Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Farmer agrees to destroy his castle after seven-year legal battle

  1. #1

    Farmer agrees to destroy his castle after seven-year legal battle

    The ugly pile of hay bales is legal.



    BUT nice castle - nope can't have that!!!



    A farmer who built a mock Tudor castle without planning permission has conceded that he has no choice but to demolish it after losing his seven-year legal battle.

    Robert Fidler built a castle at his Surrey farm in 2002 and hid it behind hay bales.

    Reigate and Banstead Borough Council initially ordered it demolished in 2008. The council's decision was backed by the Government after an appeal last year.

    Mr Fidler compared the destruction to Rembrandt defacing a masterpiece.

    The four-bedroom property was constructed on green belt land and includes a kitchen, study and a conservatory.
    ....
    "What they are saying now is if I don't demolish it within 90 days, they can put me in prison."
    More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...al-battle.html



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    I wouldn't build a castle where zoning forbid it. Would I put up a chicken coop yes but the guy knew from the beginning that it was against zoning. Do I think the laws are good? No! But a person would be foolish to spend that much time and money knowingly building in a place that was not zoned for it.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  5. #4
    He should sell the property to a relative/trusted friend (if possible) and reset the clock.
    Those who want liberty must organize as effectively as those who want tyranny. -- Iyad el Baghdadi

  6. #5
    Yeah, see, I'd station some archers there on top of the thing and say bring it, bitches. Lets go. Heh.

    Maybe talk some smack once in a while...



    Is a shame about having losing the thing, though. Is a nice castle.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 04-19-2015 at 11:49 AM.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Schifference View Post
    I wouldn't build a castle where zoning forbid it. Would I put up a chicken coop yes but the guy knew from the beginning that it was against zoning. Do I think the laws are good? No! But a person would be foolish to spend that much time and money knowingly building in a place that was not zoned for it.
    Blaming the victim.

  8. #7
    Governments are much alike all across the world.

    Just like their counterparts on a beach, they are ALL bullies who love to destroy the castles built by the more industrious and honest types. They aren't beyond kicking sand in the face of the weak and defenseless, either. Far from it.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by KCIndy View Post
    Governments are much alike all across the world.

    Just like their counterparts on a beach, they are ALL bullies who love to destroy the castles built by the more industrious and honest types. They aren't beyond kicking sand in the face of the weak and defenseless, either. Far from it.
    The same weak and defenseless who build castles can dig moats and build trebuchets...

    Kickers can generally only kick.......



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    Blaming the victim.
    Whatever you think. I am simply stating that it is a waste of time, money, and a big gamble to erect something like that in a place that you know it is not allowed. It was stupid on his part.
    Are you the victim of income taxes? Stop paying.
    You have to pick your battles and I wouldn't build something that nice without clearing it with zoning.
    Would I park a modular home there? Sure!

  12. #10
    Robert Fidler built the castle dubbed Honeycrock Farmhouse on his land in Redhill, Surrey
    Not your land Fidler, that's where you $#@!ed up.

    That's the King's Land.

    You're just squatting, as long as you pay your rents, and the King allows it.

  13. #11
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...re-insane.html
    Nevertheless, the British attitude to house-building is insane. We are a country obsessed with home ownership. When do you ever meet someone who complains that his own house is an eyesore (though it often is)? Who knocks down his own residence in the interests of the protection of rural England? In our minds, our ownership is unchallengeable: it is everyone else's that is suspect.

    This means that the power of "them that hath" is appallingly strong against the power of them that would like to have. In a free society, the preferable alternative to equality is opportunity. If you deny opportunity, you entrench an inequality which really is unfair.

    This is what has happened in housing, and it has got much worse. In 1996, 30 per cent of new homes were houses with four bedrooms or more and 12 per cent were one or two bedroom flats. In 2008/9, the biggish houses made up only 21 per cent and flats 45 per cent. The average new British home is now 76 square metres, compared with 109 square metres in Germany.

    And the price! House prices in Britain increased three and a half times in real terms from 1970 and 2006. Even today, after our demented borrowing of recent years, house prices are creeping back up again, and this is reported, weirdly, as good news. We are getting less for more.

    Some of this is caused by immigration and by smaller family units, but the biggest single cause is planning. If building is widely forbidden, then the price of land on those sites where it is permitted shoots up. In southern Britain, the cost of building land often composes half the asking price of a house.
    Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. ~GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter, Aug. 17, 1779

    Quit yer b*tching and whining and GET INVOLVED!!

  14. #12
    Put that cannon to good use, Mr. Fidler.
    I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.

    Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):

    Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt

    Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel

    BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG

  15. #13
    A farmer who hid his illegally built four-bedroom castle behind straw bales claims it cannot be knocked down because it is home to protected bats and newts.

    The High Court heard how Robert Fidler hid his property from the council for years behind a giant wall of bales, but has now been given an injunction ordering its demolition.

    Mr Fidler, 67, argued that he would be breaking European laws if he demolished the house as required by a court order without establishing the possible impact on "roosting" bats at the property.

    He said on Monday that an ecological survey conducted in June had established the presence of bats and newts around the property.

    Mr Fidler added that he was no longer the owner of the property, having sold it to a buyer earlier this year who allowed him to stay in the house - though he now faces eviction.

    It is alleged the farmer hoped by concealing the house at Honeycrock Farm in Salfords he could exploit a loophole that meant if a construction was uncontested for four years authorities could not touch it.

    He argued the only reason he built the property in 2000 was because planning authorities in Surrey failed to acknowledge an application to convert an existing property for nine years.

    Mr Fidler and his family moved in in 2002 but it was later discovered by Reigate and Banstead Borough Council who ordered its demolition in 2007.
    The Planning Inspectorate dismissed his appeals but last November he was granted temporary planning permission for a maximum of three years - this was then withdrawn by former Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles.

    The council, which had to take Mr Fidler to court after he refused to comply with court orders and an injunction ordering him to knock it down, said the case has cost it £50,000.

    Mr Fidler told the court: "What I want to make clear to this court concerning my actions of complying with the order, is that I complied thoroughly until the presence of bats and newts was confirmed.

    "I started a demolition process within the 90-day period, but came across what I can only understand to be a criminal matter."
    Explaining the statute, which he came across on bats.org.uk, Mr Fidler explained: "This is, apparently, a European law, which is over and above any English or local authority statute or rule.

    "I understand from the website that if there were any endangered species threatened by actions of either demolishing the building or the garden wall, that it was a very serious offence."

    Mr Fidler said the survey established the property had "all the ideal things where bats are likely to be foraging."

    It added that the "prime bat habitat" could be impacted by any demolition process.

    Mr Fidler said he had written to the council but they have failed to respond.

    He accused the council of having "no interest at all in their responsibilities to wildlife.

    "They did absolutely nothing, even when I told them I had found the problem.

    "What is more serious, is that whether they acknowledged this survey would take weeks or months, they still applied to this court to put me in prison for not doing something they clearly knew they could not do themselves.

    "This is something I can only described as blackmail, saying 'you will go to prison unless you comply with this criminal act.'

    "I have got a choice. I either go to prison if I do knock it down, or I go to prison if I don't."

    Stephen Wales, for the council, accused Mr Fidler of "deliberately disobeying the injunction order."

    Mr Fidler denied the allegation, and added: "I don't have any right to comply with it any more, I'm not the owner. So it's not even relevant."

    He accused the council of "abusing" their power and their argument was "dishonourable, misconstrued, fraudulent" based on a "pack of lies."

    "My claim is that the council's inaction and lack of response about the bats unfairly placed me into what they believe is a contempt of court - in fact the very thing which the council is now prosecuting me for," Mr Fiddler said.

    He added that this was part of the council's "morbid desire" to remove him from the property.

    The case continues.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ource=Facebook
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  16. #14
    When is the bar-b-que?

  17. #15
    Wow. How much do you think it would cost to build something like that? I'd love to have my own castle one day!

  18. #16
    Am I the only one that read the thread title as "farmer agrees to destroy his cattle"



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.


Similar Threads

  1. Farmer trumps Georgia in legal battle over Vidalia onion
    By Suzanimal in forum Freedom Living
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-25-2014, 11:38 AM
  2. Colorado Farmer Gets Four-Year Prison Term for Being Shot by a Cop
    By Anti Federalist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 05-07-2012, 07:10 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-27-2011, 04:56 PM
  4. REMEMBER NUECES--Donate Now for Legal Battle
    By jblosser in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 08-01-2008, 04:47 AM
  5. Huckabee pending legal battle in WA?
    By teshuah in forum Other Presidential Candidates
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-10-2008, 06:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •