Surrey :Judge tells Mr Fiddler to knock his House Down
 

http://news.images.itv.com/image/fil...stream_img.jpg
You are a Fool to take on the Council

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...236023_-12.jpg


For around 4 years his home was hidden with Large Hay
stacked up high.


He is dead lucky the judge gave him a Suspended sentence
That Illegal Home must be gone by June (Plenty of time)


http://www.itv.com/news/2015-11-09/s...uld-face-jail/


http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cps...95116_de50.jpg
As he left Court Shocked


http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cps...kfarm2002a.jpg
Built behind this back in year 2000


[Mr Justice Dove said that Mr Fidler
would be jailed for three months
for his "intentional defiance" unless he complied with the order by 6 June.]

I love that house though,it would be sad for it to be demolished,surely something could be sorted.

What a gorgeous house.

I watched a programme featuring the guy, he hit the nail on the head, people like him aren't allowed castles.

I agree its a Great Design.


But he built it on Greenfield Land
without any proper permission

The Judge backs the Council.

If its not taken down by next June
he goes to Jail
He would be stupid not take it to bits
plenty of time

He didn't have planning permission. That's the bottom line. If he's allowed to keep this house that he built illegally it'd set a bad precedent for people to throw up all kinds of structures and try to get retrospective planning permission. He knew the risks when he broke the law.

Well, that will knock the smile off his face.
Why on earth do people have this feeling of entitlement..I want so I will have.
Knock the bloody lot down and send him the bill.
Apply for planning permission, the same as the rest of us would have to do, then again, he must have known it would not have been passed.
No sympathy for him at all.

Lets hope some super fast rail network buys it then:hehe:

I agree. It's a very nice house.

It's tastefully done. The council should be knocking down ugly buildings and quite frankly I don't think it's none of their business.:nono:

If he can build dwellings like that they should be signing him up for some planning role.
Forget the nonsense of red tape.

Also as to threaten with a prison sentence when you cannot get some murderers locked up these days show what a mess the whole council red tape and the law is in anyway.

So the big mound of hay was fine for 4 years? :laugh:

'I'm all for this. Local council planning is RIFE with corruption, in councils run by all parties.'

Bit hard with all the corruption though?...

MAMMA MIA! This is WICKED. I hate to see ALADDIN this type of trouble. I mean, where will he live? He'll be like a GYPSY. What about his wife? His CATS?

It's not right at all. One minute he's living blissfully on SUNSET BOULEVARD, and the next the corrupt council pull on their KINKY BOOTS and want to STOMP his home into the ground.

I would not go quietly if I were him, I would tie myself to the chimney as the bulldozers moved in.

Hey! Then we'd have a FIDLER ON THE ROOF. :hehe:

He built a house on green belt land. There's nothing more to say. Local government corruption doesn't affect this case at all. Corruption should be investigated, but because there has been some corruption in planning, it doesn't mean that everyone can rush out and throw up a building anywhere they like.

Yes - being serious now: a wealthy farmer arrogantly flouts the law and deceitfully builds a million pound plus mansion, yet people are condemning the council and the judge.

If the council and the Judge had allowed him to keep and live in his illegally built castle, the very same people would no doubt be screaming about how the system is corrupt in favour of the land-owning rich.

If councils refuse planning permission to working class young couples who merely want to modestly extend their little homes, then NO ONE should be above the same laws which guide those council refusals.

...he did wrong obviously and was intentionally sneaky...and don't planning councils hate that/when people do that to them because they're all so big and important...anyways, it looks ok actually and it's built now so I think it would be better to just let it stay but maybe a compromise/and it be changed from a private home, to some kind of heritage/trust building...especially as it's homing so much wildlife atm....and really..?../do the courts really want this taking up time from other things...let it go/let it stay and focus on whether it could become part of the greenbelt...

Hay is a natural resource :hmph:

He obviously knew he was doing something illegal as he went to such lengths to hide it, the house will have had no building regs so it could crumble around his ears at any rate, he flouted planning laws I have no sympathy for him

Am I the only one immaturely laughing at the name Mr Fiddler?:laugh:

Just you Mock :laugh: it is an apt name for him though :joker:

Nah - In my 'West End Theatre Shows' puns post a few posts up, I actually call him 'Fiddler On The Roof' , but there seems to be only us two who twigged Mock. :laugh:

I understand his assertion about the wildlife but it's a bit ironic that he gave the wildlife no thought when he built it, the wildlife didn't move in afterwards!

I agree.

Sadly the courts are full of cases which could be dealt with in fasttracked hearings.The law requires massive change and a whole new look at particularly what people are threatened as to prison with.
Wrong this was in the full frame of law and council rulings but possible prison.
What rubbish.

Also it would be nice if councils developed a bit of humour and in all issues as you say work or look to a compromise.
Compromise is something I believe in strongly and there are,I have found, few things where compromise would not have probably assisted greatly.

At the end of the day, he knew he was taking a big risk.

No, I had a chuckle too... it's definitely a classic Carry On name.

Yeah, the first person I thought of was Sid James. :joker:

I fought the Council and the Council won

I'm so torn on this one, he was an idiot to spend so much money on a house that he had no permission for but on the otherhand it's such a beautiful house it makes me sick to think it's going to be torn down

But not beautiful like a Tudor house. :nono:

Are you presuming you know how other FM think? tsk.

Mr Fidler had argued that the reason he built the property in 2000 was because planning authority in Surrey failed to acknowledge an application to convert an existing property for nine years.
His family moved into the home in 2002 but it was later discovered by Reigate and Banstead Borough Council, which ordered its demolition in 2007.

The Planning Inspectorate dismissed his appeals, but last November he was granted temporary planning permission for a maximum of three years. However, former Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles later withdrew this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ats-newts.html

No, I don't presume anything, I KNOW - from being a member on here.

But, I tell you what, I just really can't be arsed anymore, so I'll retract my statements in the post you quote.

If he waited NINE YEARS for planning permission to be granted then he's an idiot. He has a local councillor, he's eligible to attend Parish Council meetings where planning is approved and discussed... this is an excuse.

Also, the temporary planning permission which was granted was retrospective and illegal, which is why is was withdrawn.

This man chanced his arm and he lost. Now he's going to try to make others look unprofessional.

An idiot...
Once permission has been sought via application what else can be done?

Is that how applications are granted, you have to sit in attendance at council meetings? Being a farmer this may be impractical perhaps.

I would say it was Mr Pickles who made the person who issued the temporary permission appear unprofessional,they will have no doubt have been adhering to the law as it stands.

He has time to take it down
slow brick by brick
so it can be rebuilt in a legal plot

Get out of it :fist:

Yes Mr. Fiddler is 67

admit it neem

you saw old fiddler and thought "how you doin?"

Members of the public are entitled to, and regularly attend Parish council meetings. If he had an interest in planning he should have gone along. But he sat on his hands for and then threw up a buil;ding without planning permission. Why would being a farmer impact on his ability to pursue his own planning permission? The constituency in which I worked was rural and farmers seemed to be able to handle their own business quite adequately. He had time to build an entire house but not to attend meetings that could have benefited him, nor to approach councillors who represent him?

parish meetings at usually at 7.30 or so at night one day a month so he had no excuse farmer or not

That's not what I asked...
I said if he had gone down the correct route off applying for planning permission what would have been the benefit of attending meetings?

He had submitted an application, what more can be done via local councilors?
(besides backhanders obv)