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: