Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

OurDayWillCome

Fiddlers Castle To Be Demolished

Recommended Posts

This property has appeared on the forum before and was featured this week on Channel 4's 'Damned Designs'. I personally don't like pastiche castle 'ye olde properties' but this bloke hid it under a giant haystack and since revealing it after four years has had the local council successfully change the planning law (retrospectively!) to get it demolished. He recently won his battle only to have Mr Pickles overrule the decision as Pickles felt it set a precedent for building on green belt - which it will not as the loophole has since been closed. Anyhow, he has started a petition on change.org to keep the property. Despite not liking the design I have signed the petition as I feel he is just being done over by our overlords for trying to play them at their own game. The petition is short by 40 votes. Here is the link if you are interested:

https://www.change.org/p/reigate-banstead-borough-council-keep-honeycrock-castle?recruiter=294376141&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_page&utm_term=mob-xs-share_petition-custom_msg&fb_ref=Default

Edit: Sausage fingers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like retrospective planning permission?

I'll get me coat.

It is not really retrospective though is it. They can turn it down if it does not tick the boxes. This is a loophole in the law that once tested is corrected and then enforced via back-dating the correction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are farmers and have been for over 40 years we have a 250 acre farm and need to live in our house to look after the cattle and the farm business, why are the council so against us having a house it is a four bedroom house

That belongs in the 'bizarre logic' thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

signed- the council never complained about a dirty great pile of haystacks which stood for 4 years around the house did they

article-2280764-17A837CA000005DC-944_634

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A deliberate attempt to wriggle around the rules like this (or more accurately simply managing to succesfully hide the fact that he was breaking them) and you're all supporting him? I'm disappointed but not surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A deliberate attempt to wriggle around the rules like this (or more accurately simply managing to succesfully hide the fact that he was breaking them) and you're all supporting him? I'm disappointed but not surprised.

The law has since been changed but at the time it was not illegal to do this. The point is at the time he did nothing wrong and for that reason should not be forced to comply with a rule that did not exist at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A deliberate attempt to wriggle around the rules like this (or more accurately simply managing to succesfully hide the fact that he was breaking them) and you're all supporting him? I'm disappointed but not surprised.

The law has since been changed but at the time it was not illegal to do this. The point is at the time he did nothing wrong and for that reason should not be forced to comply with a rule that did not exist at the time.

Was about to say the same,

A bitter planner who drives home to his 3 bed semi every night and is making it his job to win,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. He showed how to build a substantial family home for less.than 150k. Noone overlooks him or vice versa. But we cant have the proles getting ideas that life could be a lot cheaper and simpler than they make it. Signed.

I dont mind anners per se. But their remit should be to get prople housed with well built affordable houses. Not help the politicorprokleptocracy make a fortune while covering the country with nasty cheap built semis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. He showed how to build a substantial family home for less.than 150k. Noone overlooks him or vice versa. But we cant have the proles getting ideas that life could be a lot cheaper and simpler than they make it. Signed.

I dont mind anners per se. But their remit should be to get prople housed with well built affordable houses. Not help the politicorprokleptocracy make a fortune while covering the country with nasty cheap built semis.

In an ideal world the state would be always considering it's actions - is this helping or hindering the lives of the citizens? If it's hindering then why the hell are we doing it.

Unfortunately that sort of reflex has been killed off since the days of the 19th century reformers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheer malice on the part of government, though I'm not at all surprised.

I have witnessed similar, fact is council staff in this area are overstretched and poorly skilled. This story like the others on the programme serve as fear of financial loss for trying this on.

That can be a good deterrent in itself.

Interesting how when watching the programme all the properties potential values were the main issue, the impact on the landscape not mentioned,isn't that supposed to be the main issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The law has since been changed but at the time it was not illegal to do this. The point is at the time he did nothing wrong and for that reason should not be forced to comply with a rule that did not exist at the time.

Not illegal and not wrong aren't the same thing. Whether or not I'm bothered by someone deliberately attempting to dodge the law depends upon what they did, not on what's written down on some pieces of paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an ideal world the state would be always considering it's actions - is this helping or hindering the lives of the citizens? If it's hindering then why the hell are we doing it.

Precisely, although different people have wildly different views about what helps and what hinders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precisely, although different people have wildly different views about what helps and what hinders.

True, though given we ostensibly have a state these days largely to help the less fortunate, but using it's power to keep people confined to rabbit hutches just so the more fortunate can enjoy a view seems positively evil to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting how when watching the programme all the properties potential values were the main issue, the impact on the landscape not mentioned,isn't that supposed to be the main issue?

That's pretty much what I was implying. This is government more akin to feudal barons than a supposedly caring institution - maintaining the privilege and assets of the fortunate through force and intimidation.

I feel I have become much less libertarian than I was in my early twenties, but stuff like this does bring out the anarchist in me. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty much what I was implying. This is government more akin to feudal barons than a supposedly caring institution - maintaining the privilege and assets of the fortunate through force and intimidation.

I feel I have become much less libertarian than I was in my early twenties, but stuff like this does bring out the anarchist in me. ;)

Same here :)

Precisely, although different people have wildly different views about what helps and what hinders.

My view is that if he followed the rules and the council didn't receive complaints for 4 years how much of an impact was there? That stack of bales was an eyesore in itself but no one complained then.

The fact that he made a house and didn't contravene any rules then in place doesn't seem good enough for the council.

What I think would be ideal would be if permission was granted with a condition that the house can't be sold, only passed on to members of his family thereby negating it's value.

This whole story started out with Fiddler applying for permission, the council took ages so he studied the rules and built this house conforming to those in place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no fan of draconian planning rules but it seems to me he didn't play fair in regard to the original loop hole. By putting the bales up he knew full well that he was hiding something that would have been objected to by the planners, any time limit should start when the bales come down, not before.

For me he hasn't acted in the spirit of the loop hole.

My view is that if he followed the rules and the council didn't receive complaints for 4 years how much of an impact was there? That stack of bales was an eyesore in itself but no one complained then.

Playing Devils advocate here rather than anything else, but you could argue that if you lived next door (or within viewing distance), while the bales were unsightly they are a temporary structure which you know at some point could/would more than likely be removed in the future. You would therefore have no need to complain, a building on the other hand is completely different (hence the rules being different for permanent and temporary structures under planning matters).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   26 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.