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

mutter

The thing is aboout Planning Officers - they don't take action like this unilaterally, they do it with the consent and backing of the Planning Committee, made up of elected Councillors.

If there'd been a groundswell of local opinion in favour of Mr Fidler being allowed to retain his 'castle', the Councillors would likely have granted him retrospsctive planning permission and called the Enforcement Officers off, but they clearly feel that their chance of being relected next time round is best served by fighting it to the bitter end.

It seems that every Council has a thorn in its side in the form of some 'maverick' who has the time, money, energy and knowledge to cynically try to exploit legal technicalities in order to 'beat the planner'.

pararct

End of the day it is all about the politics. The planning officers need to show they have some teeth (otherwise why employ them) and the councillors want to ensure continued access to their lavish expense accounts so will 'follow the opinion of the herd'.

bosseyed

Cyril wrote: »

I haven't said anything about blocks of flats or burger bars, i've said a family home

Yes, but whats your idea of a family home. Yours might be a small and attractive 4 bed that nestles in the countryside and adds imeasurably to the character of the area - mine however might be for a 10 bed, 4 storey monstrosity made entirely from breeze blocks painted orange and badly mortared together with a banger racing track around the outside.

This is the point, the planning regulations are there to stop any old berk flinging up any old horror which might negatively impact on the area and anyone living nearby. Just because its your land doesn't mean you have a right to do anything you like on it does it.

In this case, the house behind the hay bales has to come down surely - think of the precedent that would be set if it didn't. Plus the guy is so damn smug thinking hes got one over the council.

Silverbull

Cyril wrote: »

I'm sure it'll still be there and the longer its there the less chance of him being told to pull it down IMO.

Councils are making severe cuts and i'm not sure how long they can go on funding legal action for one mans build.

He would be given the bill. I do not know how he would pay though, considering he has been getting legal aid every time he goes to court.

kford224

pararct wrote: »

....and the councillors want to ensure continued access to their lavish expense accounts so will 'follow the opinion of the herd'.

Local Members don't get expenses like those in Central Government, so that is not really a factor

Angela_D_3

bosseyed wrote: »

Yes, but whats your idea of a family home. Yours might be a small and attractive 4 bed that nestles in the countryside and adds imeasurably to the character of the area - mine however might be for a 10 bed, 4 storey monstrosity made entirely from breeze blocks painted orange and badly mortared together with a banger racing track around the outside.

This is the point, the planning regulations are there to stop any old berk flinging up any old horror which might negatively impact on the area and anyone living nearby. Just because its your land doesn't mean you have a right to do anything you like on it does it.

In this case, the house behind the hay bales has to come down surely - think of the precedent that would be set if it didn't. Plus the guy is so damn smug thinking hes got one over the council.

And who is to say which of the two properties described is the preferred option, the council ?

The only real negative effect is of course on house prices, if we can't all be held to randsom over the basic need for shelter then the whole !!!!!!!! pyramid scheme collapses and that is the biggest fear of your local council, nothing else.

adouglasmhor

Angela_D wrote: »

And who is to say which of the two properties described is the preferred option, the council ?

The only real negative effect is of course on house prices, if we can't all be held to randsom over the basic need for shelter then the whole !!!!!!!! pyramid scheme collapses and that is the biggest fear of your local council, nothing else.

The council, yes, the local authority elected by democratic methods, surely they are the right body to make a decision about such a local issue, who would you suggest? Maybe the Holy See or the Archdruid of the National Eisteddfod of Wales?

mutter

kford224 wrote: »

Local Members don't get expenses like those in Central Government, so that is not really a factor

Very true.
I did a stint on my local District Council, and as a naiive newbee, was kindly volunteered by more knowing members to serve on the Planning Committee.
I can assure you that the allowances and expenses one can claim doesn't even begin to compansate for the huge amount of reading and paperwork one is expected to keep up with, never mind the emails, petitions, phone calls at all hours of the day and night and even people banging on your door to discuss their planning woes.
It's something that people feel very, very strongly about - be it for or against - and which makes them angry, frustrated and sometimes very rude.
Add to that, whichever way you vote, there'll always be a disappointed party who will of course assume that you only voted that way because you got a backhander.

I wouldn't recommend it unless you have the skin of a rhino, deep pockets and no intention of having anything approaching a normal family life for the next 4 years.

Browntoa

just spotted this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-12992593

A developer who built a luxury house disguised as a barn on greenbelt land has lost the final stage of his legal battle to live in his home.
Alan Beesley, and his wife Sarah, now face losing their house at North Brook Meadow near Potters Bar, Hertfordshire.
Last year the Court of Appeal ruled the couple could continue living there.
But now the Supreme Court has overturned the Appeal Court judgement, criticising Mr Beesley's "dishonest" conduct over the £500,000 home.
Mr Beesley was granted permission in 2001 to build a barn for agricultural use only, but fitted it out as a luxury house complete with three bedrooms - two with en suite bathrooms - a study, living room, a garage and gym.

Immunity from enforcement

From the outside, the property looks like any other hay barn with a curved roof, no windows and surrounded by farmyard machinery.
Mr Beesley, 38, and his 35-year-old wife Sarah moved into the completed property in 2002 and applied for a certificate of lawfulness four years later - by which time they believed the time limit of enforcement action had expired.
Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council refused but an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government allowed Mr Beesley's appeal in 2008.
This was reversed at the High Court the following year.
Last year a panel of three appeal judges ruled immunity from enforcement had been established.

'Positive deception'

The council then appealed to the Supreme Court and now seven justices unanimously ruled in its favour, setting aside the certificate of lawfulness relating to the property.
The justices ruled that there had been no change of use within the section of the Town and Country Planning Act, which imposes a four-year time limit for taking enforcement action against breaches of planning control.
The court added that, in any event, Mr Beesley's "dishonest" conduct meant he could not rely on the section.
Lord Mance said Mr Beesley's conduct "although not identifiably criminal, consisted of positive deception in matters integral to the planning process".
Another Supreme Court judge Lord Brown pointed out that the council can "if it thinks it expedient, seek to enforce not merely against the continued use of this building as a dwelling house but additionally against its construction".
The council said it would now consider what "appropriate enforcement action" to take.

Driverdan

Browntoa wrote: »

just spotted this


A developer who built a luxury house disguised as a barn on greenbelt land has lost the final stage of his legal battle to live in his home.
Alan Beesley, and his wife Sarah, now face losing their house at North Brook Meadow near Potters Bar, Hertfordshire.
Last year the Court of Appeal ruled the couple could continue living there.
But now the Supreme Court has overturned the Appeal Court judgement, criticising Mr Beesley's "dishonest" conduct over the £500,000 home.
Mr Beesley was granted permission in 2001 to build a barn for agricultural use only, but fitted it out as a luxury house complete with three bedrooms - two with en suite bathrooms - a study, living room, a garage and gym.

Immunity from enforcement

From the outside, the property looks like any other hay barn with a curved roof, no windows and surrounded by farmyard machinery.
Mr Beesley, 38, and his 35-year-old wife Sarah moved into the completed property in 2002 and applied for a certificate of lawfulness four years later - by which time they believed the time limit of enforcement action had expired.
Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council refused but an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government allowed Mr Beesley's appeal in 2008.
This was reversed at the High Court the following year.
Last year a panel of three appeal judges ruled immunity from enforcement had been established.

'Positive deception'

The council then appealed to the Supreme Court and now seven justices unanimously ruled in its favour, setting aside the certificate of lawfulness relating to the property.
The justices ruled that there had been no change of use within the section of the Town and Country Planning Act, which imposes a four-year time limit for taking enforcement action against breaches of planning control.
The court added that, in any event, Mr Beesley's "dishonest" conduct meant he could not rely on the section.
Lord Mance said Mr Beesley's conduct "although not identifiably criminal, consisted of positive deception in matters integral to the planning process".
Another Supreme Court judge Lord Brown pointed out that the council can "if it thinks it expedient, seek to enforce not merely against the continued use of this building as a dwelling house but additionally against its construction".
The council said it would now consider what "appropriate enforcement action" to take.

But isnt this the exact same thing that has happend several times before?

Years ago it was just the same, ok now it really will be demolished and then the year after no this time really.

Will it be the same thing in another 5 years no this time really?