It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man's 'secret castle' ordered destroyed by British authorities;

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Man's 'secret castle' ordered destroyed by British authorities;


news.yahoo.com

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...
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.foxnews.com
www.guardian.co.uk



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Well, I just don't know what to say to this.

I'm not too keen on British property rights, but what exactly constitutes "planning evasion"? Are they referring to tax evasion or other fees..? If so, why not just levy a tax for it all instead of demanding he literally destroy his home?

I don't understand. It seems to be lose/lose in all aspects of law and common sense. One, the man is going to lose his building and two, the authorities can't tax his property further. What's the point, aside from crucifying this guy?

What constitutes "Clandestine", exactly? What difference would it make if he announced he was constructing a 'castle' or not... just for the sake of it? To make sure he's not plotting a secret Nazi fortress with it's own research laboratory?

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


+6 more 
posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Britain has been reduced to gibbering idiocy by petty bureaucracy and this is yet another sad example

Local councils wield and ENJOY wielding power

Yet local councillors aren't qualified in anything. You can have a third grade education and be elected

Local councils are just a larger version of residents' housing committees: corrupt, petty, vicious bullies

The entire world is over-governed, but Britain is the epitome of over-government

People need to rise up. Kick aside the imposed nonsense that is 'politically correct speech'

Britain desperately needs a few William Wallaces

The people should strip off their shirts, paint their faces blue, grab an axe-handle and go about the land throwing all levels of government out on their ears with a sharp kick up the backside and a warning to hasten into voluntary and permanent exile before they're hoisted on the gibbet or beheaded

Seriously



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
So, Farmer built a castle south of London without anybody's permission.
So, why could he not just pay the fees he would have owed otherwise?
Is it about maintaining control over building codes? or making an example or something?

TPTB in England want everyone to know you can't just go around throwing up castles!



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Its about about the law regarding the construction and registration of buildings. As well as the taxation issues.

He would probably have been allowed to do it had he gone through the appropriate channels. He didnt and when you dont the punishment is normally pretty severe. He maybe able to appeal to keep it up if he pays all the appropriate fines and can prove the building meets regulatory standards. That will all depend on how good his lawyer is though.

Moral of the story if you want to build a massive castle get permission. In England no one but the government really owns land.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by gYvMessanger
 


Understandable, that it's the law. However, why are they making it out to be such a colossal issue, to the point of ordering the building be destroyed?

So, if he had gone up to the local authority and said, "Top of the morning to ya, I'm building a castle.", and they say, "Okay thanks for telling us." .. and that's that?

Obviously there is paperwork involved, but why such a tantrum? The castle is built. Big deal, no illegal activities.. he's just a farmer, slap him on the wrist and fine him at the most. There is "following the law", and there is the law that is completely out of control, such as destroying the poor man's home.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Its standard practise to assume any building that hasnt been approved also isnt built to code. Therefore the initial reaction will be fines + destroy building. Anything else would be a waste of court time because someone didnt bother following procedure in the first place (and therefor the inconveniance is assigned to them rather than the courts)

As I said if the farmer can:

a) prove it is up to safety code
b) show that it doesnt break local planning laws

There's a good chance he will be able to appeal so he doesnt have to tear it down, but he does have to basically do the things he didnt do in the first place before they will even consider that.

Im not saying I like it but that is how it is and in fairness its not unreasonable.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SyphonX
 


In the UK it's pretty standard if a build has been built without planning permission and it is found out about unless appealed, it will be demolished, where buildings have been erected without planning permission it is quite common for them to be destroyed.

As for why they are demolished it isn't possible to inspect the building quality, for example when a new building is erected, or an extension is added to a house, the plans are submitted to the local authority to review, mainly to check the confirm to building regulations and land boundaries, also this allows neighbours with a vested interest to view the plans before a building is erected and voice their objections. Then through the build, a building inspector will come a different points within the build (also at random) to check how it is progressing, and wether the build is the same as the plans.

If he had gone to the local authority and submitted the plans assuming they were all structurally sound (plans needs to be signed off by an registered and accredited architect if I remember correctly) and no neighbours had valid concern et al he could have got planning permission, and this wouldn't have happened.

It's checks and balances.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Absolutely no sympathy for this bloke whatsoever. Why didnt he just apply for planning permission?

This is no "TPTB" *shudder* conspiracy. Britain is a small country. If everyone just went round building whatever they liked wherever the liked we'd run out of land very quickly. So you have to apply for planning permission. I see no reason why he wouldn't have been granted it, so the fault is entirely his for not going through the proper channels.

People reading too much into this. This isn't the all pervasive state, it's just a common sense approach to land management, when land is at a premium.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SyphonX
What constitutes "Clandestine", exactly? What difference would it make if he announced he was constructing a 'castle' or not... just for the sake of it? To make sure he's not plotting a secret Nazi fortress with it's own research laboratory?


I remember this when it was discovered, it was quite a good story in the news... like the article said he'd had some sort of background with the planning people about another project that got rejected so he felt he would be treated unfairly. - So he literally built a wall all around the site with bails of hay with tarps over them! - It was impressive to say the least!

Then the building went on in secret, then the family moved in... And literally you could not see this thing from anywhere... I think it was finally discovered from google earth or something - or was it a tip off? Can't remember.

Thing is he almost got away with it! - Had it been discovered like a year later he would of been fine... Oh well, you gotta feel for the guy, but they do have him band to rights as the law stands.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
England is not a favela, we cannot just throw up monstrosity like this at whim, there are building regulations and I for one agree with them, if there were not we'd have idiots ruining our historic villages and turning them into some sort of Picasso wet dream.

Just look at it, odd reclaimed brick (some random stone block patches around the damp course levels), With Georgian cladding, white uPVC windows(?) with wooden doors, a bulls eye, two odd windows on the back, 5 panels stuck together on the nice matching lean to and to top it off the 2 great turrets. Nice

He deserves every thing he's got coming to him what makes him so different that he can go round doing what he wants, when everyone else has a protocol of rules to follow.






[edit on 4-2-2010 by windowlicker80]



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
What happens if he sells it in five years and a roof collapses on the new family? Perhaps subsidence because no architect was involved? Has he saved money on materials and used non-treated timber? Or materials don't comply with fire and safety standards?

I've worked on houses in the past fixing roofs that were unsafe and badly built from the 70s housing boom. Replaced several courses of brick on gables that had used sandy mortar. We've gutted interiors because the floor joists were rotting early and dangerous.

I honestly despise bureaucrats and I'm not a great fan of the town planning office. They're over-regulated and have added massive costs to the building trade. Some roofing work requires scaffold when we used to be happy running up a couple of extension ladders. All that adds costs to the work that householders can't afford.

Despite all that, we can't have people building houses without approved plans and a building inspector having a look at the site work. Unregulated home-building makes eyesores, death traps and can ruin the view and value of local homes.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Well, I would agree with the authorities had they ordered it destroyed because it was just some mega-death trap, but that's not why they ordered it to be demolished.

From what I can gather, the only standing reason to why it is going to be destroyed, is simply for "the act of deception" itself. Only for the mere principle that he didn't announce his construction first. Why can't an extensive inspection take place to ensure that it is up to code, safe and fit, etc. and then the authorities could poll the locals to see if they object to the building, and go from there.

I only have a problem with this because they are exercising their authority based on the sole reason that "he acted in a clandestine" manner. I mean, what the hell is that about? They're not saying, he can't build in that location, or that isn't up to code, or that the locals have a problem with it... etc etc. It's on his land. They're simply saying, "He was sneaky, destroy it."

Come on now.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by SyphonX
 


No its been explained to you multiple times in this thread already by multiple people.

If a building doesnt have planning permission. When its discovered (regardless of the case surrounding it) it is ordered to be destroyed for safety reasons. The onus is ALWAYS on the owner to have ensured a building is up to code, if a building is up to code they can successfully appeal the destruction portion of the order. Extensive inspection CAN take place and it CAN save the building IF such a building would be allowed in the area normally anyway, HOWEVER the cost is not going to fall on the local council / courts to make such inspections because the person was too lazy (or knew he wouldnt get permission so didnt bother) to go through the proper channels in the first place.

Though to windowlicker I think it looks quite good personally.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by gYvMessanger]



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by gYvMessanger
 


I understand that, but they've already ordered it to be destroyed and he is currently appealing that decision. There is no mention of it being up to code or not, which as you say, if the building is up to snuff the order of destruction can be waived.

That doesn't seem to be the case here, it's just being ordered for destruction because of "the act itself". Understandable also, but this isn't some rickety shack that someone tried to build next to a government building.

What safety are they concerned about, really.. ? Construction accidents happen on or off authorized zones, and buildings up to code still have major problems. If they were worried about the "safety" aspect, they could inspect it, see it is up to code (or not) and go from there. They are just simply ordering destruction based on the act.

So they destroy it. He picks up the pieces and goes back to the authorities. He announces he is going to make the exact same building on the exact same lot using the exact same materials, etc. ... They'll say it's okay?

I understand the law, the checks and balances, blah blah. I'm not displaying my ignorance of the law, I'm arguing the validity and absurdity of this current use of the law.

Basically, if he builds it himself and the roof collapses and kills people, he is at fault. If he announces his construction and it is inspected and granted a go, and the roof collapses, no one is at fault.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by SyphonX]



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   
I swear to god.

You have got to be point farming. There is no way you can only have read part of my posts selectively each time.

Ive personally explained it 3 times already.

One more time.

ALL building that dont have permission are automatically labeled for destruction end of story.

If you have erected a building without permission and oversight your breaking the law, and by the fact the building is standing you are automatically and very obviously guilty (when the owner is obvious). A very basic hearing is held which you dont even need to be at because your going to be found guilty in which the legal paperwork is pushed through.

That can be appealed if you can prove its safe. This is the point your story is currently at. Its not a special story, the only reason its on a website like yahoo is because its a castle and it looks cool and its a good news piece.

Just cos it looks good doesnt mean it is safe either. Though I do think it does look good and as he put his own family in it for 4 years its probably at least basically safe. But it still needs to be up to code to be sure and he needs to be paying appropriate taxes bla bla none of which is unreasonable.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by gYvMessanger]



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by SyphonX
 
He's had dealings with the planning office before and set out to deceive. This story ran in the UK press for a couple of years. Whilst building it he hid it behind haybales and tarps. He knew what he was doing and knew the risks.

Even if there was a reasonable civil servant, able to pass his building, they wouldn't endorse this level of sneakyassness. There are precedents, but he's fairly gloated about his actions. It'll cost him a fortune in legal fees and he'll lose. Must be way over a £million in value (London commuter belt) for what'll be rubble and landfill.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by gYvMessanger
 


I have no idea why I would want to "farm points" here. I don't know what points you're talking about, or what they're used for. Frankly I don't really care? Stars? Flags? I thought the story was interesting, nothing more.

You're only stating the obvious to me. Yes, the law requires planning, someone needs to oversee it, etc. Got it.

He didn't, high court rules it's immediate destruction. In which you state he can appeal the ruling to prove the building's safety to prevent destruction. That's where I stop, because there is never mention of this, it simply says it must be destroyed within 12 months, end of story.

You're saying he can prove it's safe and pay the required fines and taxes, if it is in fact safe? That I seriously doubt, because they seem to be doing a tar & feathering, regardless of the law.

I find it all absurd.

I don't need your further explanations of the same thing, you're just missing the point that I find the whole idea absurd.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   
That's the law, that's what happens. If he had followed the correct course, it wouldn't be destroyed, as he didn't, it is.

Really quite simple.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by gYvMessanger
 


I use to be in the construction trade as site super for a land development company.

This has all to do with tax revenue. TAX REVENUE only.

Planning is ALL about greasing palms, grease the neighbors palms-if you want to build out of the standard zoning, grease the planning division-if you want permission, with regards to permits, grease the architect, engineer, fire dept, police dept, water and sewer, electric, gas.

Boo frelling hoo to the government proponents.

It was his land and he wanted to build what HE wanted. Why the HELL does it make a difference what the neighbor, city, state/area, country wanted.

We are meant to be free to do what WE want with our lives. So, it was not built to code! He is living in it. He is not trying to sell it. And even if he sells it, who are you to say to what building code something needs to be built.

Ever here of the legal term, as is or buyer beware.

I hate statist and federalist and nanny state crap.

We want to be left the frelling alone, to do what we want to do with our lives.

Did you know that in the US you are not allowed to build without having to hook up to the grid? The governments do not want us to be self sufficient, they want CONTROL. So frell off with your totalitarian attitude!

Get it? Good.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join