[News] Robert Fidler's Castle - Demolish or Let him keep it?

[Notters]

Don't see why he should be allowed to get away with it any more than anyone else who cheats the system (tax, benefits, or whatever).

I suppose he could be allowed to keep it provided it's used to house homeless people or asylum seekers for ten years before he's allowed to live in it!

Does make me wonder why we didn't build a sodding great haystack in Falmer in 1998.

 

[Return of the Rev]

He should have the option of picking 10 mates and a choice of weapons to defend the castle against 10 officers from the council planning department, who would have to take the castle within one day using weapons sourced from the council canteen.Winner takes all

 

[Notters]

He knowingly broke all the rules but let him keep it subject to at least half cost of house donated to charity - he can afford it

Green belt area but is in middle of a smelly farmyard

Another good point, in order to get planning permission he would have been required by the local authority to prove that residents of the proposed development would not be exposed to unacceptable odours (my area of work)... Which would've been impossible in this case.

 

[Norman Potting]

Veering a little OT but does anyone know what is happening with "Hamilton Palace" - visible from the A22 just about opposite the East Sussex National Golf centre? The well known gent who was building it seems to have not been in the news for a while and I believe that there were planning issues with that as well.

 

[Paskman]

It ought to be demolished on the grounds tat it is a pig ugly, chavy pile of sh*t alone - let alone the fact that e was trying to beat planning regs. He is just the type of irritating git that thinks he can always do whatever he wants and sod the rest of us. I would imagine that this is not the first time in his life that he has attempted to "bend the rules". The monstrosity should be blown up as part of his nearest bonfire society's celebrations next year!

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

The jobsworths have told him to knock it down, purely because, by following the letter of the law, they can. No reason other than a power trip for a few local government no marks, who wouldn't last 10 minutes in the private sector.

 

[daveinprague]

Whilst I think knocking it down would be a bit silly, a fine would be more in order. A very big fine as well to make others think twice about doing the same thing.

 

[Creaky]

Ordinarily I'd say knock it down. However having seen arial photos of it, nestling majestic among a whole bunch of very ugly farm buildings, I consider the prosecution of the letter of the law here, in a case where no member of the public has made a complaint, as no different in substance to the prosecution of other lawbreakers whose actions ultimately created good. Such as the Sufragettes.

It is the yard containing those "ugly farm buildings" that has been 'developed' by Robert Fidler - the farmland with the cattle on is leased on a short term basis by him, the next renewal date is December 2015 and was only for a 12 month period - his claim that he needs a residence to be on site to look after the cattle was dismissed on the basis that he owned a house in the 'yard complex' that he chose to rent out whilst building the new 'castle'. In addition to the house rented out he has a 'lawful development certificate' for residential use for two other units in the 'yard'.

It is also not the case that there were no objections from neighbours or members of the public.

 

[Triggaaar]

The jobsworths have told him to knock it down, purely because, by following the letter of the law, they can. No reason other than a power trip for a few local government no marks, who wouldn't last 10 minutes in the private sector.

What an absolute load on nonsense. It's nothing to do with being a jobsworth. People aren't allowed to just build where they want, if nothing was done when people did, then we'd have many thousands of things like this. I might build a nice pad with surrounding walls on Hove lawns.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

What an absolute load on nonsense. It's nothing to do with being a jobsworth. People aren't allowed to just build where they want, if nothing was done when people did, then we'd have many thousands of things like this. I might build a nice pad with surrounding walls on Hove lawns.

Believe me, if his wife had gone to the council offices with her hairy cheque book, a way may have ve been found to waive certain planning laws. Seriously, though, had he not gone down the surreptitious route and been open and honest, he would've had a chance of getting the house approved, probably not as a castle, though. It's the holier than thou attitude of planning officers that I can't stand.

 

[Diablo]

I'm not that sympathetic as I think he may be able to build a new house 'properly' judging by the yellow Bentley Continental GT V8 convertible, white Porsche Caymen R and at least three tanks parked in front of his house. Must be a lot of money in farming . . . . . . .

He owns a small farm...does he look like a Farmer with his Gold necklaces/Bentley etc etc Don`t think so..

 

[Birdie Boy]

I work on the road that this is built on but I haven't seen it, so must still be hidden! Not detected it on Google maps either. He seems a right nob though a

 

[Creaky]

I work on the road that this is built on but I haven't seen it, so must still be hidden! Not detected it on Google maps either. He seems a right nob though a

Clearly visible from Axes Lane - also on Google Maps.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It is the yard containing those "ugly farm buildings" that has been 'developed' by Robert Fidler - the farmland with the cattle on is leased on a short term basis by him, the next renewal date is December 2015 and was only for a 12 month period - his claim that he needs a residence to be on site to look after the cattle was dismissed on the basis that he owned a house in the 'yard complex' that he chose to rent out whilst building the new 'castle'. In addition to the house rented out he has a 'lawful development certificate' for residential use for two other units in the 'yard'.

It is also not the case that there were no objections from neighbours or members of the public.

My post was tongue in cheek. He is hardly a sufragette. What I don't get is that he has been defying court rulings for years, apparently. In that respect he is just like Saddam Hussain, so I say BOMB the castle!

 

[Hugo Rune]

He owns a small farm...does he look like a Farmer with his Gold necklaces/Bentley etc etc Don`t think so..

One of his 'reasons' for not demolishing the property was that he had a lot more cows and thus, needed accommodation on site so he could look after them 24hrs a day. Another reason was the rare bats and newts he found living on his new estate.

 

[Diablo]

One of his 'reasons' for not demolishing the property was that he had a lot more cows and thus, needed accommodation on site so he could look after them 24hrs a day. Another reason was the rare bats and newts he found living on his new estate.

Any excuse he can think of then

 

[symyjym]

One of his 'reasons' for not demolishing the property was that he had a lot more cows and thus, needed accommodation on site so he could look after them 24hrs a day. Another reason was the rare bats and newts he found living on his new estate.

Have you forgot to vote on your own poll?

 

[Triggaaar]

Believe me, if his wife had gone to the council offices with her hairy cheque book, a way may have ve been found to waive certain planning laws. Seriously, though, had he not gone down the surreptitious route and been open and honest, he would've had a chance of getting the house approved, probably not as a castle, though. It's the holier than thou attitude of planning officers that I can't stand.

I hate some of the idiots that get to vote on planning. I had a plot of land with outline PP, and applied for detailed plans. The planning officer recommended it be approved, the neighbours all complained as they didn't want anyone else having a house on their road. In the meeting, one of the councillors said (and although it was 10 years ago, I'll never forget it) "the detailed plans look better than the existing outline permission, but I must be missing something, so I propose we refuse it". I'm still in shock 10 years later. Predictably I won on appeal, and the council had to pay my costs too (idiots).

But despite knowing how stupid they can be, there are good reasons why we can't build what we like where we like. This guy has ignored the rules and deliberately tried to pull a fast one. He can't get planning permission, so he can't have it.

 

[Simster]

Ultimately he broke the laws of the land for personal gain. That simply can't be allowed.

It's an open and shut case in my view. Bulldoze it.

 

[Triggaaar]

Ultimately he broke the laws of the land for personal gain. That simply can't be allowed.

It's an open and shut case in my view. Bulldoze it.

Live on TV please, complete with (losing finalist footy fan style) crying owners looking on.