Farmer loses High Court fight to save hidden castle

gremlin

lostinrates wrote: »

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.

whilst I understand where you are coming from, from what I have read and seen of this man he isnt someone I would pin my colours to.

purch

Farmers are not required to abide by the Law.

lostinrates

gremlin wrote: »

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.

I think my issue is partly with the ''designated green belt land'' bit TBH. And he fact we are all meant to be living close to where we work, and for some types of farming being there really makes a difference. (no idea what he farms.) Animal rustling is up, up, up and, frankly, we will not buy where we can't live, because to leave thousands and thousands of pounds worth of livestock where you can't live to monitor them for theft and health is nuts. We're told to drive less etc, and that there isn't enough housing on the one hand, then that we have to build according to rules of people set in a rather unappetising aspic. Once, places like Hampton Court, Stourhead, etc were inappropriate new builds too. An englishman's home is his castle....and it can be re built by later generations, or ripped down.......

there are a lot of places no one should build, I agree.....but there are also an awful lot of decision made by...(stereotype warming) people who adore the NT and shop at M&S ....

edit: law in UK is changed by precedents! also I'd say its more putting actual Uggs on the David, rather than painting them on.

MORPH3US

There is nothing complex about this, he deliberately set out to deceive for his own selfish interests... can't wait to see it bulldozed.

People like him that think the law doesn't apply to him pee me off... arrogant and selfish!

purch

People like him that think the law doesn't apply to him pee me off... arrogant and selfish!

I see you have met some of the members of the Exmoor Staghounds.

lostinrates

Actually, n the David thing...not a bad example really. We preserve things as we found them, not as we were. Our cathedrals and castles no longer bear the bright colours painted with, we presume they were always in ''natural stone''. The marble statues have similarly lost their paint, we take them for what they are...we forget, even those have changed with time, with taste, with generations.

Mr.Brown_4

If the guy had got away with it, then we would have seen a lot more haystacks dotted around. And in four years time there would be new build estates, Tescos and all sorts, maybe even the mythical factory of which StevieJ has spoken springing out of the ground. Perhaps a really big one for say Liverpools new stadium.

Could be the answer to getting planning for new nuclear reactors I suppose.

Really2

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.

Is the issue there was 60' of hay bales standing for over 2 years and people knew he was building something (they thought it was a barn) and planning did nothing.

It should be a lesson to planing more than anything else to get off there @rsses some times.

Mr.Brown_4

Really2 wrote: »

Is the issue there was 60' of hay bales standing for over 2 years and people knew he was building something (they thought it was a barn) and planning did nothing.

It should be a lesson to planing more than anything else to get off there @rsses some times.

No, I can quite see the fun in waiting 3 years and 11 months before making my move. No point in rushing these things.

bjcl

Personally I don't think that it is as ugly as a lot of other places you can see. While the guy is obviously a bit of a !!!! the counciler they interviewed on channel 4 news came across as much more of a doucher to me.