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

Gorgeous_George

I like that idea but it is workable only if the house would have got planning permission.

The owner must not profit. Knock it down and bill him for the work.

GG

mess0804

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I like that idea but it is workable only if the house would have got planning permission.

The owner must not profit. Knock it down and bill him for the work.

GG

bill him from what? as he probably spent all he had on building that and now it's on benefits... so the taxpayers will pay for that to be knocked down.

harryhound

Just go to a planning case like this and evaluate the cars in the car park.
The accountants, the QC's, and the self employed planning specialists will have the flash ones.
(Do these people add the most to our society?)
Perhaps. like the ancient Egyptians, we would be better off putting the millions unemployed or under employed to work building useless castles and knocking them down again.
At least it would take more people off the dole queue, than this pantomime FUNDED BY MY TAXES.
Rant over.

Harry

The solution is compulsory purchase at existing land use value (12 years loss of profits on this "farm" land?).
All the drones currently battling it out in the high court could be put to work haggling over the say 20K value of the site.

mrcow

I think it looks really nice.

I'd love to live in a house like that!

RDB

mrcow wrote: »

I think it looks really nice.

I'd love to live in a house like that!

Just buy a bit of land somewhere and build something cheap as possible.

In 4 years you can keep it if you can prove you have been living there.

Just dont try hiding it behind hay bales

seven-day-weekend

mess0804 wrote: »

I think if it has been built it shouldn't be demolished.
It should be taken away from him because he done it against the law.
and should be used for something good: like putting foster families or putting mothers with children that had to run from an abusive father or other good purpose.
Not just tear it down, because it's not architectural to anyone’s taste, but use it for something good, as to build something of this size to be used by an organization it would cost the government money. to tear it down it would cost the government money. Just take it from him and use it for something it’s the most common sense. (but when will common sense be used in this country???)

But the house is an illegal build so therefore how can it be used for anything?

roddydogs

Update please, is it being knocked down yet?

MrsE_2

roddydogs wrote: »

Update please, is it being knocked down yet?

It was still there at 8am this morning:D

RDB

Can I ask a question to all the inspectors on here.

If Mr Fidler just built it illegally and lived in it for 4 years or more without any problems but never tried to get a lawful development certificate, could he just wait until an inspector enquires about it and then apply for the LDC?

What Im asking is can you apply for the lawful development certificate after you have been found out about?

With the way the economy is and more and more homeless people about, it may happen that more and more people try doing what Mr Fidler did especially since he got away with it.

House prices are still way above the long term mean and wages are falling instead of going up to meet the still inflated house prices.

More and more tent city`s will be springing up all around us like this one.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAP7fOQdOr8&feature=channel_page

mynameisdave

Where did the 50K come from if he is on benefits and owns land? The land is classed as an asset and therefore savings. What benefits is he on?