'illegal' mock-Tudor castle he tried to hide behind 40ft hay bales

SilverStandard

Does everyone agree he has got away with it for good?

So thats it, it will stand to times indefinite.

Can he sell it I wonder?

tek-monkey

Reckon he can get an indemnity policy?

seven-day-weekend

He has not got away with it yet , it is still going through the legal process. Every time a new legal 'phase' starts, like him taking it to the High Court, the clock starts again and he cannot be made to demolish unless the verdict goes against him.

It's a very long and drawn out process and can take years, even if the eventual outcome, when all of the (several) avenues have been explored, have gone against the applicant.

RLH33

This was reported on the 'Planning Daily', an information resource for Planning Officers etc, today. It will be interesting to see the outcome of the court case!!

A Surrey farmer, who secretly built a 'castle' and disguised it as a stack of straw, has launched a High Court fight to save it from being demolished.
Robert Fidler’s 'castle home' which boasts ramparts and even cannon took two years to build.

Fidler moved his wife and son into the building in 2002, and for four years kept it hidden from Reigate & Banstead Borough Council planners with a barricade of straw bales and tarpaulin.

By the time he revealed it to the world in May 2006, he felt it had become immune from planning control and there was nothing the Council could do about it.

However, the Council issued an enforcement notice in March 2007 demanding its demolition.

Fildler appealed this but was again told to demolish the building by a government planning inspector in May 2008.

But now Fidler, of Honeycrock Farm on Axes Lane in Salfords, is asking High Court judge Mr Justice Forbes to quash that decision and give him another chance at securing planning consent to keep the building.

Fidler is challenging the planning inspector’s finding that the removal of the straw bale disguise constituted part of the building works. As a result, the inspector found that Mr Fidler could not rely on the four year immunity period that starts from "substantial completion".

The High Court appeal centres on the question of when exactly the castle was "complete" in the eyes of the law.

Summing the case up at the outset of the hearing, Mr Justice Forbes said: "The key point in your case is whether the inspector was right to conclude that the removal of the bales and the tarpaulin formed part of the building operation."

Opening his case, Mr Fidler's counsel, Stephen Hockman QC, said that the issue before the inspector was whether the building operations on the site had been substantially completed for more than four years before the Council issued the enforcement notice in March 2007.

He said: "The appellant's case is that the removal of the bales was not part of the building operation against which the enforcement notice was directed."

He said that it was a separate operation that did not give rise to a breach of planning control.

He argued that, in this case, the building was substantially complete more than four years earlier, in 2002, and that "no other reasonable conclusion is possible".

"Construction was complete and it was in occupation," he added. "The removal of the bales cannot even be classified as part of a building operation. The decision was wrong in law and should be quashed."

The hearing is scheduled to last two days, after which the judge is likely to reserve his decision in order to give it in writing at a later date.

RDB

RLH33 wrote: »

This was reported on the 'Planning Daily', an information resource for Planning Officers etc, today. It will be interesting to see the outcome of the court case!!

A Surrey farmer, who secretly built a 'castle' and disguised it as a stack of straw, has launched a High Court fight to save it from being demolished.
Robert Fidler’s 'castle home' which boasts ramparts and even cannon took two years to build.

Fidler moved his wife and son into the building in 2002, and for four years kept it hidden from Reigate & Banstead Borough Council planners with a barricade of straw bales and tarpaulin.

By the time he revealed it to the world in May 2006, he felt it had become immune from planning control and there was nothing the Council could do about it.

However, the Council issued an enforcement notice in March 2007 demanding its demolition.

Fildler appealed this but was again told to demolish the building by a government planning inspector in May 2008.

But now Fidler, of Honeycrock Farm on Axes Lane in Salfords, is asking High Court judge Mr Justice Forbes to quash that decision and give him another chance at securing planning consent to keep the building.

Fidler is challenging the planning inspector’s finding that the removal of the straw bale disguise constituted part of the building works. As a result, the inspector found that Mr Fidler could not rely on the four year immunity period that starts from "substantial completion".

The High Court appeal centres on the question of when exactly the castle was "complete" in the eyes of the law.

Summing the case up at the outset of the hearing, Mr Justice Forbes said: "The key point in your case is whether the inspector was right to conclude that the removal of the bales and the tarpaulin formed part of the building operation."

Opening his case, Mr Fidler's counsel, Stephen Hockman QC, said that the issue before the inspector was whether the building operations on the site had been substantially completed for more than four years before the Council issued the enforcement notice in March 2007.

He said: "The appellant's case is that the removal of the bales was not part of the building operation against which the enforcement notice was directed."

He said that it was a separate operation that did not give rise to a breach of planning control.

He argued that, in this case, the building was substantially complete more than four years earlier, in 2002, and that "no other reasonable conclusion is possible".

"Construction was complete and it was in occupation," he added. "The removal of the bales cannot even be classified as part of a building operation. The decision was wrong in law and should be quashed."

The hearing is scheduled to last two days, after which the judge is likely to reserve his decision in order to give it in writing at a later date.

The point is he always seems to get round what ever they throw at him.

May last year they thought they got him but he out smarted them as he usually does.

SilverStandard

Can anyone tell us is it still there?

Is there any chance of it being demolished?

SilverStandard

RDB wrote: »

The point is he always seems to get round what ever they throw at him.

May last year they thought they got him but he out smarted them as he usually does.

Has he outsmarted them all again? Or has it been demolished?

RDB

Already answered, yes he has outsmarted everybody.

People will always be saying the same thing they have been for the last few years "it will be demolished".

I wonder if they will still be saying it in 2020?

MrsE_2

SilverStandard wrote: »

Has he outsmarted them all again? Or has it been demolished?

I can confirm that as of Tuesday 29th December, it was still standing!

crazygaijin

and I can confirm it will be next year and the year after.