Take down your 'castle', twat told

[EastEnder]

You'd have to be insane to buy a property that the council was trying to have demolished. I smell porky pies...

 

[pogofish]

You'd have to be insane to buy a property that the council was trying to have demolished. I smell porky pies...

I agree - nobody in their right mind would buy a property under action like that - and no lender would even consider mortgage on such a property. I smell connivance or a token sale at the very least, if not outright bullshit!

 

[sim667]

I have just read that the local authority have so far spent over £50,000 contesting this.
I doubt that anyone would be so dump as to buy it without the necessary consents/planning permissions being in place.
Could it not be used for setting up a self sufficiency commune.
It's not been built in the most attractive part of the world; from what I remember, Salfords is the back end of Redhill,
which itself is not the most attractive town in the country.

Its right in the arse end of salford which is very country-farm area and is quite pretty.

Support for him is very mixed around here, he's actually got a reputation for being quite a sound guy, but he has flaunted the law (however I do think it was built around an already existing structure).

If its brownite, Id say let him keep it, but not if its greensite.

 

[hash tag]

I suspect that he may have sold it but for something silly like a tenner if only as a delaying tactic

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Salfords isn't, but this is where he decided to build...

IMO that landscape can do without a 'castle'.

Whereas if it was in this Salford it wouldn't be a problem:

 

[equationgirl]

I suspect that he may have sold it but for something silly like a tenner if only as a delaying tactic

Money might have changed hands but the paperwork transferring ownership of the property won't be completed as the conveyancing search will have shown that there is no planning permission in place not to mention he is in dispute with the council.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Money might have changed hands but the paperwork transferring ownership of the property won't be completed as the conveyancing search will have shown that there is no planning permission in place not to mention he is in dispute with the council.

And subject to a high court injunction. All that would be a major red flag blocking any legitimate purchase.

 

[Citizen66]

You'd have to be insane to buy a property that the council was trying to have demolished. I smell porky pies...

Probably 'sold' it to his missus.

 

[quimcunx]

Probably 'sold' it to his missus.

This. It will just be a delaying tactic, maybe in the hope that the council will give up because it's costing them money.

 

[hash tag]

Latest delaying tactic, bats. No not Mr Fidlerbut in his castle! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tml?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

Next up, very rare great crested newts? Fare play to him, he is certainly putting up one hellva fight!

 

[isvicthere?]

If its brownite, Id say let him keep it, but not if its greensite.

What about if it's Blairite?

 

[ViolentPanda]

What about if it's Blairite?

Beat it to death with a shovel, then bury the corpse deep.

 

[ddraig]

A property developer who illegally modernised the historic building behind the hymn All Things Bright And Beautiful has been told by a judge to fork out £300,000 – or go to jail.

Grade II-listed Llanwenarth House was built in the late 16th century and was given its special status six decades ago because of its national importance.

A court heard the property appeared to have “wall plaques” inside which had been made from the gravestone of three children who died more than 100 years ago.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/childrens-gravestones-decorated-all-things-9881355

 

[ddraig]

could cost him up to £750,000 to put right!
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/millionaire-property-developer-could-face-9889253

A property developer who illegally converted a Grade II-listed building may have to reconvert it back to its original state at a cost of up to £750,000, according to a building expert.

 

[hash tag]

I don't suppose anyone has an update on Mr Fidler?
I've searched, but none of the searches have dates against them!

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't suppose anyone has an update on Mr Fidler?
I've searched, but none of the searches have dates against them!

this from june http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-33291572

 

[Pickman's model]

this from 18 aug http://www.surreymirror.co.uk/Castle-builder-pursued-council/story-26861948-detail/story.html

 

[hash tag]

No news there then. Any bets on how long it will take to be resolved?

 

[Spymaster]

this from 18 aug http://www.surreymirror.co.uk/Castle-builder-pursued-council/story-26861948-detail/story.html

They should knock it down with him in it.

Get the dog out first though.

 

[Pickman's model]

They should knock it down with him in it.

Get the dog out first though.

lock them both in a dungeon.

see who walks out after a few days.

 

[Spymaster]

lock them both in a dungeon.

see who walks out after a few days.

It'd be unfair on the dog, having to eat that wanker.

 

[Sea Star]

So do I. I think it's a great building, much better than your standard Wimpey new build.

Looks like the sort of ugly new build for millionaires you see all over Chislehurst these days.

 

[Pickman's model]

It'd be unfair on the dog, having to eat that wanker.

you could reward it with a tin of pedigree chum.

 

[Sea Star]

Planning rules are there for a reason (whether they're always applied sensibly, is a different matter entirely), and I'd imagine that anyone who sets out on a non-trivial building project knows full well they need to get permission first. I can sympathise with someone who builds a slightly over-the-top tree house and ends up being told to pull it down, but knowingly screwing the system's just asking for trouble.

How many of those with the "it's my land, I'll do what I like with it" attitude would be quite happy if all those around them behaved the same way? You don't like the authentic, WW2 style concentration camp I've built on the patio? Fuck you! it's my land, why should I give a shit what you think?

Either there has to be rules for everyone, or no one. I hate rules, but the world's full of inconsiderate wankers. Without the annoying rules, people would be forced to take matters into their own hands. Which is fine if you're capable of wielding a sledgehammer - doesn't exactly help the 80 year old granny who can't see out of her windows cos the tosser next door's built a 30 foot high "garden feature"...

It begs the question - why go through all that concealment malarky when it probably would have been a lot easier for him - with all his resources - just to apply for permission up front. The blokes a moron!

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

It begs the question - why go through all that concealment malarky when it probably would have been a lot easier for him - with all his resources - just to apply for permission up front. The blokes a moron!

He knew full well that he would not get permission. It's agricultural land in the Surrey greenbelt. So he tried to beat the system. But as Norman Stanley Fletcher told us, you can't beat the system, madness to try.

 

[Sea Star]

He knew full well that he would not get permission. It's agricultural land in the Surrey greenbelt. So he tried to beat the system. But as Norman Stanley Fletcher told us, you can't beat the system, madness to try.

in this case, that's a good thing!

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

in this case, that's a good thing!

It's an odd one as there is a very credible argument that the greenbelt helps keep house prices high for those who own in Surrey etc. and that is why people who live there are keen to keep it, after all an extra 30,000 houses in Dorking would smash the fuck out of existing house values.

The counter argument of course is that Dorking is 45 minutes from the centre of London and from there you can walk up Box Hill, Leith Hill, Denbies, Ranmore etc. Basically you have some stunning countryside that is easily accessible to even the poorest in London and this should be protected.

I go with the second. But with a vested interest in the first.

 

[Sea Star]

It's an odd one as there is a very credible argument that the greenbelt helps keep house prices high for those who own in Surrey etc. and that is why people who live there are keen to keep it, after all an extra 30,000 houses in Dorking would smash the fuck out of existing house values.

The counter argument of course is that Dorking is 45 minutes from the centre of London and from there you can walk up Box Hill, Leith Hill, Denbies, Ranmore etc. Basically you have some stunning countryside that is easily accessible to even the poorest in London and this should be protected.

I go with the second. But with a vested interest in the first.

I go with the 2nd too.

There's lots of factors that keep house prices high and all them should be tackled imo, especially the fact that there is such a huge rich-poor divide in the UK. Poverty in the UK has always been the elephant in the bedroom!

What we really need is a housing policy not dependent on the market but planned logically and taking the needs of the many into consideration, not the few with millions to invest!

 

[Quartz]

It's an odd one as there is a very credible argument that the greenbelt helps keep house prices high for those who own in Surrey etc. and that is why people who live there are keen to keep it, after all an extra 30,000 houses in Dorking would smash the fuck out of existing house values.

I wonder, would the builders of the houses also build the additional infrastructure to support those houses? The schools, the roads, the sewage treatment plant, electricity substations, the railway station, etc, etc. Those houses might not be so cheap once all that is factored in. Somehow, I don't think they would, and it would be up to the taxpayers to pick up that bill.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I wonder, would the builders of the houses also build the additional infrastructure to support those houses? The schools, the roads, the sewage treatment plant, electricity substations, the railway station, etc, etc. Those houses might not be so cheap once all that is factored in. Somehow, I don't think they would, and it would be up to the taxpayers to pick up that bill.

The council builds the roads, schools etc. They do this cos they will get the cash back in council tax from the new houses.