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

Davesnave

stator wrote: »

Another 8 months? That seems unduly lenient. It could be knocked down in weeks.

It's possible the court has looked at similar cases and given the usual amount of time so that Mr Fidler cannot later claim he was victimised.

It was roughly 10 years from when a person in my village first ran into serious planning issues, to the point at which the local authority seized her land so it could be sold to pay their costs.

As on this thread, people were convinced she was getting away with it. That's understandable.

I think most of us would prefer to see contentious planning matters dealt with much faster, especially when breaches blight others' lives. This doesn't seem to be one of those cases, though you'd think it was, judging by some of the responses on here!

AdrianC

The timescale is really very, very simple - every time he gets a ruling against him, he tries another delaying tactic. He ran out of appeal routes, so he started in on the diversions. He's now been found guilty of contempt of court for those diversions.

*ping*, *ping*, *ping*.

Meanwhile, the legal bill grows ever larger.

leveller2911

He is looking very haggered now , probably from the stress of the case but he has bought on himself so I have no sympathy for him.

The man is a chancer and a fool.

leveller2911

Davesnave wrote: »

I think most of us would prefer to see contentious planning matters dealt with much faster, especially when breaches blight others' lives. This doesn't seem to be one of those cases, though you'd think it was, judging by some of the responses on here!

I agree the porcess should be much faster but if he had been allowed to get away with this we would see thousands of cases up and down the country where people go out there way to deceive the planners and get away with it and many of them would "blight others lives".

So what would you do decide on each and every case on the basis of how it blights other peoples lives, this alone would make the system longer process of what is and is not acceptable and thats what we have the current planning system for. We would have thousands upon thousands of houses built up and down the country built in woods,forests,behind bales etc and many would not comply with building regs and be unsafe let alone legal.

Dasa

Yea but round here now people are getting planning on green belt that would've been unthinkable a few years ago.The people behind us converted a barn next to their house and when they got found out ,planning told them to apply retrospectively, and it was approved. So then the people next door applied to turn some 'buildings', sheds to you and me- into a 6 bed lux house.

AdrianC

Dasa wrote: »

Yea but round here now people are getting planning on green belt that would've been unthinkable a few years ago.

In case you'd not noticed, there's a lot of shouting recently about shortage of homes in the UK. Every single local authority is having to find a big wodge of plots.

leveller2911

AdrianC wrote: »

In case you'd not noticed, there's a lot of shouting recently about shortage of homes in the UK. Every single local authority is having to find a big wodge of plots.

But the problem is Adrian ,these people know full well they need planning permission but choose not to apply until they have been caught. They build exactly what they want knowing the planners are unlikely to make them pull it down, Fiddlers is the exception . They may get a slapped wrist but thats all and its quite pathetic how people are getting away with retrospective planning applications. Not even a fine in many of the cases I see regularly. Why have a planning system if people are allowed to abuse/ignore it?.

People now build extensions double the size that they would normally in the past be allowed to build and are getting away with it, slapped wrist and called a naughty boy/girl but in the end they have their huge extension they wanted, built right up to the boundery with no thought whatsoever of how these houses will be maintained in the fututre.

No excuse whatsoever to not apply for planning in the vast majority of cases.I've been in the building industry for 30 yeasr and its getting worse for abusing the system. You can loosen the process to speed up the system without allowing a free for all.

Mojisola

This is his side of the story -
https://www.facebook.com/groups/286193902721/permalink/10150610044537722/

AdrianC

They have to apply for planning permission. If they don't get it - then the building has to come down, or be modified so that it will get PP.

It's that simple.

The only and only time that won't apply is if the local authority don't get to hear about it for six years after completion. And that's where Fidler thought he'd get clever... He deliberately hid it for six years after he decided it was complete, with the intent of deceiving the council - because he knew damn well that he wouldn't get PP. And he was right. He didn't. He appealed that as high as it could go - and lost, every single time.

Then the legals were over whether the council was right in saying that it wasn't complete until the bales came down - that got all the way up the appeals ladder, too. He lost, every single time.

Now he's trying any and every other delaying tactic and diversion he can think of. Today, it was bats and newts. He not only lost, he's now been told that he's SO far in contempt of court that he'll be doing three months of porridge unless he extracts digit, stat.

You've got to give him points for tenacity, if nothing else.

leveller2911

Mojisola wrote: »

This is his side of the story -
https://www.facebook.com/groups/286193902721/permalink/10150610044537722/

All I see is the sign in page Moji......