Problem: Robert Fidler wanted to build himself a castle, but didn't want to deal with all those pesky permits or anything like that.
Solution: Camouflage! (Hey, it worked in World War II!)
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. [...]
Mr Fidler, a farmer, erected the disguise in 2000 out of hundreds of 8ftx4ft bales of straw and covered the top with blue tarpaulin.
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."
Link - Thanks Brian and Kieran!
Zoning and planning laws exist for very good reasons. I don't understand why anyone would think these people should receive special treatment, particularly when they've engaged in intentional (and rather massive) deception in order to circumvent the law.
Have you ever had deal with city officials? I know I have and there a pain in the rear. It's a little thing I call bureaucracy and it's bull. The guy probably tried to go through the proper channels and got the run around. He then decided to do it anyways. He is a revolutionary in a sense. I believe if it's your land your money you have to right to do with it what you want. Me being a property owner I can understand where you are coming from c-dub. I would hate for the guy next door to paint his house pink, but would be with him all the way if he wanted to build a very cool castle. All I am saying in the reality of the situation is that the neighbors should get over it and realize that the castle next door is not going to depreciate the value of there property if anything it will increase value. Zoning and planning laws are set up to maintain the value of surrounding properties. Maybe they should punish him by making him have a bbq for the neighborhood ,but making him tear it down or worse sentencing him to jail thats absurd.
The article says that the law reads essentially "if you have the structure up for 4 years and there are no objections you can keep it". But hiding it behind bales of hay for those 4 years clearly evades the *spirit* of the law. Whether he is successful or not will depend on how good his lawyer is. Either way, though, they will wind up paying *somehow* for their snubbing of authority -- you can bet on it. I know in my piss-ant little town, you would not want to try this, even if you got away with it, they'd figure out some other way to screw you.
A few years ago, my wife and I put up a large gazebo on our 2.5 acre property. I looked up all the regulations in advance and the peak of the roof was going to make the structure 6 inches too high (!). Rather than change the design or risk fines, we had to go through a rather onerous zoning variance process that delayed us a couple months and go before a review board, &c. It was a pain in the ass, but since we kissed their rings, they weren't out to get us on that or future issues, either.
Ted Kaczynski wasn't all crazy -- having a little cabin in the woods away from petty town officials has some merit.
Jealousy is horrible, as is the stuborn piggheadedness of city officials. Who are also in a indignant huff.
Thank god I'm not a land owner. Id get PISSED, if I paid money for land that OTHER people determined the use of.
Yes, I deal with planning and zoning departments, on a very regular basis. And yes, it can be frustrating, but that only gives me the right to complain and negotiate and do what I can to improve the system: it doesn’t give me the right to ignore the law. From there, I can’t really follow your argument: you think a landowner should be able to do whatever they want with their property, but that freedom stops short of painting one’s house pink…? But fake castles are okay? (Frankly, I’d be embarrassed to live next to that monstrosity: this is the 21st century, everyone, let’s stop building like we don’t know where we are. I can’t stand theme park architecture. But that’s an aside.)
@Sid Morrison
I’m right there with you on this one, Sid. Getting variances isn’t always an easy process, but just suck it up and do what you have to do. The laws exist for very good reasons – but if you don’t agree with them, try to get them changed. Zoning offices are usually willing to allow variances, depending on the degree. The real key is this: you have to be a good neighbor. If you get your neighbors behind your project, and show the zoning office you’re looking beyond your own interests, you’ve got a chance.
@Kerozene
If you don’t like the restrictions on a piece of property, don’t buy it – but I don’t know where you could possibly go where there isn’t some jurisdictional body telling you what you can and can’t build.
I guess my overall point is that if want to live in a community, we have to sometimes forego our own desires and make accommodations for that community. This guy preferred to turn his back on his neighbors and go it on his own, so he’s got to live with the repercussions.