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

roses

He built on green belt land! That is why a big reason the council took such a harsh stand on him. The land was meant to be kept building free to maintain the country side.

harryhound

Land designations like "Green Belt", "National Park", "Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty" and "Site of Special Scientific Interest" presume that any application will be turned down BUT I don't think that makes what he did any more "illegal" than gutting a local redundant chapel to turn it into a house, without change of use permission.
What I still don't understand is the reasoning that allows the council legally to bulldoze what he has done.

FilthyLuka

harryhound wrote: »

What I still don't understand is the reasoning that allows the council legally to bulldoze what he has done.

I think they can legally remove what he has done illegally? If someone grew a load of illegal cannabis then the police can take it away because its illegal. If it was just a rose bush then they couldn't. becau7se its not illegal (unless its got too many thorns)

I very much doubt the building would have been inspected for building regulations, otherwise I think the inspectors might have told the planners at the time it was being built rather than waiting 4 years and a day. Its possible that this building has building problems but are not all visible, it cant be easy to do a good job while hiding in a haystack..

It's alot of house for £50k, surely no corners were cut. Were they? who knows:rotfl:

RLH33

harryhound wrote: »

So where did Mr Fiddler go wrong?
Did he need to wait 10 years for change of use of his land to be ultra vires (beyond the strength of the law)?
OR
Was he unable to prove he had indeed lived in the castle for 4 years?
OR
We have judge made law, and judges don't like the two finger salute from smart @rses?

From memory Mr Fidler went wrong because, having lived in the house, behind the bales, for four years he then took away the bales and said that the house had been substantially complete for four years. However the Council refused the certificate of lawfulness and the Planning Inspector took the view that the house was not considered to be substantially complete until the hay bales were removed, it is at this point therefore that the four year 'clock' started ticking.

You don't need to wait 10 years for a change of use to be ultra vires if it is a change of use to residential. Residential is only four years.

Regarding Building Regs, it is quite easy to get building regs for a house/extension and not get planning permission. In most Local Authorities Building Control do not talk to Planning and vice versa but you have the added issue of privately employed Building Control Officers who are unlikely to 'shop' their client to Planning. However if he did go to the trouble of getting Building Regs can you imagine what they must have thought turning up to inspect a house that was being built inside a hay stack:rotfl:

novazombie

RDB wrote: »

But Mr Fidler is a local and he lost. He has to demolish it! It should have happened already when are the bulldozers going in?


For that guy who wants to bury a caravan, why go to all that effort?


You can get permission for a caravan easy enough. Just think of an idea for a use of the land and say you need a caravan there. You can keep putting off whatever your idea was and be allowed to keep it for ever. Getting permission for residency is another thing though.

Or you could try doing Mr Fidlers way, but this time do it the smart way.

If you build a house, all you have to do is prove you lived there for 4 years then you are allowed to keep it. Just dont try to hide it behind hay bales (how stupid can you get) they will get you to demolish it. As long as you keep a low profile 4 years isnt hard, just use your head.

So could you put a caravan park home on your own land and after 4 years of living there be allowed to keep it?

Debt_Free_Chick

harryhound wrote: »

If you and I make changes to our home and the local authority fail to notice for 4 years, they cannot enforce their dislike of what we have done (by definition nobody has complained so what harm have we done?)
So where did Mr Fiddler go wrong?
Did he need to wait 10 years for change of use of his land to be ultra vires (beyond the strength of the law)?

Yes. It's agricultural land and by erecting a dwelling, he's changed the designated use to residential.

Debt_Free_Chick

RDB wrote: »

You can get permission for a caravan easy enough. Just think of an idea for a use of the land and say you need a caravan there. You can keep putting off whatever your idea was and be allowed to keep it for ever. Getting permission for residency is another thing though.

Not so, I'm afraid. A caravan is "a residence" so you have to apply for the same change of use permission.

You would probably get permission to put a caravan on agricultural land for storage, but it would have to be such that the caravan would not be capable of inhabiting i.e. the inside would need to be effectively ripped out leaving just a shell, which is all you need for storage.

And if it's in an AONB or National Park, the visible impact on the surrounding area would be taken into account, too.

Not the best kind of storage either for farm machinery/equipment - and not at all secure. I doubt "the story" would weather with the local planners.

Or you could try doing Mr Fidlers way, but this time do it the smart way.

If you build a house, all you have to do is prove you lived there for 4 years then you are allowed to keep it. Just dont try to hide it behind hay bales (how stupid can you get) they will get you to demolish it. As long as you keep a low profile 4 years isnt hard, just use your head.

Not if you build on agricultural land. You need 10 years of continuous uninterrupted residential use. Four years is simply for development, not for change of use.

Claremac

And so the saga goes on........... My local paper is reporting that Mr Fidler has been awarded leave to appeal the council's ruling to knock his house down.

novazombie

Claremac wrote: »

And so the saga goes on........... My local paper is reporting that Mr Fidler has been awarded leave to appeal the council's ruling to knock his house down.

How long can he keep putting it off?

It must be costing him tons in legal fees. May have been cheaper to just buy a similar house, with prices falling fast than any other time in history.

chopperharris

The argument being that its greenbelt , but hes built a privatge residence on it.While it mighlt look garish , its his land , is there any difference from the airport wiping out a village to put down a new runway.

Im all for the guy , even though I know in my heart if I met him I would no be able to stand him.If an englishmans home is his castle , then how does one be an englishman if someone else give out the permission to be one?

All he needed to do was make a pigshed , then get a change of use.STill you dont see many pigs in three floor piggerys.

If he has genuinely found a loophole then he is no worse than the penpushers , politicians , and lawyers that use them.IF the council have never stipulated that ANY building must be carried out with screening before as normal terms , then there is no precedent set for denial under the grounds of it was unfinished because of it not having been removed as the timestamp for beginning habitation and its appeal.