Morning:
6°c
A farmer who secretly built a castle and lived in it for four years while it was hidden behind bales of straw was ordered to demolish it by a High Court judge today.
Robert Fidler hid the mock Tudor house behind hay bales stacked 40ft high while it was being built in an attempt to avoid having to apply for planning permission.
The dream home — complete with ramparts and cannons — was constructed on the site of two grain silos at a cost of £50,000 at Honeycrock Farm in Salfords, Surrey.
Aware that he did not have, and was unlikely to get, planning approval, it was concealed behind hundreds of 8ft by 4ft bales of straw and the top covered with a blue tarpaulin.
Mr Fidler, 60, and his wife Linda, 40, even kept their son Harry away from playschool on the day he was due to paint a picture of his home in class in case he drew a big blue haystack and teachers started asking questions.
Then in August 2006 Mr Fidler ripped down the disguise and the castle was revealed in all its glory. He applied for a certificate of lawfulness on grounds that it must now be lawful having stood for four years without any objections.
But Reigate and Banstead Council decided that the four-year rule was void because nobody had been given a chance to see the castle. In March 2007 planners issued an enforcement order demanding the castle be demolished.
Today Deputy High Court judge Sir Thayne Forbes backed the council in ruling that Mr Fidler was not entitled to benefit from his attempt to deceive the local authority.
“The inspector's findings were clearly ones he was entitled to reach on the evidence,” said the judge.
“It fully justified his conclusions that the erection and removal of the bales formed part of the totality of the building operations that Mr Fidler originally contemplated and intended to carry out.
“The inspector was plainly right to reach the conclusion that he did.”
Mr Fidler was not in court for the judgement. In the past he has condemned the council, saying: “I can't believe they want to demolish this beautiful house. To me they are no different than vandals who just want to smash it down.”
Reader views (25)
This is green belt land. Regardless of what he built, he built it secretly and deliberately on green belt land. People like this only think of themselves. He built the house because he wanted to. We cannot allow things like this to happen or there would be no boundaries. Why should everyone else have to wait for approval to build an extension when this man thought he was above getting approval for an entire house? I admire the spirit of those who say it should be left up, and good for him. But, that really isn't the point. There are laws for a reason; he wasn't ignorant of these laws. He tried his best to get round them. I have no sympathy for the gentleman in question. He thought he was above the law and that just cannot be the case!
- Kate Mc, Essex, England, 28/06/2010 18:46
Report abuse
I do believe that the planning laws in this country are too often abused by local authorities. In this case for instance, had the house been erected in the 18th Century the owner would probably be prosecuted for demolishing it because it would have merited Grade II listed building status. Mr Fidler owns the farm, he is not annoying his neighbours other than making them envious that he circumvented the planning laws, I believe the building is well constructed and should be judged on its merits, not the technicalities of precise legality. Good luck Mr Fidler you deserve to enjoy the fruits of your labours.
- Ian, Chester UK, 06/02/2010 13:39
Report abuse
Looks like a beautiful home. It seems a fine would be more in order than a demoliion of the property. If safety is a concern then make him pay the appropriate fees to have that done as well as any possible code upgrades that he might need. It's all about money anyway, isn't it? It usually is in the long haul. Looks like such a beautiful piece of construction. I'm not condoning his going around the law, but let's be realistic.
- S. Casey, Austin, Texas, USA, 05/02/2010 03:35
Report abuse
As a former planning officer it was my experience that members of the public thought that if they wanted to build a house extension it ought not to be necessary to get planning approval whereas if their neighbour wanted to build a house extension it should be necessary to get planning approval and permission should not be granted!
- James, London England, 04/02/2010 12:31
Report abuse
Anyone able to come up with a convincing argument about why the planning authorities should be allowed to stick their oar in over something like this?
No, me neither.
- Jim, London, UK, 04/02/2010 10:44
Report abuse
There is also the issue of Building Regulations consent, which this house will not have, either.
What is it standing on? Is the external structure sound? What about drainage? Fire safety? Upper level structurally sound?
So yes, lets let everone do what they want, shall we. You then may, one day, be able to buy a house like that. Great eh. Probably be uninsurable, no guarantee of quality, but hey, it's the clipboard hugging, penpushers that are in the wrong.
- Escobar A-Lop-Lop, Camden County, 04/02/2010 09:14
Report abuse
This is not about the style, appearance or quality of the building. It looks as though he has done a fantastic job. This is about someone that deliberately set out to go around planning laws to avoid gaining planning consent.
This, also, is not about planners "imposing" anything. They didn't get a chance to. This is simply the law being applied and a judge making a decision.
Either he knew consent wouldn't be forthcoming, or he just didn't want to bother with the time and expense of seeking planning consent (which, in the scope of this project would have been tiny). Whichever, he deliberately set out to deceive...if he wasn't, the straw bails, tarpauling and keeping child away from school wouldn't have been necessary.
It's people like Robert Fidler that makes the lives of people like me that much harder, because planners take a stronger line after cases like these. Perhaps if he'd done the right thing he'd have got consent, and wouldn't have needed to live, with his family, in darkness for four years. We'll never know now.
Yes Alan, Courchevel, French planning laws are more relaxed, but surely you must have noticed how the countryside is now becoming littered with the same, pastel coloured, prefabed, bungalow boxes?
- Escobar A-Lop-Lop, Camden County, 04/02/2010 08:32
Report abuse
Shame its a great looking property that blends in well in its location. Its been there 8 years, seems such a waste to make them demolish it now!
- Peter, London, 03/02/2010 22:49
Report abuse
Looks great. Should have been on the Grand Designs program. Looks better than a lot of the "approved" examples I have seen on that show.
Best idea would be to leave it alone as is and impose a hefty fine for the wrongdoing.
Common sense should prevail.
Man the castle and repel the beaurocrats.
- Rt, Perth Australia, 03/02/2010 22:47
Report abuse
This judge, Sir Thayne Forbes, is a petty and tasteless fool, and with him, the council authority of Reigate and Banstead are criminal bureaucrats in their aim to destroy such a delicious and lovely piece of architecture.
A fine would be a more mature, reasonable and intelligent reaction to the non seeking authorisation, but in their pursuit of destruction, they are showing sheer arrogance and vandalism...
Shame on the way the Courts operate in that Council, and the stupid bureaucrats who seem to be more led by jealousy than a just following of the law...
- Nabil H, London, UK, 03/02/2010 19:06
Report abuse
If planning permissions are not enforced properly and fully anything can happen. This man is hoping delay has worked for him but as above he should put in for change of use and job done and no threat of demolition.
- Edwin Underhill, beaconsfield, bucks, 03/02/2010 18:08
Report abuse
knock it down, level the site and then flog it to the worst lot of travellers he can find.
That will really give these jobsworth at the council something to waste more council tax on.
- Kedge, marlboro wilts, 03/02/2010 17:37
Report abuse
It amazes me you have people like Tony. We all don't know the full story, but one thing is for sure, this simply exposes a lot of problems we have. I hope he does fight it, and wins, and the council better pay for it with their own bloody expenses and pay! *as he said, none of the residents had complained* and it was on his own land... the laws need sorted!
- J. Gibson, UK, 03/02/2010 17:00
Report abuse
No doubt some penpusher clipboard boring semi-maisonette dweller in the council wants it knocked down!
It is a beautiful structure and it is doing nobody any harm.
Some of the spiteful comments here are probably from jealous council house tenant occupiers who have never got in life!
I hope the farmer wins his appeal - good luck to him.
- James From Camden, London, 03/02/2010 16:29
Report abuse
"I wish I could be there to have a good laugh when it's demolished. I hope he is finacially ruined by this scam."
- Tony, Durham
You should get out more Tony, you really should.
- Steve, Brentford, 03/02/2010 16:27
Report abuse
Oh knock it down! It's mock Tudor for a start. So Miami Beach, tackeeeeeeeeeeee.
- Miles, London, 03/02/2010 16:06
Report abuse
I have no sympathy what so ever with this scheming conman. He set out on day one with a plan to flaunt green belt laws for his own greedy gain. he would NEVER have got planning permission for this ridiculous folly and he knew it. I wish I could be there to have a good laugh when it's demolished. I hope he is finacially ruined by this scam.
- Tony, Durham, 03/02/2010 15:58
Report abuse
S'pose they can't allow the precedent, or every 'developer' would sponsor a dozen or two, and Profit... But let's hope they find an excuse for one-off delay. Otherwise, it's Max Clifford and a battery of cameras, to broadcast the demolition worldwide.
- Steve, London, England, 03/02/2010 15:40
Report abuse
Had he build a multi-storey sink estate would he have been ordered to demolish that? I don't think so.
- R.F.York, Yorks, UK, 03/02/2010 14:47
Report abuse
He should have turned up over the easter holiday, laid down half an acre of hardcore, parked 30 caravans demanded utilities then applied for change of use. Job done!!
- Steve, Brentford, 03/02/2010 14:39
Report abuse
It's a technicality and a great shame. Local councils are notoriously short sighted and arrogant, especially parochial ones. No one could possibly object to the property. Maybe they could allow another 4 years and see what reaction the beautiful house gets.
- Ben Farrell, London, 03/02/2010 14:35
Report abuse
It's a beautiful house. Yah Boo to the council. If Esther Rantzen's "That's Life" was still around, someone would be qualifying for a Jobsworth award roundabout now ........
- Marianne, SW France/London, 03/02/2010 14:27
Report abuse
Looks like a great addition to the countryside. Somebody tell these moronic beaurocrats to go back to their council houses and get a life. Leave the guy alone. In France we let people do what they want. In England you seem to surrounded with too many people telling you what you can & can't do
- Alan, Courchevel France, 03/02/2010 14:13
Report abuse
The planning laws are wrong. Planners too often impose "identkit" boxes that all look the same. This house is diffrent and the problem with that is ???? Also people should be far able to build what they want with much greater ease - also according to the Gov we hav to build umpteen thousand more homes.
- Very Angry At Mp'S Expenses, Home Counties, 03/02/2010 14:04
Report abuse
I think this house looks great. It's got character. If two grain silos were there before, it isn't going to make the place look any worse. How many famous buildings from the past would have been built had there been the need for planning permission then? I bet if Mr Fidler was a 'traveller', he'd have no problem.
- Tim, Shanghai, China, 03/02/2010 13:25
Report abuse
