We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
'illegal' mock-Tudor castle he tried to hide behind 40ft hay bales
Comments
-
Since nobody complained about the hay he could build a hay castle...0
-
From the link above :
"Mr Fidler said: "Three independent agricultural advisors, two of which have been employed by Reigate and Banstead Borough Council, one of which was employed by me, have all come to the conclusion that there's an essential need for the farmer to live permanently on the site. "This is because I have a herd of suckled Sussex cattle; in excess of 100 cattle.
"Despite these findings, the Reigate and Banstead planning officers, or the planning committee, seem determined to have the only house on Honeycrock Farm demolished and this refusal is to be heard by the inspectorate at this appeal.""
I agree that a farmer should have a house. However on several occasions this particular house has been ruled to have been illegally built. He should have built something that complied. I hope it gets knocked down.0 -
I agree that a farmer should have a house. However on several occasions this particular house has been ruled to have been illegally built. He should have built something that complied. I hope it gets knocked down.
It will be knocked down.
Then Mr Fidler can do what all the other landowners without a farmhouse do: submit an outline plan to build something appropriate to the purpose, and in keeping with the area. It's really not that hard, if he has a genuinely viable business.0 -
Mr Fidler doesn't need to keep cattle on his farm, ergo he doesn't need to live on it..................
....I'm smiling because I have no idea what's going on ...:)
0 -
The mad thing is, if he had lived on the site in something not originally designed as a living unit (i.e. a converted shipping container), then he would have earned the right to build whatever he wanted to (i.e. his castle) without planning permission being required.
What he did was to look at a shorter term solution. Hence building a house inside a haystack. He forgot that the 4 year rule only applies when the house can actually be seen.Never Knowingly Understood.
Member #1 of £1,000 challenge - £13.74/ £1000 (that's 1.374%)
3-6 month EF £0/£3600 (that's 0 days worth)0 -
The mad thing is, if he had lived on the site in something not originally designed as a living unit (i.e. a converted shipping container), then he would have earned the right to build whatever he wanted to (i.e. his castle) without planning permission being required.
Can you point me to this piece of legislation which enables farmers to build whatever they like?
I have always understood that, in the case of farms of 15 acres or more, outbuildings required for the running of the farm may be constructed after giving 2 weeks notice to the council of the intention to commence building. However, a castle or dwelling house would not qualify as an outbuilding.0 -
Is it still there?
If so what is the latest thing that is cartain that it will have to come down this time.
In a few years there will another thing that no really this time it will have to come down. Just as people were saying 5 years ago,The thing about chaos is, it's fair.0 -
I'm sure I read somewhere that his 'final' appeal will happen around November 4th and stems from a need to live close to suckling cattle that are now at the property.0
-
However, a castle or dwelling house would not qualify as an outbuilding.
Years ago then, instead of the heavy handed approach they should have told him to compromise and convert the building into agricultural use.
No doubt they feel he cant be allowed to win as its so profitable to use green belt type land for residential purpose. Well that idea would meet both needs.
A farmer should be allowed to farm his land in peace and run a business, too much of the uk is importing, borrowing money, reselling it.
We do actually need to make stuff too maybe even export. At some point that'll be a necessity and they'll become more amiable to natural expansion - but not today0 -
sabretoothtigger wrote: »Y
No doubt they feel he cant be allowed to win as its so profitable to use green belt type land for residential purpose.
He has won. Yes there will be ongoing legal proceedings and every now and then you will hear this time it will come down for sure, but this is what you have been hearing for years now. He has won end of story.The thing about chaos is, it's fair.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards