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

mart6

Davesnave wrote: »

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.

Wont let me post link but its permitted development rights

They can not build whatever they want.
But if you have 12 acres /5 hectres you get predetermind planning permission, you can submit plans to build barn upto 4500 square feet
it can take upto 5 years to build. the council have 28 days to submit reply they have very limited grounds to deny.You then have right for temporary permission for mobile home while its built.
Local council planners are screwing small holders over placing impossible hurdles to block planning.
In 10 years time when there are food shortages i can not wait to see who they blame

grifferz

mart6 wrote: »

In 10 years time when there are food shortages i can not wait to see who they blame

You first for living off of the bountiful produce of Fidler's Castle.

Davesnave

mart6 wrote: »

Wont let me post link but its permitted development rights

Yes, that's what I was referring to. I got the acreage wrong, but the rest of what I said is correct.

questionss

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/damned-designs-dont-demolish-my-home

He's on tv soon - channel 4 is doing 3 episodes "damned designs don't demolish my home" Monday 8pm

patman99

Council Planning Officers do seem to have their own agenda at times, but in this case, th house was visible for miles due to it's location.

If he had built it in a secluded area such as in the middle of a small wooded area, then no-one would have seen it and enquired to the Council as to how it got PP and 4 years later, he could have chopped all the trees down to reveal his 'masterpiece' (for want of a better description).

Killerseven

Is it still there?

Yes it is.

Will it still be there next year? Yes it will be.

Will the same things still be said like " this time it will have to come down"?

Yes they will.

mart6

Just watched program on channel 4 what a miscarage.
Like it or not the guy did nothing wrong then secratery of state over rules everyone and says it has to come down because it sets a precedent about building in green belt.
That by the government that has decided to allow agricultral buildings in the green belt to be turned into homes.
Bet your bottom doller if he had been some bis man making donations to political party it would not of been over ruled

AdrianC

mart6 wrote: »

Like it or not the guy did nothing wrong

Apart, of course, from the subtle detail of building a house in the greenbelt without planning permission, whilst going to extraordinary lengths to conceal it from detection in order to try to exploit a loophole in the belief it would exempt him from the same rules as everybody else plays by...

The only one I even felt vaguely sorry for were the retired couple from Wisbech - but if 19" beyond the exempted measurements is allowed, where does it stop? 29"? 39"? 49"? 59"? (etc etc) - and even that was purely relying on a loophole that explicitly applied different laws to people who could prove their heritage lay within a specific minority group.

Landofwood

mart6 wrote: »

Just watched program on channel 4 what a miscarage.
Like it or not the guy did nothing wrong then secratery of state over rules everyone and says it has to come down because it sets a precedent about building in green belt.
That by the government that has decided to allow agricultral buildings in the green belt to be turned into homes.
Bet your bottom doller if he had been some bis man making donations to political party it would not of been over ruled

Well, he did do something wrong, so there goes the basis of your argument.

But likewise, I actually respect and like the guy and I'm disappointed it didn't work out.

mart6

Landofwood wrote: »

Well, he did do something wrong, so there goes the basis of your argument.

But likewise, I actually respect and like the guy and I'm disappointed it didn't work out.

IMO he did not
Why did they change the rules about conceling it afterwards ?
I did not say i agreed with how he did it ,but they moved goal posts afterwards imo.
Also i did not catch all end but i thought the planning appeal passed it on the viability test and the need for him to be onsite for the animals.
Or at least gave him 3 years in which to prove he had a viable bis.

That was what the s state over ruled ?

That was moving the goal posts again imo, and the reason why is because quite a few people jumped on the band wagon before they changed the law.

Wonder if he will take that to european court i think he would have a good chance of winning