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

harryhound

It works a bit like this and it goes on for ever and ever

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/4083083.Holding_back_on_traveller_evictions/

RDB

harryhound wrote: »

It works a bit like this and it goes on for ever and ever

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/4083083.Holding_back_on_traveller_evictions/

You cant compare the 2, these travellers have nothing to lose. They just move on when they need to.

Mr Fidler cant disapear or stick his head in the sand. The bulldosers are getting closer.

harryhound

Funny thing I thought the same law applied to all citizens regardless of race, religion, nationality and threats of violence?

Perhaps you know differently?

chopperharris

harryhound wrote: »

Funny thing I thought the same law applied to all citizens regardless of race, religion, nationality and threats of violence?

Perhaps you know differently?

Yes but is the travellers in that report land owned by them?

What we need for that scenario is clear and in depth legislation to make forfeiture of items on illegal sites the norm.You can actually be a traveller and by legal means , theres these things called camp sites.....but you have to agree to the rules and actually pay something to use them.

Dont spout human rights , its not a get out of jail card for breaking other laws.The protection given by it does not mean at the unwanted expense of others , or immunity from law itself through sex , racial or religious protection.

I am not in favour of council sites for travellers neither.They actually used to work farmers fields you know to get use of another field during seasonal work.Theres a reason why farmers wont use them now , thats not racist , thats a lesson learned.

harryhound

I think the "caravans" are mostly surrounded by plinths and so "Portacabins" in all but name. The site has its own nearby primary school and a large sectional community building financed by Essex County Council.

My understanding is that the site started its post WW2 "green belt" life as a field converted to a scrap/dismantling yard. When that was closed down by the local authority the land was bought by a "lead" family who subdivided it into plots for travellers, who were "encouraged" to move on by changes in the law in Eire.
There are other subsidiary sites, one of which was created by the local authority, but basically the influx has spilled out onto any easily taken over land in the vicinity.

RLH33

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

You need 10 years of continuous uninterrupted residential use. Four years is simply for development, not for change of use.

Not quite correct, residential is four years both for change of use and development. This is the only use that the four year rule applies to, everything else is 10 years for example, industrial, office, retail etc.

sheerpeaches

From what I remember about the homes from hell episode. Mr fiddler quoted that an englishman's home is his castle, and from some old law every Englishman owning a castle has a duty to protect the queen. So he was planning on writing to the queen on the matter of his castle getting pulled down!!? Can this guy be for real?

planning_officer

harryhound wrote: »

... 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? - yep, this one!
OR
We have judge made law, and judges don't like the two finger salute from smart @rses?

As someone else said earlier, the Inspector agreed with the Council that the 4 year period for the house to be substantially complete didn't start until the straw bales were taken down - after all, a house isn't reasonably habitable if it's surrounded by bales and one can't see out of any of the windows! Like the Appeal Inspector said, if the bales were intended to remain permanently then why bother having windows in the dwelling? It was always Mr Fidler's intention to remove the bales from the dwelling once he'd finished it, therefore until the bales were removed, the building wasn't complete. (see my post below, with quotes from the Appeal Inspector's decision)

So, whilst the house may have been there for 4 years, in planning terms it wasn't substantially completed until the bales were removed, hence why the 4 year period for immunity from enforcement action couldn't be demonstrated.

planning_officer

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

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.

Nope, whilst changes of use generally require a continuous 10 year period for immunity from enforcement action, the only exception to this is a change of use to residential - which also falls within the 4 year bracket, along with operational development.

planning_officer

sheerpeaches wrote: »

From what I remember about the homes from hell episode. Mr fiddler quoted that an englishman's home is his castle, and from some old law every Englishman owning a castle has a duty to protect the queen. So he was planning on writing to the queen on the matter of his castle getting pulled down!!? Can this guy be for real?

I heard that too - I think he had come across some old law from the dawn of time which said that the Queen had the power to protect castles or something, so he probably thinks she can overturn the planning decision. Hardly likely!!