Latest news with #GhostHouse
The Sun
13 hours ago
- The Sun
Inside half-built and abandoned £40m mansion ‘bigger than Buckingham Palace' & owned by a convicted criminal
A £40million mansion in Sussex once said to be the most expensive private house built in Britain for a century remains unfinished – 40 years after work first started. Hamilton Palace near Uckfield, in East Sussex, is owned by notorious property tycoon Nicholas van Hoogstraten and is bigger than Buckingham Palace. 5 5 5 Van Hoogstraten was once dubbed Britain's youngest millionaire and has been locked in a dispute with neighbours of the property for decades. But, 40 years after work on the enormous £40 million mansion began in 1985, it remains no more than a huge shell and has been dubbed the "Ghost House of Sussex." After work halted in 2001, the mansion was mostly abandoned, unfinished and is surrounded by acres of countryside. It's been the subject of immense investment despite the fact that no one has ever lived in it. But despite its scale, there is little to hint at its presence. It is hidden away off of an unassuming junction on the A22 south of Uckfield and the house is completely obscured by a thick wooded area. The closest glimpse you can get on foot is of a gated entrance onto the estate that gives nothing away, aside from a bricked unit and a large, white container. But there is a definite sense of unease. It has been reported that stuck on the gate is a sign, written in capital letters. It baldly states: "High Cross Estate, Private Property, Keep Out." If that's not enough, multiple other signs reportedly warn of "shooting in progress", "dogs running free" and CCTV being in operation. I came home to find my nightmare neighbour knocking down my DOOR – he claimed it was his right to do it The only recent photographs of the property have been taken by drones and older photographs taken on site apparently when work was still ongoing. Those photos show an an eerie building, shrouded in scaffolding and overgrowing foliage, with discarded containers, construction equipment and other items littered throughout the grounds. It doesn't look like anything has happened at the site for a long time. Few have been inside, but one reporter who did, in 2000, when it was said to be two years off completion, described a grand central staircase and reception hall, with lift shafts already installed and expensive stone balustrades and pillars. Who is Nicholas van Hoogstraten? Nicholas van Hoogstraten is a convicted criminal. He is now 80 and goes by the name of Nicholas von Hessen. A Sussex native born in Shoreham, he owns dozens of properties in the area. He is said to have started making money selling stamps as a teenager before moving into property and, by the age of 22, had 350 properties in Sussex alone. In the 1980s housing boom he acquired more than 2,000 properties and had sold 90% of them by the 1990s. Over the past couple of decades, he has been involved in widely reported disputes with neighbours over Hamilton Palace. Low-level lighting had been installed on the roof, where there was to be a garden, and there was space for a fountain below. One entire floor was due to house van Hoogstraten's art collection. Today, the domed roof of the main building still rises over the top of the treeline and remains visible from a distance from the nearest set of houses in the hamlet of Palehouse Common. Locals have previously vented about the large area being left unused and there was a row over a public footpath that ran through it that van Hoogstraten did not want to be used. In answer to those complaints, he was quoted as saying "even the most moronic of peasants would be able to see… that we have been busy landscaping the grounds of the palace so as to prepare for scheduled works". And he has also denied that the house is falling apart. He added: "Hamilton Palace is far from 'crumbling' and was built to last for at least 2,000 years. "The scaffolding only remains as a part of ongoing routine maintenance such a property would require until completion." It has been reported the estate is now owned by his children through the company Messina Investments. 5 5
Time of India
11-06-2025
- Time of India
Pocso case: Proceedings against Indian Institute of Science assistant prof to continue
Bengaluru: The high court has refused to quash legal proceedings against an assistant professor at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bengaluru, who is facing trial under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act. The case stems from an incident on Sept 30, 2018, during a birthday party of the accused's daughter. It is alleged that during a 'Ghost House' game held in a dark room, the professor inappropriately touched a 10-year-old girl who was among the guests. Following a complaint from the child's father, Jalahalli police filed a chargesheet against him. The accused has denied the allegations, claiming that he merely stepped in to control the children's play. He argued that the complaint was lodged to harass him and cited several procedural flaws in the investigation. These included the similarity of witness statements, alleged irregularities in the court's cognisance of the case, the absence of a medical examination of the child, and inordinate delays in the trial process. However, the additional state public prosecutor countered that around eight children had come forward with similar accounts of inappropriate conduct by the accused, underscoring the need for a full trial. A fter reviewing the case materials, Justice M Nagaprasanna acknowledged the uniformity in the witness statements recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Yet, he held that even a single credible account is sufficient to warrant a trial under the Pocso Act. He also stated that the lack of medical examination does not invalidate the prosecution's case if other substantial evidence is available. The court underlined that Sections 7 and 8 of the Act define sexual assault as involving inappropriate touching of a child's private parts. It concluded that, if proven, the allegations against the accused would fall squarely within these legal provisions. The court added that the consistency in witness statements is an issue to be addressed during the trial, not a valid reason for dismissing the case at the pre-trial stage. Given that the matter has been pending since 2018, the high court directed the trial court to expedite the case and complete proceedings within three months.
