An Englishmans house is his castle.......

An Englishmans house is his castle.......

Author
Discussion

Timmy40

Original Poster:

12,915 posts

197 months

Thursday 16th April 2015
quotequote all
.....until the Council make you knock it down.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-323321...

I feel a bit sorry for this guy, after all he's built a fairly modest 4 bed house on his farm, admittedly without planning, but then it's hardly an eye sore and not as though the countryside is about to become studded with mock castles.

Perhaps there's an element of jealously from the Council pencil heads?

illmonkey

18,112 posts

197 months

Thursday 16th April 2015
quotequote all
They don't want a precedent set, simples.

Starfighter

4,908 posts

177 months

Thursday 16th April 2015
quotequote all
This was on another thread some time back. I can't do a search from cursed iPhone, other may have better luck.

The tool in question new exactly what he was doing and went to great lengths to hide the building work and finished house behind a wall of hay bales. He did this to get past the point at which the planning authority can act. Previous attempts to do this have failed in the past.

eybic

9,212 posts

173 months

Thursday 16th April 2015
quotequote all
I remember seeing him on a TV programme a few years ago, as said, he was trying to exploit a loophole and failed.


loose cannon

6,029 posts

240 months

Thursday 16th April 2015
quotequote all
With the name of fiddler biglaughI'm sorry but what a dick no sympathy whatsoever

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 16th April 2015
quotequote all
No sympathy whatsoever.

I'm sure we would all like to build a large detached house in open countryside and only have to pay the value of Agricultural land when we did it, therefore saving ourselves potentially hundreds of thousands.

But we can't because there are rules.

He knew what he was doing was wrong but he did it anyway.

If he wants to build his own home then he needs to just suck it up and pay the going rate for land that allows for building on it... Like everyone else.

(Farmers excluded)

Timmy40

Original Poster:

12,915 posts

197 months

Thursday 16th April 2015
quotequote all
My sympathy was sort of tongue in cheek, the irony is though if instead of keeping Suffolk Cattle on his farm he'd applied for permission to surround it with security cameras, lights, a 10ft high fence, roads, and covered it with 60,000 solar panels the planners would have thought that was a marvellous idea.

Grumfutock

5,274 posts

164 months

Thursday 16th April 2015
quotequote all
He knew the rules, he tried to cheat them and got caught! Sympathy is between sh*t and syphilis in the dictionary.

Why should he be allowed to blatantly breach the rules we all live by?

MysteryLemon

4,968 posts

190 months

Thursday 16th April 2015
quotequote all
Grumfutock said:
Why should he be allowed to blatantly breach the rules we all live by?
I dunno... I agree the outcome of the case is obvious and he knew full well all along that there would be no other outcome and set out to cheat the system from the off...

But, think of the amazing country houses and buildings we have around this country. None of them would be built these days. Some local rambler would complain it would spoil his view when walking that route once a year and it would be turned down. I do think the whole system is a bit of a joke. Why can't this bloke build a house for himself on the land he ownes? It's not like hes building huge housing estate and creating a blot on some beautiful scenary. It's a well thought out house that fits the scene perfectly.

I understand its more complicated than this and that if anyone could build anything anywhere, it would get a bit silly, but sometimes I do think the way the planning system works is all a bit st.

Timmy40

Original Poster:

12,915 posts

197 months

Thursday 16th April 2015
quotequote all
As I say, 100 acres of hideous solar panels they would think was a fantastic idea.
In other areas they'll happily swamp a small village with 300 estate homes. Ignoring local voices.

Rude-boy

22,227 posts

232 months

Thursday 16th April 2015
quotequote all
Old news.

TL;DR

Man acts the and gets stamped on by the man.

Yes OP is right, most of the National Treasures we have today would not be about under modern planning laws. That's because they weren't really needed then. Back in those days if you actually owned land you were either farming it to live or owned half the county. Now we do need planning laws or every knob with more than an acre and a few bags of brass would be building their never ending version of Hurst Castle. Likewise have a look at most of our old historic stately homes and so on. They are in reality an utter dump and cost a small fortune to run, even if you only live in one wing.

You do realise that in France, as a rule, potential beneficiaries are falling over themselves not to be the one left the family chateau? Do you want to be the one that sold the 268 year old seat built by great, great, great Uncle Louis, nope, but then do you want the 100,000Euro bill per year just to stop the bloody thing falling into the moat.


anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 16th April 2015
quotequote all
NinjaPower said:
No sympathy whatsoever.

I'm sure we would all like to build a large detached house in open countryside and only have to pay the value of Agricultural land when we did it, therefore saving ourselves potentially hundreds of thousands.

But we can't because there are rules.

He knew what he was doing was wrong but he did it anyway.

If he wants to build his own home then he needs to just suck it up and pay the going rate for land that allows for building on it... Like everyone else.

(Farmers excluded)
I'm with you all the way. I wonder how much time and money he's cost the taxpayer fighting this over the years.

Pesty

42,655 posts

255 months

Thursday 16th April 2015
quotequote all
Good.

So when are they going to demolish All those illegal dwellings built in back yards with no permission charging ridiculous rents?

98elise

26,376 posts

160 months

Thursday 16th April 2015
quotequote all
illmonkey said:
They don't want a precedent set, simples.
Yup. If I could just buy a field and build on it then I would. Unfortunately building land is rare and expensive. Non building land is cheap.

BlackLabel

13,251 posts

122 months

Thursday 16th April 2015
quotequote all
This story has been running for such a long time. I wonder if it really does get knocked down this time or are we in for another decade of legal battles.

Jim the Sunderer

3,238 posts

181 months

Thursday 16th April 2015
quotequote all
If he's got spare money for castles then his farming subsidies are too high http://farmsubsidy.openspending.org/GB/recipient/G...

BlackLabel

13,251 posts

122 months

Friday 18th December 2015
quotequote all
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35126234

He's not giving up yet it appears.

Halb

53,012 posts

182 months

Friday 18th December 2015
quotequote all
Good. biggrin
thumbup

Adrian W

13,848 posts

227 months

Friday 18th December 2015
quotequote all
I was listening to his wife on LBC this afternoon, there is more to this story than the headlines show, she says the council ignored three planning applications and refused another to convert another building, she says in the end they gave up and built the castle, Banstead council have now intimated that they will give permission on the development they originally refused, they do seen to be a shower of st.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 18th December 2015
quotequote all
BlackLabel said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35126234

He's not giving up yet it appears.
Dear me, it's an affront to the senses inside as well. The sooner it's gone the better IMO.