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

MobileSaver

mrsmazza wrote: »

I used to live near Reigate, and pay my council tax to them. Now I know where my money was spent

Money well spent as it has probably put off a load of chancers who would have built properties all over the place without permission if they thought they could get away with it.

sabretoothtigger

A sensible compromise if I were King for a day would be to yes to set a demolish order but only is this executed when this farmer has come to retirement and no longer has to take care of livestock at all times of the day and night.

It would have been much more straightforward to do that and really this could only ever apply to only a handful of farmers in that councils jurisdiction.
So theres no danger of a trump president being set win win

AnotherJoe

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

A sensible compromise if I were King for a day would be to yes to set a demolish order but only is this executed when this farmer has come to retirement and no longer has to take care of livestock at all times of the day and night.

.... and so the farmer never retires .... talk about loophole in your cunning plan

societys_child

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

A sensible compromise . . .

Allowing chancers to flout the law is hardly a sensible compromise is it . . .

John_Pierpoint

So one part of the government is proposing to welcome a population increase of 400,000 to 500,000 a year of largely poor people into a near bankrupt country and another part of the government is knocking down habitable homes as a matter of principle.

Alice in Wonderland will be along to explain soon.

Perhaps there is one set of rules for those of us who already live here and another for the rest of the world ?

MobileSaver wrote: »

Money well spent as it has probably put off a load of chancers who would have built properties all over the place without permission if they thought they could get away with it.

Mojisola

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

A sensible compromise if I were King for a day would be to yes to set a demolish order but only is this executed when this farmer has come to retirement and no longer has to take care of livestock at all times of the day and night.

It would have been much more straightforward to do that and really this could only ever apply to only a handful of farmers in that councils jurisdiction.

AIUI, the cattle are only a very small part of his business. There's really no need for someone to be on hand 24/7 for a few beef cattle.

The family lived in another house on the site before building the castle so they didn't need the new property just to look after stock.

OneLeggedPig

Obviously it has to be knocked down.

He knew what he was doing, and how anyone can have any sympathy with him is beyond me. The regulations are there for good reasons. If he wanted it then he should have gone through the legal process. Some people think that because they have a bit of money the law doesn't apply to them.

[Deleted User]

OneLeggedPig wrote: »

Obviously it has to be knocked down.

He knew what he was doing, and how anyone can have any sympathy with him is beyond me. The regulations are there for good reasons. If he wanted it then he should have gone through the legal process. Some people think that because they have a bit of money the law doesn't apply to them.

Totally agree...

eddddy

OneLeggedPig wrote: »

He knew what he was doing, and how anyone can have any sympathy with him is beyond me. The regulations are there for good reasons. If he wanted it then he should have gone through the legal process. Some people think that because they have a bit of money the law doesn't apply to them.

I have no sympathy for Fidler - but I see this differently.

• The law says that once a property has been built for 4 years, no planning enforcement action can be taken.
  
• Fidler interpreted the law as meaning he could surround the property with hay bales for 4 years.
  
• Reigate Council interpreted the law as meaning the 4 years starts when the hay bales are removed.
  
• Reigate Council essentially asked a court to decide - and the court agreed with the council's interpretation

I see it as Fidler making a £50k bet on a point of planning law (i.e. when the 4 years starts.)

- If he'd won the bet, he would have a house worth, say, £400k
- But he lost the bet, so has lost his £50k stake plus £50k costs


Lots of people and companies take risks (or make 'bets') by trying to push the boundaries of planning law, tax law etc. Sometimes they win in court, sometimes they lose. Fidler lost.

AdrianC

eddddy wrote: »

I have no sympathy for Fidler - but I see this differently.

• The law says that once a property has been built for 4 years, no planning enforcement action can be taken.
• Fidler interpreted the law as meaning he could surround the property with hay bales for 4 years.
• Reigate Council interpreted the law as meaning the 4 years starts when the hay bales are removed.
• Reigate Council essentially asked a court to decide - and the court agreed with the council's interpretation

I see it as Fidler making a £50k bet on a point of planning law (i.e. when the 4 years starts.)

- If he'd won the bet, he would have a house worth, say, £400k
- But he lost the bet, so has lost his £50k stake plus £50k costs

Lots of people and companies take risks (or make 'bets') by trying to push the boundaries of planning law, tax law etc. Sometimes they win in court, sometimes they lose. Fidler lost.

Which is all fine - but then he went double-or-bust with the appeals. And again. And again.

I don't know what his final legal bill will end up as, plus build costs, plus demolition costs - but I would not be in the slightest surprised if it easily outstrips the cost of buying a legal property.