This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/surrey/8495412.stm
The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Fight to save hidden castle fails | Fight to save hidden castle fails |
| (30 minutes later) | |
| 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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 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. | |
| The erection/removal of the straw bales... were intended to deceive the local planning authority. Sir Thayne Forbes Deputy High Court judge | |
| 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." |