A farmer who built a castle hidden behind a stack of straw bales has lost a High Court bid to save it from being demolished.
Robert Fidler, of Salfords, Surrey, built the home - complete with turrets - without planning permission.
He kept it hidden until August 2006 but was ordered to tear it down by Reigate and Banstead Borough Council in 2008.
Mr Fidler appealed on the basis that his house had stood for four years without anyone objecting to it.
After the hearing, Mr Fidler pledged to take his fight to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary.
He said: "This house will never be knocked down. This is a beautiful house that has been lovingly created. I will do whatever it takes to keep it."
Immunity rule
When Mr Fidler removed the bales he believed the structure would no longer be subject to planning enforcement because of a legal loophole.
But in March 2007 the borough council issued an enforcement notice, which was upheld by a Government planning inspector in May 2008.
The inspector ruled that the removal of the straw bales constituted part of the building works and the four-year immunity rule would not apply.
The High Court was asked to decide whether the removal of the straw bales and tarpaulin was, in the eyes of the law, part of the building operation.
Deputy High Court judge Sir Thayne Forbes said: "In my view, the inspector's findings of fact make it abundantly clear that the erection/removal of the straw bales was an integral - indeed an essential - fundamentally related part of the building operations that were intended to deceive the local planning authority and to achieve by deception lawful status for a dwelling built in breach of planning control."
The judge said Mr Fidler had used two grain silos to form two turrets at the corners of his house. There was also "a stain-glass lantern feature" over a central hall, or gallery.
The property includes a kitchen, living room, study, shower room and toilet and separate WC.
On the first floor, there are four bedrooms and another room still being fitted as a bathroom.
Appeal planned
On the south side of the house there is a gravelled forecourt, and to the north and north-western corner a new patio and conservatory.
The judge said: "Mr Fidler made it quite clear that the construction of his house was undertaken in a clandestine fashion, using a shield of straw bales around it and tarpaulins or plastic sheeting over the top in order to hide its presence during construction.
Story from BBC NEWS:"He stated that he knew he had to deceive the council of its existence until a period of four years from substantial completion and occupation had occurred as they would not grant planning permission for its construction.
"I accept that the act of concealment does not in itself provide a legitimate basis for the council to succeed, as hiding something does not take away lawful rights that may accrue due to the passage of time."
He added: "From his own evidence and submissions it was always his intention to remove the bales once he thought that lawfulness had been secured."
After the hearing Mr Fidler's solicitor, Pritpal Singh Swarn, said an appeal was being considered.
He said: "Mr Fidler is obviously disappointed and will almost certainly want to appeal bearing in mind what he stands to lose, which is the house that he has built.
"The judge appears to have left open the big question - when is a building substantially complete?
"It is necessary for the courts to draw the line as to what constitutes a completed development."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/england/surrey/8495412.stm
Published: 2010/02/03 19:14:21 GMT
© BBC MMX
Disputation: Whether the Castle is substantially complete?
Obj. 1 It seems that the castle was not substantially complete before the removal of the haystacks, for the thing with the haystacks was of a different substance than the thing without the haystacks; therefore, the thing was not substantially a building before they were removed.
Obj. 2 Further, it is essential to the nature of a building to be seen; however, this building was not seen; therefore the thing was not a substantially complete building before the obfuscating haystacks were removed.
Obj. 3 Further, as St. Thomas Aquinas says (STQ75a2), a thing may subsist simpliciter, or it may subsist complete in its specific nature. The thing under construction is not complete in its specific nature, but it subsists, but not as a building, as a severed hand subsists but not as a human being. Therefore, the thing is not substantially complete.
Obj. 4 Further, if substance admits of degree, then at all stages of construction, the building is in part actually a building and in part potentially a building. Now, that which has an imperfection is in potentiality with respect to its perfection, which is actual. The haystacks, which obfuscated the thing, were imperfections; therefore, the thing was not actually and fully a building until the removal of those haystacks.
On the contrary, the Bard says, “Hang out our banners on the outward walls; / The cry is still, ‘They come:’ our castle’s strength / Will laugh a siege to scorn: here let them lie / Till famine and the ague eat them up” (Macbeth V.V).
I answer that, if the lawgivers grasp the meaning of a thing’s being "substantially complete," then it has to mean that the entity in question is a building in substance. Now, substance is "being." A substance that is a building has the essence (or quiddity, form, proper set of differentiae, etc.) to be (substantially, essentially, formally, actually, etc.) a building. Therefore, when the thing bears all the attributes essential to being a building, with any number of accidental attributes of whatever perfection besides, then it is formally and thus actually a building in substance. That is, if the thing bears all differentiae (e.g., walls, etc.) proper to its species (e.g., building) and genera (e.g., dwelling, etc.), even granted the presence of obfuscating haystacks, then it must be a building in substance. This is so. Clearly, since the haystacks and obfuscation were accidental to the substance, the substance was complete in the nature of being a building, and therefore was substantially complete, having actualized fully the form of a building. QED, all good Aristotelian and Scholastic philosophers ought to agree that it is right and just to let this man live in his castle.
Reply Obj. 1 and Obj. 2 Neither bales of hay nor obfuscation have anything to do with being a building essentially, but only accidentally, unless the definition of a building is to be amended with such a negative property as, "is not obscured." Negative properties, it is widely agreed among the Metaphysicians, cannot be essential to a thing. Even if they could, it remains to be proved why such a property should be amended to "building." It is simply mistaken to say that in order to be a building in order to be seen, for it is easy to imagine a building which is invisible and unseen, but which exists and is a building in substance.
Reply Obj. 3 Insofar as the thing under construction is not a substantial building, surely the completed thing is a building in essence. For as it has been shewn above (Reply Obj. 1 and Obj. 2), the thing, even while obscured by haystacks lacked nothing essential to its being a building in substance. For though the thing, while truly under construction, lacked the substance of a building according to the wisdom of the Angelic Doctor, but having fully attained those essential attributes of a building at completion and prior to the removal of the obfuscating haystacks, was substantially a building at that time, for obfuscating haystacks are merely accidental attributes.
Reply Obj. 4 Substance may admit of degree, but imperfections of accident in no way impede on imperfections of essence. The imperfections of the obfuscating haystacks are imperfections with respect to accident, as stated above (I answer that) and therefore have no bearing on the essence of the building, which in its complete state is perfect and therefore fully actual with respect to its essence.
1 comment:
You could also address the original purpose of the law (no doubt to prevent the construction of eyesores, unstable structures, and property disputes) and whether or not the castle is in any way at odds with the end goal of the law. They're merely following the law to the letter because it is a law, not because it's reasonable to do so in this situation.
Post a Comment