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

NorthFin

The-Joker wrote: »

I like this bit

A public inquiry has been held into whether a house, built in secret more than 10 years ago without planning permission, can stay standing in Salfords, near Redhill.

My prediction in another ten years the headline will say

A public inquiry has been held into whether a house, built in secret more than 20 years ago without planning permission, can stay standing in Salfords, near Redhill.

My prediction is this Tudor castle will still be standing one way or another in another 10 years, the same folks will still be saying the same old smae old "this time it really will have to come down.

But lets face it, he has won. It is still standing.

NorthFin

Is it still there, or has it been demolished here in 2015?

abankerbutnotafatcat

It's still there.

[Deleted User]

I just can't help thinking how much has all this cost? Haven't they got something better to spend their money on (the council)? If he's not bothering anyone, leave him be. If he's made the effort he did to build the house/castle, he's not going to just leave quietly lol.

To be honest, although I understand why the Green Belt is there, I'm inclined to pat the guy on the back rather than force him to knock the castle/house down. I like that we have still got people like that in this country.

tea-bag

deannatrois wrote: »

I just can't help thinking how much has all this cost? Haven't they got something better to spend their money on (the council)? If he's not bothering anyone, leave him be. If he's made the effort he did to build the house/castle, he's not going to just leave quietly lol.

To be honest, although I understand why the Green Belt is there, I'm inclined to pat the guy on the back rather than force him to knock the castle/house down. I like that we have still got people like that in this country.

I don't understand why they don't say you can have planning permission but place rules on it. EG unable to sell the property. Unable to rent the property and if you wish to move it can be sold for land value only and it must be demolished.

stator

deannatrois wrote: »

I just can't help thinking how much has all this cost? Haven't they got something better to spend their money on (the council)? If he's not bothering anyone, leave him be. If he's made the effort he did to build the house/castle, he's not going to just leave quietly lol.

To be honest, although I understand why the Green Belt is there, I'm inclined to pat the guy on the back rather than force him to knock the castle/house down. I like that we have still got people like that in this country.

Personally I hope he loses and gets costs awarded against him.
I'm no fan of the green belt, but whilst we have planning laws everyone should follow them.
He tried to be sneaky and use a loop hole and he has (so far) lost.
He knew the risks when he started. I hope he loses.

princeofpounds

He's basically doing the same thing the 'travelling community' is disliked for. And just like Dale Farm, enforcement is woefully slow and expensive. Only with less crusty hangers-on. I suspect many of the supporters of this 'eccentric rebel' aren't that keen on the gypsy crowd!

Personally I think we should all have far more freedom to build homes for our families. But he should play by the same rules as everyone else.

Hasbeen

For a farmer, I suspect it was not a good financial decision to build one house/castle on his own land that he farms as a business.










More business sense to sell all acreage to multi national house builders who would get planning permission no problem, for a few thousand boxes squeezed onto the land>

leveller2911

Hasbeen wrote: »

More business sense to sell all acreage to multi national house builders who would get planning permission no problem, for a few thousand boxes squeezed onto the land>

If the land in question is not on the local development plan it still wouldn't get planning permission..........Fidler is a chancer and a con man trying to get one over the Council and the local people. Why should he be treated differently than anyone else.

Just to add ,his house does not have building regs approval either and may well be a death trap.Just viewing the house on TV, I could see a number of things that don't comply with Building regs.

AdrianC

stator wrote: »

Personally I hope he loses and gets costs awarded against him.

Which is exactly what's happened at every step so far.

I'm no fan of the green belt, but whilst we have planning laws everyone should follow them.

You'd be a lot less of a fan of what the SE (especially) would be without planning restrictions on development of the green belt and greenfield land...

He can drag the inevitable out for as long as he wants, but it's only going to end one way - and the only thing that's going to change between now and then is the size of the bill he'll face. The inevitable result is that his personal bankruptcy will be followed in short order by the demolition.