An Englishman’s Home is his Illegal Castle in a Haystack
Tuesday, 26th February 2008 by Alex Turnbull
In this Google image of a farm just north of Gatwick Airport, England, we can see a large, but not particularly unusual looking stack of hay bales, covered in blue tarpaulins.
If however we look at the Microsoft Live Local Bird's Eye view of the same location, we can see that the hay bales have been removed to reveal... a Mock Tudor Castle!
So where did this mini-castle spring from?
It was actually built by local farmer Robert Fidler, who also hid it under the enormous haystack. He chose to reveal the building in August 2006 because as 4 years had passed with no objections to the structure, it would no longer require planning permission! His family had actually been living in the castle for the four year period - staring out the windows at the inside of hay bales.
However Reigate and Banstead Council claim that as nobody had ever actually seen the castle, then the four-year period was void - meaning that Mr Fidler now faces having his little castle torn down.
Read an interview and more background at thisislondon.co.uk.
Thanks to mlc1us.
About the author
Alex has decided that his title will be Senior Vice President of Stuff.
It’s certainly not Fidler’s fault that the law was poorly written and he was clever enough to find a loophole.
Tear down his castle? Ridiculous! Perhaps they could require him to hide it behind the hay bales again (nobody complained about them apparently), but destroy his family’s home? Only a soulless and insane bureaucrat would even consider it.
Are they afraid that the castle will spoil the exquisite ensemble between the sheds surrounding it?
Great story by the way.
Hay Presto!
I feel sorry for this guy who, as Marty explained, cleverly exploited a loophole and spent a hell of a lot of time and money builidng, what he thought, was a perfectly legal building.
Obviously he didn’t think it was perfectly legal or he wouldn’t have bothered with the hay stacks in the first place.
Ive got no sympathy for him. Planning laws are there for a reason and just because this fella found a ‘loophole’ doesnt make what he has done right. I wonder if the planners will use GE as part of their evidence? I know some councils use it to check for unauthorised extensions and when assessing council tax banding.
I heard he did a straw poll of his neighbours to see if they objected.
RJ – What I meant was, that he clearly thought it was fine having exposed a loophole.
In other words, he figured that based on the loophole he had found, it must be legal as he found a way around actually getting planning permission.
@cookie Yeah that’s true. But in this particular case: What kind of law would that be, that allows such a huge and ugly pile of hay bales, but not a house? I think they should be glad that this flaw was exposed by such a nice castle and not some weird “modern”-“art” “building”. So unless there are problems with fresh water and sewage – there’s no problem.
Also if they decide to tear it down, then what is that strange law good for? There are only two cases: 1. Other people can see the house – someone complains – it’s torn down. 2. Other people cannot see the house – the law doesn’t apply – it’s torn down. Wouldn’t that be a really complicated way to express “You always need planning permission.”?
Huh. I wonder what would have happened if the neigbours liked the house.
@ Marty: Unless you have the law in front of you and can prove otherwise, my understanding is that neither is the law poorly written, nor did he exploit a loophole. He may have thought he did … but that is a different matter. I wonder if you would feel the same way if somebody decided to invent a loophole to build some ugly pile where you have to look at it every day … @ Izzy: It would appear that if the house had been on view without complaints for four years it would now be legal.
My wife told me this was in the law review. Apparently they kept the kid off school on the day he had to draw his house, in case he drew a castle! ha ha.
Pats, sorry I misunderstood.
It’d be sad to have to destroy it – it looks beautiful.
I personally think it looks ugly, inappropriate, a gross pastiche of pseudo romantic Disneyland. And I also believe that building a house and deliberately hiding it to avoid planning permission is not using a loophole, but acting illegally. I agree that the building should be reviewed for planning permission in its visible and existing state and stand or fall according to the law. Be a man! Build your castle and let it be seen and judged – must be better than living like a rat for four years…
Whichever way you look at the building. The guy’s a complete 6ft walking penis. What kind of person covers their house in hay bales to avoid some planning law. He should be locked up on the grounds of hard baked long lasting complete and utter good old home cooked insanity. Why would you give an obviously unstable individual another chance at getting his sekrut building passed? It’s not the loophole that’s the problem. It’s the fact that there’s no law about being a total nincompoop and covering your fuckoff hooge turdor monstrosity in hay bales. I propose it to be called “being a total nincompoop and covering your fuckoff hooge turdor monstrosity in hay bales Act 2008”. Especially when most people are having trouble just getting out of bed in the morning.
Anyone who chooses to wank about this clearly has not seen the Microsoft Live birdseye view. That “castle” is the smallest building in the area. There are several massive “barns” or “garages” nearby, as large as industrial sites. And there is a McMansion in the back that is easily three times the volume of the “castle”. Not to mention there appears to be an auto junkyard just down the road, and what appears to be a dump of some sort.
The balls of people to complain about such a thing in such a place. I doubt if even any of his neighbors can see his place without taking a drive down to it, being surrounded by several large buildings. He must know his local planning commission is a pack of nobs to have undertaken such a hiding.
‘taint freedom when you aren’t even allowed to build a very reasonably sized house on your own large sized piece of property.
Whether this castle is “pretty” or “not as ugly as his surrounding buildings” is completely irrelevant. Planning laws exist for a reason – to protect the countryside, and this is a very important issue that needs to be taken seriously.
Schemers who seem to think they are above the law by exposing non-existent loopholes deserve the harshest punishment – tear the building down. Sure it may seem rather drastic, but say if the authorities surrendered and let the building stand – that would make them seem like pushovers and this would open the floodgates for all kinds of monstrosities being built in the countryside. This man needs to be made an example of.
As a previous poster mentioned, this man obviously thought what he was doing was rather contentious, hence the elaborate scheme to cover it up. And as another said, this man must be either very brave or very stupid (I think it’s the latter).
Having said this however, if this man sought legal advice before deciding to build the castle and he takes his case to the courts and wins, then fair play to him as this would mean the law needs to be rewritten to avoid this happening in future, and he got lucky this time.
We all like to hear of stories of the underdog winning over the authoriutes at their own game, however the protection of the British countryside is not to be taken lightly and I hope this man is made to realise that he is not above the law.
Well, I would say the simple fact that it was built in “Mock-tudor style” is enough reason to tear it down. I mean, there are limits…
Loopholes are loopholes. They may be closed going forward, but should not be closed retroactively. Think of all the tax revenue that could be generated if governments revised the rules after-the-fact to collect more money from those who paid only their technically legal share. If the applicable laws in the castle case did not require that the structure be visible, then Mr. Fidler is in compliance. The council should amend the rule going forward if they don’t like it.
@ Geo: As before – unless you have the law in front of you, there is not much point arguing about the letter of it and whether the supposed loophole actually exists. Also there is such a think as interpreting the spirit of the law … if there wasn’t, there would be little need for courts.
Marty, aren’t the terms “soulless and insane” and “bureaucrat” kind of redundant?
Ayn Rand had it right. Looking at the mindless responses it’s clear some people would rather die than live, and resent it when they see anyone living or enjoying life. They seek only the destruction of that which their own impotent little minds can’t produce.
Next post please
@ 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.
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.
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?
Will they let him out on bale?
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.
Is it me or does that second picture open up in a Microsoft site? Odd for a google sightseeing blog.
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.
You keep fighting ..No-way can or should they make you take it down..Just watched Homes From Hell…Write to the Queen
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.
As someone said, clever exploitation. If people donºt complain about a huge stack of haybails for 4 years it was obviously jealousy that made them complain about the planning permission. In all honesty iºd love to see a castle at the end of the road, theyºre beautiful! Id say tough luck on the neighbours, they deserve it and he deserves his castle !
are the gravatar icons new? i’ve been reading GSS in google reader too much – need to visit more often to read the comments!
Only about a week old actually – they arrived the same time as threaded comments!
Both sides of the argument have valid points, but what of common sense? Aren’t they all being a tad pedantic? I suspect this project has little effect (in real terms) on the community/neighbourhood/countryside. It’s relatively inoffensive and unobtrusive as a structure, considering the area.
Admittedly, the builder was wrong to dodge the system. That should be addressed. But I think the council should refrain from over-reacting by tearing it down; it’s too extreme a response, and probably has no real purpose than to simply prove a point or enforce the law. Something less theatrical would suffice. A fine, perhaps? I’m certain any local government could use a financial injection.
The law is the law, of course, and it is there for a reason. But we should apply common sense with it, especially in such a relatively unimportant matter.
Our freedoms are dropping little by little each year with various laws. I think tearing down someones home is cruel. If the home is built safe why have an issue over it? Whoever said protect the country well the countryside is a dump already so nothing much to protect.
You can own property but you dont own it at the same time. The city came one day and tore all our trees out of the front lawn to check on some pipe. Then left the lawn all torn and barren of trees. And they dont care they just ripped up all the money you put into getting trees and a lawn.
Privacy and freedom is going down the drain fast.