Farmer loses High Court fight to save hidden castle

purch

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

Build a new nuclear power station and disguise it as a landfill site.

That'll throw Greenpeace off the scent :eek:

Really2

Mr.Brown wrote: »

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

Don't get me wrong I don't like the guy but it took some balls and ingenuity to do what he did knowing there was a very large risk it was all going to be torn down.

Even if I had the money I would never have the balls to try and set up such a risky plan.

gremlin

lostinrates wrote: »

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.

that was natural progression tho - it would be different if someone dipped them in paint stripper then painted a footie shirt or a hoodie on it.

lostinrates

gremlin wrote: »

that was natural progression tho - it would be different if someone dipped them in paint stripper then painted a footie shirt or a hoodie on it.

Actually, things WERE stripped back to the marble. And how many of us have lived in houses with, for example, the ceiling roses removed, wood stripped of its paint....the original plaster replaced...damp courses put in.

Progression suggests that...with more people, more need for housing, changing ways of living, that housing requirements similarly change.

And I'm shuddering that Uggs could be progression rather than regression.

gremlin

lostinrates wrote: »

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.

I can see you understandably have personal reasoning for this. I completely agree that sweeping blanket bans are wrong and there are merits for permission to be given in certain circumstances. There is a need for property to be available for those working and belonging to rural environments. But by any stretch of the imagination a Castle can no way be classed as a necessary accommodation for a farmer.

Again tho I am not fully aware of the history of this guy but TBH he didnt come accross as a 'real' farmer looking to home his family close to work if there is such a stereotype. If I was pushed to make a personal judgement it would be more of a cockney wide-boy with a lot of 'dosh' who is used to having his own way. This cannot be tolerated.

BTW Im a member of the NT and I occasionally shop at M&S but I hold no romantic notions of 'the countryside' only in justice and the laws being upheld sensibly.

ckerrd

Really2 wrote: »

Don't get me wrong I don't like the guy but it took some balls and ingenuity to do what he did knowing there was a very large risk it was all going to be torn down.

Even if I had the money I would never have the balls to try and set up such a risky plan.

You are right, he knew there was a risk so he gambled.
And now he has lost.

Marvellous.

Browntoa

do you think he would have got away with this ???



www.solarhaven.org

lostinrates

gremlin wrote: »

. But by any stretch of the imagination a Castle can no way be classed as a necessary accommodation for a farmer..

Good post.

But why not? If for some one else, why not him, not there? I understand restrictions on size and, perhaps more importantly energy consumption, and indeed, location...but taste? who is to say my taste is better or worse than yours and better or worse than his?

(I like old houses, am an ex member of NT and occasionally shop at M& S too.....;))

sabretoothtigger

He should have kept the hay bales up until he could grow layers of ivy all over the building and grass on the roof

I cant see the point of a court case unless he intended to sell it

StevieJ

Mr.Brown wrote: »

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.

Well here is a version of the mythical Phoenix

One in Ellesmere Port not a far from Chester where I live.

http://www.ellesmereportpioneer.co.u...5940-25296778/