The facts in the recent case of Fidler v. Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government are interesting.  Mr Fidler built a new house on his farm.  He knew that he would not get planning permission, so he hid the works with straw bales and plastic sheeting. 

The building was completed in 2002.  Mr Fidler kept the straw bales at a distance of 3m. from the house, and continued to keep the house completely hidden from view.  He and his family moved in (with an outlook of straw bales).  Just over 4 years later, he removed the bales and when the local authority served an enforcement notice in respect of the breach of planning control he maintained that the notice was invalid as it was served more than 4 years after his building operations were substantially completed.

Nice try, said the Inspector who heard his appeal, but it won’t work.  In this case, he said, ‘building operations’ included the removal of the straw bales.  “It was never”, said the Inspector, “Mr Fidler’s intention to build a house which remained encased within walls of straw covered in sheeting.  It was always his intention to remove the straw walls thus revealing his edifice once he thought that sufficient time had passed for the lawfulness of the construction to be secured”.  Accordingly, the removal of the bales and the sheeting formed an intrinsic part of his overall building operations, so that the building operations were not substantially completed until the bales were removed.  The High Court judge agreed with the Inspector and dismissed Mr Fidler’s appeal.
Mr Fidler’s solicitors were Wright Hassall.

The moral of the story is that if you try and fiddle the planning laws, you end up with a right hassle – and a large bill.