Council wins High Court case over castle hidden by bales of straw

A local authority in Surrey has won the latest stage of its battle with a farmer who built a castle without planning permission and kept it hidden behind walls made of bales of straw and tarpaulin for more than four years.

The defendant, Robert Fidler, took down the straw bales surrounding the house in 2006. The following year, Reigate and Banstead Borough Council issued an enforcement notice demanding he demolish the dwelling. The defendant appealed on the basis that the house had stood for four years without anyone objecting to it.

A planning inspector upheld the enforcement notice in May 2008, concluding that the removal of the straw was part of the building works and that the four-year immunity rule therefore did not apply.

Backing the inspector’s approach this week, 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 added that the inspector was “plainly right to reach the conclusion that he did”.

The farmer’s solicitor, Pritpal Singh Swarn of Wright Hassall, said Fidler would continue to fight for the right to live in his home and planned to take the case to the Court of Appeal.

He 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.”

Singh Swarn added:  “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.”

The Court of Appeal last month ruled that a developer who admitted deliberately deceiving Welwyn Hatfield Council into granting planning permission for a hay barn when all along he intended to build a home was entitled to a certificate of lawfulness for the dwelling.