[MTVN]

I fought the Council and the Council won

[Niamh.]

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

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Hay is a natural resource

But not beautiful like a Tudor house.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.

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

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

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.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

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.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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

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

[Crimson Dynamo]

[Niamh.]

Get out of it

[arista]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Yes Mr. Fiddler is 67

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Get out of it

admit it neem

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

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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.

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?

[Crimson Dynamo]

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

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

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?

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)

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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)

The benefit of attending meetings is to be there when your planning application is put on the table and discussed. If there is a problem or a question you're there to answer it. And if your application isn't coming up you ask why not, and the Parish councillors for your area will take it up with the local council. Parish councils are non-political.

If he did actually submit an application, his local district councillor would be able to check on progress for him. Councillors are there to represent you, whether or not you voted for them. They are public servants.

You keep talking about corruption and backhanders with not a shred of evidence save the word of a man who's already broken the law.

[smudgie]

He tried it on and he failed.
He was fully aware of the 4 year rule, unfortunately he assumed he would get away with keeping it hidden for the 4 years, that was his biggest mistake, apart from the chavvy mock God knows what it's meant to be exactly home.

[Gusto Brunt]

Apparently, Fiddler sold the castle last year so he's quids in.

What's he worrying about. Let them knock it down.

[arista]

He was live on Ch5HD Saturday Show today
they showed clips of Google Box


Still not saying what he is doing
he did not say how he sold it, either

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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.

.