Fidler v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Reigate and Banstead Borough Council [2010] EWHC 143 (Admin)
Fidler concealed house is the famous High Court case about a dwelling built at Honeycrock Farm behind a tall screen of straw bales and tarpaulin.
The central question was when the unauthorised building operations had been substantially completed for the enforcement time limit then in force.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2010] EWHC 143 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court
- Judgment date
- 3rd February 2010
- Judge
- Sir Thayne Forbes, sitting as a Judge of the High Court
- Case number
- CO/5153/2008
What the Fidler concealed house case decided
Mr Fidler constructed a dwelling behind straw-bale walls covered by sheeting so that the house could not be seen. The Inspector accepted that the house itself had been built and occupied more than four years before the enforcement notice was served.
However, Mr Fidler had always intended to remove the straw enclosure once he believed the house had acquired immunity. The Inspector therefore treated erection and removal of the bales as part of the totality of the operations he had originally contemplated.
The High Court held that this approach was lawful. Substantial completion did not occur until the bales were removed in July 2006, so the February 2007 enforcement notice was in time under the law then applicable.
Sage requires a holistic view of the intended operations
The judgment applied Sage v Secretary of State [2003] UKHL 22. The question is not simply whether the visible structure has reached a particular physical stage. The decision-maker may look at the totality of the operations originally contemplated and intended.
The straw bales were not themselves part of the structure of the house and, considered on their own, were not ordinary building works. That did not prevent them forming part of the overall building operation as a matter of fact and degree.
An ancillary activity can form part of building operations
The court rejected the argument that every individual activity must itself fall within the statutory description of building operations before it can form part of the overall operation.
Ancillary activities can be sufficiently closely connected to the development to form part of the totality. On the facts here, the concealment was integral to the way the dwelling was intended to be constructed and revealed.
This case concerned the former four-year enforcement rule
The statutory time limit considered in Fidler was the former four-year rule for operational development. The current enforcement regime in England has since changed, so do not use the historic period in this judgment as a current deadline.
See our guide to planning enforcement time limits for the current position.
Concealment later became important for a second reason
This 2010 judgment decided the case on substantial completion. The following year, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Welwyn Hatfield, the Court of Appeal dealt directly with the deliberate deception point in Fidler [2011] EWCA Civ 1159.
Planning law also now contains a statutory route dealing with deliberate concealment. See our guide to a planning enforcement order and concealment.
Read the full Fidler 2010 judgment
The full High Court judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Fidler Concealed House Case Law Page Updated: 9th September 2026