'hidden Castle' Builder Given Suspended Sentence

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34768763

We were discussing this on here some time ago. It seems that this chap has now reached the end of the line. As far as I am concerned, as soon as this monstrosity is pulled down the better....the farm buildings in the background have far more architectural merit than this awful house !

[Dogsbody2]

The link that opens up on my screen is dated March 2014 and talks about his attempt to apply for retrospective consent for the dwelling as an agricultural worker. This was after various planning refusals and appeals, culminating in him being told to demolish it.
Now the current deviousness is to claim there are bats roosting - bats are one of the most protected species in the UK when it comes to planning. I wonder how they got there?

[bednobs]

I see form reading more thoroughly, he has to pull it down by next summer or face jail. If he goes to jail, will it still have to be pulled down?

[Dogsbody2]

Here's a better link from a 'reliable' BBC site of the history as it was in 2010 - no word of being a farmer then!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/mobile/england/surrey/8495412.stm

Then in 2014, after the cattle were introduced.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-29900931

I think it's called 'being economical with the truth'.

[Retrochic]

People who want him to pull it down are just jealous. He has a legitimate reason to live in the countryside. Rural Planners are notorious. They automatically refuse legitimate housing for rural workers , which results in very costly appeals that eventually get passed at a higher level. We have just completed a barn conversion for a farmers son who wanted to live where he works - the barn was already there next to his parents home . The farm is down a private mile long road, totally private.It took them three appeals to get the planning through, and no ,now they have done it they have no intentions of building a housing estate on the farm it does not work like that.

[jno]

I should think so, bednobs, but the council will want him to do it himself - they don't want to be paying for it.

On its own the house looks quite attractive, if grand, and I have some sympathy for people building what they like on their own land (though more for authorities who try to set aside green belt). But he sounds devious and untrustworthy and I am not surprised if he does indeed have bats in his belfry.

[Dogsbody2]

"They automatically refuse legitimate housing for rural workers"

No they don't. A complete misunderstanding. Do not confuse 'agricultural worker' with 'rural worker' Retrochic. Agricultural worker derives his income from working in agriculture / forestry. Rural worker happens to live in the countryside (and includes the above).
And it doesn't help in this thread to compare your own example with that of Mr Fidler. Every case carries or fails on its own merits.

[Retrochic]

A few miles from here -I pass it on the way to work- is a large field which came up for sale recently as 'agricultural land'. Now there is an ugly mobile home on it and a rickety ag building it looks a right mess. On inquiring this is the legitimate way to get a house on Ag land - apply for a mobile, set up an ag business and wait five years -five years the local people have to pass this eyesore of a mobile home and rubbish around it.. There is no reason for this - why not allow the person to build a proper house straight away. -which he will be able to do in five years anyway?
The argument that 'well it will open the floodgates' is ridiculous as most ag workers houses are are one off on 100's of acres of ag land.

[Retrochic]

Dogsbody - I own a building firm in an agricultural area and own a farming estate (I don't farm we have a manager) I am more than aware of what constitutes a 'rural and an ag worker' and in fact you have missed quite a few off your list. I've also seen hundreds of rural planning applications and I would reckon only around 5% go through without any appeal. One build we did cost the owners £60k in appeals for a legitimate barn on a 400 acre farm their family had owned for 200 years ( parent died and left the farmhouse to older brother who flogged it off to horsey people leaving younger brother farming the land with no house)

[Dogsbody2]

Retrochic. I'm not going to bit and respond, as this is off topic. The original thread is about Mr Fidler, who is an extreme example of someone attempting to buck the planning legislation - which is there to protect the open countryside from wholesale housing and other inappropriate development.

[jackthehat]

///On inquiring this is the legitimate way to get a house on Ag land - apply for a mobile, set up an ag business and wait five years///

After the passage of 5 years, it ought to be demonstrable that the business will thrive and thus permission will be granted. If this were not the case, people would be able to set themselves up as a Market Gardener, or somesuch, build a house then fold the business and landscape the surrounding land; thereby securing themselves a detached property in the countryside.

[Dogsbody2]

Retrochic. I also understand planning law. I keep things simple on here, otherwise the debates become unwieldy.

[Retrochic]

Dogsbody my post was not inflammatory and not intended for you to 'bite'. Merely giving yuo information and correcting you,. HTH.

[Ric.ror]

One mans monstrosity is another mans castle

[Retrochic]

JTH -you can't do that because any house built for an agricultural or rural worker has a 'Agricultural tie' on it allowing only people working in certain rural industries to live there, and can only be sold on to the those types of people.

[Dogsbody2]

//People who want him to pull it down are just jealous. He has a legitimate reason to live in the countryside. Rural Planners are notorious. They automatically refuse legitimate housing for rural workers , which results in very costly appeals that eventually get passed at a higher level.

(note, for 'rural', read 'agricultural' - as above).

Retrochic - so, as one who understands planning law, how do you defend Mr Fidler's claim, which incidentally isn't supported by a line of judges.

[Retrochic]

I'd rather see a castle -even mock- than some of those glass and rusty metal 'Architectural' monstrosities popping up in the countryside.

[Retrochic]

Dogsbody I'm not defending him or what he did - simply trying to explain maybe why he felt the need to do it.

[bednobs]

he felt the need to do it because he wants to live there. that's the bottom line.

[Dogsbody2]

//One build we did cost the owners £60k in appeals for a legitimate barn on a 400 acre farm their family had owned for 200 years ( parent died and left the farmhouse to older brother who flogged it off to horsey people leaving younger brother farming the land with no house).

You've demonstrated one of the problems. Farmer flogs house without agricultural tie (because of history) but being used as a bona fide farm dwelling to someone who doesn't need it (horsey person). Then wants ANOTHER dwelling in the countryside as a substitute. End result: another dwelling in the countryside obtained through guile and cunning, and another wealthy farmer. No wonder planners are struggling.

[Dogsbody2]

No Retrochic. Mr Fidler thought he could avoid the planning laws by allowing a period of four years to pass, by hiding the castle completely in straw bales. Devious. Unfortunately he lost this argument at the High Court, and has sought ever since to find alternative ways to hold onto it. He is not a farmer, not a 'rural worker' in your terms. Farming was an invention occupation of his.