Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
REIGATE, England, Feb. 3 (UPI) -- A British appeals court rejected a farmer's request to stop the demolition of a castle he secretly built on his property and concealed for four years.
Robert Fidler of Salfords, Surrey, said the castle, which includes a cannon and ramparts made from discarded grain silos, was completed in 2002.
well, saw that on the news and of course there are two sides to every story..or even more in this case...he never got a permit... everyone has to get a building permit..how long did he think he could hide his castle? and why hide it to begin with? seems a bit odd to me...
So are they making him demolish it because it's not structurally sound, or are they making him demolish it just to show him who's boss? Because if it's the latter, it seems incredibly petty, not to mention a colossal waste of resources. Make the guy apply for the permits retroactively, inspect the damn place, and if it's up to code, levy some kind of substantial fine for building without a permit. And then let him live happily ever after in his stupid "castle."
In the UK you have to have planning permission if you want to erect a building, even if it's on your own land.
He knew what he was doing had not been sanctioned by his local council so he hid it.
He deserves what he is now getting, his name is fidler, seems to suit this guy.
In the UK you have to have planning permission if you want to erect a building, even if it's on your own land.
He knew what he was doing had not been sanctioned by his local council so he hid it.
He deserves what he is now getting, his name is fidler, seems to suit this guy.
Yep, thats what happens when people do not abide by the rules.
So are they making him demolish it because it's not structurally sound, or are they making him demolish it just to show him who's boss? Because if it's the latter, it seems incredibly petty, not to mention a colossal waste of resources. Make the guy apply for the permits retroactively, inspect the damn place, and if it's up to code, levy some kind of substantial fine for building without a permit. And then let him live happily ever after in his stupid "castle."
I would love to buy some land on protected green belt land and build a house there, but I'm not allowed to. That's the law, and it's there for a reason. There tends to be a more defined difference between town and country here than America, because land is scarce and the countryside is protected. This man knew what he was doing and knew the consequences. Tough. If he gets away with it, every farmer will be using their EU subsidies to turn the country into one big ugly suburban sprawl, full of tacky mock castles.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
