Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
'hidden Castle' Builder Given Suspended Sentence
http://
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 !
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 !
Answers
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 inappropriat
10:18 Tue 10th Nov 2015
dogsbody -you got the wrong end of the stick. The house was left to the older brother who was not farming. He sold it -his right . His younger brother who had been farming the land for 30 years could not afford to buy the house off his brother so was left 'homeless'.
I do not know any farmer who would sell off his home to make himself homeless in order to build a new house, that is ridiculous..and this has got totally OT so will leave it there
I do not know any farmer who would sell off his home to make himself homeless in order to build a new house, that is ridiculous..and this has got totally OT so will leave it there
Retrochic. No, I understand it completely. I do not deny that retiring farmers have a problem in that they want to leave the farm to their offspring, and they have more than one, where do they retire to? But the solution of taking a 'planning gain' (for the uninitiated who are interested, this is when a piece of lower value land is granted planning consent for a dwelling, thus vastly increasing its £) to enable themselves to buy a retirement home else, or else leave a valuable 'untied' dwelling to a non-farming son is unacceptable if it results in more houses in the countryside.
That's a good principle to start with - individual cases may have to vary on their own merits, or the ability to afford a good planning consultant.
Back on track - Fidler was not, and is not, a farmer - both Gromit's and your own assertion. Here's potted version:-
He built the home without planning permission in 2002.
He kept it hidden until August 2006 but was ordered to demolish it in 2008.
He appealed on the basis that it had stood for four years without anyone objecting to it. When he removed the bales he believed the structure would no longer be subject to planning enforcement because of a legal loophole.
In March 2007 the borough council issued an enforcement notice
In March 2008 this was upheld by a Government planning inspector. The inspector ruled that the removal of the straw bales constituted part of the building works and the four-year immunity rule would not apply.
In 2010 the High Court was asked to decide whether the removal of the straw bales and tarpaulin was, in the eyes of the law, part of the 'building operation'. It hung on a legal point that he lost so he bought a herd of cattle in about 2010.
He submitted a new planning application in February 2014 to retain the house on the basis of agricultural need. This was refused in April.
He has now taken this through the legal process to the High Court and lost again.
This case has such high visibility that he needs to demolish it.
That's a good principle to start with - individual cases may have to vary on their own merits, or the ability to afford a good planning consultant.
Back on track - Fidler was not, and is not, a farmer - both Gromit's and your own assertion. Here's potted version:-
He built the home without planning permission in 2002.
He kept it hidden until August 2006 but was ordered to demolish it in 2008.
He appealed on the basis that it had stood for four years without anyone objecting to it. When he removed the bales he believed the structure would no longer be subject to planning enforcement because of a legal loophole.
In March 2007 the borough council issued an enforcement notice
In March 2008 this was upheld by a Government planning inspector. The inspector ruled that the removal of the straw bales constituted part of the building works and the four-year immunity rule would not apply.
In 2010 the High Court was asked to decide whether the removal of the straw bales and tarpaulin was, in the eyes of the law, part of the 'building operation'. It hung on a legal point that he lost so he bought a herd of cattle in about 2010.
He submitted a new planning application in February 2014 to retain the house on the basis of agricultural need. This was refused in April.
He has now taken this through the legal process to the High Court and lost again.
This case has such high visibility that he needs to demolish it.
I don't think the British public would want to support or encourage the exploitation of legal loopholes, merely because they exist, or in a deliberate effort to point out their existence. Not following the 'spirit' of the law is as bad as not following its actual detail.
Nor would the general public want to support the idea of homes appearing by stealth, in our beloved countryside. Stealth, itself, implies nefarious aims. What on earth was he thinking?
Indeed, I am curious to know his motive for not bothering with planning permission, from the outset. Did he *anticipate* rejection of the plans? If so, why? Does planning permission cost huge amounts of money?
Or, did he apply, receive an *actual* rejection and then go ahead, regardless?
What drove him to take the devious route?
Nor would the general public want to support the idea of homes appearing by stealth, in our beloved countryside. Stealth, itself, implies nefarious aims. What on earth was he thinking?
Indeed, I am curious to know his motive for not bothering with planning permission, from the outset. Did he *anticipate* rejection of the plans? If so, why? Does planning permission cost huge amounts of money?
Or, did he apply, receive an *actual* rejection and then go ahead, regardless?
What drove him to take the devious route?
Hypno When he first applied for planning permission he would have applied for 'Outline' which indicates the council will or will not allow a dwelling -this is the easy bit and cheapest -no full plans are necessary but a brief outline of the proposed dwelling ie size , how many floor etc,road access should be provided. If the council agree in principle then you have to put in full plans, have reports on wild life, geological reports in some parts of the country - all sorts of things and this costs money -then the council will come back and say no you can't do this you have to do that and this goes back and forth like ping pong while all the time adding on money.
I reckon he just did it without even applying to the council otherwise if he had been refused they may have 'kept and eye' on him to see what he was doing with the land. I don't agree with what he has done but I don't agree the house should be demolished , although it will have been constructed without building regs so may be unsafe. Whether he should be allowed to live in it is a matter of opinion
I reckon he just did it without even applying to the council otherwise if he had been refused they may have 'kept and eye' on him to see what he was doing with the land. I don't agree with what he has done but I don't agree the house should be demolished , although it will have been constructed without building regs so may be unsafe. Whether he should be allowed to live in it is a matter of opinion
Mikey last Friday (6th) you said
///..I may be accused of farting in chapel here, but the green belt doesn't have to be sacrosanct does it ? ///
Today you say
///Planning laws are there for a purpose. Its green belt. If we allowed this chap to get away with it, it would just be a signal to everybody else that it was OK
to ignore the law as well. He hasn't got a leg to stand on.///
Why the change of mind?
///..I may be accused of farting in chapel here, but the green belt doesn't have to be sacrosanct does it ? ///
Today you say
///Planning laws are there for a purpose. Its green belt. If we allowed this chap to get away with it, it would just be a signal to everybody else that it was OK
to ignore the law as well. He hasn't got a leg to stand on.///
Why the change of mind?
Retro - my understanding is that he had it built it without even applying for consent, and hence the need for subterfuge. At one stage a planning officer visited the site but failed to realise the significance of the huge straw bale stack. Deliberate from the outset, and still now claiming outside the High Court yesterday that he's done nothing wrong.
In my view he needs to be taught the lesson - in particular to ensure others don't try to emulate. That's surely what proportionate punishment is for. Jail equals punishment plus rehabilitation opportunity. In this case he's still gained financially in a huge manner unless the bulldozer does for the castle. That would be entirely inappropriate.
No, the castle needs to come down (next June, because he won't DIY) - when no doubt the debate will continue.
In my view he needs to be taught the lesson - in particular to ensure others don't try to emulate. That's surely what proportionate punishment is for. Jail equals punishment plus rehabilitation opportunity. In this case he's still gained financially in a huge manner unless the bulldozer does for the castle. That would be entirely inappropriate.
No, the castle needs to come down (next June, because he won't DIY) - when no doubt the debate will continue.
Bats don't prevent a planning development, or a demolition.
One merely has to mitigate the proposed change by creating an alternative habitat nearby - for example a small tiled structure for them to roost. Happens all the time as a condition of an approved development.
Yet another thing this bloke can pay for, prior to demolition. He created the bat 'problem'
One merely has to mitigate the proposed change by creating an alternative habitat nearby - for example a small tiled structure for them to roost. Happens all the time as a condition of an approved development.
Yet another thing this bloke can pay for, prior to demolition. He created the bat 'problem'
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Looks Like Bob The Builder Has Done A...
News8 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.