Farmer loses High Court fight to save hidden castle

lostinrates

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.

That's an issue. The other issue might be why he couldn't get planning, indeed,fundamentally, how appropriate current panning is or isn't. I'd say that's the horse, and the guys actions were the cart.

gremlin

lostinrates wrote: »

That's an issue. The other issue might be why he couldn't get planning, indeed,fundamentally, how appropriate current panning is or isn't. I'd say that's the horse, and the guys actions were the cart.

well in this case I'd say planning regs were bang on. He built a mock tudor castle on farmland - complete with turrets and a flamin' cannon :rotfl:

its pretty sensible to say no to that is it not?

and having watched the guy talking about it - he didnt do it to draw attention to failings in planning law (of which there are many) - but purely done for his own arrogant greed. I want therefore I shall have.

lostinrates

gremlin wrote: »

well in this case I'd say planning regs were bang on. He built a mock tudor castle on farmland - complete with turrets and a flamin' cannon :rotfl:

its pretty sensible to say no to that is it not?
.

I don't know. I look at the proliferation of pretty ugly housing built in the last forty years or so, and think that while I don't like the house it makes me smile that someone does. Similarly, Ugg boots make me shudder...but I din't mind that other people wear them.

The restrictions on building where planning is obtained for farmers can be bloody odd. One of the places we looked at we liked the location of and spoke to planning because n the longer term the bungalow would be not sufficient for us. Planners assured us no planning would be available because the house was appropriate in style and size for a farm worker. The bungalow in style, is a reconstituted stone eyesore in an otherwise pretty village, could be anywhere in UK, could be any time between 60s and now. why is that more acceptable than an oddity? Its not as if he painted naked people all over it or anything.

Mr.Brown_4

lostinrates wrote: »

why is that more acceptable than an oddity? Its not as if he painted naked people all over it or anything.

It's not about the style. It's 1. get permission, 2. build property. That's how it works for everyone. You can't mix artistic licence and anarchy. Unless you're Banksy.

StevieJ

gremlin wrote: »

.

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.

What about someone who has illegally built a factory, employed thousands of local people and then applies for retrospective

Mr.Brown_4

StevieJ wrote: »

What about someone who has illegally built a factory, employed thousands of local people and then applies for retrospective

Know you of such a person? Have they been on t'telly?

lostinrates

Mr.Brown wrote: »

It's not about the style. It's 1. get permission, 2. build property. That's how it works for everyone. You can't mix artistic licence and anarchy. Unless you're Banksy.

Mr Brown I get that, I get that, honestly, and I make no argument for the guy, who I do not know and have seen little of, (I saw i in a magazine artical and agree h looked a bit ...''furbo'' and smug). But I do have an issue with the system. Its never going to be highlighted any other way.

That said, I think on the original thread I'm clear that its not what I would do myself: break the law.

gremlin

lostinrates wrote: »

I don't know. I look at the proliferation of pretty ugly housing built in the last forty years or so, and think that while I don't like the house it makes me smile that someone does. Similarly, Ugg boots make me shudder...but I din't mind that other people wear them.

The restrictions on building where planning is obtained for farmers can be bloody odd. One of the places we looked at we liked the location of and spoke to planning because n the longer term the bungalow would be not sufficient for us. Planners assured us no planning would be available because the house was appropriate in style and size for a farm worker. The bungalow in style, is a reconstituted stone eyesore in an otherwise pretty village, could be anywhere in UK, could be any time between 60s and now. why is that more acceptable than an oddity? Its not as if he painted naked people all over it or anything.

totally agree, however, I wouldnt like to see someone break the law and paint them onto Michaelangelo's David.

As i said before, its not about taste its about whats appropriate and allowable and there has to be a line drawn. This is designated green belt land, he knew he wasnt allowed to build there but decided he was going to do what he liked - and sod what anyone else thought.

I am not extolling the virtues of local area planners ( ive sat in a few planning meetings myself and saw first hand the bombastic and frankly obnoxious attitude of those who cannot handle the power they have) however like I say this is about laws and where lines must be drawn and IMO he should be made to tear it down.

gremlin

StevieJ wrote: »

What about someone who has illegally built a factory, employed thousands of local people and then applies for retrospective

Had they knowingly built it illegally then I'm afraid so. The end cannot justify the means. You get into that moral cul-de-sac then it gets very messy.

Dr.Shoe_2

For one thing it would be infinitely harder to build a factory in this way than a [rather ugly] house.

I say that justice has been done, it's not because he's an arrogant git but because if someone sets out to flaunt the law that everyone else abides by then he has to accept the consequences.