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

Prothet_of_Doom

I have a planning solution for the green belt. Every field is allowed one house in each corner. Provided that the land used is no more than 20% of the original field, and provided that each house has a garden at least 5 times the floor area of the house, and provided that the retail PRICE of each house is less than 7 times average income for that region.

That would upset the Nimby's and the big building firms, but actually provide houses that people might want.

MobileSaver

The-Joker wrote: »

he has indeed got away with it

A failed High Court case, legal costs awarded against him and a deferred demolition order does not remotely sound like he's "got away with it" to me!

sabretoothtigger

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

I have a planning solution for the green belt. Every field is allowed one house in each corner.

You are forgetting access and utilities. Welsh policy is pretty liberal on this, the main thing if I got it right is you can build most places but it has to be a green type building.
So you dont get conenction to mains water and so on in that case, you have to build a house that works by itself.
Very greeny type thinking but seems similar to your idea, most people couldnt do this and I think you have to prove you work locally and so on, no road access even.

The argument against just one house is its the thin edge of the wedge. This guy should have kept the straw bails up, some virtual natural net curtains perhaps, who knows but he has no rights on it

The-Joker

Is it still there?

PasturesNew

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

I have a planning solution for the green belt. Every field is allowed one house in each corner. Provided that the land used is no more than 20% of the original field, and provided that each house has a garden at least 5 times the floor area of the house, and provided that the retail PRICE of each house is less than 7 times average income for that region.

That would upset the Nimby's and the big building firms, but actually provide houses that people might want.

It's not economically viable to put one house in the corner of every field, for reasons of all the cabling/services connections and access/roads. The idea is workable in other guises though.

Davesnave

PasturesNew wrote: »

It's not economically viable to put one house in the corner of every field, for reasons of all the cabling/services connections and access/roads. The idea is workable in other guises though.

Yes,indeed, particularly in my field. It's all there: power, water a stream for the water treatment plant to drain into....and it's not overlooked.

Not so sure about his field though.....or hers. Totally unsuitable.

I can't stand insensitive development by opportunists.

mjm3346

Could be getting near the final few years now

“Mr Fidler has 90 days to demolish the house its associated development, subject to the outcome of his one outstanding planning appeal lodged earlier that day (13 June 2014).

http://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18979%3Acouncil-wins-injunction-requiring-demolition-of-house-built-behind-straw-bales&catid=63&Itemid=31

LisbonLaura

His final shot before departing the uk (& his bills)?
An HMO, with no English speakers.

RuthnJasper

"Fidler"... an incredible coincidence of a particularly apt name...

abankerbutnotafatcat

Update:
http://www.surreymirror.co.uk/Public-inquiry-decide-fate-secret-Salfords-castle/story-22791087-detail/story.html