Damned Designs ch4

[anonymous-user]

monthefish said:

98elise said:

Randy Winkman said:

I watched the prog expecting to hate the castle and its owners - but I liked it and admired them.

Edited by Randy Winkman on Tuesday 12th May 20:37

So did I. I thought the best outcome for them would be for them to keep it under the loophole they found, but change the law to close it.

Exactly. They said that the loophole was already tightened as a result of the castle, something about including 'willfully hidden' or somesutch. This, to me, suggests that he operated within the rules at the time.
I think he should have been allowed to keep it.

This is bks about the law being changed.

He hid it so that no one knew about it and then hoped that the 4 year limit would save him. The council, rightfully, argued that by hiding the house they were not offering the council an opportunity to enforce planning guidelines.

The guy wilfully tried to circumvent planning laws which apply to each and every one of us for good reason.

All that's happened is he has cost the tax payer in court costs and time.

[monthefish]

garyhun said:

monthefish said:

98elise said:

Randy Winkman said:

I watched the prog expecting to hate the castle and its owners - but I liked it and admired them.

Edited by Randy Winkman on Tuesday 12th May 20:37

So did I. I thought the best outcome for them would be for them to keep it under the loophole they found, but change the law to close it.

Exactly. They said that the loophole was already tightened as a result of the castle, something about including 'willfully hidden' or somesutch. This, to me, suggests that he operated within the rules at the time.
I think he should have been allowed to keep it.

This is bks about the law being changed.

They said (early on) in the programme that the laws/wording had been changed as a result of this case.

"Now into its third decade, Robert's almost unbelievable battle has seen legal bills running into hundreds of thousands, gone as far as the Supreme Court, and even been the catalyst for an amendment in planning law."

If he was operating outwith the letter of the law there would have been no need to change it.

[anonymous-user]

monthefish said:

garyhun said:

monthefish said:

98elise said:

Randy Winkman said:

I watched the prog expecting to hate the castle and its owners - but I liked it and admired them.

Edited by Randy Winkman on Tuesday 12th May 20:37

So did I. I thought the best outcome for them would be for them to keep it under the loophole they found, but change the law to close it.

Exactly. They said that the loophole was already tightened as a result of the castle, something about including 'willfully hidden' or somesutch. This, to me, suggests that he operated within the rules at the time.
I think he should have been allowed to keep it.

This is bks about the law being changed.

They said (early on) in the programme that the laws/wording had been changed as a result of this case.

"Now into its third decade, Robert's almost unbelievable battle has seen legal bills running into hundreds of thousands, gone as far as the Supreme Court, and even been the catalyst for an amendment in planning law."

If he was operating outwith the letter of the law there would have been no need to change it.

Can you show me where the law has been changed?

The wording of the law did not specify that the 4 year rule had to apply to a property that was visible - only that if no objection was forthcoming within 4 years then the property could be given retrospective planning.

The farmer argued that because 4 years had passed with no objections, the property was legal.

The council have argued, correctly, that the law of 4 years could not be applied to a property that was hidden because it (Obviously) offered no opportunity for objection.

All that has changed is that the communities secretary has agreed with the local council.

[monthefish]

garyhun said:

All that has changed is that the communities secretary has agreed with the local council.

If you watch the programme again, (about 30 minutes in) Cllr Tony Schofield states that:

"as a result of that, and other cases, the 4 year rule has now been clarified that any building built under deliberate deception is completely exempt now from the 4 year rule".

Are you saying he's wrong?

[Sheepshanks]

monthefish said:

If he was operating outwith the letter of the law there would have been no need to change it.

Laws are rarely black and white.

[kev1974]

monthefish said:

garyhun said:

All that has changed is that the communities secretary has agreed with the local council.

If you watch the programme again, (about 30 minutes in) Cllr Tony Schofield states that:

"as a result of that, and other cases, the 4 year rule has now been clarified that any building built under deliberate deception is completely exempt now from the 4 year rule".

Are you saying he's wrong?

I don't think the law has been changed. It's just that legal discussion arising from Mr Fidler's castle case and other cases has allowed, as the man from the council says, the existing law to be clarified and any room to misinterpret it has now gone. Essentially it still comes down to a four year clock, but they've now clarified that the four year clock doesn't start ticking if the development is hidden.

[monthefish]

Sheepshanks said:

monthefish said:

If he was operating outwith the letter of the law there would have been no need to change it.

Laws are rarely black and white.

Exactly.

[wilksy61]

I wonder if the castle complies to the building regs of the time, I suspect that bricking around two bulk silo's contravenes something at the very least.

[p1doc]

i wonder if as he built the castle himself if it meets building construction criteria as he is not certified builder/plumber/electrician etc??
martin

[anonymous-user]

monthefish said:

garyhun said:

All that has changed is that the communities secretary has agreed with the local council.

If you watch the programme again, (about 30 minutes in) Cllr Tony Schofield states that:

"as a result of that, and other cases, the 4 year rule has now been clarified that any building built under deliberate deception is completely exempt now from the 4 year rule".

Are you saying he's wrong?

I'm asking you to show me where the law has changed. I believe nothing has changed, just a clarification.

[anonymous-user]

p1doc said:

i wonder if as he built the castle himself if it meets building construction criteria as he is not certified builder/plumber/electrician etc??
martin

It will certainly never have had sign off from building control, that's for sure

[Shuvi McTupya]

garyhun said:

I'm asking you to show me where the law has changed. I believe nothing has changed, just a clarification.

What is your argument? You think the law was clarified, but not changed?
So, how was it clarified? In writing? Did they change the wording of the law? Does that not constitute changing the law?

I

[anonymous-user]

Shuvi McTupya said:

garyhun said:

I'm asking you to show me where the law has changed. I believe nothing has changed, just a clarification.

What is your argument? You think the law was clarified, but not changed?
So, how was it clarified? In writing? Did they change the wording of the law? Does that not constitute changing the law?

I

No law changed at all. End of. Clarification was all that resulted. End of.

If it had changed, I'll ask again - show me!!!

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 14th May 09:55

[Shuvi McTupya]

garyhun said:

No law changed at all. End of. Clarification was all that resulted. End of.

If it had changed, I'll ask again - show me!!!

Edited by garyhun on Thursday 14th May 09:55

What was the point of clarifying it if it didn't result in any change?

[anonymous-user]

Shuvi McTupya said:

garyhun said:

No law changed at all. End of. Clarification was all that resulted. End of.

If it had changed, I'll ask again - show me!!!

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 14th May 09:55

What was the point of clarifying it if it didn't result in any change?

fk me, you really flogging a dead horse or just being obtuse. I'll post one more time and then no more because I cannot be arsed any more

The point was that My Fidler (good name huh?) argued that he had succeeded in gaining retrospective planning permission because no one had objected within 4 years.

On that he was correct.

BUT

The council said how could anyone object, no one knew the house existed.

Too bad said Mr Fidler, them's the rules.

After much arguing, the communities secretary agrees with the planning department that the 4 year rule cannot apply if no one knows about the property. (THIS IS THE CLARIFICATION and Mr Fidler has now accepted it hence why his last attempt at getting planning was by claiming it was an agricultural building required for the running of his agricultural business - which also failed).

Too bad for Mr Fidler.

End of.

[Shuvi McTupya]

Ah, so nothing was put in writing to cover them in the future if someone else tries to do the same thing.

Got it

[boyse7en]

Shuvi McTupya said:

Ah, so nothing was put in writing to cover them in the future if someone else tries to do the same thing.

Got it

It doesn't have to be put into writing, although it may well have been added to advisory notes. The case will now have set a precedent to which any similar future cases will refer.

[stuart313]

Can anyone else see the castle to be outraged by it or did they have to watch it on the TV to be suitably distraught.

If it causes no distress to anyone else why should it even need planning in the first place. So what if others are allowed to do the same, if it bothers no one then what's the problem, apart from a bit of jealousy.

Its like that old saying, if a tree falls in the woods.....

[Shuvi McTupya]

Because we have to learn to do what we are told..

That's what being free is all about, apparently.

Personally I think we have far too many rules and should be allowed more freedom to do normal things like build inoffensive houses to bring up our families in.

So what if it doesn't look exactly the same as the house next door..

[Escort3500]

stuart313 said:

Can anyone else see the castle to be outraged by it or did they have to watch it on the TV to be suitably distraught.

If it causes no distress to anyone else why should it even need planning in the first place. So what if others are allowed to do the same, if it bothers no one then what's the problem, apart from a bit of jealousy.

Its like that old saying, if a tree falls in the woods.....

So, on this basis no-one would need planning permission for anything - from house extensions to housing estates, shopping malls and airports unless "it bothers someone"