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

harryhound

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

The permission runs with the land/building, not with the person. So whoever owns it, it will still be illegal.

The permission normally runs with the land/building, not with the person. So whoever owns it, it will still be illegal.

It is possible to give a temporary permission to a named person (see my posting above) - hence the need to monitor the Land Registry to avoid taking expensive action on a statute barred breach.

It is also important to realise that that "nice" chap fronting the planning application with a very plausible story for wanting to bend the rules
("house my mentally impaired daughter next door to us..............." that sort of thing) can promptly flog the property complete with the new planning permission.

I've seen "likely lads" in that situation lying through their teeth in a county court, never mind some planning enquiry in the village hall.

planning_officer

Nosht wrote: »

Yes, but the new owner would have to go through all the appeals processes again. :eek:

N.

No he/she wouldn't - as stated above, the breaches of planning run with the land, not the person responsible for them (if the land changes hands) - so, depending on the result of the current appeal, a new owner would still need to comply with the extant enforcement notice requiring the house to be demolished. The enforcement notice has already been appealed, and lost - and a new owner can't appeal it again.

Silverbull

planning_officer wrote: »

I've said before that i think this appeal is a complete waste of his time -

Its not a waste of his time if that is correct that he gets legal aid for all these appeals.

The longer he can kick the can down the road the longer he can come up with something else.

All the time its not costing him anything, legal aid just costs us taxpayers.


Do you think its true that he has transfered ownership to soeone else and is claiming housing benefit there? He gets a fair bit apparently with all those kids and all the bedrooms in the castle.

seven-day-weekend

You can't claim Housing Benefit to live in a house you once owned (unless you owned it more than five years ago).

Silverbull

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

You can't claim Housing Benefit to live in a house you once owned (unless you owned it more than five years ago).

Maybe it was over 5 years ago he transfered ownership to his uncles wifes Mother in law or something.

She has since sold it on, and that owner sold it to a LTD company offshore somewhere.

At the end of the day they are going to have a very hard time chasing all this paperwork to get it demolished.

Very interesting to see what happens.

sabretoothtigger

He should flood the immediate area so heavy machinery cannot cross the land without sinking. Though I think all costs of demolition are charged to the owner
I guess they could always call in the army to fire artillery at it depending on how determined the village council become

I think the master plan here might be to put the bails of hay back up and let them know its gone now :laugh:

sharnad

I wish they would just demolish the thing, it would be great if the council gave him a couple of weeks to get his stuff out and sent the bulldozers in

Silverbull

sharnad wrote: »

I wish they would just demolish the thing, it would be great if the council gave him a couple of weeks to get his stuff out and sent the bulldozers in

Interesting point what if he doesnt get out.

Can he chain people in there? take shifts, until they give up.

How can he be charged costs if he has been smart? He has got all his assets out of his name, (including the castle) how else can he get legal aid?

harryhound

Eventually that is exactly what will happen. The demolition workers will be escorted by what feels like half the police in the County.
The only time I can remember seeing more police in one place was in the film reports of Orgrieve.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/img/themes/society/industry/police_and_miners_446.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/themes/society/industry_coal06.shtml&usg=__uaYqKL_Tx4L4wVXsmkndtNwKtyI=&h=251&w=446&sz=47&hl=en&start=43&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=-yeE7wet0OWpgM:&tbnh=71&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dorgreave%2Bcolliery%26start%3D40%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26cr%3DcountryUK%257CcountryGB%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26channel%3Ds%26ndsp%3D20%26tbs%3Disch:1,ctr:countryUK%257CcountryGB

Only these days the police stand out more because it's a demolition site, so they have to dress in "High Viz" jackets etc. (Elf and safety innit).

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/21451721#Comment_21451721

After next week's budget, intended to prevent our descent to !!!!!!!-republic" status, we may have to dust off the "crowd control" techniques.

(Oh God how I love the net nanny:- "Banan@Republic")

neverdespairgirl

planning_officer wrote: »

He lost his planning appeal, he lost his High Court appeal, he has one final appeal underway to the European Court of Human Rights (I think that's where he's appealed!)

He would have to exhaust his domestic remedies first before going to the ECHR - Court of Appeal, probably.

And there is no automatic stay on demolition if he does go to the ECHR.

If anyone wants to read the High Court judgment, it's here:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/143.html