Couple ordered to tear down dream £500k home after ‘flagrant breach' of rules

The Sun

20-05-2025

A COUPLE have been ordered to demolish their dream home worth more than £500,000 after they were found to have made a 'flagrant breach' of the rules.
Planning permission was originally granted to build a stallion semen laboratory but a house was built instead.
7
7
7
A planning inspector has ruled that the unauthorised house at Valentine Stables in Great Abington, Cambridgeshire, must be knocked down.
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.
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.
Whilst the first floor would be a staff living space with two bedrooms, each with an ensuite bathroom, and a combined living/kitchen space.
But, even though the outside of the building looked like the approved plans, the inside was very different.
A later investigation showed that the inside of the building looked nothing like the approved plans for the lab and business.
Instead, the planning inspector said it was built and used solely as a residential house from the start, with no evidence that the laboratory use was ever implemented.
The Council issued an enforcement notice in July 2023 requiring demolition of the property and the owner appealed against the notice.
But the Planning Inspector has now agreed with the Council that the building was constructed as a house from the start.
We're building our house out of polystyrene - we can slot it together like Lego & it'll cut our heating bill down by 70%
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.
Inspector Chris Preston wrote: '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.
'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.
7
7
'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 over-riding impression is that what has been constructed is a dwellinghouse, 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.
7