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

Sabrina2000

is it still there?

Errata

The building should be bulldozed . It's a crime against both architecture and good taste.

misswoosie

Having watched the programme on TV last night I stumbled across this discussion. Several things strike me.
1. I don't see the house as anymore of an eye sore than many other houses that are built today
2. Every year govts decide how much of the Green belt will be given over to development. However, this isn't for Joe Bloggs who wants to build his own eco friendly modest house, it's for the major housing builders etc to build high density, non eco housing estates or business parks.
3. When Joe Bloggs wants to build a house on the farm where he has his cattle, they say no.
4. The house was built from a lot of recycled materials (bricks, windows and stained glass roof dome) and the Oak came from his land.

The planning laws are ludicrous and the law is an !!! and to make him tear it down is completely wasteful.

leveller2911

misswoosie wrote: »

1. I don't see the house as anymore of an eye sore than many other houses that are built today

Fair comment, Beauty is in the eye..............

2. Every year govts decide how much of the Green belt will be given over to development.

I stand to be corrected but every Town,village has to complete a "local development plan" every 10 years....

However, this isn't for Joe Bloggs who wants to build his own eco friendly modest house, it's for the major housing builders etc to build high density, non eco housing estates or business parks.

I agree with you re major housebuilders, they build small,poor quality houses and sell them for a premium, restrict supply and you have an ever increasing profit margin. Re "Joe Bloggs" Fiddler did'nt build a "modest" house and he went out with the intent to deceive.

Now if you think thats Ok then fine but don't whinge and moan when you see a massive "free for all" where a million or so houses are built all over the National Parks,woodland,prime agricultural land (that will no longer produce the food we need) etc etc.

3. When Joe Bloggs wants to build a house on the farm where he has his cattle, they say no.

The planners quite rightly so have clamped down on the chancers who bought 5 pigs, put them in a field and then applied for PP to build a house on the land because they "needed to be on the land 24/7". People did this and then within a couple of years got rid of the pigs, hey presto they have a nice house in the middle of the countryside worth a mint....

4. The house was built from a lot of recycled materials (bricks, windows and stained glass roof dome) and the Oak came from his land.

Windows and doors that would never meet building regulations, the same regulations the rest of us have to comply with..

The planning laws are ludicrous and the law is an !!! and to make him tear it down is completely wasteful.

They need reforming but they also need tightening up to prevent chancers like Mr Fiddler taking the p*ss

Davesnave

misswoosie wrote: »

3. When Joe Bloggs wants to build a house on the farm where he has his cattle, they say no.

Untrue. Houses may still be built on agricultural holdings that pass a viability test, but they must also be constructed to current building regs and inspected by the council to ensure they are sound and meet energy efficiency targets.

Short of tearing it down and rebuilding it, I don't see how Mr Fidler's house could be adapted to meet the relevant criteria.

I'm a Joe Bloggs. I've been totally refurbishing a modest agricultural holding for a year now, meeting all the regs as I go, whether I like it or not.

It costs.

I don't see why Mr Fidler should be excused from building to the same standards as I am. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

leveller2911 wrote: »

misswoosie wrote: »

The planners quite rightly so have clamped down on the chancers who bought 5 pigs, put them in a field and then applied for PP to build a house on the land because they "needed to be on the land 24/7". People did this and then within a couple of years got rid of the pigs, hey presto they have a nice house in the middle of the countryside worth a mint....

The chancers? Is there any evidence that this has been abused on a grand enough scale to warrant pluralising?

Davesnave

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

leveller2911 wrote: »

The chancers? Is there any evidence that this has been abused on a grand enough scale to warrant pluralising?

I think part of the reference could be to agriculturally-tied properties, which used to be relatively easy for farmers to gain permission for.

The result is thousands of bungalows scattered over the countryside, many of them of concrete panel construction and often unmortgageable.

Some councils haven't the enforcement staff or money to monitor those which exist, so they are, understandably, cautious about present-day applications.

Is that plural enough for you?

John_Pierpoint

patman99 wrote: »

Council Planning Officers do seem to have their own agenda at times, but in this case, the 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).

I seem to remember some regulations that mean one had to get permission or at least non objection for the felling of woodland made up of trees thicker than someone's leg.

[There was a special clause saying this did not apply to an orchard of fruit trees]

Does such a restriction still apply in England ?

leveller2911

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

leveller2911 wrote: »

The chancers? Is there any evidence that this has been abused on a

grand enough scale to warrant pluralising?

I think Davesnave has addressed your question but I would say yes there is evidence. You could try searching the web via Google (other search engines available). It was very commom in the 80's and 90's and many local authorities couldn't keep up with the applications and had very little guidance from Central Government.

Any reason why you ask or are you just being pedantic?.

Dr._Shoe

The problem is it was built without any kind of building control and I'm guessing without the help of experienced builders or architects. It could be unsafe in any case!

If he gets his way, me and probably thousands of people up and down the country will do the same- and it might not be nearly as aesthetically pleasing.