The story of Fiddler’s Castle on Honeycrock Farm in Salfords England has been going on for years now. We first highlighted the story back in July 2008 and that post continues to be one of the highest traffic drivers to the urbanneighbourhood.com. Yesterday the Homes From Hell episode that featured the story of Fidler’s Castle must have been shown again because there was a spike of almost 1000 people who visited for that very reason. Because of all the interest we decided to do some more research and see if we could find any news.
On November 19th 2009 Mr Fidler went before the British High Court in a bid to convince High Court Judge Sir Thane Forbes to overturn the decision of the government planning inspector who ruled that the structure had to be torn down in May of 2008.
The key aspect of the case revolves around a decision as to when the construction of the house was “substantially completed”. Mr Fidler and his counsel argue that the home was finished in 2002 when Mr Fidler and his family moved into the building and no further modifications were made to the structure for the next four years.
Planning law in the Reigate & Banstead Borough states that if a property is “substantially completed” for four years, it is legally allowed to exist.
In 2006 four years after construction of the house itself was completed Mr Fidler removed the barricade of straw bales and tarpaulin, believing that since the building had been completed for four years it should be granted planning permission.
Image by Flickr User Pilgrimbridgeclub
The government planning inspector argued otherwise finding that “the removal of the straw bale disguise constituted part of the building works” and as a result the inspector found that Mr Fidler could not rely on the four year immunity period which starts from “substantial completion,” and the Reigate & Banstead Borough Council issued a demolition notice.
Mr Fidler’s appeal, launched on the 19th of November centres on the question of when exactly the castle was “complete.” The town argues that the removal of the hay bales was a substantial part of construction, the lawyers for the Fidler family argues that it was not. “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.” The Fidler’s argue that the removal of the straw bales was a separate operation and as such doesn’t breach planning control. Consul argued that the building was “substantially complete” more then four years earlier in 2002 when the family moved into the home and that “no other reasonable conclusion is possible… construction was complete and it was in occupation… 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”.
Image by Flickr User Pilgrimbridgeclub
High Court Justice Thane Forbes Stated “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.”
At the end of the two days of arguments before the High Court Justice Forbes reserved judgment and is expected to give his decision in writing soon.
Of course even that may not be the end of it, Robert Fidler has already stated “We are determined to take this all the way to the top. We are quite sure that ultimately we will win”.
Image by Flickr User Pilgrimbridgeclub
In the not so distant future, it is predicted that as much as 80% of the world's population will live in urban areas and, by 2050, the population of the world will increase by as many as 3 billion people. Three billion people require a fair bit of food and current farming practices are unlikely to be able to provide the needed supply. Dr Dickson Despommier suggests Vertical Farms.
February 8th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
The whole thing seems so silly. I heard about it on the BBC ‘News Quiz’ and had to check it out for myself.
Why didn’t Fidler work through normal bureaucratic channels in the first place? As an architect, I would say that he irrationally made the decision to take on a HUGE risk carrying potentially disastrous consequences.
He is obviously a victim of his own pride and arrogance and consequently acted like a complete knob stone. However, his ensuing legal costs should be penalty enough.
IF the property is fully on his own land and presents no threat to human health or safety, the city is wasting valuable time and $$$ by pursuing this case. Instead, they should simply put their egos aside, amend their planning ordinance to close the loop hole and MOVE ON.
Sorted.
February 8th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
To clarify:
Fidler pays ALL legal costs and keeps his house.
April 18th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Why can’t they just leave the man alone. He built a house for his family. That is no sin.
May 22nd, 2010 at 5:17 pm
With all the homelessness and economic chaos in this world the home inspector should be removed from his position if he is serious about this as it appears. Himself and the fools that are wasting badly needed funds listening to him. Absolutely ridiculous-and the English are supposed to be civilized!