Robert Fidler Fights over Controversial Castle

A wall of hay bales hid a newly-built "castle" in England for over 4 years. A farmer named Robert Fidler built a wall of hay then spent two years building the castle without permits or planning permission. He moved his family into the castle when it was completed, where they lived for four years before tearing down the walls of hay.

A structure built without permits or planning permission, such as in Fidler's castle, is called an unauthorized structure, and the law dictates that an unauthorized structure be torn down. But Fidler argues that the law further dictates that once an unauthorized structure has been in use for four years, it becomes "legal" and is no longer unauthorized. (Source: Telegraph.co.uk)

In England, it is particularly difficult to get permission for new construction. It is a place where there a lot of very old, historic structures known as 'listed buildings'. "A Listed Building is one included in a statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest compiled by the Secretary of State in England." (Source: Chichester District Council - Conservation Glossary) Obviously, listed buildings can not be torn down. And England is a very small country, with regard to land mass, which means any new construction make a huge impact. Therefore developers and enviro-activists are continually at odds.

In this case, Fidler had tried numerous times to get planning permission and permits to build his castle. But it was new construction in the green belt in Surrey, which is fiercely protected by the CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England). His applications were denied.

"The site is located on the Green Belt and the developments constitute inappropriate development, which is harmful to the openness of the Green Belt," said a spokeswoman with the Reigate and Banstead Borough Council. (Source: Telegraph.co.uk)

So since he couldn't get permission, he presumably just researched the laws, found a loophole, and built a wall of hay and the castle he wanted. Now that the structure has been used for the four years dictated by the statute, he thinks his structure should be considered legal and that should be the end of it. More specifically, he is seeking a "Certificate of Lawfulness."

How likely is he to receive a Certificate of Lawfulness, thereby making his structure legal and rewarding him for his trickery and deceit? Well, according to the official word from Bournemouth Online, it is quite likely. It states, "The decision on such applications (unlike that for planning applications) is taken purely on this factual information, without any regard to 'suitability' considerations or reference to local planning policies." (Source: Bournemouth Online)

Given that, and the small amount of proof that it is on the owner of the structure to provide ("...significant supporting documentary evidence, together with the application form, plans and fee. The legal test of the evidence is 'the balance of probability' rather than the more onerous test of "beyond reasonable doubt" Source: Bournemouth Online) there is little reason to believe this Certificate of Lawfulness will be turned down.

So all he really has to do is somehow document proof that he and his family lived there for four years (not hard to do) and apply for the certificate, supplying a fee for the application and plans for the structure. How long it takes for a decision to be reached once this is done is unclear.

So to sum-up, based strictly on the wording of the law, I believe he will prevail. That is, unless someone in the CPRE, planning commission, or other law enforcers somehow pull something as tricky as he did. I find this unfortunate, because what he did is not right and should not be rewarded. He basically "legalized" his law-breaking with a smokescreen (or in this case, a wall of hay) and really tasteless behavior. (One also wonders what kind of message this sends to his young son, who has lived in the obscured castle since age 1.)

I really can't imagine the selfishness that makes one think he deserves to build a huge castle and make a huge environmental impact on a protected greenbelt just because he decides he wants to. I guess if he gets away with it, it proves that just because something can be termed as "legal," it doesn't necessarily make it moral or ethical.

I think if he does win his case, and his castle is deemed a legal structure, it shouldn't stop there. I believe he should also have to pay a huge environmental impact fee (so big that it hurts), and face a strategic re-zone that would make his property subject to public access. Thus keeping it a part of the green belt and allowing the public to trounce on it and recreate as they see fit. Why not turn his back yard into a wildlife sanctuary, open to the public?

Oh, and I hope they don't forget to amend the statutes while they're at it, so this can't happen again!

SOURCES:
Telegraph.co.uk
Chichester District Council - Conservation Glossary
Campaign to Protect Rural England
Bournemouth Online