symyjym
Banned
Exactly.
In any case this thread is about what NSC would rule, nothing to do with the courts, but it looks like there are a few Victor Meldrew's on here taking far it too seriously as if they were going to play a part of the decision.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] Robert Fidler's Castle - Demolish or Let him keep it?
- Thread starter Hugo Rune
- Start date
Exactly.
In any case this thread is about what NSC would rule, nothing to do with the courts, but it looks like there are a few Victor Meldrew's on here taking far it too seriously as if they were going to play a part of the decision.
Exactly.
In any case this thread is about what NSC would rule, nothing to do with the courts, but it looks like there are a few Victor Meldrew's on here taking far it too seriously as if they were going to play a part of the decision.
Unfortunately mate, the councils now are riddled with out of touch busy body nosy neighbours with no common sense!
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,332
it wont be solved by this one, it highlights the problem that we have gone too far with the restrictive planning system. we should build thousands of homes on the green-belt, as well as brown field and not willy nilly, because its not that precious. only some 9% of the country is developed and that includes all roads, industrial areas, parks, and so on. less than half of that is actual homes. so increase the amount of built upon land by 10% and and you take up .4-1% of the land available, depending how you count. otherwise we should all just shut up about the cost of homes, because this is most practical way to address it.
and thats where planning should come in, ensuring suitable land use and developments are appropriate. so no office blocks in front of peoples houses, unless maybe in the city centre. they should earmark areas for development and ensure quality and suitablity of development, so ensuring brownfield sites are used, mixed sized properties are covered across planning areas, to need. not what we have, where nothing is built unless its a 1 bed flats next to warehouses or 4 bed houses on postage stamp plots, social housing is insisted upon on every development, arbitary road and other works thrown in. noble in principle but all adding cost to the price of property (so the developers only do 1 bed flats and 4 bed houses which have the largest mark up...). should be planning, in the sense of strategy.
Creaky
Well-known member
I'd love it financially if planning restrictions in the green belt were lifted seeing as I own more than 5 acres of it!
The thing is though that the green belt has a purpose, specifically to prevent urban sprawl. If green belt land was open for development it would immediately become the target for the greatest amount of development because by its very nature it surrounds metropolitan areas where there is the greatest pressure for new housing. Your figures for the amount of land in use for housing certainly applies nationwide but remove the planning restrictions imposed by the green belt and this would be where the greatest amount of development would take place and would most certainly be more than your suggested 1% - similarly there would be a tremendous demand for housing on the South Downs were development permission to be granted in that area.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 30,638
I can't believe it still hasn't been knocked down. Rules are rules, and what's worse is this is on green belt land.
If he gets away with it then nothing is sacred and everyone will do their own thing. The guy should have a bit of respect for the law of the land.
His taste is also ****ing awful.
If he gets away with it then nothing is sacred and everyone will do their own thing. The guy should have a bit of respect for the law of the land.
His taste is also ****ing awful.
I don't care if he's mother ****ing Teresa. If there's no problem, then he'd easily get planning permission wouldn't he. And the council couldn't stop him, as he'd just appeal any refusal (for free) and win. But he wouldn't get planning permission, because green belt land is green belt for a reason - we don't want houses going up just anywhere.
Yes! Otherwise we can all build what we like, where we like, and the whole ****ing country will look like Croydon.
Baldseagull
Well-known member
He should be allowed to keep it, as long as he hides it behind straw bales for ever, is placed on the highest band of council tax, be agriculturally tied, has a pond in the living room for newts and all windows kept open at all times to allow bats to fly in and out.
Cheeky Twunt
Cheeky Twunt
Worthingite
Sexy Pete... :D
How about option C- let him keep it on the proviso that he houses some refugees in it? Might as well put it to use rather than demolish it.
This. Therefore knock it down and lock him up.
Dont feel sorry for this character, he is a nasty scheming piece of pond juice who knowingly tried to the play the game and as far as i'm concerned failed. The country is full of these jack the lads with a "Loadsa money" type attitude who feel they can do whatever they like and throw money and their poor interpretation of the law at it!
severnside gull
Well-known member
Let it stay up conditional on a change of use to a homeless hostel
Not often I agree with you!
The Birdman
New member
Slap his wrist he an individual if you are a big building company you can build what you like .
VAL1850
Well-known member
He knowingly broke all the rules but let him keep it subject to at least half cost of house donated to charity - he can afford it
Green belt area but is in middle of a smelly farmyard
Green belt area but is in middle of a smelly farmyard
Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
On balance, I'd let him keep it, rather than spend lots of money on a legal battle.
Need to tighten up the law though to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Need to tighten up the law though to make sure it doesn't happen again.
father_and_son
Well-known member
Its a really nice house... little over the top outside but the inside I really like. 
Knock it down though. He built a house on farm land that was not intended as his primary residence without planning permission - because he would never have got planning permission for that. Tough sh1t, has to come down.
Knock it down though. He built a house on farm land that was not intended as his primary residence without planning permission - because he would never have got planning permission for that. Tough sh1t, has to come down.
Ordinarily I'd say knock it down. However having seen arial photos of it, nestling majestic among a whole bunch of very ugly farm buildings, I consider the prosecution of the letter of the law here, in a case where no member of the public has made a complaint, as no different in substance to the prosecution of other lawbreakers whose actions ultimately created good. Such as the Sufragettes.
AmexRuislip
Trainee Spy 🕵️♂️
There is this sodding great big haystack, that has just been plonked on the ground in the West London area.
Me thinks that this may have something to do with the government trying to hide the building of the HS2.
Only my view of course
Me thinks that this may have something to do with the government trying to hide the building of the HS2.
Only my view of course
... is the right answer except instead of "at least half the cost of the house ...." I'd say the full current value of the whole property, including the farmland and his beloved cattle!!