Farmer loses High Court fight to save hidden castle

Really2

Strange I only thought about this the other day.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/8495412.stm

Sorry it is a bit OT but I am sure of fair interest on here.

Although the guy was an idiot I do feel it is a bit of a shame as it some good architecture.
I think they should have let it stand and changed their loopholes not punished him for being enterprising.

System

There was a thread about this on these forums somewhere, it should be torn down on the basis of taste if anything but hey-ho.

Really2

Joeskeppi wrote: »

There was a thread about this on these forums somewhere, it should be torn down on the basis of taste if anything but hey-ho.

I agree it is bad taste. I would never build something like that but at least it did have some interesting architecture which is missing from most designed now.
I don't think it can be argued the plan to build was inventive an carried out in a very funny way.

But it was always going to end ups as a pile of bricks.

lostinrates

Agree with both: its an ugly beast, but its his ugly beast: I think its kinda cool he built what he wanted (and tbh I find what passes as acceptable taste pretty vile: so the people in charge of ''acceptable'' are not universally applauded as masters of acceptability!). The whole situation is a mess IMO.

The great thread on this is in house buying. Thanks for the update really: I had wondered.

Thrugelmir

Isn't the issue that he hid the building to get round planning regulations. ( which he didn't have at all).

Would have set a bad legal precedent.

Mr.Brown_4

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Isn't the issue that he hid the building to get round planning regulations. ( which he didn't have at all).

Would have set a bad legal precedent.

My thoughts. Green belt, illegal dwelling. Not talking an argument over a foot off some conifers here.

gremlin

Regardless of taste - the guy did set out deliberately to flout the law. He knew he wouldnt be allowed to build it but still decided he was gonna have what he wanted.

I also saw a documentary a couple of years about him and his familty and the final impression I got of him was that he was a flash, annoying and arrogant prize dck! With the attitude of a smirking child that will do just as he likes.

For those reasons alone I agree with the ruling that it will be torn down. A precedent cannot be set where retrospective permission can be granted to deliberate and blatant flouting of planning rules.

Link to older thread HERE

Mr.Brown_4

gremlin wrote: »

I also saw a documentary a couple of years about him and his familty and the final impression I got of him was that he was a flash, annoying and arrogant prize dck! With the attitude of a smirking child that will do just as he likes.

I saw that too. Would like any house of his torn down, planning permission or not. Git.

ckerrd

I hope they follow up the documentary and we can see his face when it is bulldozed.

Would cheer me up no end.

Davidboy

On the other hand, doesn't it strike you as the council a bit peed off that someone got one over on them and now some jobsworth wants to get there own back!!


D

ckerrd

Davidboy wrote: »

On the other hand, doesn't it strike you as the council a bit peed off that someone got one over on them and now some jobsworth wants to get there own back!!


D

No it doesn't. It strikes me that some !!!!!! thought he had found a loophole to exploit and build himself a house for which planning permission would never be granted.