British Court Orders Man to Demolish His Family's Home

[Crazed Rabbit]

From the BBC.

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.

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

[Gregoshi]

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

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.

[CountArach]

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.

[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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Beskar meant britain instead of america...

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?

[Tellos Athenaios]

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

@Sasaki, again Louis explained it already:

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'.

[Husar]

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

[CrossLOPER]

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

Me too!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[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.

[TinCow]

We're all far better off with zoning laws.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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"...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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?

[Brenus]

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...

[Furunculus]

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!

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.

[Hosakawa Tito]

I couldn't agree more.

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'.

I don't know how it works in the UK, but in my little corner of the globe one can petition the Town board for a zoning variance. Failing that one can also work within the system to change the zoning law. What he did was just plain wrong.

From personal experienced I'd say areas with zoning laws are much better off than those without. Especially at the other end of the "wealth spectrum". Zoning laws also protect property owners from those who refuse to maintain their property in a reasonable acceptable condition.

My paternal grandparent's old homestead, in rural north-west Pennsylvania (Cyclone PA), is one such area with no zoning laws. I hadn't been to that area since the early 1980's. Last fall we had a family funeral to attend and I took the opportunity to take a trip down memory lane. That entire little community went from Mayberry to Dog Patch over the last 30+ years. Piles of garbage, junk cars, knee high grass, houses nothing more than tar paper covered shacks that are rotting and falling down. It's heart breaking to see when compared to those childhood memories. And they can't claim they're too poor either. My grandparents & their neighbors were poor too, and didn't have much, but they took pride in and care of what they did have.

Zoning laws are a necessary evil.

[Subotan]

trolling.

Trolling? It may have been OT, but I was being perfectly serious.

[Goofball]

While I agree that the end result seems to be drastic in this case (demolishing the home), I have to agree with the ruling overall. As far as zoning laws being tyrannical, I wonder how any of us would feel if we had a neighbor who proposed to erect a massive warehouse right next to our homes, 5 stories high and built right to the extreme edges of the property line? Probably we'd be glad we could simply point out to the idiot that this is against the law...

[HoreTore]

As long as you have neighbors, you'll have to be nice, like in Goofballs rather extreme example.

Any structure built in violation of building permits should be wrecked instantly, and the builder should be slapped. A fine won't do, that would allow people to do like this idiot and then simply pay their way out of trouble. No, the only way to combat this is to wreck the offenders on sight.

CR noted an interesting thing; that this regulation reduces property value. Well, the same would apply without them, except that you would be left at the whims of neighbors you cannot influence instead of a democratically controlled city council(or whatever elected government body is in control). You bought a house and paid an extra 100k because it has easy access to a beach? Nope, sorry, your neighbor decided to build a boathouse there and shut you out, might as well have burned that extra 100k.

I definitely know which system I prefer.

[Meneldil]

So much outrage for nothing. Tear down his building already.

Guy tried to get by the law, and he now has to face the consequences. He probably could have gotten away with it through deliberation and talking before building the house, but he instead decided to sneakily create a fait accompli and cry when people notice it. What a sore loser.

[Fragony]

So much outrage for nothing. Tear down his building already.

Guy tried to get by the law, and he now has to face the consequences. He probably could have gotten away with it through deliberation and talking before building the house, but he instead decided to sneakily create a fait accompli and cry when people notice it. What a sore loser.

It's a stupid law, so he should obey to every little thing these idiots by default at town hall think up. It's his own ground, if the robbernment can't find any significant reasons such as a pipeline or power-cord being in danger or something like that, this is just abuse that only serves the needs of a very boring person with a rapist-mentality and a law.

[Beskar]

It is funny that the legions of the right step-in to protect the rich man who broke the laugh. But they are first to condemn a man for stealing a loaf of bread because he is starving.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a stupid law, so he should obey to every little thing these idiots by default at town hall think up. It's his own ground, if the robbernment can't find any significant reasons such as a pipeline or power-cord being in danger or something like that, this is just abuse that only serves the needs of a very boring person with a rapist-mentality and a law.

Why is it a stupid Law, it's not like he actually owns the land anyway.