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

mlp

The bottom line is that there is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The guy thought he'd found a loophole where he could hide the place for 4+ years to avoid planning enforcement.

He deliberately hid the build and even went as far as having a secret door (covered in hay) which was the route in through the hay wall.

A deliberate (and rather cunning) attempt to deceive.

mart6

Read something once it was quite a while go.
Guy had done something similar to Fiddler (Not hidden) but he made a false statement to get the lawful certificate,think he lied about time he had lived in it.
By the time it came to light he had sold the property.
The council went after him under the proceeds of crime act they were awarded more than what he got for the house

Gwhiz

Can anyone tell me, has tis resulted in any changes to the planning law or has it simply been a clarification from My Pickles that the 4 year rule cannot be applied to a hidden property trying to circumvent the rules?

Hoploz

I noticed on the tv program he had lots of video footage from the build. I assumed he had done this to maintain a record of building methods, in order to confirm to the council that building regs had been complied with. Although this was never mentioned, I am making a huge assumption.

I think it said that the law still applied, but that it was not applicable if someone had wilfully flouted the rules, eg by deliberately hiding it. So if you did something assuming it was allowed and it wasn't noticed then you would say you hadn't realised. Bit tricky with a whole house, but could apply if you extend thinking it was under permitted development but turned out it wasn't.

Killerseven

Hoploz wrote: »

I noticed on the tv program he had lots of video footage from the build. I assumed he had done this to maintain a record of building methods, in order to confirm to the council that building regs had been complied with. Although this was never mentioned, I am making a huge assumption.

I think it said that the law still applied, but that it was not applicable if someone had wilfully flouted the rules, eg by deliberately hiding it. So if you did something assuming it was allowed and it wasn't noticed then you would say you hadn't realised. Bit tricky with a whole house, but could apply if you extend thinking it was under permitted development but turned out it wasn't.

Is that episode on catch up or anything? Any link for it?

So what is the end game and when? Will it still be there this time next year? I think it will be. Who wants to take bets again? Everyone won last time there were bets that it would still be there next year a few years ago.

stator

Killerseven wrote: »

Is that episode on catch up or anything? Any link for it?
.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/damned-designs-dont-demolish-my-home/on-demand/59513-001

molerat

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-32332104

grifferz

molerat wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-32332104

Same link posted 4 pages ago by agrinnall (http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=68200298&postcount=721) I'm afraid, so not a new development. We still wait to see if he really has accepted it.

AdrianC

Killerseven wrote: »

So what is the end game and when? Will it still be there this time next year? I think it will be.

If it's still there within 90days of the mid April decision - so mid July - the council can start enforcement. They can (and will!) rock up with diggers and demolish it for him. If he tries to chain himself to it or something silly, the Police can remove him. Then he'll be sent the bill, which can be enforced in court if he doesn't pay it.

Like I said pages and pages and pages ago, this WILL end up in the place being demolished, and he WILL end up with a very large bill for the delaying tactics. The only reason it's still there now is that he's been happy to run up VERY large legal bills to delay the inevitable via every single legal step humanly possible. And they have now run out - there are no more left, short of Pickles' replacement (Greg Clark) re-opening the case. That's far from impossible, but I wouldn't want to be betting on it...

The-Joker

AdrianC wrote: »

If it's still there within 90days of the mid April decision - so mid July - the council can start enforcement. They can (and will!) rock up with diggers and demolish it for him. If he tries to chain himself to it or something silly, the Police can remove him. Then he'll be sent the bill, which can be enforced in court if he doesn't pay it.
.

to be fair, this sort of thing was being said several years ago. People meant it just as much back then as they do today, as they will in a years time.