Comments on: An Englishman’s Home is his Illegal Castle in a Haystack

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 16 May 2008 08:14:52 +0000

Planning commissions are generally in place to protect the ecological/esthetic standards, and property values. So, if the house is built to code (plumbing, electrical, structural, etc) and it’s safe then this shouldn’t be an issue. Plus if it doesn’t negatively impact the environment as would any other building then, again, that shouldn’t be an issue. As to the esthetics, if the planning commission and the community believe this house is worse looking that the huge trashy pile of hay tarped and covered in tired, well, then, it’s not Fidler who’s a bit wacked. Come on! Clearly the house is more in keeping with community standards that a trashy pile of tarped hay.

Call it what it is, hurt feelings. It really sounds like the planning commission got it’s ego bruised. Oh, for shame! So what if the guy is possible a pain in the you-know-what. Is the government’s need to repair it’s ego and prove it’s muscle more important than and existing home of a working family? I guess in England it is.

Good thing this planning commission aren’t in Spain… just imagine what they’d do. They could probably show the Spainards a thing or two about harassing it’s own citizens.

By: Skuffy

Skuffy — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:04:41 +0000

You keep fighting ..No-way can or should they make you take it down..Just watched Homes From Hell…Write to the Queen

By: ajho

ajho — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:53:35 +0000

From the report in the oxymoronic Redhill and Reigate Life, it would appear not to be the first time the aptly named, Mr Fidler, has had a run in with the planners. It seems to have started in 1992 when he was done for using an agricultural building for industrial purposes. Agricultural buildings do not need planning permission hence the plethora of ugly and inappropriate buildings that so scare the British countryside. Industrial buildings do.

This has now escalated to the point where, “If a Government-appointed inspector upholds the notices, within six months he will have to tear down a farmhouse, conservatory, marquee and timber bridge and remove a hardstanding parking area, patio, timber decking and a Tarmac race track.”

It’s one thing to make a genuine mistake over the law, but that’s just taking the piss.

By: Expategghead

Expategghead — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:12:34 +0000

Is it me or does that second picture open up in a Microsoft site? Odd for a google sightseeing blog.

By: smellystuff in my sandals

smellystuff in my sandals — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:29:32 +0000

i still think it’s quite out of socially acceptable and regular predictable socially responsible character to cover your house in hay bales cos you don’t want any one to know you’ve built a hooge turdor mansion on your property.
It’s like me putting a semi permanent steel gardening shed in my back yard and covering it in whipped cream to make sure no one notices cos i havn’t got council approval. Just plain out of his mind.
freedom is in the mind. which is honestly free.

By: Jel

Jel — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:13:24 +0000

Will they let him out on bale?

By: cookie monster

cookie monster — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:41:53 +0000

I remember making a flippant comment once about planning laws in relation to the building of an airport and the whole world and his wife seemed to get a bee in their bonnet about life, liberty and the pursuit of shooting defenseless animals.
It seems Googlesightseers like nothing more than mass debate about planning legislation!!!
What does that say about us i wonder?

By: Marty

Marty — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:36:20 +0000

If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around to hear it, did it make a noise?

Well of course it did.

So if I, as a soulless and evil bureacrat, find a fallen tree on your private property, I will indeed fine you for violating the local noise ordinance.

By: Geo

Geo — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:12:24 +0000

@ Tammo: I said “If [...] the laws [...] did not require that the structure be visible…”, with emphasis on IF. I mention visibility because that seems to be the Council’s argument as presented in the media. I have seen no arguments presented as to the legality of the four-year rule otherwise. That is to say, if the house had been built in the open without permits, inspections, and so-on without complaint, the house would be allowed to stand. I have seen no arguments presented that circumvention of the applicable zoning and building compliance laws are enforceable once the four year rule is applied.

How many homeowners violate the rules within their own homes, concealed from public view, by constructing, plumbing, wiring, or otherwise modifying the interior of their homes? Will the Council be permitted to or destruction of the work five, ten or twenty years later should they learn about it?

Yes, the courts will decide in the end. In the meantime, intelligent people on both sides have presented arguments, some of whom supposedly studied the applicable laws in detail. Yes, my comment is based only on what has been publicly presented, but the appearance so far is that Mr. Fidler adhered to the “letter” of the law while the council is arguing about the “spirit” of the law. It is my understanding that courts tend to consider the “spirit” of the law mostly when the “letter” is vague. When the letter is clear, the “letter” usually applies.

Consider how contracts are enforced. It matters less to what a party had intended to agree (or to what they thought they agreed) than to what a given contract stipulates. For this reason, people are encouraged to have their own lawyers review contracts to ensure that the “letter” agrees with the “spirit”.

Perhaps it hadn’t occurred to the authors of the law that someone would intentionally conceal the structure. But then, when the law was written, would building in the center of a heavily wooded lot out of view from public pathways be considered concealed? Regardless, laws are amended as insight is gained, but not rewritten retroactively.

Based on what has been presented, I’d put money on Mr. Fidler.

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:52:28 +0000

Next post please