British Courts Order Man's Home Destroyed

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

First, I'd like to say I do not know all the facts surrounding this situation, nor am I an expert on current British planning law and regulation. But, it seems to me on first glance that this ruling is a classic example of what happens when you give governments too much power in the name of the public "good."

LONDON – A man's home is his castle — but not if British authorities say it has to be destroyed.

That's the situation faced by Robert Fidler, a farmer who lost a High Court bid Wednesday to protect the once-secret castle he built 40 miles (65 kilometers) south of London and kept hidden from planning authorities.

The adverse decision means Fidler's roof must come down. He has one year to comply unless an appeal is successful.

To keep prying eyes from noticing his unauthorized abode, Fidler placed bales of hay and tarpaulin around his dream home in Salfords, Surrey, authorities said. The court ruled he could not benefit from his deception.

Mike Miller, a chief planner with the Reigate and Banstead Borough Council, said the council was delighted with the decision, which it viewed as a vindication of the decision to challenge Fidler in court.

"This was a blatant attempt at deception to circumvent the planning process," he said, adding that Fidler now has one year to destroy the castle, remove the ruins and return the property to its original state.

The unusual castle, complete with cannon, ramparts and stained glass, was completed in 2002 and Fidler lived there with family for more than four years before the authorities started legal action against him.

Fidler, who has had disagreements with planning authorities before, anticipated that his request for permission to build the castle would be denied, so he tried to take advantage of a rule that allows a structure to be legalized if it has been lived in for four years.

Fidler's lawyer, Pritpal Singh Swarn, said the decision will go to the Court of Appeal because it raised important planning issues. A further appeal to European courts is possible if British courts again reject Fidler's bid to legitimize his castle.

He said Fidler was extremely disappointed with the ruling and no local residents had complained about the castle.

"It has been pursued at the expense of the taxpayer which we find deeply regrettable — but Mr. Fidler will continue to fight for the right to live in his home," the lawyer said.

Authorities said he incorporated two grain silos into the design, covering them with material to give them a castellated appearance.

"Mr. Fidler made it quite clear that the construction of his house was undertaken in a clandestine fashion," the court ruled.

Neighbors haven't complained. A man and his family are now homeless. The state wouldn't let him build a home because it went against "planning"? (Obviously, the planning involved here doesn't include preventing homelessness.) Hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not more) of public and private money are now wasted, not to mention the natural resources. Where exactly is the "public good" that is supposed to come out of this?

Again, I don't know all the facts and if I did, I may have a different opinion of this case. But at face value, this just looks wrong.

[The Great Catpiss]

These types of laws are common because of the NIMBY thinkers. While people may be open to others doing what they like, they don't want it happening in their neighborhood. In America, we have the same laws. Most people do not want their neighbors to bring down the property value of their homes.

In fact, in many cities, it is illegal to hang dry your clothes outside. I am not even allowed to hang dry my clothes inside my home with my blinds open as neighbors can see them and that violates the stupid laws. I must either use a dryer (which I do), or hang dry them inside with the blinds closed.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by The Great Catpiss

In fact, in many cities, it is illegal to hang dry your clothes outside. I am not even allowed to hang dry my clothes inside my home with my blinds open as neighbors can see them and that violates the stupid laws. I must either use a dryer (which I do), or hang dry them inside with the blinds closed.

do you have a link to that ordinance? I'd like to see it, cause that is f--ing ridiculous.

[The Great Catpiss]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

do you have a link to that ordinance? I'd like to see it, cause that is f--ing ridiculous.

Can't find it, but read the article last year sometime. I remember seeing the politician say that people might hang up their undergarments or political messages or advertisements as the reasoning to ban them.

The rules in my area are more of an HOA type of thing (but its an apartment complex). Many HOA's ban clotheslines. A few cities do.