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

novazombie

Looks like he has got away with it.


All those who said it would still be there this year were right.

harryhound

I wonder if he is paying council tax on it?
The system can be very two faced.

roddydogs

So is that the last word ? hes got away with it full stop or is it still ongoing?

Yoshua

Looks like thats the last word, period. He got away with it.


Maybe there is no need to do the teletubbie or hobit hole thing underground, just build a Tudor Castle anywhere you like, as long as you can get a few hay bales together you dont need permission :eek:

harryhound

Has anyone explored what Mr Fiddler does for a living, when not driving a coach and horses?

RLH33

Personally I don't think he has got away with it yet, the wheels of the legal system work very slowly so I would imagine it is still being pursued but hasn't got to the High Court yet.

I am certain that, regardless of the outcome, it will be in the papers and most likely in the professional journals for Planning Officers.

MrsE_2

Over the weekend he's put a big sign up saying "Honeycrock Castle", I guess he's stopped trying to hide it & is turning it into an attraction:rotfl:

Hector-The-Inspector_2

Won't be long before you see this 'sign' :rolleyes:

Dinah93

If it hasn't gone to the high court yet, then he hasn't gotten away with it. After the council chased it through so many appeals you really think they'll just let it stand now? They legally have the right to remove the property if he does not (and bill him for the costs of doing so), the only reason they won't have done is because the clock is stopped if there is still an appeal going on ie the high court. Where he has a cats chance in hell of getting it granted.

Oh and one more point about the 4 years occupation with different residents, this needs to be 4 years continuous occupation, two years, then 3 months gap where it is empty, then another two years wouldn't count.

And yes, for my sins, I'm also a planning officer.

crazygaijin

Dinah93 wrote: »

If it hasn't gone to the high court yet, then he hasn't gotten away with it. After the council chased it through so many appeals you really think they'll just let it stand now? They legally have the right to remove the property if he does not (and bill him for the costs of doing so), the only reason they won't have done is because the clock is stopped if there is still an appeal going on ie the high court. Where he has a cats chance in hell of getting it granted.

Oh and one more point about the 4 years occupation with different residents, this needs to be 4 years continuous occupation, two years, then 3 months gap where it is empty, then another two years wouldn't count.

And yes, for my sins, I'm also a planning officer.

So why is it still there? I thought May was the dealine?

He must be going to the high court, which will be costing him a fortune.

He spent 50K to build it and goodness knows how much legal fees trying to keep it, UNLESS HE GETS LEGALAID? Someone said he is on benefits, maybe us taxpayers are paying for all his appeals.