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

GDB2222

Darth_Marty wrote: »

The guy is obviously a tit of the highest order but I just see it as a shame that a property has to be taken apart. Why not sell it, give the guy his basic expenditure back and any profit goes to say a local hospital.

It !!!!es me off that simple solutions are so readily overlooked simply because of stupid laws/politicians/councils.

I hate this country at the minute.

Now, you're making me cross. Why should this chancer get his money back? He speculated and lost. Why should the countryside be spoiled any longer than absolutely necessary by his appalling building? It is a shame that the property needs to be bull-dozed, but it's in the wrong place and shouldn't have been built in the first place.

Darth_Marty

Im sorry that I made you cross, however can I sleep tonight.

Actually I have made a mistake and you are right, but I wish there was consistency across the board, if anyone builds without planning or in green belt it gets taken down, no expensive court cases or wasted time.

My initial idea would only cause people to build willy nilly and see how the appeal plays out.

The guy is still a tit though.

Debt_Free_Chick

Mr Fidler (great name, given the circumstances!!!) obviously knew he was breaking planning laws, otherwise why hide the construction of the building? He and his wife even kept their kid out of playschool on the day they were supposed to draw a picture of their house, in case the kid spilled the beans or drew bales of hay covered in blue tarpaulin:rotfl: :rotfl:

He has a string of enforcement notices for all manner of unauthorised development and seems to be making a career out of it. Bear in mind that he bought (or otherwise acquired) agricultural land and has proceeded to concrete over it without any consideration for the law, neighbours or the surrounding environment.

markelock

Darth_Marty wrote: »

Im sorry that I made you cross, however can I sleep tonight.

Actually I have made a mistake and you are right, but I wish there was consistency across the board, if anyone builds without planning or in green belt it gets taken down, no expensive court cases or wasted time.

My initial idea would only cause people to build willy nilly and see how the appeal plays out.

The guy is still a tit though.

How can you sleep tonight? Don't you know who's coming???

Out of interest, will Santa be going there, what with the awkwardness of having to tear the house down and all? Is Health and Safety an issue?

a real minefield...

GDB2222

Darth_Marty wrote: »

Im sorry that I made you cross, however can I sleep tonight.

Hehe, not very very cross.

It is a shame about the waste, but ..... pour encourager les autres.

soulsaver

The big issue here is precedent- if he was allowed to retain the house what stops the next door neighbour doing the same on the basis that it was allowed next door? And then his next door neighbour? The law has to be fair and not favour the brave (or rash in my opinion)...

markelock

If I'd not been lambasted by my comments on the mentally ill, I'd legitimately mention gypsies here. Someone would put two and two together and come up with 5.

but it's right, you can't set precedents (legal or otherwise) like this.

robin_banks

This was built in green belt as such he knew full effing well that he did not have a cat in hells chance of getting planning permission.

To be allowed to keep the building sets a precendence that building in green belt without even applying for planning permission is acceptable.

A previous poster mentioned a forced sale, well er who would buy it?.
I'm pretty sure the fact that it's been built without planning permission might just show up on some searches.

Darth_Marty

I mentioned an alternative option to knocking it down, which I still think is a shame, but quickly realised i was talking !!!!!!!! and said as much.

Ok. My bad.

robin_banks

I was being pedantic, a planner was I in a former life.