This article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=510161&in_page_id=1766&in_page_id=1766&expand=true#StartComments) made me laugh. I highly recommend clicking on the link as the pictures are beautiful. I hope this guy prevails as I believe he should be allowed to build whatever type of home he wants to on his property. It certainly doesn't look like it is deficent in building quality. It appears that the government is just upset that they didn't get to approve it.

Hiding a needle in a haystack is easy enough.


But Robert Fidler kept something much bigger concealed among the piles of straw down on his farm... a castle.

Over the course of two years, he managed to secretly – and unlawfully – build the imposing mock Tudor structure in one of his fields, shielded behind a 40ft stack of hay bales covered by a huge tarpaulins.

The family hid the house behind hay bales 40ft high for four years while it was being built - in a failed bid to avoid having to apply for planning permission

An Englishman's home is his castle: The Fidlers dream home complete with ramparts and cannons

Once it was finished, he and his family moved in and lived there for four years before finally revealing the development – complete with battlements and cannons – in August 2006.

Mr Fidler claims that because the building has been there for four years with no objections, it is no longer illegal.

But he is under siege from council planners, who say the castle at Honeycrock Farm, Salfords, Redhill, Surrey, will have to be knocked down.

"I can't believe they want to demolish this beautiful house," said 59-year-old Mr Fidler. "To me they are no different than vandals who just want to smash it down."

Mr Fidler, a farmer, erected the disguise in 2000 out of hundreds of 8ftx4ft bales of straw and covered the top with blue tarpaulin.

The Fidler's country kitchen is located in the turret of their 'castle'

After building the castle on the site of two grain silos at a cost of £50,000, he and his wife Linda went to extraordinary lengths to keep it secret. That included keeping their son Harry, now seven, away from playschool the day he was supposed to do a painting of his home in class.

"We couldn't have him drawing a big blue haystack – people might asked questions," said 39-year-old Mrs Fidler.

Mr Fidler, who has five children from a previous marriage, said: "We moved into the house on Harry's first birthday, so he grew up looking at straw out of the windows.

"We thought it would be a boring view but birds nested there and feasted on the worms. We had several families of robins and even a duck made a nest and hatched 13 ducklings on top of the bales."

But neighbours were unimpressed.

One said: "Nobody thought anything of it when the hay went up. It was presumed he was building a barn or something similar.

"It was a complete shock when the hay came down and this castle was in its place. Everyone else has to abide by planning laws, so why shouldn't they?"

Problems began last April when Mr Fidler, thinking he had beaten the planning system, applied for a certificate of lawfulness which is given if a property is erected but nobody objects to it after four years.

But Reigate and Banstead Council says the four-year period after which the building would be allowed to stay is void – because nobody had been given a chance to see it.

The matter will now be decided in February by the council's planning inspector, who could give the Fidlers as little as six months to tear the castle down.

The family are not alone in falling foul of planning laws.

Last November pensioners Eileen and Eamonn Kelly were told they would face prison unless they demolished the one-bedroom extension on their semi-detached home in Swanley, Kent after planners said it was "out of keeping" with the area.

More recently around a dozen Britons living in Spain have had their homes torn down after a clampdown on illegally built properties built on the coastline.

A spokeswoman for the Reigate council said: "Mr Fidler has built the house without planning permission, not sought retrospective planning permission and now claims it is legal because it has been up for four years.

"We don't think the four-year rule applies because it had been hidden behind bales of hay."

What kind of an idiot thinks he could get around a law in such a way? That's as stupid as thinking that if no one's seen you commit murder, you'll automatically get away with it. I certainly hope that they knock it down; along with the arrogance and ego of the jackass who's built it. The rules are the same for everyone, and if he wanted a castle, he could buy one of the hundreds of existing ones that dot the English landscape already.

This isn't a matter of what he should or shouldn't be allowed to do on his own land. The laws regarding development are crystal clear - you need approval first. He has deliberately chosen to commit fraud by hiding his castle, and deserves no less but to have it torn down at his expense.

I don't agree with the extent of restrictions that building planners put on structures in the UK, but I certainly don't agree that any cheat should be able to bypass the rules, while everyone else has to follow them. Either you allow everyone to build whatever they want, or no one.

I take a different approach. To me it was a brilliant move to circumvent what should be an overturned law. If the law says a structure is exempt if it is standing for four years, and his castle has been standing for four years, then it should be exempt. It isn't like he built a big middle finger and hid it for four years, it is a beautiful home.

Then again, I know I have a certain amount of distate for "zoning-thugs" that is probably tainting my opinion.

That's not what the law says. The law says any structure that isn't complained about for 4 years can stay. But the law naturally assumes that the building is visible to the naked eye, not hidden with the express purpose of making any complaints about it impossible.

While we did break the rules, I must say, that's an awesome castle, and it shouldn't be knocked down. If anything, the guy should just have to pay a fine. Destroying such an awesome home is a crime in itself! :nono: :rolling:

Making him just pay a fine would open the floodgates for every schmuck with more money than sense to build whatever they felt like and then just pay the fine for it afterwards. There's no better way to push the entire system into complete chaos and corruption, allowing the rich to do as they please and burdening only the (relatively) poor with red tape.

what? let him get away with it? so he can sell his land for 5 times what its worth for comitting multiple breaches of zoning and planning law?

how do we know this is even safe? he's built a heavy structure in the middle of a field, im willing to bet he didnt get experts to survey the spot because that record would be sent to the council, there has been no inspection, no planning and no health and safety laws observed.

Sure in this instance noone was hurt during its construction, and it hasnt fallen over and killed any innocent bystanders, but how long until someone else gets the idea and kills someone - follow the law, its there for a reason.

Tal,That's not what the law says. The law says any structure that isn't complained about for 4 years can stay. But the law naturally assumes that the building is visible to the naked eye, not hidden with the express purpose of making any complaints about it impossible.You're absolutely correct, and that's predictably exactly why the city council will say and what will stand in the order for the house/castle to be torn down.
The thing about a building permits in Germany for instance is that you have to prove that the building is structurally sound, meets fire protection standards and environmental standards, safety distances. That as much protects the individual as it protects his neighbours. And these rules aren't drawn up by bureaucrats but by boards of experts who work in that field.

It reminds me of an uncle of mine who wanted to build a sleeping room over his garage and wanted direct access to his garage and to connect for that the garage roof with the neighbouring house (neighbour agreed). Roof connection was refused (because it would serve as a 'fire bridge'), just like sleeping room over the garage (for much the same reason). They allowed him to connect the garage with the house - if he would build in an expensive (read: fire proof) steel door. He was feeling treated terribly unfair, and was ranting and raving about the evil bureaucrats. I explained to him the reasoning behind safety distances between houses, fire safety and the like in the law. He then was angry at me :rolleyes: Ah well. Alas, he is an insurance agent and should know a thing or two about fire protection, after all he's charging people more for not meeting safety standards when they buy insurances :rolleyes:

The farmer is a fool, but with a very sympathetic spleen. I'd like my castle, too. Or a castle tower in particular, if possible on a rock needle, with a swarm of ravens, but that's a different story altogether.

you have to prove that the building is structurally sound, meets fire protection standards and environmental standards, safety distances. That as much protects the individual as it protects his neighbours. And these rules aren't drawn up by bureaucrats but by boards of experts who work in that field.

And that is standard by which this home should be judged. If it meets all the standards, then forcing him to tear it down just because he didn't get prior approval seems absurd, and I agree that a fine would be adequate.

However, if this home isn't up to code, then it should be torn down.

Of course, I'm of the opinion that it probably isn't within the zoning codes, because if it were, there would have been no reason for the guy to try and hide it in the first place.

Yup, good point about the zoning codes. In that sense you should have said: "And that and zoning codes are the standard by which this home should be judged."

And you're probably right when you say that the builder's secrecy suggests as much. In German he would likely be in conflict not with zoning codes but with the 'Bebauungsplan', which is basically the same thing.

Then again, I know I have a certain amount of distate for "zoning-thugs" that is probably tainting my opinion.

If you don't like zoning, then you should move here to Texas, a place where "trash-a-techture" abounds. Yeah, a lot of areas look like crap, and there are areas where people have their homes with a tireshop on the same street with all kinds of trash piled out in front of it, but then "business" can build just about anywhere it chooses to because there is no zoning.

Of course, some areas have the infamous Texas home owners associations. THEY can tell you just about anything they choose to, because many of them are not even government agencies, but private companies hired by builders, and there's not a whole lot you can do about it. And yes they are for profit and have no problem taking homes from 80 year old widows who are not "compliant," or not current with their payments to the corporation. It happens quite a bit here. It's a huge scandal here and many of them have tried to get away with all kinds of scams. But, hey, we have no zoning and no government oversite. Isn't that great?

He broke the law and should pay the penalty. It's a shame that the house has to be knocked down though. It looks great, and when I consider the hard work the poor bloke must have put into it I feel sorry for him. He's got to be punished, but is there no other way around it?

I don't know the whole story - what's the problem with housing permits and whatnot that drove him to hiding it in the first place? I'm imagining that there must be something horribly wrong with the law if it means that this man couldn't build his castle. Can someone give me a bit of perspective here?

So, assuming that there is something wrong with the law (as his actions and what came out of them seem to indicate - he broke the law and make a wonderful house...), a lot of people in this thread are starting to sound 'lawful stupid'. Simply because something is law doesn't make it a good thing, and if it's not a good thing then it should be circumvented. I find it quite disturbing that people are so willing to tear down this man's pride and joy over a law that seems nonsensical.

Chandos,
I agree that some democratic control and process over land use is preferable to private sector entities imposing their will. Especially the process part. Private entities are unaccountable, because they have business secrets and will not disclose them, unless ordered to by a court. The democratic process is supposed to guarantee transparency from the onset, after the idea that sunlight is the best disinfect against corruption. Of course that only works if citizens take serious their participation.

And Aik, zoning is not nonsensical. There are quite practical benefits of zoning. Just think of your house (iirc in the US a substantial part of the retirement plan) being devalued by, say, 50% thanks to some company setting up a garbage disposal plant or pig farm (relish the odour) next to you. By doing so they are not even stealing your money, they're throwing it to the garbage. Add to that mortage obligations (or housing bubbles) for extra fun. In 'residential area zoning' that would not be permissible, because there are other areas designated for business activities. That makes a lot of sense from a homeowner's perspective, and avoids infringement of property lawsuits because of emissions from one piece of land to others, and so serves to keep the peace.

And Aik, zoning is not nonsensical. There are quite practical benefits of zoning. Just think of your house (iirc in the US a substantial part of the retirement plan) being devalued by, say, 50% thanks to some company setting up a garbage disposal plant or pig farm (relish the odour) next to you. By doing so they are not even stealing your money, they're throwing it to the garbage. Add to that mortage obligations (or housing bubbles) for extra fun. In 'residential area zoning' that would not be permissible, because there are other areas designated for business activities. That makes a lot of sense from a homeowner's perspective, and avoids infringement of property lawsuits because of emissions from one piece of land to others, and so serves to keep the peace.

I buy that, sure. So what is it about this guy's dream house that made him think that it was necessary to hide it? If, as part of the zoning laws, this guy's house wouldn't have been approved then it seems like there's something wrong with the law. It's certainly not going to decrease value or piss anyone off, except perhaps from jealousy.

Of course, perhaps I just don't know the full story. Perhaps this guy is just extremely paranoid or something and unreasonably didn't expect approval. Still, there just doesn't seem any good reason to refuse this guy a permit.

I think there is quite a bit of distortion going on. Many housing developments are run by "homeowner associations." They are not "evil" corporations as the shareholders are the homeowners who live in the development. Where these turn "bad" is when they elect a pain in the arse to be in charge. Then the entire development can turn into a bad reflection of junior high school. I am glad that in the northeast we don't have very many homeowner associations and there is a lot of diversity in what the properties look like instead of being cookie cutter.

As to zoning. Ragusa is correct and most zoning laws prevent mixing residential and industrial properties in the same geographic area. That is a good thing. I don't see that being the issue in this case.

In my opinion this case is about asthetics. He built a residential property in a residiential area. Let's assume that the castle meets all of the standards of construction as put forth by the government. That should be the only "hoop" that the owner needs to go through. The law in question (at least my intrepretation) seems that you need government approval of the design. To me, that is crap, and you should be able to build whatever you want as long as it is up to the building code. From looking at the pictures it certainly doesn't look like they "cut corners" and built a sub-par dwelling. I believe he found an innovative way to get around having people tell him what he could do on his own property. Bravo for him.

Well I do actually like the look of the place, although I'm generally anti - "mock" anything. I'd like to know how the hell he managed to build it for only £50,000, and how he can prove compliance with Building Regulations - who from a safety perspective need to approve all plans and workmanship before completion.

And I like the first posted "comment" on the website - the house does look better than a tall stack of hay covered with a blue tarpaulin.

@ Snook, I doubt it is classed as a "residential" area - it's on a farm. If my new house purchase goes ahead I'm going to be jumping through major hoops to get the 5 acres of arable farmland converted to garden. (In fact I won't be allowed the whole 5 acres, but hopefully can convert it to woodland, orchard and wild-flower meadow.)

They are not "evil" corporations as the shareholders are the homeowners who live in the development.

I live in a new neighborhood, which does not have an elected HOA. It was hired by the builder. My builder informed me that they were the low bidder for the job. They don't do a very good job of anything. For example, at the end of my street the HOA put in a new playground and park. Yet, they never landscaped it or put in trashcans. So, with all the rain we have had, the playground is a swap of mud and water, and since peolpe have no place to throw trash, they just toss it on the playground. Many of us complained to the HOA, who did nothing.

I called the builder, who was very helpful, btw, and advised me that they had paid the HOA for the trash cans themselves and had also paid for the landscaping part of the project; they were curious themselves as to why the new playground was in the state it was in. So, yes not all corporations are evil, but many of them just don't know what's really going on. That, Snook, is why oversite and accountabilty are important, whether it's the government (elected representatives) or active homeowners, oversite is still vital - if you care about your neighborhood.

Let's assume that the castle meets all of the standards of construction as put forth by the government. That should be the only "hoop" that the owner needs to go through. The law in question (at least my intrepretation) seems that you need government approval of the design. To me, that is crap, and you should be able to build whatever you want as long as it is up to the building code.

Is there anyone who knows the answer to this? That was what I was getting at in my previous post. If they are making him tear it down just because he didn't get a permit, that seems absurd. It should only be torn down if it doesn't meet all the regulations. If this guy didn't get a permit because he was overly paranoid and thought he would denied, that doesn't seem to be a reasonable explanation. If he wasn't part of a HOA - and clearly this is the case if this is a farm - then so long as it's up to code he should be able to build whatever he wants.

However, Carcaroth pointed out that the whole thing cost the equivalent of about $100,000. I, too, thought that sounded remarkably low, but I don't know about housing costs in Britain, nor the particular area in which this guy built it, so I didn't comment. However, there are very few places in the US where you can build even a small home for $100,000 - so building a mock castle for that price seems inconceivable. That suggests to me that he DID cut corners somewhere, and that the castle is in some way structurally deficient. Heck, if he used real stone, I don't see how he could have had the stone transported to the site for under $100,000.

I've seen a bunch of UK building shows where they summarize all the costs for every development project in the end, and they're routinely between £200-300k for REGULAR houses (albeit quite large for our standards, and including the plot costs usually). I can't imagine that £50k could be correct - more like £250k. But then again, it's hard to determine the scale from that picture, and it could be that what's on the picture is all there is, but the figure still seems way too low.

First, I find the low price of the house telling as well. Having been there a couple of times I am not overly impressed by the general building standards in Britain (my sis studied in Wales; she had a flying carpet in her room because of the draft coming from below through the floor). If the house is cheaper than average ... :eek:

Second, in case he'd have gotten his permit, had he only asked, I don't expect a demolition order. It would only be about lack of mere formalities - to then let it cost him his house would be out of proportion to the benefit of law enforcement. To apply the law zealously would be excessive. Presumably the argument is similar in Anglo-Saxon law. However, I do not think that is the case here.

Third, there is the question of local zoning. He is a farmer, presumably his property was designated for agricultural use, and not as a residential area. Normally such regulations are set up locally by regional councils (I presume in England at the *'shire level?), by democratic mandate and are thus democratically legitimated. That alone is a good reason to enforce.

Fourth, I wouldn't dismiss building regulations so readily. In France, as well as in Germany for instance, there are regional rules in place to preserve the style of the region, resulting in building materials and roofing to be used and so forth. Everyone who has ever see what tourism does to landscapes will probably at least comprehend this. The idea is to ensure that the region remains worth visiting again.
Question is how zealously you regulate and enforce. In my home town they have deregulated, with devastating consequences. The newly built up areas look like a bad joke, giant houses on quite smallish pieces of land, an alpine home next to a western style wood house next to an 'mediterranean style' house and other follies. They certainly had too much regulation before, but certainly way too little afterwards.

There's a lot more that goes into zoning than simply industrial v. residential use. For instance, is the area a heritage farm, or other historical preserve? Are there sensitive environmental concerns, such as wetlands? Is a certain amount of open space required to balance out a concentration of development nearby, for water runoff concerns?

What I find most amazing about this whole story is that he was able to conceal the house for 4 years. How is it that NO ONE complained about the stack of haybales for that long?!

While I love the house, the idea that someone be allowed to circumvent the rules that have been put in place for the common good - and that the majority of other people somehow manage to follow! - disgusts me.

Rally,For instance, is the area a heritage farm, or other historical preserve? Are there sensitive environmental concerns, such as wetlands? Is a certain amount of open space required to balance out a concentration of development nearby, for water runoff concerns?Of course. You're quite right.

I dislike lawbreakers on general principles. However, at first glance he does not seem to be hurting anyone. I doubt this will lower the property values of the surrounding properties. I am sure that if he's willing to put that much effort into building this thing and living in it, it's not unsafe. Therefore . . . .

The only thing he's guilty of is finding a silly loophole in the law and trying to exploit it. If a filthy rapist does this and gets away with it, people say "oh, loopholes aren't bad, they're there to protect all of us!" So what's the difference here? Why shouldn't he, an average citizen, be allowed to use loopholes too? His use of haybales to reach a 4 year mark without anyone complaining about the castle is hilarious! If the government or some other entity is attempting to use "letter of the law" arguments to penalize him (it would be a shame to tear it down, BTW, a fine is the worst they should do IMHO) then I'd say he's got a pretty good response, if "letter of the law" nit-pickiness is the way his opponents want to go.

LKD,
don't kid yourself. It's exactly the opposite, when a rapist uses a loophole, people do call to close it and for harsher laws. That is almost reflexively so. It's a canard that the majority thinks as you describe. They do not. Also, that is criminal law, where socially harmful behaviour is sanctioned and the perpetrator as a person punished. The perpetrator in a rape or any other crime is not exercising a right, quite to the contrary. The reason why criminals can abuse loopholes is that criminal law has to stand before the crime because criminal law is the single most harsh sanction in the book. You don't want a legal system where you do something, people decide they don't like it, and criminalise your act retroactively and send you to jail.

Also, you're making a false analogy to the house case. These two cases aren't alike.

Building law is something different altogether, a different field of law, with different principles. The case you ought to have in mind for an analogy is that of a falsely parked car that's being towed away.
The builder is exercising a right, but a right put under limits. So the man in this case presumably violates a zoning law. That is far less socially harmful, and thus he isn't punished. Instead corrective measures are taken to restore a condition that complies with the law, if necessary by coercion. The corrective measures may have the effect of punishment, yes, they indeed cost the builder a lot of money, but what is being addressed is the 'disturbance' - a house without permit. As it is a real house, inevitably by it's destruction because you move (unreal?) houses only in America.

PS: I think the four year rule represents a thought that we in German call 'Bestandsschutz'. It can be described as an idea along the line that an owner of something that has stood unchallenged for so long, ought to have good faith in that his property can't be challenged after that, because there was ample time to do so. Alas, the deception the guy engaged in to hide his home building means he doesn't deserve the benefit of that rule, because he actively prevented everyone from gaining knowledge, and thus prevented them from challenging. He didn't act in good faith. The day he disclosed his house to the public will procedurally probably be considered day one of the four years. He likely will not 'exploit a loophole'.

Rags:

I was deliberately using two very different kinds of cases for effect. My point was that in criminal cases loopholes do exist. In this non-criminal case, why shouldn't the fellow try to exploit a loophole? Especially when in the eyes of the general, lay public he has injured no one.

He likely will not get away with it, as you are right -- it could be argued quite successfully that he did not act in good faith. It still seems like a shame to tear it down just to satisfy the demands of a zoning law, though. So I'm getting a vision of the Soup Nazi saying "no loophole for you!"

I think that as long as it meets all required standards for safety and is not in an unsuitable location, it could be allowed to stand with a fine or some such. If it's not safe, however, it should be torn down.

While I love the house, the idea that someone be allowed to circumvent the rules that have been put in place for the common good - and that the majority of other people somehow manage to follow! - disgusts me.

Common good, may be a debateable point.

Common good, may be a debateable point.

Maybe so - but it's still the law of the land, put in place according to long-established practices. Either get the rule changed (again, according to the established mechanisms), or follow it. Don't stand there and flaunt your disobedience and expet to be rewarded for it.

I'm with Rally on this one. The man erected the hay bales with the intent to deceive and hide a unlawful act -- I think that trumps just about everything else.

Maybe so - but it's still the law of the land, put in place according to long-established practices. Either get the rule changed (again, according to the established mechanisms), or follow it. Don't stand there and flaunt your disobedience and expet to be rewarded for it.

The problem with that line of arguement is that the established mechanisms aren't very good. How can this guy go about getting the laws changed? Well, I suppose he could write letters to the council, but there's no reason why they should have to pay the slightest heed. He could vote for someone once every four years if they happened to make these laws some kind of issue - but they probably won't. Possibly he could hire a lawyer and go fight it out in a court, but unless he's got significant amounts of money to burn, that's probably not practical, and all that approach really says is that the rich can change laws and the poor are powerless.

So what exactly are these established mechanisms for getting the laws changed that you're talking about?

The problem with that line of arguement is that the established mechanisms aren't very good...So what exactly are these established mechanisms for getting the laws changed that you're talking about?

You become an activist, or an advocate for a policy that you believe is needed. You work at the grassroots level, with the local media and the local officials. But really it's up to the citizens at the grassroots level to push for the changes they want. You start by canvasing your local area; take up a petition, and then pay a visit to your local townhall meeting with enough signatures to get their attention. Just about evey local government I know of, at least here, gives citizens an opportunity to speak out at local meetings. However, in this instance, this guy may have a difficult time getting others to go along with him, since he's demostrated that he's an arrogant, dishonest sneak to the rest of his community.

Or alternatively he could just have applied for planning permission in the first place and gone through the proper channels, argued the case with a decent set or architects for why it would be enhancing the area, and not having a negative impact. As he didn't I can only presume he realised he didn't stand a chance in hell of getting planning permission.

Although I don't know the size of the place, I would estimate £500,000 for the build would be closer to the mark so it might be a typo in the article.

New-build costs in the UK are about £100-£120 per square foot or ~ £1000 to £1200 per square meter.

Chandos:
See, that's not actually a mechanism or part fo the system - it's the equivalent of letter writing, only perhaps a little more like yelling at them in the hope that they'll do something. Of course, they can just close the window and block you out. They have no obligation to consider the situation and change things if the current set of rules are wrong.

Trying to get the council to do anything is nearly impossible (here, at least. I doubt it's purely a local phenonema, though seeing how our mayor is more often in court answering corruption charges these days that actually governing, perhaps our council is a little more terrible than most), especially if the thing you care about isn't really a concern to anyone else. Petitioning the council is certainly a way of producing change, but as they don't have to listen to you and there's no surefire way of getting the support you need, I don't think it's a great method. Probably the best method present, but there's still nothing inherent in the system that allows the average citizen to make changes.

(I mean, come on - the council here can't even agree that it's a bad thing that the egg farm next door uses massive industrial strength fans to blow huge amount of feathers and dust and other rubbish into our yard and house. And it took them how long to fix the 'bus stop' across the street? The council's so bureaucratic and removed from people that they're worthless as far as the average person's problems are concerned).

Anyway, I completely agree that if it was a simple and sensible matter to get approval for his house - and assuming that his house meets regulations and won't tumble down in a few years - that the guy shouldn't just gone through the right channels. I just can't imagine that he would've gone through all that effort to build his dream house and hide it behind a haystack if it wasn't decently built and if it was legal to do so. Without all the information I'm just speculating though

Building regulations are there for a reason. Where the safety of people is concerned, the legislative has the right to make laws and the government has the right to make particular enactments and enforce applicable regulations in order to make sure that buildings comply with safety standards, do not infringe on the rights of the proprietors of neighbouring parcels of land, and, if such a requirement is justifiable, that they compose well into the existing architectonical pattern of the neighbourhood. Erecting a building which is prone to collapse or a chimney that fogs the neighbourhood, or a noisy workshop in a housing district, or overshadowing the neighbour's windows, or preventing access to roads - all these are not allowed even if you are the proprietor of the land, and rightfully so. For this reason it is necessary to issue permits and if someone wants to assert his perceived by deliberately avoiding the process of obtaining the permit and not even seeking a retroactive, sanatory permit (i.e. allowing you to rectify the legal situation of your building without tearing it down and erecting it anew), in such a case steps need to be taken to assert compliance.

I've worked for a short time in estate law. I really wish people would just comply with the rules, obey the binding regulations which exist for a reason and stop trying to cheat their neighbours and authorities.

Chandos:
See, that's not actually a mechanism or part fo the system - it's the equivalent of letter writing, only perhaps a little more like yelling at them in the hope that they'll do something. Of course, they can just close the window and block you out. They have no obligation to consider the situation and change things if the current set of rules are wrong.

Trying to get the council to do anything is nearly impossible (here, at least. I doubt it's purely a local phenonema, though seeing how our mayor is more often in court answering corruption charges these days that actually governing, perhaps our council is a little more terrible than most), especially if the thing you care about isn't really a concern to anyone else. Petitioning the council is certainly a way of producing change, but as they don't have to listen to you and there's no surefire way of getting the support you need, I don't think it's a great method. Probably the best method present, but there's still nothing inherent in the system that allows the average citizen to make changes.

(I mean, come on - the council here can't even agree that it's a bad thing that the egg farm next door uses massive industrial strength fans to blow huge amount of feathers and dust and other rubbish into our yard and house. And it took them how long to fix the 'bus stop' across the street? The council's so bureaucratic and removed from people that they're worthless as far as the average person's problems are concerned).

Anyway, I completely agree that if it was a simple and sensible matter to get approval for his house - and assuming that his house meets regulations and won't tumble down in a few years - that the guy shouldn't just gone through the right channels. I just can't imagine that he would've gone through all that effort to build his dream house and hide it behind a haystack if it wasn't decently built and if it was legal to do so. Without all the information I'm just speculating though


This (except for the last paragraph here) and your previous post were both spoken in true anarchist fashion, Aik. Mind if I paraphrase? "That rule doesn't work for me so I'm not going to follow it, so there! And it's much too inconvenient to try to change the rules, so I'm just going to ignore them. Rules I don't like don't apply to me."

ASIDE: I realize that you, personally, are exceedingly well-reasoned in your anarchist arguments. That's my interpretation of the garden variety anarchism that's based more in laziness, selfishness, and an unfulfilled need for rebellion than anything else. Unfortunately, that's what's prevalent in modern anarchist movements, in my experience.

Sorry, but no. Life doesn't work that way, at least, not yet. When society really does devolve into a free-for-all of everyone looking out only for themselves, I have a feeling that these petulant whiners will be the first ones crying out for some degree of societal control. :rolleyes:

Note the piece that I highlighted in what I quoted. If the majority of people in a community are satisfied with the rules as they stand, why should the governing body be moved to change them? Remember Spock's mantra, "The needs of the many outweigh the good of the few."

I've had to deal with zoning issues and building permits very recently. The process was bureaucratic and inconvenient and annoying to be sure, but above all it was open and clear-cut and FAIR. Now that everything is above-board, we don't have to worry about difficulties down the line when it comes time to sell our house, or make other improvements. Sure, we could have put up our shed without getting the required permit, as many people do, but making a little effort up front is likely to save us many headaches in the future.

You have to feed the pot to play a hand of poker, and you have to live by the rules to get along in society.

The man erected the hay bales with the intent to deceive and hide a unlawful act -- I think that trumps just about everything else.

That is definitely a valid point, of course. If the man has tried to exploit a loophole in the law, he should not be dismayed to learn that the authorities intend to act against him regardless. Still, I think that if the structure conforms to the necessary safety measures, he should be allowed to have it legalized - with some penalty, perhaps.

That is definitely a valid point, of course. If the man has tried to exploit a loophole in the law, he should not be dismayed to learn that the authorities intend to act against him regardless. Still, I think that if the structure conforms to the necessary safety measures, he should be allowed to have it legalized - with some penalty, perhaps.

Yeah, though he should have the ability, not the effect. If he refuses to file a petition to legalise it, it's his problem if he gets it torn down for lack of compliance with the law.

I don't want to get drawn into an arguement on anarchism or my tendency towards it, but I feel that you're seriously mischaracterising my position.

I would paraphrase/summarise my position as 'The current system allows normal people almost no say in how they are governed. Ideally we would have a system where this is true, but as it is not and unlikely to happen any time soon, make do as best you can by what means you personally deem justified.'

I have no intention of speaking for anarchism or anarchists as a whole - it's such a varied group that there's no sense in doing it, but I feel you're misrepresenting most of them as well.

As for the utilitarian arguement - I'm not going to disagree, but I can't throw my wholehearted support behind it either. It has to be tempered by another nice little phrase (I think I picked this up from some neo-pagan website); 'If it hurts no-one, do what you will.' I'm even tempted to change that to 'If it hurts no-one, not including yourself, do what you will.' - but that's nowhere near as snappy.

(Oh AoDA, why did I ever leave you? :bang: )

What kind of an idiot thinks he could get around a law in such a way? That's as stupid as thinking that if no one's seen you commit murder, you'll automatically get away with it. I certainly hope that they knock it down; along with the arrogance and ego of the jackass who's built it.
Law does not exist just for the sake of being a law, but the reason behind it. In this case the reason it to protect people and property from damages caused by unplanned construction, so I fail to see what kind of a damage this building could cause -especially since it looks, outwards, well build. Knocking it down would be vandalism and the builder himself, certainly, wouldn't be the jackass.

Hence they are sending the inspector to check it out. All the guy has to do is to show him how good work he has done and I'm sure the inspector will give him clean papers. After that the bureocrats will have hard time explaining why a well-build building in middle of nowhere should be destroyed.

The whole case reminds of that quote by famous New York Lawyer Elihu RootAbout half of the practice of a decent lawyer is telling would-be clients that they are damn fools and should stop.So true.

Law does not exist just for the sake of being a law, but the reason behind it. In this case the reason it to protect people and property from damages caused by unplanned construction, so I fail to see what kind of a damage this building could cause -especially since it looks, outwards, well build. Knocking it down would be vandalism and the builder himself, certainly, wouldn't be the jackass.

You need to read the whole thread. What you fail to see has been explained several times thus far already.

Hence they are sending the inspector to check it out. All the guy has to do is to show him how good work he has done and I'm sure the inspector will give him clean papers. After that the bureocrats will have hard time explaining why a well-build building in middle of nowhere should be destroyed.

Oh, the naivete... :shake:

IAs for the utilitarian arguement - I'm not going to disagree, but I can't throw my wholehearted support behind it either. It has to be tempered by another nice little phrase (I think I picked this up from some neo-pagan website); 'If it hurts no-one, do what you will.' I'm even tempted to change that to 'If it hurts no-one, not including yourself, do what you will.' - but that's nowhere near as snappy.

How true is this! Life would be much happier if more people took the Wiccan Rede - or whatever specific religious variant thereof they hold dear - to heart, and acted upon it.

In the specific application at hand, though... who gets to determine what "hurt" means, and to whom it applies?

I say bloody well done! You all comparing this to what I call "serious" offences is ridiculous, the guy built a house with his own two hands on his own damn land and some arrogant b*stards who have the power to throw their weight around don't like the fact that he's made them look stupid. If I was that guy I'd fight tooth and nail, then when the bulldozers arrive stand right in front of them 'till the end!

Good on him!

Incidentally, his neighbours should just get over it. It's in the middle of a farm ffs, neighbours the world over are exactly the same, they complain purely for the sake of not being overlooked.

I say bloody well done! You all comparing this to what I call "serious" offences is ridiculous, the guy built a house with his own two hands on his own damn land and some arrogant b*stards who have the power to throw their weight around don't like the fact that he's made them look stupid. If I was that guy I'd fight tooth and nail, then when the bulldozers arrive stand right in front of them 'till the end!

Good on him!Yeah! Safety regulations, environmental regulations, fire codes, zoning regulations...none of these things serve any purpose at all! They don't exist to protect the populace from the ramifications of bad wiring or improper materials causing a fire or using excessive energy to heat/cool their homes driving up costs for everyone else! Regulations only exist so that the powerful can feel all high and mighty!

then when the bulldozers arrive stand right in front of them 'till the end!


Well, he does have a castle and some cannons, provided they don't blowup in his face.

Yeah! Safety regulations, environmental regulations, fire codes, zoning regulations...none of these things serve any purpose at all! They don't exist to protect the populace from the ramifications of bad wiring or improper materials causing a fire or using excessive energy to heat/cool their homes driving up costs for everyone else! Regulations only exist so that the powerful can feel all high and mighty!

I didn't get the impression from the article that this guy was rich or powerful. He actually seemed like a little guy trying to beat the big guy at his own game.

A poor, powerless little guy, with just enough money to build his own castle. :heh:

I didn't get the impression from the article that this guy was rich or powerful. He actually seemed like a little guy trying to beat the big guy at his own game.You appear to have misread me.

Regulations only exist so that the powerful can feel all high and mighty!I thought it was quite clear that "the powerful" in this context would be the regulators...not the little guy selfishly ignoring them.

Yeah! Safety regulations, environmental regulations, fire codes, zoning regulations...none of these things serve any purpose at all! They don't exist to protect the populace from the ramifications of bad wiring or improper materials causing a fire or using excessive energy to heat/cool their homes driving up costs for everyone else! Regulations only exist so that the powerful can feel all high and mighty!

Yeah, because this guy is the only person to ever have a large house of course. Or have a building that *shock horror* is physically capable of catching fire? And yes, a large number of regulations are pointless excersises of power where the government has stepped beyond the bounds it was designed for originally and become a dictatorship in itself wherein the "little man" as you call him has no power despite civil war to acheive just that. The claims you all make are extremely blinkered by society and regulation. We're spoiled, having our houses built for us so all we have to do is move in and stick some coloured paper to the walls.

For hundreds, nay thousands of years man has sought three things: Food, shelter and sex. It is a sad and unhappy event when one of the simplest requirements and desires of our basic instinct are buried under baskets of legislative paper, and it's even sadder that everyone agrees with it. We as a society have been brainwashed to believe all the pointless pontificating in stupid cases such as this is necessary and beneficial. Well I don't agree, and I think that a society where the work of a man's two hands can be destoyed by the legislative pontificators is a very sad society indeed. How would you like it if you wrote a whole 5,000 word essay and your friend says "You never asked to borrow my pen dammit!" And burns the whole thing? How is this any different?

The government was made by the people to avoid power such as this ever being lauded over us, and lo and behold, what have we ended up with? The age of the lawyer is upon us, and imho, it is a very sad age indeed.

Uri,
I really don't get why this fool gets you riled up so much. He built a house without a permit in the knowledge he needed one and tried to cheat his way through in a fools manner. Had he some smarts or be in the business to listen to advice he wouldn't even started his Qichtotian quest.

I remember where unregulated building left Istanbul after the last earthquake. In ruins, much more ruins than proper enforcement of building standards would have left them. German building regulations incorporate lessons learned from large area fires - Californian building regulations take into account the risk of earthquakes. Guess why?

There is easily too much regulation, and there is easily too little.

Accept that times have changed. Or not so much changed, it's just a consequence of civilisation: Forget about glorifying a largely fictious happy past when man was oh-so-free. The Chinese had their building regulation authorities and bureaucracy, and so had the Babylonians millennia ago. What are you surprised about? When you were able to build your house wherever you wanted, you also didn't have a PC, and you also didn't have cities of one, two or 20 million people. These regulations have come with and ensured the high living standard and prosperity you're used to now. If you don't like it, you can always go native and build yourself a hut and squat in the forrest :p

I think you fail to understand the purpose of the law. The law fundamentally exists to protect people. Building codes exist to protect not only the builder, but the next schmuck who isn't a carpenter, electrician or plumber who goes in and buys the place having no idea he's just moved into a death trap.

To use fire codes as an example, here's a hypothetical.

John has a nice house and some farm land in which he has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars - most of his wealth. Bill buys the plot next door, which was also zoned as farm land and allowed for a modest home to be built. He decides to ignore the city codes and builds a mansion with 27 rooms, a heated swimming pool, and glass walls despite the frigid winters and balmy summers all without approval. It turns out, though, that Bill's house uses more power than the grid is equipped to handle in that area, which causes frequent power interruptions for both Bill, John, and the three other houses currently sharing a transformer. Not only that, but the home also overwhelms his septic system, causing crap to overflow into both John and Wendy's fields. This is especially bad for John and Wendy, since farming is their sole source of income and they've both had to write off considerable portions of their fields due to the human waste contamination.

This isn't the worst part, though. Bill's wiring also wasn't up to code and he didn't use the mandated fireproof insulation and roofing materials. Due to the overtaxing of the city grid, his own faulty wiring, and his failure to stick to the city's fire code, Bill's house caught fire from a power surge, spread to John's house, and took a substantial portion of Wendy's crop before the fire department, which wasn't located nearby, finally arrived. John and Wendy were pissed. Bill wasn't, though, because he, his family, and his wait staff all died in the fire.

Yes, yes, it's a hypothetical. Nevertheless, there's a point to it. City codes don't exist solely to serve the vanity of powerful people. They exist because what happens on your land does affect other people. If there were only 3 people living in the UK, building codes -and most other laws, for that matter- would be unnecessary, but the 242,910 square kilometers of the UK are shared by 61 million people. Because of that, zoning laws and building codes are absolutely necessary. Sometimes they may go too far, sometimes they may not go far enough, but they are necessary.

Drew's example is pretty illustrative.

I don't quite comprehend how one can gain the impression that laws like zoning are only there to satisfy the vanity of the legislators. That's quite silly. What wonders me is what sounds like prevalent resentment against authority.

Uri, that 5000 word essay can if necessary be handled with a simple compensation for the use of the pen. Unless it is written very badly (in which case there would be no harm in burning it) it poses no risk to your life, and it doesn't pose an abstract danger if it is not in compliance with building or writing regulations. Because it is not a concrete or abstract danger inherent in that essay there is no need to destroy or remove the essay to fend off that danger. The issue of building permits first of all is about fending off danger. You chose a poor example.

I give you that Uri, I can comprehend how resentment against authority emerges when people feel treated unfairly because they don't understand the rules and underlying purposes of those rules being applied to them. They then feel being treated like an object. Even more so if the legislation in question is as technical and abstract as zoning laws.

I have friends who are with attac, quite left, and pretty activist. They always tell me about how bad the police and the state is, and I always tell them that when they approach the police the way they do, the experiences of 'oppression' they get are guaranteed (and in my impression anyway confirm their pre-existing views). Not that they cared. Where we're back at full circle:About half of the practice of a decent lawyer is telling would-be clients that they are damn fools and should stop.But then, fools aren't in the business to listen to advice.

'm not saying the guy wasn't in the wrong, that much was obvious, and I agree the guy should face some kind of mild punishment, but I maintain what I said, it's way over the top that they're gonna make this guy tear down something he's built with 50k and a vast investment of time just cause he's put their noses out of joint. It's highly possible that the building could meet the necessary quality levels, but they'll never, under any circumstances allow the guy to keep his hard work. And why? Because they don't want other people getting similar ideas. This is not justice, this is beurocracy.

Uri, the city is within its rights to force him to pay a fine for re-zoning, and force him to bring his home up to code. Tearing the home down should obviously be a last resort, but if the place is a death trap that can't be fixed, it may well be necessary. If he cannot bring the home up to code after re-zoning, depending on the code violation(s), tearing it down may be the only option left. Grandfathering in a 4 year old home sets a dangerous precedent. What is the point of having laws, after all, if they are not enforced? People notice when laws don't get enforced.

Uri,
the looming threat of a demolition order to our castle builder isn't punishment. It's an expression of individual responsibility that one does refuse to meet. There is a danger - be it abstract or concrete, someone is responsible but doesn't act on the danger, so somebody else does - at his expense. Others are filling in for the one responsible and do what he if he acted responsibly would have to do. That isn't punishment, but the one responsible paying for the efforts he caused others to undertake. That is an important if inconvenient distinction.

In case of a demolition order our guy would lose the house, and lose the money, time and effort he invested into building it, and be forced to pay the bill for the destruction. That'd be quite a hit.

And indeed, someone held to account in such a fashion will lose money or property anyway and in all likelihood will subjectively perceive all this as a distinction without a difference, alas, there would still be complaints from that direction if it was a distinct difference.