'illegal' mock-Tudor castle he tried to hide behind 40ft hay bales

planning_officer

chopperharris wrote: »

All he needed to do was make a pigshed , then get a change of use.

That would be almost as difficult as building a new dwelling, in the Green Belt!

chopperharris wrote: »

If he has genuinely found a loophole then he is no worse than the penpushers , politicians , and lawyers that use them.IF the council have never stipulated that ANY building must be carried out with screening before as normal terms , then there is no precedent set for denial under the grounds of it was unfinished because of it not having been removed as the timestamp for beginning habitation and its appeal.

The Appeal Inspector stated:
"it was never Mr Fidler’s intention to build a house which remained encased within walls of straw covered in sheeting. It was always his intention to remove the straw walls thus revealing his edifice once he thought that sufficient time had passed for the lawfulness of the construction to be secured. The day-to-day existence within the dwelling when encased by straw was seen as a temporary situation which would be endured for as long as it took to secure lawfulness. It was not a normal living environment (limited, if any, natural light; no outlook; poor ventilation) or one which was intended as a final outcome. Rather it was a situation that would be tolerated for the time being. I therefore find that the straw bales were part of the totality of the operations and it was necessary for them to be removed before the point of substantial completion was reached. The matter of substance is not that the bales hid the dwelling (although they certainly did) but that they formed part of the totality of the operations. ... As this did not happen until July 2006, substantial completion did not occur until that time and this is well within the 4 year period"

And he also stated:
“I appreciate that this is a most unusual case and I am not aware of any clear authority that I can draw on which is directly comparable. Sage is a valuable authority on the matter of legal principles but differs in terms of the actual facts. I have interpreted and applied these principles to the best of my judgment. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I consider that it is right to find against the appellant because the case of lawfulness is not made out on the balance of probability. Unless this test is met the appeal should not be allowed.”

Thus, there is no precedent as you say, but there is also no loophole. Clearly the case had to be considered on its own merits. Quite rightly so (in my opinion), the Inspector considered that the bales were part of the building operation as they were intrinsically linked to the erection of the dwelling, therefore the 4 year period did not start until they were removed. Hence, the dwelling is not immune from enforcement action.

harryhound

phew - looks like my pig shed is ok then:rotfl:

t1gger

How long does he actually have left to pull this down?

I know it's immature but I can't read his name without giggling. A brilliant name for a real character

planning_officer

Yoshua wrote: »

I have some land in the country and have been trying for yrs to get permission to build but they always just say no of course its green belt. (85% of the country is).

Er, no - actually only 13% of the country is Green Belt.

planning_officer

epz wrote: »

i always thought the definiton of a free country was not being preventing from doing something unless it does harm, what harm has building this place caused

Well, harm to the Green Belt for a start - duh! Imagine new houses everywhere all over the country, urban areas sprawling over the countryside, resulting in increased travelling, more pollution, more roads needed.. need I go on?!

And GB totals 13% of the country, not the ridiculous 87% you quote!!

planning_officer

t1gger wrote: »

How long does he actually have left to pull this down?

I know it's immature but I can't read his name without giggling. A brilliant name for a real character

He has until 6 May 2009 to demolish it and reinstate the land to agricultural. If the Council have to send in a contractor to demolish it then all costs would be claimed from Mr Fidler, so it won't be taxpayers money wasted - it will be his, and rightly so. And in case anyone asks, if he doesn't pay then he would be prosecuted and the debt is registered as a land charge so he will never be able to sell or move without repaying!

harryhound

We had something close to a "freeforall" prior to WW2 and it caused "bungaloid" growth on beauty spots and along the coasts; plus "ribbon development" along the main roads, as living out of town and away from a Victorian railway station was a possibility thanks to the internal combustion engine (motor bike anyone?).

It also enabled the Southern Railway company to buy up near bankrupt farms, South of London and make a profit out of building electric railway lines to them so they could become housing estates..

All the local authority could do was compulsorily purchase the land ahead of the speculators and worry about providing schools, doctors roads and sewers for its dispersed residents.

ben500

planning_officer wrote: »

I heard that too - I think he had come across some old law from the dawn of time which said that the Queen had the power to protect castles or something, so he probably thinks she can overturn the planning decision. Hardly likely!!

If I remember rightly it was not so much a power but an obligation. Not 100% sure about that though.

taxiphil

He should hire the same lawyers Tesco used when they built an 'Extra' store in Stockport that was 20% bigger than the size limit in the planning approval. They also failed to get retrospective permission for it, but - hey presto - Tesco being Tesco, the council just let them get away with it and 6 years later the store still stands.

crazygaijin

It all goes to show if you throw enough money at the problem it goes away.

But how much money has he got to throw at the problem?

His legal team must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Would it have been cheaper and less worry for him to do it the legal way?

What will happen in the end, will it still be standing this time next year? The year after?