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 4 | Version 5 |
---|---|
Fight to save hidden castle fails | Fight to save hidden castle fails |
(about 2 hours later) | |
A farmer who built a castle hidden behind a stack of straw bales has lost a High Court bid to save it from being demolished. | |
Robert Fidler, of Salfords, Surrey, built the home - complete with turrets - without planning permission. | |
He kept it hidden until August 2006 but 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. |
When Mr Fidler removed the bales he believed the structure would no longer be subject to planning enforcement because of a legal loophole. | When Mr Fidler removed the bales he believed the structure would no longer be subject to planning enforcement because of a legal loophole. |
Immunity rule | |
But in March 2007 the borough council issued an enforcement notice, which was upheld by a Government planning inspector in May 2008. | 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 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 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 castle has ramparts and a replica cannon | |
Deputy High Court judge Sir Thayne Forbes 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 said Mr Fidler had used two grain silos to form two turrets at the corners of his house. There was also "a stain-glass lantern feature" over a central hall, or gallery. | |
The property includes a kitchen, living room, study, shower room and toilet and separate WC. | |
On the first floor, there are four bedrooms and another room still being fitted as a bathroom. | |
Appeal planned | |
On the south side of the house there is 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. | |
The judge appears to have left open the big question - when is a building substantially complete? Pritpal Singh Swarn,solicitor | |
"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." | |
He added: "From his own evidence and submissions it was always his intention to remove the bales once he thought that lawfulness had been secured." | |
After the hearing Mr Fidler's solicitor, Pritpal Singh Swarn, said an appeal was being considered. | 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. | 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? | "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." | "It is necessary for the courts to draw the line as to what constitutes a completed development." |