Couple ordered to demolish dream home
A UK couple have been ordered to demolish their £1 million ($A2 million) dream home after they were found to have made a 'flagrant breach' of the rules.
Jeremy and Elaine Zielinski were given permission to build a stallion semen collection centre and laboratory.
The two-storey building was set to have a reception, office, kitchenette, 'analysis and lecture' lab, processing laboratory and staff changing room on the ground floor, The Sun reports.
While the first floor would be a staff living space with two bedrooms, each with an ensuite bathroom, and a combined living/kitchen space.
But instead the pair turned the property into a three-bedroom home overlooking the countryside in Great Abingdon, Cambridgeshire.
The council got wind of the unauthorised house and ordered the duo to knock it down.
The Zielinskis appealed the order, arguing it was excessive and the property could simply revert to the permitted use.
But a planning inspector has thrown out their appeal, saying the couple 'constructed a dwelling from the off'.
The pair were criticised for their 'clear and flagrant breach of planning policy'.
Despite the judgement, Mrs Zielinski, 79, told the Daily Mail she and her husband didn't know they were breaking the law.
'We want to carry on living here. It's a warm and comfortable home. I love it,' the GP's receptionist said.
'It doesn't make sense to tear it down. I don't want to go and live in a caravan. If we are chucked out, we will be having to rely on the state.
'We would not have gone on and built this and put all our money into it unless we thought it was totally legal to do it.'
Her husband, 73, added: 'I have not had a decent night's sleep in years and, from the moment when we got the first visit in 2020 [from council officials], life has been shaky …
'We have lost £1 million ($A2 million) overnight as a result of this decision. If we could have a semen clinic on the site it would be worth at least £1 million.'
The couple bought a house with an outbuilding set on 17 acres of land for £100,000 in 1986.
Planning permission was granted in 2014 by Greater Cambridge Shared Planning to build a replacement stable block and a specialist 'stallion semen' horse laboratory, with a small upstairs flat linked to the lab use.
The plans were approved on the basis that it would be for a countryside business use, with the residential flat only to be used in connection with the laboratory use.
Instead, the planning inspector said it was built and used solely as a residential house from the start.
He said there was no lab or business running at the site, nor any evidence to show there ever was and that he house was a full home, not just a place for a worker to stay.
He also pointed out that the owner had sold their original house on the site and moved into this new home.
'Photographs provided by the appellant in February 2022 in response to the Council's Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) show a complete absence of any laboratory space or research facility and that remained the case at the time of my accompanied site visit,' Inspector Chris Preston wrote.
'The ground floor has a decidedly residential appearance, with a domestic kitchen, equipped with kitchen units, cooker, island breakfast bar, with domestic furnishings and appliances.
'A dining area is present next to the kitchen in the space which was shown to house a kitchenette/container storage and distribution on the approved plans.
'Next to that, where the plans depicted an office, is a domestic living room.
'What appears to be an office is present to the front in what was shown on the plans as a reception area.
'Throughout, the ground floor is decorated and equipped in a manner that belies a residential use.
'There is no obvious reception area that would indicate use by customers of a business.
'No laboratory has been installed, no research or stored equipment associated with the business is apparent, either on the photographs from 2022 or at the time of my visit.
'Upstairs, where the staff accommodation was intended to be, there are two bedrooms, in the locations shown on the approved plans and a living area/ lounge, equipped with a sofa and television.
'However, no kitchen appears to have been constructed on the upper floor. In other words, the living space is clearly spread over the two floors, as would be the case in a typical house.'
He said the council had been told the flat would be used by an additional worker, but in fact the appellant and his wife had since sold their existing house and moved into the new property.
He added: 'The overriding impression is that what has been constructed is a dwelling house, occupied by the appellant and his wife, as opposed to a stallion semen collection centre/laboratory on the ground floor with residential accommodation above which is what the approved plans depicted.'
He said there was also very little evidence that the stallion semen and collection business had 'ever got off the ground to any notable degree.'
He added: 'The lack of any clear record of the semen collection and analysis business, when added to the evidence that the laboratory and associated storage and analysis areas were never constructed raises serious doubts as to whether the 2014 permission was implemented.
'If the pandemic did cause issues with the business, the logical thing to do, if implementing the approved planning permission, would have been to construct the building as permitted, with accommodation at first floor level and space for the laboratories etc at ground floor level, even if that led to a delay in installation of those facilities.
'What actually appears to have happened is that the appellant constructed a dwelling from the off.
'The Inspector agreed that knocking the house down was a proportionate and necessary measure as the local planning policies had been clearly broken, and keeping the building but just stopping people from living there alone would not be enough.
Cllr Dr. Tumi Hawkins, Lead Cabinet Member for Planning at South Cambridgeshire District Council, said: 'We welcome the Inspector's clear decision, which supports our commitment to upholding planning policies in our Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan designed to protect our countryside.
'This case shows the importance of adhering to the specific uses and conditions that justify development in rural areas.
'Planning rules are there for a reason – including protecting our countryside, and this decision demonstrates that we will act when those rules are broken.'
The house must be knocked down and all waste material removed by May 6 2026.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
a day ago
- News.com.au
Welfare concerns for three missing young boys as SA Police launch public appeal
Police have concerns for the welfare of three young children – aged just three, one and a three-month old baby – who have been missing for more than two weeks.
ABC News
2 days ago
- ABC News
Convicted baby killer Lucy Letby is languishing in prison. There's just one, big problem
The idea of a nurse, ostensibly sweet mannered and competent, coldly killing tiny, frail babies in her care is bone-chilling. When the young British neonatal nurse Lucy Letby was accused of murdering numerous infants, we gasped in horror and the media fed our incomprehension and appetites by providing colourful, constant coverage of the charges and trial. It seemed like it was sewn up. Letby had written incriminating entries in her diaries and googled the parents of the babies she had allegedly killed by injecting oxygen into their veins, poisoning them with insulin, and feeding them too much milk. But, most damning of all was the graph which was printed over and over, showing a list of nursing staff against a list of the babies who had died between June 2015 and 2016: Letby had been present, every single time. She was convicted in August 2023 of seven counts of murder and other attempted murders, and is currently serving multiple life sentences with no chance of release. Letby was the fourth woman in British history to be sentenced to die in jail. "She has thrown open the door to Hell," the Daily Mail wrote, "and the stench of evil overwhelms us all." There's only one problem — the cacophony of globally renowned expert voices, some of whose research was heavily relied on by the prosecution, now saying in unison: there is no evidence of wrongdoing. As David Conn wrote in the Guardian, "It is unprecedented that so large a group of experts with such distinguished reputations have so rapidly, publicly and comprehensively spoken out to dispute convictions for murder." The whole thing is awful: grieving parents facing the reopening of painful cases and painful discussions again, and yet also, a potentially innocent woman languishing in jail after a miscarriage of justice and poorly run case. And the grim fact that a public who lapped up the stories of the evil nurse has now largely lost interest. I do not know if Letby is guilty or innocent, but this apparent contradiction between the legal system and medical experts is troubling. The detail is thick and few of us are equipped to deal with the medical and scientific complexities of this case. But this is exactly the problem — the idea of an evil killer, dressed in scrubs, is so spine-tingling that we throw caution. There are several lessons to be learned from this sorry saga; here are just three. In May 2024 an extensive, 13,000 word investigative piece in the New Yorker was the first substantial work to tip people off to the fact that "in the rush to judgement, serious questions about the evidence were ignored." But the man whose slender 1989 academic paper was relied upon by the prosecution to link mottled skin to a pulmonary vascular air embolism (and, they argued, thereby an injection of air into the babies' veins) had been alarmed months before, once he was made aware of the case. Dr Shoo Lee is a respected Canadian neonatalist who argued before the Court of Appeal that the prosecution's expert witness had fundamentally misinterpreted his work. He said none of the babies in the trial should have been diagnosed with a pulmonary embolism and alternatives should be considered. When the court rejected the appeal request, Lee assembled a 14-strong team of the most respected paediatric and neonatal specialists in the world, including a former president of Britain's Royal College of Pediatrics and a former director of Boston Children's Hospital's neonatal intensive care unit. Dr Lee promised to release their conclusions whatever they were. And they were incendiary: finding no medical evidence that Letby had murdered or attempted to murder any baby in her care. The report was 698 pages long. At a press conference in February this year, Lee said there had been serious errors and failings in medical care, and some of the deaths could have been prevented. One panel member, Dr Neena Modi, neonatology professor at Imperial College London, said: "There was a combination of babies being delivered in the wrong place, delayed diagnosis and inappropriate or absent treatment." Police shared a graph showing Letby's presence — marked with an X — at the time of each "suspicious incident" involving the deterioration or death of a baby with the media, which reprinted it numerous times. But, as the New Yorker pointed out, "the chart didn't account for any other factors influencing the mortality rate on the unit. It gave an impression of mathematical clarity and coherence, distracting from another possibility: that there had never been any crimes at all." The neonatal unit Letby worked at, at the Countess of Chester Hospital, run by the National Health Service, in the west of England, was struggling, and a 2016 review by a team from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health found there were inadequate numbers of doctors and nurses. There had been more deaths in the maternal ward as well as neonatal care. Law Professor Burkhard Schafer from the University of Edinburgh argues this graph shows police are skilled at looking for a responsible human, not "finding a systemic problem in an organisation like the National Health Service, after decades of underfunding, where you have overworked people cutting little corners with very vulnerable babies who are already in a risk category." When Schafer saw the diagram of suspicious events, an alarm bell rang. To be true, he says, such a diagram should have included all deaths in the unit, not just those in court, and it should have covered more time. The diagram the police issued has been likened to the "Texas sharpshooter fallacy". Imagine a shooter firing bullets into the side of a barn, then tracing a bulls-eye around the area where most bullets penetrated. In other words, statistical mistakes can be made when analysts ignore a big data set in favour of a small cluster that fits a convenient theory. This exact mistake had been made in cases about two nurses accused of murder before, in the Netherlands and in Italy, leading to a miscarriage of justice due to the belief that "a coincidence cannot be a coincidence". Both spent time in prison and both were later exonerated. This "X" diagram was crucial in the Letby case. As David Conn writes: …there was no evidence against Letby, only the consultants' suspicions due to the statistical coincidence of her having been on shift. Nobody ever saw her harm a baby or commit any of the acts — injecting babies with air, or lacing two feeding bags with insulin — of which she would later be accused and found guilty, and there has never been any tangible or forensic evidence of her doing so. She was well respected as a committed young nurse, who had taken intensive care qualifications, and would volunteer for extra work and overtime when the unit was stretched. Senior staff believed that this explained why she was often on shift for the sickest babies. Especially if insufficient evidence is given and complexity is skipped over. Those following the case read about notes written by Letby that police found in her house, which contained these contradictory statements, some of which appeared to show guilt: "WHY ME?"; "I haven't done anything wrong"; "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them"; "I AM EVIL I DID THIS." She wrote, too, "We tried our best and it wasn't enough." We didn't read of the police video where she said she was processing the guilt of having babies die on her watch: "It was just a way of me getting my feelings out onto paper." Her self-loathing was wrapped in up feelings of incompetence, and the stress of suspicion. Psychologists have said these notes were "meaningless as evidence." Then there was the fact that Letby had googled the names of the parents whose babies had died afterwards, 31 times. This confused me when I read it. What I didn't know was that this was somewhat of a compulsive habit of hers — she seemed to google everyone she met — during the year of the investigation, she had conducted 2,287 searches for people online, saying later she was always on her phone. Her last hope seems to be the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which examines possible miscarriages of justice. Another public inquiry is underway into how murders such as these could have taken place in NHS hospitals, though in August 2024, 24 British experts — doctors, nurses and scientists — sent a letter to the government urging them to postpone or delay such an inquiry due to concern about a failure to learn lessons from "possible negligent deaths that were presumed to be murders". It is up to the courts to decide if there has been miscarriage of justice. Perhaps, in the interests of public confidence, they will take the chance to do so. Whatever happens, we must be acutely conscious of the suffering parents who have been through a horrific ordeal, losing a child then enduring a gruelling public trial. Surely, more than anyone, they deserve to know the truth. Juila Baird is an author, broadcaster, journalist and co-host of the ABC podcast, Not Stupid.
ABC News
3 days ago
- ABC News
Calls for schools to identify DV
3h ago 3 hours ago Fri 6 Jun 2025 at 2:00am Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume. Play Duration: 3 minutes 42 seconds 3 m 42 s
