Help Line: 01737 276000

• Skip menu
• Accessibility
• Contact us
• Site map
• Site A-Z
• Site help

Home

News

• News centre
• Ways to pay
• Get help & advice
• Helpshop Online

You are here: Home > News > Planning Inspector dismisses 'Castle in the Hay Stack' appeals

Planning Inspector dismisses 'Castle in the Hay Stack' appeals

In a decision notice dated 7 May 2008, the Planning Inspectorate has dismissed the appeal brought by Mr Fidler against an enforcement notice served by Reigate & Banstead Borough Council for the erection of a house without planning permission in Salfords. Mr Fidler has 12 months to comply with the enforcement notice which requires the demolition of the house and the removal of all the resultant materials.

Appeals against the enforcement notices requiring a conservatory extension and patio to be removed were also dismissed.  These will also have to be removed within 12 months.

Other unauthorised development at the site, including a race track, marquee and decking in connection with unlawful recreational uses will also be removed as appeals against five other enforcement notices were also dismissed.

Cllr Lynne Hack, Leader of Reigate & Banstead Borough Council, said: "We’re pleased that deception has not been rewarded and that our green belt has been protected.
"Clearly it is unfortunate that Mr Fidler will have to tear-down the property he built, but he already had a home on the site, and planning law doesn’t distinguish between one man building a house and developers building 200 houses and everyone has to abide by the same rules. We have to protect our green belt land from development.
"We will be urging the government to look again at planning law as it should be made clear that the four-year rule should not be invoked if blatant deception has occurred."

Mr Fidler has the right of appeal to the High Court against the Planning Inspectorate's decision on a point of law.

Two of Mr Fidler’s 12 appeals were successful.  The conversion of a large barn to industrial units was allowed and a limited range of uses in the building and in a small area associated with it.  The extent and range of uses were less than Mr Fidler had sought.

Background information

A Public Inquiry was held in February and March 2008 at the Town Hall, Reigate, to determine:

• Appeals against eight enforcement notices issued by the Council in 2007
• Appeals against two enforcement notices remitted by the Court of Appeal in 2002 to the Secretary of State to redetermine
• An appeal against non-determination of an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness made in 2007 for land used as amenity land and for recreational use
• An appeal against refusal of planning permission for alteration and conversion of a unit on the site into a house, refused in 2007.

The eight enforcement notices issued by the Council in February 2007 were for:

1. The erection of a dwelling house built on the site without planning permission

2. The formation patio hardstanding to the north of the unauthorised new house

3. The erection of a conservatory extension to the unauthorised new house

4. The erection of a marquee structure (not associated with the new house)

5. The formation of a chalk hardstanding area (not associated with the new house)

6. The construction of a timber decking area beside a lake

7. The construction of a timber bridge and decking area beside a race track

8. The formation of a tarmac surfaced race track.

All eight enforcement notices were upheld by the Planning Inspector.

The Council was first aware of the house when the haystack which had surrounded it came down, at which point we started enforcement investigations.  On 15 August 2006 we served a planning contravention notice to get further information about the development.  Our enforcement investigations continued and on 16 February 2007 we served the enforcement notices.

The enforcement notices were issued because the developments are unauthorised.  The site is located in the Green Belt, and the developments constitute inappropriate development, which is harmful to the openness of the Green Belt.

The enforcement notices require Mr Fidler to demolish the house, conservatory, marquee structure and timber bridge; remove the patio, timber decking, chalk hardstanding and tarmac race track; remove the resulting materials; and reinstate the land to its former condition as agricultural land.

Appeals against two enforcement notices remitted by the Court of Appeal to the Secretary of State to redetermine:

Appeals against three enforcement notices issued by the Council were the subject of a Public Inquiry, and were dismissed by the Planning Inspector in December 2002. 

Mr Fidler challenged the Inspector's decision at the High Court who ordered the appeal be allowed in October 2003 and remitted the appeal to the Secretary of State for reconsideration.

Mr Fidler appealed this decision at the Court of Appeal, which was heard in October 2004, and the Court of Appeal's decision was to dismiss the appeal and remit it back to the Secretary of State for reconsideration. 

Two of the three enforcement notices are the subject of this appeal.

The enforcement notices relating to these two appeals were issued by the Council in March 2001 and February 2002 respectively for:

1. The addition of block work and cladding to, and the re-roofing of, a former open sided agricultural barn resulting in the formation of a new building without permission.
2. Change of use from agricultural use to a mixed use class for B1 (light industrial), B2 (general industrial) and B8 (storage) uses, agriculture, hay and straw dealing, haulage depot and building and demolition contractor’s depot without permission.

These appeals were successful.  The conversion of a large barn to industrial units was allowed and a limited range of uses in the building and in a small area associated with it.  The extent and range of uses were less than Mr Fidler had sought.

Appeal re non-determination of application for a Certificate of Lawfulness:
The application for a Certificate of Lawfulness was made by Mr Fidler on 10 April 2007 for garden, recreation and leisure use of land and lake. Mr Fidler is appealing the non-determination of this application by the Council within the target timescale.

(A Certificate of Lawfulness can be applied for when a development/use had been in place for at least four or in the case of a use of land, ten years without planning permission).

This appeal was dismissed.

Appeal against refusal of planning permission for alteration and conversion of a unit into a house:
Mr Fidler is appealing the Council's refusal of planning permission, in March 2007, which relates to an application to retain the conversion and alteration of a unit on the site into a dwelling.   This is a separate dwelling to the one covered by the February 2007 enforcement notice.

This appeal was dismissed.
 
To view the full decision by the Planning Inspector see Appeals Decisions Honeycrock Farm (Planning Portal, opens in new window).