Battle for Fidler Castle

Eight years ago, a long and harrowing ordeal began for 59-year-old Robert Fidler. In 2000, Mr. Fidler began work on his families true "dream" home, or more appropriately castle. That is right, Mr. Fidler built his family a castle. However, that is not the ordeal he and his family now face.

Eight years later, Mr. Fidler has been ordered to demolish his families home and "return the land to its original use." The farmer, his wife Linda, 39, and their son Harry, seven, have live in the home since they moved in on Harry's first birthday. In reality, being the only home that young Harry has ever known, it comes to mind how can these people make the Fidlers move out and demolish their home. Another interesting fact, the castle is built on the Fidlers land, not on some public property.

Neighbors and passersby were astonished when in the spring of 2006, the castle was unveiled. Not wanting those who now seek to have the castle demolished to attempt to stop the construction, for the first six years of construction and design, the castle was hidden behind a massive wall of hay bales and underneath a tarpaulin.

I have a difficult time understanding just how they can legally make the Fidler family demolish the castle that sits on their land. Mr. Fidler has applied for a Certificate of Lawfulness. This certificate can be sought after a development has been in place for at least four years without prior permission. If his application is accepted, his families home will be saved. Otherwise, the castle will have to be torn down and returned to farm land.

If I were to pick a side in the battle for the Fidler Castle, I would have to side with the Filder family. Though I live in the United States and not the United Kingdom and am not all that familiar with the laws, I just have difficulty understanding how any government can force a family out of their homes and force them to tear them down, especially if the land the home is built on is the families own land.

According to a Reigate and Banstead Borough Council spokes-woman, "the site is located on the Green Belt and the developments constitute inappropriate development, which is harmful to the openness of the Green Belt."

I take that to mean, the land being a farm is more important than that the farmers taking care of it have a home. It is just not right for anyone to order the destruction of such a lovely home.

More information:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/24/nhouse124.xml
http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/Residents/Planning_Development/Planning_Applications/CertificateOfLawfulness.asp