Farmer loses court fight to save hidden castle

A farmer who secretly built a castle and lived in it for four years while it was concealed behind bales of straw today lost a High Court bid to save it from being demolished.

A judge ruled Robert Fidler, 60, who took two years to covertly built his dream home with ramparts and cannon, was not entitled to benefit from his deception of the local planning authority.

Mr Fidler, of Honeycrock Farm on Axes Lane in Salfords, Redhill, Surrey, had been hoping for another chance at securing planning consent to keep the castle.

He and his wife Linda, 40, and their son Harry, eight, moved into the castle when it was complete in 2002, and for four years kept it hidden from the local planning authority, Reigate & Banstead Borough Council, behind walls made of straw bales and tarpaulin.

Mr Fidler eventually took away the bales in May 2006, thinking by then his new home had become immune from planning enforcement controls as it was four years since the building works had been completed.

But the council issued an enforcement notice in March 2007 requiring that it be demolished on the grounds that the building had been erected without planning permission.

A Government planning inspector in May 2008 rejected Mr Fidler's appeal, saying the removal of the straw bale camouflage constituted part of the building works.

The inspector stated the farmer could not rely on the four-year immunity period and must demolish the building.

The issue before the High Court was whether the removal of the hay bales and tarpaulin was, in the eyes of the law, part of the on-going 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".

Ruling that it did, 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."

The judge ruled the inspector's approach to the case "cannot be faulted" and he was "plainly right to reach the conclusion that he did".

Later Mr Fidler's solicitor, Pritpal Singh Swarn, said an appeal was being considered as the case raised important issues of planning law.

Mr Swarn 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."

In today's ruling, the judge described how Mr Fidler used two redundant grain silos to form two castellated features at the north-eastern and north-western corners of his new home.

There was "a stain-glass lantern feature" over a central hall, or gallery.

The ground floor comprised kitchen, living room, study, shower room and toilet and separate WC. On the first floor were four bedrooms and another room still being fitted as a bathroom.

To the south of the house was a gravelled forecourt, and to the north and north-western corner a new patio and conservatory.

The judge said: "Mr Fidler made it quite clear that the construction of his house was undertaken in a clandestine fashion, using a shield of straw bales around it and tarpaulins or plastic sheeting over the top in order to hide its presence during construction.

"He stated that he knew he had to deceive the council of its existence until a period of four years from substantial completion and occupation had occurred as they would not grant planning permission for its construction.

"I accept that the act of concealment does not in itself provide a legitimate basis for the council to succeed, as hiding something does not take away lawful rights that may accrue due to the passage of time."

But the "ultimate intention" behind erecting the walls of straw round the brick and stone structure was material.

"From his own evidence and submissions it was always his intention to remove the bales once he thought that lawfulness had been secured."

The planning inspector was fully justified in concluding "that the erection and removal of the straw bales formed part of the totality of the building operations" and the four-year rule did not apply, said the judge.

Later Mr Swarn, a solicitor with Leamington Spa-based legal firm Wright Hassall, issued a full statement attacking the planning authority for pursuing the case.

Mr Swarn said: "Mr Fidler and his family have lived in their home for over five years.

"Planning legislation states that if someone has substantially completed a property for more than four years, then they are immune from having the property knocked down.

"This case hinges on whether or not the removal of the bales of hay - which were already in position before construction had started - were necessary for the house to be completed.

"The council's argument is that the removal of the bales of hay was a key part of the construction. We can't understand how that could be.

"Any building professional would tell you that the removal of a haystack could play no part in any construction process, let alone the erection of a dwelling.

"Reigate and Banstead Borough Council has been determined to pursue this case despite the fact that not a single person has raised an objection to the property.

"It has been pursued at the expense of the taxpayer, which we find deeply regrettable, but Mr Fidler will continue to fight for the right to live in his home."