Man's secret castle ordered destroyed

[gatorboy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_britain_secret_castle

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

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

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

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

------------------------------------------------

Anyone know what the problem is here? Is it illegal in the UK to build a house with a castle design?

[Lance_Boyle]

1. It's generally illegal to build without permits. n/t

[Oregone]

2. Looks like a fancy chateau

Not really a castle. Its just a house he didn't want to get permits for. Look at the picture.

[Xithras]

14. Reading up on it, it's really just a farmhouse with a fancy exterior.

The two turrets, for example, are actually grain silo's for the farm that were wrapped in brick to give them a castellated appearance. Once you remove those from the floorplan, it's actually a fairly small farmhouse.

[KG]

3. with space at a premium in britain, they take their land use / urban planning very seriously.

[dipsydoodle]

4. Nope !

But it is illegal to build a house without planning permission. Given the description of its hidden location I'd say he built it on agricultural land on which he'd never have got permission anyway. Doing it on the QT he probably also ignored all building regulations.

I have no sympathy for him.

I just looked at the picture - given its apparent isolated location I doubt permission would've have been witheld due its it appearance so it must've been change of use of land I guess.

[gatorboy]

22. Ahh. The emphasis on the design being of a castle threw me off.

[Soylent Brice]

5. note to self:

scrap plans to build fort in England for zombie apocalypse.

[Lance_Boyle]

6. Just keep it hidden until the zombie apocalypse starts.

Planning and zoning boards, being generally indistinguishable from zombies, will be among the first conscripted to fight and thus unable to fulfill their bureaucratic obligations.

[Soylent Brice]

9. *fingers crossed*

[dixiegrrrrl]

18. LOL!

[MicaelS]

7. He tried the evade the rules

From the article:

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

He committed a violation of the law and hoped the statute of limitations would expire before he was caught.

[trotsky]

10. Yup. Rules are rules.

Pity though, looks like a beautiful piece of architecture.

[Xithras]

13. That's not quite what happened. The reality is actually even funnier.

Britain's laws state that houses built without permits can remain if they're lived in for four years. He took advantage of this by building the house, covering it in hay bales, and then moving in for four years until the legal limit passed. When the four years was up, he removed the bales.

The prosecution argued, successfully, that his plan essentially made the bales PART of the construction process, and therefore the construction was legally not complete until the bales were removed. Because the four year rule doesn't apply to homes that are still under contstruction, the four-year timer didn't start running until he pulled the bales down.

The judge agreed. Because the bales were a planned part of the building development from the beginning, they were part of the construction process.

Essentially, the guy didn't think this through!

[dipsydoodle]

40. But apart from that

even if the 4 year rule could overcome the lack of planning consent it would still need to comply with all current building regulations. The council could insist that proof of such was necessary which would require a lot of the house to be dismantled anyway including exposure of all foundations.

It really pisses me off the way that these days everyone and his dog says they'll appeal to the European Court. That it one of the arguments about us being in Europe - we do have our own laws.

[The2ndWheel]

8. And a little more spontaneity is taken out of life

Can't beat The Man.

[Fleshdancer]

11. Destroying it seems uneccessary

I can understand hitting him with steep fines or perhaps taking it away from him, but is it necessary to destroy it? Unless the structure is unsafe, I'm sure they could find something to do with it.

[jmowreader]

16. They'll do that in the US too...

I had to tell a lot of people, "if you're doing structural work to your house pull a permit; if you don't and they catch you, they'll most likely tell you to remove the improvement."

In the case of a whole house I can DEFINITELY see why they want it torn down--quite a few building inspections have to be completed before you install drywall, such as the framing, electrical rough-in and plumbing rough-in.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. Fuck building permits.

Seriously.

The building codes in this country were written by manufacturers of widgets, gadgets and their lawyers. Their finished product is a copyrighted work.

Do you know of any other examples of law that are copyrighted? Last I looked, I didn't have to buy a copy of the Constitution, RCW or WACs. If I want to build a 10 x 13 shed, I do have to buy a copy of those assholes' book.

It is also ridiculous overkill and has done great damage to the american architectural tradition. McMansions? In part a response to the reality that due to land use rules, and development costs, it is economically impractical to build a modest house. A 50,000 septic system, a 10,000 paved road and an 8,000 building permit do not allow the construction of anything worth less than $300,000.

[Xithras]

15. Yeah, because that worked so well for Haiti

:wtf:

There are good reasons why building codes were adopted. Do you really want your neighbor building a 5 story wooden cabin next to your house using lumber he scavenged from the local dump?

[trotsky]

23. Don't make the wannabe-libertarians think too hard.

They get mad when their beliefs meet reality.

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. Bullshit, I'm an engineer AND I built my house

Building codes long ago passed public safety relevancy. The IRC now says that any accessory structure bigger than 120sf requires a building permit. When was the last time you heard of a woodshed or greenhouse collapse related injury?

Once a year, Simpson Strong-Tie arrives at the meeting of the ICC

http://www.iccsafe.org/Pages/default.aspx

... with their portfolio of new shit. Most of them find their way into the building codes as required solutions to nonexistent problems. The same thing happens to the electrical code council.

Part of the side-effect of this is "incompetence creep". The more that we are believed to be incompetent by elected officials, and that only big industry knows the answers, the more it becomes the case. At some point in the not too distant future, plungers will only be available to licensed plumbers.

[trotsky]

48. That's wonderful.

Not everyone is as brilliant as you. Therefore we have building codes.

[lumberjack_jeff]

49. I find it interesting.

The near religious belief in the necessity and value of building codes is inversely proportional to the person's exposure to them.

[trotsky]

50. As I find it interesting.

That those who fancy themselves expert builders hate them so.

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. There are good reasons for building codes.

There aren't many good reasons for abdicating responsiblity to write those codes to a coalition of businesses using their law-writing authority to make a buck.

Another good example? Lumber grade-stamps. I run a small sawmill part time. I would be embarrassed to produce most of what gets sold at the local lumberyard. Unfortunately for builders, they're stuck with that crap because all lumber which goes into a structure must be grade stamped. The grading council is funded by companies like Weyerhaeuser, who prevent small sawmills from grading lumber, or independent individuals from obtaining that certification.

[Oregone]

21. Many jurisdictions won't care about your 10 X 13 shed

(Its under 200 SQFT--at least in the US many don't care)

As lame as it sounds, building codes really do exist to protect people. Even building at code doesn't guarentee a structure will be safe and viable in all circumstances.

In the long run, over decades span, it saves money to get permits and build according to code (or above). You don't have to hire someone to come in, fix it, and save your ass.

[unapatriciated]

42. you are right about that.

Years ago my dad built a covered bus stop in front of his property in a rural area of Riverside, Ca.
He got tired of seeing the children standing in the rain waiting for their school bus.
A neighbor had a dispute with him and called the building inspector.
The structure was up to code so a permit was issued and fees waived since it was for public use.

This neighbor didn't know my dad was a retired bridge builder and carpenter, who was quite fond of re-barb and building above code. He was also on a first name basis with most of the building inspectors (including the one who came to inspect the bus stop) from various job sites.

[Jokerman]

24. You have to BUY a copy of the building code?

I'm in favor of reasonable building codes and permits but if they expect you to pay just to read the regulations, that's messed up.

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. In fairness, you can generally get it from the library.

But building officials are notoriously unwilling to tell you what you need to do. They wait until you do it wrong first.

[dysfunctional press]

27. i didn't have to buy a copy of the building codes to build my garage.

:shrug:

what the fuck are you rambling about...?

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. Then what building codes did you build to?

If you built it without knowing what you were doing, you got lucky.

[dysfunctional press]

44. the county codes are available free of charge.

did you even ask about it at your county office?

[JoeyT]

41. I suspect about things like this.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:TDSYSZfhEHcJ:www.villageofgilberts.com/modules/news/photos/001190013701342.pdf+dog+house+permit&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbS_gOHL8QNUgv7rqPgmjUZ8Dlk_xA

That's actually pretty common in small cities that have delusions of grandeur. The city I live in (15000 people) has pretty much the same, only more expensive. This is exactly why low information people think building codes are stupid. The real codes that keep houses from falling over in a slight wind or burning down the second something is plugged in are necessary. Charging someone $200+ dollars for the privilege of building a doghouse on their own land is not.

Edited to add: I just realized what I linked to requires a current survey that includes where you're putting the doghouse. So $200+ should actually read about $1200+ if you get a cheap surveyor. For a fucking dog house in a rural area.

[dysfunctional press]

45. the link you provided shows a total of $111 to build a shed, playhouse, or doghouse...

basic fee- $46
plan review- $38
inspection- $27

total- $111

the plat of survey is available at the county office for free, or possibly a nominal fee.

[JoeyT]

52. Sometimes the plat of survey is available.

"A plat of survey showing all existing construction including decks, patios, etc." usually isn't available at the courthouse. I've never even seen one that showed all that, and I worked with a surveyor for 2 years. A plat showing the general area *might* be, but not necessarily. Of the thousand or so properties I've looked up, I'd say about 10% have the general area with no distinguishing features other than property lines, section posts (if there are any), and the landmarks used in the deed. Most are just a deed, which just describes landmarks, traverse angles and distances, and the size (often wrong) of the area. In rural areas, the land often hasn't been surveyed since they used chains and weight levels, which is why the size is often wrong and why people frequently find their house is sitting on the property line.

You're right about the total, somehow I got the bond in there. Although if for some reason they don't approve your dog/playhouse on the first shot, you get to pay for each additional try. And I'd bet they almost always reject a few times unless the person has some pull.

So is it justifiable in a very VERY rural area (population ~5k) to require a hundred bucks and possibly hiring a surveyor to build a dog house? Were dog and play houses being built so rapidly they had to slow the flood or be buried in a wave of waist high structures?

IMO they're just petty bureaucratic tyrants trying to reinforce what little power they've got.

[dysfunctional press]

53. the plat i got from the county had everything on it...

all i had to do was draw in the garage, make a copy, and that was that.(btw- gilberts, the town in your link, is the next town over from us...it WAS a 'rural' area, but it's really grown in recent years.

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. Your knowledge of doghouse building requirements in your town...

... provides limited explanation of your qualifications to call me "low information".

[JoeyT]

51. I wasn't calling you low information.

I was referring to the people that think that we should scrap the building codes entirely because of the overzealous ones.
The people that think you should be able to have exposed non-coated wire carrying current in a house because there are crappy codes that do nothing but make stuff more expensive.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sheepshank]

43. you seriously

are delusional about building codes and how they are written and how they are updated every year and how they are voted on and adopted by local building authorities. I'm guessing you got burned

[lumberjack_jeff]

46. Don't guess.

What experience do you bring to the conversation?

And, since you brought it up, explain how "local building authorities" adopt the building code. I do know the answer to this one.

I'm impatient. The answer is, they don't. In my state the legislature simply says every jurisdiction will use the ICC, and the cities and counties are forced to adopt it. They adopt it in the same sense that I adopt stop signs. They don't have a choice.

IMHO, we all get burned by building codes as they are currently implemented. Some of us just don't realize it.

[Sheepshank]

54. I work at local Gov't

with the people that work with and meet and put together the International Building Codes. I have attended code meetings. Comments, suggestions, and votes on changes and updates coming from building inspectors and building officials and not solely from the group you mentioned. I think I know a little of which I speak. ...but your comment is hardly an indication of a universal implementation of building codes and and hardly the norm.

[hunter]

17. I think there should be a merriment exception in situations such as this.

If news of your lawbreaking causes much merriment throughout the land and very little harm, then you get to pass GO and collect your $200.

I believe the four years of of skulking about and hiding behind giant hay bales and the castle turrets qualify this project for a merriment exception.

[annabanana]

20. I like the way you think.

LOTS of things should have "merriment exemptions".

[petronius]

25. I like that idea! I'll also volunteer to serve on a merriment-jury, to decide

if various acts are funny enough to qualify...

[Ignis]

29. Sure, but are you going to let JUDGES decide what's funny?

We need some expert merriment witnesses here!

[Agony]

38. Right On! consider your idea officially stolen! nt

[MilesColtrane]

19. Too bad he didn't put in a wide moat stocked with alligators and a drawbridge.

That would keep the bulldozers at bay.

[Lance_Boyle]

28. I don't think they have alligators in Surrey.

Maybe if it was stocked with Tories...

[howard112211]

26. It's a cool looking house. Provided it is a safe structure, I hope he gets to keep it.

I wish people would build more in that style.

[Liberal_in_LA]

31. too bad

[SoCalDem]

32. the problem? tax evasion? no building permits? zoning?

you know... roooooolz:)

If a guy who builds a "cool-looking" place gets a waiver, what about the everyday people who decide to "build" something in their backyards? or on a piece of land they own?... What if you wanted to build a gigantic mosque to honor your Muslim faith?..even if you planned to live in it, not to preach in it?

someone with the money he apparently had, and the land...wanted to avoid taxes probably:shrug:

[Gregorian]

36. Oh no. I've got a friend who has a secret castle.

Petrolia.

He's a cool old man who decided to build his own castle. I think we're less strict in our rural areas than the UK. But I have wondered if he'll ever end up in trouble. Over here they just make one pay fines, unless it's more complicated.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

39. You have to get planning permission for major works on a house

The man built his house on green-belt land, which means that people aren't really supposed to build houses on it (example could be someone building a house on Yellowstone property without planning permission). People spend years trying to obtain planning permission for extensions, etc, here. It can be stressful sometimes and people do skirt around the planning dept here but it's quite risky.

[Princess Turandot]

55. If you have Google Earth, turn on Historical Imagery and go to these coordinates...

51.20485498883, -0.15026978353065

You can see it progress from field to construction to a weird looking lump (the tarp affair) and then the castle.

It seems aptly named as Honeycrock farms..