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

sabretoothtigger

The overview just makes me think its a stupid argument over nothing, a farmer built somewhere to live on his farm so we the people had to fight him on that - fab
So we won a case, what good did that achieve, none.
What harm was prevented, none. What was the point, none


He should be pragmatic and capitalise on his fame and apparent house building skills. He said the main bulk either end of the house is very easy to move when empty, he could move dissemble quite easily to some extent then

The-Joker

Oswald_Funkletrumpet wrote: »

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

the fact that everybody wants to ignor is

it is still there.

honestly its like the emporers new clothes with some people.

no matter how you spin it, all those who said it would have to come down were wrong.

who wants to bet me it will still be there next year?

Patr100

Quick guided tour of the inside courtesy of the BBC
Apparently Mr Fider thinks the council have "rather indicated this place is a bit bigger that what we need" .

Idiot.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35126234

PasturesNew

He should've gone to Eton ... he could've inherited one of those then.... or married into one.

His problem was being born the wrong class. Can't have everybody building castles! Goodness gracious me. Whatever next??

J_i_m

Shame he didn't do it correctly, because it is a beautiful house.

makeyourdaddyproud

J_i_m wrote: »

Shame he didn't do it correctly, because it is a beautiful house.

Absolutely.

The only thing "mock" in it's description is in what it's designating nearly all branded housebuilders when compared to the rubbish they generally throw up.

An exception should be made here: he should be allowed to keep the home, it would be a tragedy to destroy it.

Davesnave

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

An exception should be made here: he should be allowed to keep the home, it would be a tragedy to destroy it.

OK, if he can keep Honeycrock Farm, just imagine what I can build. After all, I have a spare field, and what's OK for him must be OK for me too, right?

makeyourdaddyproud

No, because it is highly unlikely that you would do it as good as him. That manor is a masterpiece, don't you forget that .

Davesnave

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

.... it is highly unlikely that you would do it as good as him. That manor is a masterpiece, don't you forget that .

Ah, so we are all equal, but some are more equal than others.

It's true, I can only afford normal building materials, not architectural salvage of the quality he has used. So, I guess that's me sorted.

However, what you suggest already happens. Buildings of outstandng architectural merit or innovation are occasionally allowed in the countryside, though you'll note that the word 'allowed' means that planning permission, not subterfuge, is involved.

But would Mr Fidler's melange of materials and styles be good enough if judged by those standards?

I know what I think.

AdrianC

Davesnave wrote: »

But would Mr Fidler's melange of materials and styles be good enough if judged by those standards?

Especially given the immediate surroundings.