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

NYM

I thought he'd sold it and if he has, surely he can't knock it down without compensating the person(s) he's sold it to?

chris_m

NYM wrote: »

I thought he'd sold it and if he has, surely he can't knock it down without compensating the person(s) he's sold it to?

That's his problem, neither the court's nor the council's.
Mind you, if someone's daft enough to buy a property with a demolition order on it .....

Deep_In_Debt

The-Joker wrote: »

yes its still there and it will be this time next year and the years after.

the same people will always be saying he has lost and this time it rteally will have to be demolished, but they will be just as wrong as they were several years ago saying the same things.

they will still be saying the same things in years to come but mr fidler is always one step ahead.

fidler is a hero, he has set a president for others to follow.

the planning laws are a joke, now many others will be building without all the messing about trying to get permission, they will be successful just like the fidlers

President Fidler!

eddddy

It's interesting to compare the press photos of this house, with a Google Maps Arial view...

So here's what it looks like in the papers:






And here is a Link to the Google Maps Arial View...

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir//51.2048608,-0.1502642/@51.2048529,-0.1501445,121m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e0

I'm not sure that people expect it to be in that type of location.

deaston

NYM wrote: »

I thought he'd sold it and if he has, surely he can't knock it down without compensating the person(s) he's sold it to?

More fool the person who bought it without doing all the proper checks.

Davesnave

eddddy wrote: »

I'm not sure that people expect it to be in that type of location.

Looking at the aerial view, it's obvious he's getting ready to defend his castle. Thereare two tanks and an armoured personnel carrier parked just to the east of the house.

AdrianC

eddddy wrote: »

I'm not sure that people expect it to be in that type of location.

You can just about see the tin sheds in the background of a few pics - and the angles used are always so similar or so careful that the environs shouldn't be a surprise. They CERTAINLY shouldn't to anybody who's read any of the planning documentation.

The actual size always surprises me.

Definitely no disguising the origins of the towers from that angle, is there...?

Oswald_Funkletrumpet

deaston wrote: »

More fool the person who bought it without doing all the proper checks.

The judge said that it had not been sold legally despite Fidler's claims, so more lies from him

Patr100

eddddy wrote: »

It's interesting to compare the press photos of this house, with a Google Maps Arial view...

So here's what it looks like in the papers:






And here is a Link to the Google Maps Arial View...

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir//51.2048608,-0.1502642/@51.2048529,-0.1501445,121m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e0

I'm not sure that people expect it to be in that type of location.

Damn that estate agents glossy brochure. If I had known it was in that sort of off-the-road location I would never have bought it.
Mr Fidler told me it had "a lovely view" as well.
Do you think he is the lying type?

bobbymotors

deaston wrote: »

More fool the person who bought it without doing all the proper checks.

no one's bought it...all smoke and mirrors