[Closed] That idiot that built the castle behind the hay bales..

better than this...

Albert's still in jail.

Is that green belt?

Certainly is. Just down the road from me. The chap knew exactly what he was doing. Can't agree with what he's pulled for a moment, but he's done it with a containerload of chutzpah.

Oh and yes, that does look like a couple of tanks...

I'm amazed anyone noticed this new build, stuck in the middle of what looked like a industrial estate from the aerial view.

Didn't know the Albert story esselgruntfuttock. Interesting bit of local history.
The comments on the video are pretty scary - they mainly seem to be support of Albert because he was "defending his home" 😯

I think the main issue is that its so out of keepign with its surroundings- metal farm silos, scabby barns, a truck workshop, and what looks like a field with a load of abandoned cars in it. Plus a load of obviously new build houses just down the road. And for all it's in green belt it looks suspiciously like it would have been brownfield?

I know the point is that you have to go through planning process but it makes you wonder, if tesco wanted to demolish all those barns and workshops and build a supermarket on it, what would the outcome be? Or Cala for a bunch of "affordable" houses.

The comments on the video are pretty scary - they mainly seem to be support of Albert because he was "defending his home"

My dad knew and worked with a lot of his old workmates, apparently it was pretty unanimously felt that Albert was an otherwise harmless eccentric who had been driven over the edge by years of unnecessary persecution by the council.

ninfan - Member - Block User
The comments on the video are pretty scary - they mainly seem to be support of Albert because he was "defending his home"
My dad knew and worked with a lot of his old workmates, apparently it was pretty unanimously felt that Albert was an otherwise harmless eccentric who had been driven over the edge by years of unnecessary persecution by the council.

Apparently? Why the qualifier?

So he didn't build illegally then?

Why the qualifier?

Because I have only only heard this third hand

So he didn't build illegally then?

my understanding is that it was all a lot more complex than that, that he had initially been told that he didn't need planning permission to build below ground level, and relied on that, and wouldn't be persuaded otherwise, then there were various levels of judgement and appeal, in which some of his buildings had been ruled ok to stay, and others not, and that some could be permitted to remain if they were for agricultural purposes, so he had chickens living in them. The council decided to enforce, despite there being a letter a few days before that no enforcement action could take place till any outstanding appeals had finished, but there was a question as to whether permission to appeal had actually been lodged or had been refused - all very messy, with the council getting heavy handed with a bloke who either wouldn't listen, or wasn't in a fit mental state to listen.

Planning permission. What don't a minority of people understand about those two words? They are quite clear.

It does look as if neither party can back down. I do wonder how much council tax has now been spent pursuing an eccentric who has only built a house in the middle of a scrapyard.

my understanding is that it was all a lot more complex than that

I was friends with someone involved in that case at the time and enough people knew that Dryden was caught out by the council and that the planning officer was a nasty piece of work with a grudge against an honest man.
I can't say too much but enough people knew that it was going to end badly. Just how tragic surprised me as no-one deserved to die.

Persecution by the council? Really? Or is he just a serial offender of local rules and regulations? Go on, I don't know the whole story so just offering an possible alternative slant on the situation, but I find it difficult that somewhere in some council meeting they are plotting against this man for no good reason.

I have very little sympathy with people who deliberately go out to break rules. I find it arrogant and insulting to the rest of the majority of people who do make the effort to live by the rules, even if some of the rules are out of date or just bonkers.

Blimey, I saw that on the news earlier, I didn't realise it was about 500m behind my best mates house, I may have to take a slight detour and see how the demolition work is going next week.

The reporter in the Albert video is well hard or in shock .

I was friends with someone involved in that case at the time and enough people knew that Dryden was caught out by the council and that the planning officer was a nasty piece of work with a grudge against an honest man.

TBH, don't give a shit. He disobeyed planning permission, fought as hard as he could within the law and lost (from the time I recall the DoE had even ruled against him). His response to the LAWFUL destruction of his property wasn't proportionate. He even climbed over the fence to finish off Harry Collinson (lets not cheapen this by making him a faceless civil servant), a man with two kids, after first shooting him in the chest. He had loads of guns in his possession, all illegally owned, some home-made, all gathered over a lifetime not just the months preceding the event.

Thoroughly deserved sentence.

Why I have sympathy for some people, and they're dealings with planning departments, the castle guy has none.
He new he was pulling a fast one, then when he thought he'd got away with it, he bragged he'd pulled a fast one. Now he's bitching about it.

..Dryden was caught out by the council and that the planning officer was a nasty piece of work with a grudge against an honest man.

Seems to be the thrust of the comments on YouTube too (only with more swearing).

I struggle to see how Albert was "an honest man". As far as I can gather he broke planning laws and then murdered someone in cold blood and shot two others.

Well his name is Fidler 😆

Yep. Seen castle guy in a few documentaries and news features as this has been going on for years. He knows what he is doing and is deliberately twisting the law. IMO he should've been given planning based on the objections but he wasn't and I can understand why. He's now cost the council a fortune.

What a charming location...?

It does look as if neither party can back down. I do wonder how much council tax has now been spent pursuing an eccentric who has only built a house in the middle of a scrapyard

Probably a lot less than Basildon council spent removing the Pikeys from Dale farm.
However if you don't follow it through and let people get away with these things then the rules become pointless.

As far as i'm concerned the farmer with the fake castle is no better than the Basildon Pikeys with their piles of rubbish and stolen cars.

but I find it difficult that somewhere in some council meeting they are plotting against this man for no good reason.

Not plotting against them per se, but planning offices can certainly be manned by the over zealous and the power hungry who just love exercising that power over everyone and anyone. Ant it is incredible how the mechanisms of authority can close ranks when push comes to shove.

The farmer in the op on the other hand I have very little sympathy for at all.

Not plotting against them per se, but planning offices can certainly be manned by the over zealous and the power hungry who just love exercising that power over everyone and anyone.

I think you can say that about anyone/organisation who has some decision making powers.

A week ago I objected to a planning application because it didn't have enough detail in it. Spoke to the firm that drew up the plans and had some real attitude thrown at me. Well if it is obvious of how you are going to dispose of the sewage why didnt you put it in the application dumbass?

The assumption here is that Councils are fair and reasonable and the planning process is likewise.

Councils are often populated by self serving little Hitler's that would fail in anything but Local Government and the planning laws/process are often subjective and opaque.

Couple that with personalities trying to push the boundaries (AKA 'trying it on'), it's no wonder the process often ends in conflict.

boblo, you are talking absolute guff.

Even if you are right, and I do not think you are, you need to read the article rather than just sprouting that rubbish

...rejected successively by a government planning inspector, the high court and the appeal court.

The Council is only one part of the decision, with checks and measures from higher authorities to prevent little hitlers making bad decisions.

My dad knew and worked with a lot of his old workmates, apparently it was pretty unanimously felt that Albert was an otherwise harmless eccentric who had been driven over the edge by years of unnecessary persecution by the council.

I went out with girl who grew up with his family and she painted a very different picture.

The reporter in the Albert video is well hard or in shock .

It's used extensively in safety training sessions about dealing with difficult individuals. People don't know how to react properly and can sometimes walk to their deaths as they carry on in routine. Same reason we have fire drills, people still walk into smoky stairwells as that's the way they always leave the building.

Some departments in local councils do make life far harder than is necessary but generally they do seem to be fair. My own experience with planning depts and local councillors sadly was not pleasant. I found out that my local councillor actually objected to every single planning application for 12 months apart from 3. Further investigation revealed that the 3 that sailed through were hers and her friends applications, i kid you not!

My dad knew and worked with a lot of his old workmates, apparently it was pretty unanimously felt that Albert was an otherwise harmless eccentric who had been driven over the edge by years of unnecessary persecution by the council.

We're back to the question of whether it's persecution if you've broken the rules and don't want to abide by the decision of the relevant powers. If they let one person get away with it they have to let everyone get away with it. It's the same with the castle bloke; in private, I bet the planning officers can't really be arsed with this one but they can't let it stand otherwise Dave Smith of Acton will build a 40-foot lookout tower shaped like a cock (male chicken obvs.) and refuse to tear that down too.

If you have planning permission you'll have a small percentage of people who flout it. In that group will exist a tiny group of people who continue to push the rules to the end and either end up in jail for contempt or for doing something violent.

Not plotting against them per se, but planning offices can certainly be manned by the over zealous and the power hungry who just love exercising that power over everyone and anyone.

i remeber watching the albert one at the time

the castle guy as far as i a can remember built it behind a load of hay bales and kept it hidden for a few years which was supposed to get round the planning requirments

Planning officials have always been among the more level-headed and open local council staff I've had to deal with professionally.

It's very important to understand they are entirely separate from the councillors, who are much more likely to be awkward, irrational and biased.

As above. Planning officers are those who know planning rules and on whether an application should succeed based on whether it fits within the local plan.

Ultimate responsibility lies with Councillors on the planning committee who have far more potential to be biased and/or make decisions which won't stand up to appeal.

Didn't Paul McCartney do much the same thing on his property in Sussex? He built a house without planning and was only caught out by some arial photography.

There is plenty of corruption in local government, friends parent was convicted of taking backhander in sell off of council owned cricket pitch to developers, numerous instances of tree preservation orders being modified etc.

I think the main thing with the Castle Guy is that the council et al are desperate to set a [s]president [/s] [i]precedent[/i] and stop other people copying him and trying to circumvent the planning process.

EDIT: bloody illiteracy and spell check (was too busy making sure I spelt circumvent right)!!

President = precedent 😀

Councils are populated by eejits IME. Our local one spent £1m's on fees trying to push through a multi hundreds acre solar farm against almost total local opposition and also ignored significant feedback during a consultation that didn't correspond to the path they wished to take (proven not conjecture). ****ers... :-/

[sir-come-vent :-D]

@JE yes indeed, it's daft to force him to demolish his House in the middle of his farmland but they cannot allow the behaviour to spread.

Different countries have different systems, in Italy planning takes so long (eg 10yrs) that people build anyway then just pay a fine if the permission is ultimately not granted.

It's not that they're setting a precedent- it's hardly the first time this has happened. The problem's pretty clear, you've got to enforce the rules otherwise there's no point having them, you can't just turn a blind eye to breaches or nobody will bother with the rules at all. And fines are no use, that basically amounts to "pay money to breach planning rules". But the question should really be "would this have been approved if they'd asked".

But the question should really be "would this have been approved if they'd asked".

The answer to which is "no". Had the building complied with planning requirements, retrospective permission would normally be given.

Yup. And at that point, there's only really 3 possible outcomes

1) the rules are broken, not the house, so sort that out or
2) remedial work to bring it within an acceptable spec or balance out impact if possible, or
3) pull it down

Yup. And at that point, there's only really 3 possible outcomes

Can the council recover these costs?

Ignoring planning permission seems to be morphing into one of those socially-acceptable "non-crimes" where people consider the law to be some kind of theoretical bureaucratic inconvenience with no basis in reality.

(see also: avoiding personal taxes and most traffic offences)

wrong thread