We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
03 Feb 10
12:37
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Apr 06
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/8495412.stm
Nice try...
Farmer loses High Court fight to save hidden castle
Mr Fidler hoped to take advantage of a legal loophole
A farmer who built a castle hidden inside a stack of straw bales has lost a High Court bid to save it from being demolished.
Robert Fidler, of Salfords, Surrey, built the house, complete with turrets, without planning permission.
He kept it hidden until August 2006 and was ordered to tear it down by Reigate and Banstead Borough Council in 2008.
Mr Fidler appealed on the basis that his house had stood for four years without anyone objecting to it.
He claimed he only started building the structure when the council did not answer his planning application to turn a cowshed into a house.
Loophole hope
When Mr Fidler removed the bales he believed the structure would no longer be subject to planning enforcement because of a legal loophole.
But in March 2007 the borough council issued an enforcement notice, which was upheld by a Government planning inspector in May 2008.
The inspector ruled that the removal of the straw bales constituted part of the building works and the four-year immunity rule would not apply.
The castle has ramparts and a replica cannon
The High Court was asked to decide whether the removal of the straw bales and tarpaulin was, in the eyes of the law, part of the building operation.
Deputy High Court judge Sir Thayne Forbes said he had to decide "whether the inspector was right to conclude that the removal of the bales and the tarpaulin formed part of the building operation".
The judge said: "In my view, the inspector's findings of fact make it abundantly clear that the erection/removal of the straw bales was an integral - indeed an essential - fundamentally related part of the building operations that were intended to deceive the local planning authority and to achieve by deception lawful status for a dwelling built in breach of planning control."
He added that the inspector "cannot be faulted" and he was "plainly right to reach the conclusion that he did".
After the hearing Mr Fidler's solicitor, Pritpal Singh Swarn, said an appeal was being considered.
He said: "Mr Fidler is obviously disappointed and will almost certainly want to appeal bearing in mind what he stands to lose, which is the house that he has built.
"The judge appears to have left open the big question - when is a building substantially complete?
"It is necessary for the courts to draw the line as to what constitutes a completed development."
Nice try...
Farmer loses High Court fight to save hidden castle
Mr Fidler hoped to take advantage of a legal loophole
A farmer who built a castle hidden inside a stack of straw bales has lost a High Court bid to save it from being demolished.
Robert Fidler, of Salfords, Surrey, built the house, complete with turrets, without planning permission.
He kept it hidden until August 2006 and was ordered to tear it down by Reigate and Banstead Borough Council in 2008.
Mr Fidler appealed on the basis that his house had stood for four years without anyone objecting to it.
He claimed he only started building the structure when the council did not answer his planning application to turn a cowshed into a house.
Loophole hope
When Mr Fidler removed the bales he believed the structure would no longer be subject to planning enforcement because of a legal loophole.
But in March 2007 the borough council issued an enforcement notice, which was upheld by a Government planning inspector in May 2008.
The inspector ruled that the removal of the straw bales constituted part of the building works and the four-year immunity rule would not apply.
The castle has ramparts and a replica cannon
The High Court was asked to decide whether the removal of the straw bales and tarpaulin was, in the eyes of the law, part of the building operation.
Deputy High Court judge Sir Thayne Forbes said he had to decide "whether the inspector was right to conclude that the removal of the bales and the tarpaulin formed part of the building operation".
The judge said: "In my view, the inspector's findings of fact make it abundantly clear that the erection/removal of the straw bales was an integral - indeed an essential - fundamentally related part of the building operations that were intended to deceive the local planning authority and to achieve by deception lawful status for a dwelling built in breach of planning control."
He added that the inspector "cannot be faulted" and he was "plainly right to reach the conclusion that he did".
After the hearing Mr Fidler's solicitor, Pritpal Singh Swarn, said an appeal was being considered.
He said: "Mr Fidler is obviously disappointed and will almost certainly want to appeal bearing in mind what he stands to lose, which is the house that he has built.
"The judge appears to have left open the big question - when is a building substantially complete?
"It is necessary for the courts to draw the line as to what constitutes a completed development."
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 15
|
By:
Wont be knocked down
|
|
By:
bbc1 now
|
|
By:
sry i'm on time delay.....2mins back...
|
|
By:
once its been up 4 years the council does not have a brick to stand on.
|
|
By:
How did he build it and keep it secret for 4 years...?
|
|
By:
he had it hidden by a 20 ft barrier of hay
|
|
By:
There's another one somewhere.
A bloke refurbished a large barn and disguised it with an outer layer of bricks to make it look normal from the outside. IIrc, council said it can stay. |
|
By:
Yes....I know it was hidden..........but what about bringing all the materials in........did he have any help...etc...?
|
|
By:
Did Josef Fritzel have to declare his cellar?
|
|
By:
Austrian.......different planning laws...
|
|
By:
It will be knocked down
|
|
By:
Fidler by name.....fiddler by nature.
|
|
By:
Was sure this was going to be a daily mail link about a dole "fiddler" , possibly non-white, who was living in a "castle" at the taxpayers expense, I presumed the OP had just spelled "fiddler" incorrectly.
Am I alone? |
|
By:
Will the local council storm the castle with a battering ram and catapult?
|
|
By:
Mr Fidler, legal loopholes, a castle with replica cannon and talk of erecting straw bales
|