[News] Robert Fidler's Castle - Demolish or Let him keep it?

Hugo Rune · Nov 9, 2015

A cheeky chappy just 'doing what was right for his family' & fighting the establishment to save his dream house or a snidey & devious little cockwomble hiding his building works behind a wall of hay then claiming 'no one objected' when justifying the building that had no planning permission.

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

NSC MUST decide! :smile:

pasty · Nov 9, 2015

Torn. Half of me thinks Me-h, let him keep it, but then you also open up a can of worms to every Tom Dick and Harry that wants to try and get away with similar.

Hampster Gull · Nov 9, 2015

He's a dick, knock it down

Davemania · Nov 9, 2015

My Dad always says do not tell them anything. I fully support the guy and I hope the little dweebs that run local government will see likewise. Unfortunately local government is usually run by an unfortunate combination of part nerd, part ****

theboybilly · Nov 9, 2015

I don't know much about the case but I like the building. I hope it isn't turned to rubble

Davemania · Nov 9, 2015

That is T W A T, which spells t w a t

beorhthelm · Nov 9, 2015

this house tells you all need to know about why we have a housing crisis. a man cant build a 5 bed sized mock castle on a bloody farm yard, next to a massive barn, because its green belt.

he technically, albeit through a loophole, built the property and no one objected so should be allowed to keep it. of course he shouldnt need to hide it, such a building should have been waved through planning anyway.

Surrey Phil · Nov 9, 2015

He blatantly broke the law so should have been bulldozed 7 years ago!

beorhthelm · Nov 9, 2015

Surrey Phil said:
He blatantly broke the law so should have been bulldozed 7 years ago!

as i recall it he hadnt broken the law. if you built something and no one lodged a complaint for so many years, its was deemd to go beyond planning, or statute of limitations applied. yes, the law assumed that it was not concealed, so a cheeky loophole exploited (think they may have since changed the law)

Hugo Rune · Nov 9, 2015

I'm not that sympathetic as I think he may be able to build a new house 'properly' judging by the yellow Bentley Continental GT V8 convertible, white Porsche Caymen R and at least three tanks parked in front of his house. :hilton:

Must be a lot of money in farming . . . . . . .

symyjym · Nov 9, 2015

Keep it. It's been there for 15 years, on his own land, no neighbours have complained about it.

The council tax on the place is worth a decent amount of income for the local economy so it's a win win for the council.

Can't say he's a beautiful man so the poll is daft for suggesting something irrelevant.

Creaky · Nov 9, 2015

beorhthelm said:
as i recall it he hadnt broken the law. if you built something and no one lodged a complaint for so many years, its was deemd to go beyond planning, or statute of limitations applied. yes, the law assumed that it was not concealed, so a cheeky loophole exploited (think they may have since changed the law)

The point is though that it wasn't a loophole, never was - that's why he's being forced to demolish it.

JC Footy Genius · Nov 9, 2015

Mock Tudor castle = Knock it down

Triggaaar · Nov 9, 2015

I'm amazed any of you think it's ok for him to keep it. You're saying people should be able to build what they like, despite knowing they're not allowed to. It's ridiculous, of course it should be knocked down.

Our housing shortage isn't going to be fixed by this one property. If you think that was should just build thousands of homes on the green-belt, then vote for a party that supports that (if there's one crazy enough). Personally I like our green and pleasant land and don't want people building in the green belt willy nilly.

DavidinSouthampton · Nov 9, 2015

Davemania said:
My Dad always says do not tell them anything. I fully support the guy and I hope the little dweebs that run local government will see likewise. Unfortunately local government is usually run by an unfortunate combination of part nerd, part ****

Would you like it if someone bought the house next door to you, knocked it down and put a 20 storey office block in its place without seeking permission?

He can't even plead ignorance. He's a devious p1llock.

Hugo Rune · Nov 9, 2015

symyjym said:
Can't say he's a beautiful man so the poll is daft for suggesting something irrelevant.

Fair cop!

drew · Nov 9, 2015

Rules are rules. There needs to be proper process to build, even on your own land. How many of those supporting him would not want to see their neighbours build in their garden! Irrelevant about no one complaining because no one is going to complain about a hay stack on a farm!

Gwylan · Nov 9, 2015

Triggaaar said:
I'm amazed any of you think it's ok for him to keep it. You're saying people should be able to build what they like, despite knowing they're not allowed to. It's ridiculous, of course it should be knocked down.

Our housing shortage isn't going to be fixed by this one property. If you think that was should just build thousands of homes on the green-belt, then vote for a party that supports that (if there's one crazy enough). Personally I like our green and pleasant land and don't want people building in the green belt willy nilly.

Absolutely. Planning rules are there to protect us all. The people who are saying we shouldn't have them may not be so sanguine if an office block went up in front of their house

Big G · Nov 9, 2015

I dealt with him a few times when I was in the police. The bloke is an absolute cvnt!
However, the house is in the middle of nowhere so what is the problem, not causing anyone any problems even though he did build it without permission, is it really necessary to knock it down...no way!

Creaky · Nov 9, 2015

drew said:
Rules are rules. There needs to be proper process to build, even on your own land. How many of those supporting him would not want to see their neighbours build in their garden! Irrelevant about no one complaining because no one is going to complain about a hay stack on a farm!

Exactly and this is what the Supreme Court decided - development wasn't completed until the straw bales were removed and the 'four year rule' commences from that point.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[News] Robert Fidler's Castle - Demolish or Let him keep it?

Should Fidler's Fort be ****ed?

Yes - Smash it down!

No - Such a beautiful building and man

Well-known member

A different kind of pasty

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Bringer of TRUTH

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Drew

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Share this page