in estate planning for my insurance license.

---

Hmm, while I hope that is not the case, at least in the US, I suppose it could. Time for revolution! :knight:

Quote:

---

In Egypt, houses are built on the Nile Delta, and this harms food production. In Spain, many houses were built illegally, ruining coastlines and creating deathtraps. They are now being pulled down.

---

Neither of those cases applies here.

There's absolutely no evidence of any maliciousness behind this. He built his family a house; how is that malicious?

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

I think Beskar meant to start his post with "Unlike" (Unlike in...).

@Sasaki, again Louis explained it already:

Quote:

---

This is a case of 'sorry mate, you knew the law all along, hence the covertness, but sneakyness doesn't create more law especially for you'.

---

---

That describes willful, not malicious.

I understand the instinct to feel sympathy for the guy, although it isn't warranted. It's what the article is designed to do, same as the Medal of Honor winning guy. But I don't see where the "he's a bad guy, who does he think he is, demanding special consideration" reaction comes from. Don't you gripe when you get a parking ticket? If the cop messed up the ticket and you could get out of it, would you?

They do say that the true patriot rejoices upon getting a parking ticket, because it proves the system works. But I've never met anyone like that :p

Could one of the mods kindly correct the spelling in the title?
:embarassed:
Thanks,
CR

It is no different here, you have to follow every petty rule, unless the rule is 'don't rob grannies'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

As I understand it, with the rare exception of true "freehold" property, all property within the borders of a sovereign state is technically the property of that sovereignty under the doctrine of "soveriegn rights." This is the basis of eminent domain, whereby the state can confiscate a property. Ultimately, you do NOT really own your property, only the use of it, and property taxes are the fees for its use and estate taxes the fee paid to have it transfer to your heirs and not escheat to the state.

---

Hmm, while I hope that is not the case, at least in the US, I suppose it could. Time for revolution! :knight:

---

Better fire up the torches and sharpen your pitchforks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax#United_States

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Hmm, while I hope that is not the case, at least in the US, I suppose it could. Time for revolution! :knight:



Neither of those cases applies here.

There's absolutely no evidence of any maliciousness behind this. He built his family a house; how is that malicious?

CR

---

He set out ot break planning laws and disadvantage others by taking up arable land with a mansion and building illegally in a way that a poorer man would not.

England is not some hick frontier nation, and he clearly doesn't need the house, nor does it need to be sited specifically there. This has nothing to do with a "family home" and everything to do with a wealthy man thinking the law does not apply to him.

Frankly, I would think you would appreciate the principle of all being equal before the law.

It's his own land ffs. What does it matter if poorer people can't afford it, look at what he built it's really nice. Jealous people don't like nice and jealous people tend to work for rules-fetisjist government agency's. You know the type, painfully boring, monotone speech, brings his lunchbox to work, has an equally boring wife he no longer has sex with except when on holiday, two hot daughters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I detest the idea of some "green belt" being protected from development. What right does the government have to take control of a person's property by declaring it part of some "green belt" and then forbidding people from building homes because it goes against the idea they have constructed? Why should the owners of the property suffer for this idea, this paper construct?
CR

---

US population density - 32/km2 - 83/sq mi
England population density - 395/km2 - 1,023/sq mi

that simple. come back and tell me you detest planning laws when the population of the US tops 4.5 billion souls!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Green belts do have some value. Endless city sprawls aren't good for anyone.

Of course, I think what has been done is spiteful. Won't stop the Tories using it as an example to bash Labour's "nanny state" though, despite the fact that it was in a, uh, Tory controlled council.

---

true.

trolling.