'illegal' mock-Tudor castle he tried to hide behind 40ft hay bales

A question about : 'illegal' mock-Tudor castle he tried to hide behind 40ft hay bales

What has happened now were they allowed to keep it?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hay-bales.html

Best answers:

• This is only a few miles from me (used to live a mile away from it when all this kicked off). The case went against the farmer and he was ordered to demolish it. He immediately announced an appeal and it's all gone quiet..................
• Appeal dismissed on 7 May. He has 12 months to tear it down
• And the planning inspectorate's report ...... all 78 pages of it!
  The costs decision is pretty amusing too
• Some years ago Thurrock tried to tell Mc Donalds they could have a drive in Mc D but no golden arches outside plus some other architectural details, intended to make the place less "tacky".
  Not only did Mc D appeal, they collected 40K off us local tax payers.
  Mind you perhaps their legal department then felt over confident and got embroiled in the famous "Mc Libel" case.
  This was a landmark case in many ways:
  The two had to defend themselves and appealed over th "nerdy" internet for evidence; they were showered with evidence from burger flippers from all over the country. This was an early example of people power over the net.
  Though I am not a supporter of "human rights" legislation, it has been used in this case to even up the power ratio between the big corporation and the "little man".
  It is probably one of the cases that allows this forum to function, as lawyers all over the country must tell their clients "yes BUT............. Mc Libel........all sort of dirt might come out in open court .......... your damages could be minimal".
  https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4266209.stm
• Hes got 12 months from 7th May? has he started yet?
• I dont think its funny and I think its a fricking disgrace that he has to tear it down.
  But...hes an idiot for doing it in such a ridiculous manner.
  I reckon a forced sale would be a better option, teaches him a lesson but doesnt waste the property.
• The guy is obviously a tit of the highest order but I just see it as a shame that a property has to be taken apart. Why not sell it, give the guy his basic expenditure back and any profit goes to say a local hospital.
  It !!!!es me off that simple solutions are so readily overlooked simply because of stupid laws/politicians/councils.
  I hate this country at the minute.
• Im sorry that I made you cross, however can I sleep tonight.
  Actually I have made a mistake and you are right, but I wish there was consistency across the board, if anyone builds without planning or in green belt it gets taken down, no expensive court cases or wasted time.
  My initial idea would only cause people to build willy nilly and see how the appeal plays out.
  The guy is still a tit though.
• Mr Fidler (great name, given the circumstances!!!) obviously knew he was breaking planning laws, otherwise why hide the construction of the building? He and his wife even kept their kid out of playschool on the day they were supposed to draw a picture of their house, in case the kid spilled the beans or drew bales of hay covered in blue tarpaulin
  He has a string of enforcement notices for all manner of unauthorised development and seems to be making a career out of it. Bear in mind that he bought (or otherwise acquired) agricultural land and has proceeded to concrete over it without any consideration for the law, neighbours or the surrounding environment.
• The big issue here is precedent- if he was allowed to retain the house what stops the next door neighbour doing the same on the basis that it was allowed next door? And then his next door neighbour? The law has to be fair and not favour the brave (or rash in my opinion)...
• If I'd not been lambasted by my comments on the mentally ill, I'd legitimately mention gypsies here. Someone would put two and two together and come up with 5.
  but it's right, you can't set precedents (legal or otherwise) like this.
• This was built in green belt as such he knew full effing well that he did not have a cat in hells chance of getting planning permission.
  To be allowed to keep the building sets a precendence that building in green belt without even applying for planning permission is acceptable.
  A previous poster mentioned a forced sale, well er who would buy it?.
  I'm pretty sure the fact that it's been built without planning permission might just show up on some searches.
• I mentioned an alternative option to knocking it down, which I still think is a shame, but quickly realised i was talking !!!!!!!! and said as much.
  Ok. My bad.