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

AdrianC

Umm, that £50k is the council's costs in just this case... Not all the previous cases, and not his costs.

patman99

Has he still not demolished it yet then ?.

Perhaps he is trying to get a TV company to film the story leading from it's construction to it's demolition.

londonTiger

should have sold his land and applied to emigrate to canada/usa/australia and built there.

this is not a free country, we're all serfs who serve the queen. we just have the illusion of freedom but actually just spend all our money on taxes to keep the establishment going. we dont een have liberty to build a home in our our land that we supposedly own.

Davesnave

londonTiger wrote: »

should have sold his land and applied to emigrate to canada/usa/australia and built there.

this is not a free country, we're all serfs who serve the queen. we just have the illusion of freedom but actually just spend all our money on taxes to keep the establishment going. we dont een have liberty to build a home in our our land that we supposedly own.

If you look at what freedom to build achieved in the USA, or indeed in less developed countries which are still largely unregulated, you'll see excellent reasons for retaining strong planning laws.

But why go that far? Jaywick in Essex is a good example of what happens when people are given the right to do their own thing on 'their' land.

AdrianC

Davesnave wrote: »

If you look at what freedom to build achieved in the USA, or indeed in less developed countries which are still largely unregulated, you'll see excellent reasons for retaining strong planning laws.

You'll also find that the US does have strong "zoning" laws...

Ozzuk

londonTiger wrote: »

should have sold his land and applied to emigrate to canada/usa/australia and built there.

this is not a free country, we're all serfs who serve the queen. we just have the illusion of freedom but actually just spend all our money on taxes to keep the establishment going. we dont een have liberty to build a home in our our land that we supposedly own.

Interesting idea. If we had complete freedom what happens if I want more land, or if I want your land? Can I invade you?

It is easy to complain, less easy to find an alternative or to actually do something.

Just to add, have you tried to get into America or Canada recently?

MobileSaver

Mojisola wrote: »

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

Up to a billion people a day use Facebook but after five years only 10 people have "liked" "his side of the story", I think that gives a pretty good indication of what most people think of Fidler's shenanigans.

The-Joker

AdrianC wrote: »

Umm, that £50k is the council's costs in just this case... Not all the previous cases, and not his costs.

He has got legal aid all the way through.

I like to stick up for the underdog.

Stick it to the man.

All the stupid planning laws will have to be relaxed soon anyway, there is a need to build hundreds of thousands of new properties over the coming decade.

Soon the government will be giving incentives for more house building.

AdrianC

The-Joker wrote: »

He has got legal aid all the way through.

I very much doubt that, not just because there are tests to ensure that legal aid is only given to those with a cat in hell's chance of winning their case.

Even ignoring that, planning permission appeals aren't on the list of cases you can get legal aid for.
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/for-the-public/paying-for-legal-services/legal-aid/#two
https://www.gov.uk/check-legal-aid

Also, he is FAR too wealthy for legal aid.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-rights/legal-system/taking-legal-action/help-with-legal-costs-legal-aid/#h-what-are-the-financial-conditions-for-getting-civil-legal-aid-

MobileSaver

The-Joker wrote: »

It may well be on the news again in the future, but it will never ever be knocked down. Mr Fidler has won.

You're going to have some serious egg on your face when it is finally knocked down - which it will be eventually. Whether Fidler himself does it or the council enforce it and bill him is the only question.

The-Joker wrote: »

He has got legal aid all the way through.

Nonsense. Do you have any evidence he has legal aid or did you just make that up?

Even if he did have legal aid, he has still had all of the council's costs awarded against him which is at least £50,000.

The-Joker wrote: »

All the stupid planning laws will have to be relaxed soon anyway, there is a need to build hundreds of thousands of new properties over the coming decade.

That may be so but it still wouldn't have helped Fidler as he ultimately failed on the "Connor Principle" - a legal precedent that no-one should benefit from their own wrongdoing. Does anyone other than Fidler disagree with that principle?!?!?