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

leveller2911

AdrianC wrote: »

They have to apply for planning permission. If they don't get it - then the building has to come down, or be modified so that it will get PP.

It's that simple.

Thats not happening with many extensions I see. In the old days you couldn't build within 1 metre of the boundary and this enabled people access to maintain the property and this is not happening now. I can take you to a number of developments where they have built new houses within 200mm or 8" of the existing property and now there are major issues with damp because there is not enough space betwen the properties.

Common sense has gone out the window.

Mojisola

leveller2911 wrote: »

All I see is the sign in page Moji......

Maybe you have to be on FB to read it?

AdrianC

Mojisola wrote: »

Maybe you have been on FB to read it?

Yep, you will.

It's a FB group, "Let Robert Fidler Keep his Castle" (sic). There are 331 members of the group.

Description:

I'm sure you all know of the man who built a castle behind a stack of hay bails? his name is Robert Fidler.

Robert Fidler built his dream home stealthily because he knew he would not get planning permission for the property from the council.

When it was finished in 2002, complete with ramparts and a cannon, the 60-year-old moved in with his wife and son and lived there clandestinely for four years.

He removed the camouflage in 2006, hoping to exploit planning legislation that states that if a property has been complete for four years then it is immune from planning enforcement.

But Reigate & Banstead Borough Council said the removal of the tarpaulin formed part of the building operation and issued an order to demolish it.

Mr Fidler appealed and a High Court battle ensued but the judge ruled the building must be destroyed.

The guy has built his Dream home on his own land, who are the courts to tell him what to do with his own property, i think he should be allowed to keep it and if you do too, join the group.

And the link went specifically to this Feb 2010 post, by a Debbie Jeffery

Castle article
This article was written with Bob and Linda's help before their hearing - it gives the true story behind the castle.

Linda and Robert Fidler laboured for two years to build their amazing mock-Tudor castle, but now the planners may force them to bulldoze their family home and walk away.
CASTLE IN THE AIR?
When Robert Fidler decided to build a farmhouse on his farm without first gaining planning permission it was out of sheer desperation and frustration. Robert had previously lived in two makeshift rooms at the back of his farm office, but when he married Linda in 1998 he knew that things would have to change.
“We applied for planning permission to convert a Victorian cowshed into a farmhouse, paid our fee and waited,” he recalls. “After almost two years of waiting, and being told by the council that our application was likely to meet with approval, we realised that in fact it had been intentionally shelved.
“We took our case to the Department of Environment, who informed us that after eight months we were too late to appeal. When we tried to re-submit the same plans they demanded another fee, it was unbelievable. We had a large beef herd, cereal crops in the fields and no house to live in.”
By this time Linda was expecting the couple’s son, Harry, and drastic action was called for. Robert did some extensive research and discovered a loophole in the planning laws.
“In fact, there is no law against building your own house on your own land, but it does carry a risk because if anyone objects the council can order its demolition,” he explains.
“At first it seemed a risk too great, until I realised that there is no law against it being concealed and that after four years it would be certified lawful – and this time it would be the council who would be too late to object. It seemed like poetic justice. It was a huge gamble, but short of leaving our farm there was no other choice – we had no home and a baby on the way, so we decided to take the risk.”
Considering the circumstances, most people would have thrown up a blockwork bungalow and crossed their fingers, but Robert’s plans were rather more ambitious and took the form of a complex mock Tudor castle, complete with castellated turrets and even a replica cannon.
“We did think about keeping it simple, but then we decided that - if we were going to take such a huge risk - we might as well build something special which we could be proud of,” explains Linda, who laboured alongside Robert throughout the two year build under extremely difficult conditions.

Once the foundations and drainage had been dug and the concrete slab was in place they made a giant stack of straw bales in the farmyard and covered it in a transparent blue tarpaulin, working inside this confined, tent-like structure to build the rest of the four bedroom house – often staying up all night and working protected in all weathers.
Unable to ask for professional help, Robert and Linda designed and built the house together – only employing a brick-layer to ensure that the shell would be completed as rapidly as possible.
“We needed to finish quickly so that we could move in and begin the four year wait, which meant rushing some stages of the build. Even so, we’ve managed to include plenty of details, such as niches and patterns in the brickwork, an authentic stone and brick inglenook fireplace, and some unusual window and door features,” says Robert, 59.
Two disused grain silos were moved across the farmyard, and act as huge galvanised steel skeletons for the imposing turrets, which have been clad externally in reclaimed brick and stone and are insulated inside and out.
One tower contain a ground floor kitchen and a first floor master bedroom, with a sitting room and guest bedroom in the other. They were finished internally with plasterboard, which was laid across two trestles and weighted with bags of cement until – after a few days – it had bent perfectly to the curve of the round rooms.
Between 2000 and 2002 the couple laboured tirelessly, devising unusual solutions to the numerous problems they encountered, which were mainly caused by the round turrets. The guttering had to be curved behind the brickwork and the plasterboard bent to a tight radius.
“Fitting a curved kitchen wasn’t as difficult as it looks,” explains Robert. “We used single units and positioned them around the wall, touching only at the front, and then made a worktop out of tiled plywood which conceals any gaps behind the cabinets.”
Linking the two turrets is a grand, double-height dining hall with a huge window behind the open solid oak staircase and minstrel gallery, which were all hand-crafted by Robert in green oak felled from the farm.
The same timber was used for exposed beams, arched internal doors and bedrooms floors, and has been distressed to give an authentic aged appearance. Internally, all the curved walls are exposed second-hand stock bricks, and the flat walls are plastered to give a pleasing contrast.
Downstairs, the couple enhanced their Indian sandstone floors by mixing the stone with old brick and terracotta tiles, which proved ideal when laid over plastic water pipes for the underfloor heating.
“We already owned a large quantity of materials, which we’d collected in readiness to convert the cowshed. We found various items in reclamation yards and adapted the design to suit. Almost everything was second-hand or home-made,” says Robert.
“Although this was our dream house, everything had to be done on an extremely tight budget for two reasons. First, there was always the fear that if anyone discovered our castle and objected then it could be demolished and secondly, even if we had decided to borrow some money, who would give a mortgage on a house that didn’t exist?”
In 2002, when their son Harry was just one year old, the Fidlers finally moved into their completed home, where they lived in secret for the next four years – dreading the knock on the door which would signal that they had been rumbled. Very few other people knew about the house, and the family lived a relatively quiet existence on the farm, accessing their home, Narnia-like, through the wall of straw bales.
They even had to keep Harry, now 7, home from pre-school when they knew that the children had been asked to make pictures of their homes – just in case he gave them away by drawing a big blue haystack.
For years the Fidlers had been living behind the farm office in rooms with no windows and now, surprisingly, looking out of the windows onto a vista of straw bales proved far more interesting than they had first anticipated. Several robins nested in the bales and a duck even hatched thirteen ducklings. There was a family of grass snakes and a hedgehog which shared the dog bowl.
“We loved our new home, but of course we were anxious,” says Linda, 38. “Although we could walk all round it, we couldn’t stand back and admire it. In fact, it was only when the bales finally came down that we could see exactly what we had built for the first time.”
Safe in the knowledge that they had passed the four year test, the Fidlers finally unveiled their home in August 2006 – gradually selling the surrounding straw bales as cattle bedding to reveal their secret castle within.
They were then devastated to be told by the council, almost eight months later, to demolish the house, and are currently embroiled in a complex legal battle to overturn the enforcement notice and save their dream home.
“We never really expected the council to accept that the law was in our favour, but after eight months we were starting to relax,” says Linda. The story has captured the imagination of the world’s press, and the couple have received hundreds of letters of support for the unusual property and requests to appear in documentaries about their project.
Planning officers at Reigate and Banstead council - who had previously visited the site following a tip-off, but were unable to locate the property - stated that the straw bales had been obstructing the new house so that nobody had been given a chance to see it and object. The council are concerned that this case would set a precedent for building new homes concealed inside barns, haystacks or aircraft hangers.
The Fidlers are currently preparing to appeal to the High Court against the planning inspectorate on a point of law. If they lose they may have just twelve months in which to vacate and demolish their home.
Robert, who is also heavily involved in charity work and building projects in Ghana, says: “We are 100% sure that the law is on our side. It is the authorities who have misinterpreted it, and we are confident that a High Court judge will point out the error. We haven’t even discussed what we would do if we have to tear down our family home.”

Q&A
WHAT WAS YOUR BEST EXPERIENCE DURING THE BUILD?
I loved everything about the build - it was such a fantastic project. I particularly enjoy working with oak, and making the staircase and front door were probably the highlights.
WERE THERE ANY LOW POINTS?
The real low point has been the anxiety of waiting to see if the house will have to be destroyed, because we put our hearts and souls into creating it. We’ve treated the whole project as an adventure and something we could enjoy building together.
WHAT WAS YOUR BEST BUY?
Everything was bought extremely cheaply or found on the farm – we used what we had. The double glazed window sashes only cost £2 each we used our own oak, which was felled for beams, flooring and the staircase. Sometimes I would go to building sites and buy up left over materials at the end of a build, and of course our labour was free.
DO YOU HAVE A FAVOURITE FEATURE?
We found a Victorian leaded dome in a reclamation yard, and bought it cheaply because it was in such poor condition. I took evening classes in stained glass to learn how to repair it, and then created a shell of clear Perspex to support and weatherproof the dome – which is three metres across in sixteen segments. We’ve used it above the gallery in the dining hall, and it casts wonderful coloured light.
DO YOU HAVE A TIP?
I’m not trying to encourage people to build without planning permission – it’s an extremely risky decision to take – but sometimes you have to stand up against authority to prevent them from stealing your dreams. My tip would be: don’t do anything you will regret, but make sure you don’t come to regret having done nothing. Whatever the final outcome we will have no regrets. We have lived a fabulous dream, and they can’t take that away.
CAPTIONS
EXTERIOR FRONT: The new farmhouse has been constructed in the farmyard on the Fidlers’ 250 acre farm. From the front, the mock Tudor house has a pitched roof and exposed oak timbers, which were felled from the farm and aged for an authentic appearance. Robert made the stunning arched entrance door from solid oak.
EXTERIOR REAR: The rear of the house reveals a totally different style of building, with castellated turrets, ramparts and even a cannon. Terraces, steps and water features have now also been created.
KITCHEN: Cabinets were curved around the wall of the kitchen, which stands within one of the turrets, with Indian sandstone flagstones laid over underfloor heating.
GREAT HALL: The galleried dining hall features hand-built solid oak stairs, lit by a double height window, and a reclaimed stained glass dome which casts coloured light from above the gallery.
SITTING ROOM: Robert built a huge, double sided inglenook fireplace between the circular sitting room and the neighbouring dining hall, and made all of the arched internal doors from solid oak.
CONSERVATORY: A single-storey sun-room leads off from the sitting room, and was constructed once the main house had been completed and the straw bales had been removed.
MASTER BEDROOM: The circular master bedroom stands within one of the turrets, with old hand-carved Indian posts to either side of the bed and a brick archway through to a walk-in wardrobe, lit by a round window.
CIRCULAR GUEST BEDROOM: An old four poster bed stands in the circular guest bedroom, which is illuminated by four tall narrow windows designed to follow the curve of the walls.

Davesnave

leveller2911 wrote: »

I agree the porcess should be much faster but if he had been allowed to get away with this we would see thousands of cases up and down the country where people go out there way to deceive the planners and get away with it and many of them would "blight others lives".

So what would you do decide on each and every case on the basis of how it blights other peoples lives.

Err....hang on a minute, where did I say that people like Mr Fidler should "get away with it"?

And where did I suggest that cases should be decided on the basis of whether it has a direct effect on others?

I said it would be better if the process of dealing with planning breaches was faster, because sometimes they blight other people's lives; people who never wanted to be embroiled in a dispute.

I think what I wrote was clear enough, so I'll leave it there.

Edit: Now I've caught up, I'd add that I agree with your posts about dodgy building practices going through planning, like extensions which prevent further maintenance of existing walls.

AdrianC

leveller2911 wrote: »

Thats not happening with many extensions I see. In the old days you couldn't build within 1 metre of the boundary and this enabled people access to maintain the property and this is not happening now. I can take you to a number of developments where they have built new houses within 200mm or 8" of the existing property and now there are major issues with damp because there is not enough space betwen the properties.

Sorry, I think you might have changed tack here.

Are you suggesting that every property built 200-1000mm from a boundary has no planning permission to be built that close? Because, if they do have, then it's not really relevant to this discussion whether the rules have changed or not.

FWIW, our old house was built right to the boundaries. The original house was 1890s and abutted the SE boundary, the extension was 1970s .and abutted the SW and (partially) the NW boundaries.

leveller2911

AdrianC wrote: »

Sorry, I think you might have changed tack here.

Are you suggesting that every property built 200-1000mm from a boundary has no planning permission to be built that close? Because, if they do have, then it's not really relevant to this discussion whether the rules have changed or not.

I was posting to your reply (#867) to another poster when you mention the lack of housing being built but this shouldn't mean that its fine for people to build right up to the boundary without any thought for maintaining their property in the future or contributing to damp issues on their neighbours properties because they built too close.

The Councils have eased the rules and its causing problems.I may have read it wrongy but you seem to be saying that its fine to ease the rules with regards to building because we need more houses. I don't think that excuses poor decisions on what is allowed to be built and where.

I'm not saying they haven't got PP I'm saying the rules have been eased to the extent that its causing problems for many people. If you can no longer get down the side of a house to maintain it then there will be problems in the future , particularly damp issues. How can anyone replace broken gutters if you can no longer get to them?.

As I mentioned I've been in the building industry for 30 years and I see fat more problems now caused by building right up to the boundary than I did previously.

abankerbutnotafatcat

Reigate and Banstead Borough Council has just said on BBC Surrey that if it isn't gone by next June they'll send the bulldozers in. First time I've heard this sort of direct comment from them in the case.

Patr100

According to the BBC he said in court it couldn't be demolished because it was also housing "endangered species" such as bats and newts. What a chancer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-34768403

Davesnave

Patr100 wrote: »

According to the BBC he said in court it couldn't be demolished because it was also housing "endangered species" such as bats and newts. What a chancer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-34768403

It will just add to his already substantial costs if there really are protected species. I can't see any respected environmental group jumping into bed with him.

He'll be evicted first. After he's out, the council will evaluate the wildlife aspect. They'll have security on the place and it will end up costing a great deal, all recoverable from seizing other parts of the farm.

sabretoothtigger

After listening to the case, the judge said Mr Fidler was an 'intelligent and determined' man, but said that intelligence and determination had led him to his 'intentional defiance' of the orders of the court.

He was satisfied that there had been 11 intentional breaches which deserved a prison sentence of three months.

But bearing in mind the objective was to get the property demolished for breaking planning laws, he said he would suspend the sentence until June next year to give him time.

He made it clear that if the property was still standing in seven months' time, he would not only jail Mr Fidler for three months but also consider a further sentence for his further contempt.

He also ordered the farmer to pay the council's legal costs, estimated in the region of £50,000.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3310462/Farmer-hid-illegally-built-castle-haystack-claims-t-demolished-s-home-protected-bats-newts.html


Every good gambler knows when to cash in the chips and head home. 13 years of home living in exchange for 50k costs in cash and whatever he spent to build. Its not cheap but Im sure people have wasted larger amounts on renting their idea of a perfect living space.

I think he just needs an exit plan, Im always watching those crazy USA tv series on five where they move an entire house on the back of a truck (but maybe not brick ones )

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3232687/Mean-spirited-council-bosses-say-Wendy-house-pulled-parents-built-toddlers-didn-t-planning-permission.html#comments