Results 1 to 30 of 81

Thread: British Court Orders Man to Demolish His Family's Home

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Arena Senior Member Crazed Rabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Between the Mountain and the Sound
    Posts
    11,074
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default British Court Orders Man to Demolish His Family's Home



    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
    Last edited by Crazed Rabbit; 02-04-2010 at 04:53.
    Ja Mata, Tosa.

    The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO