A builder who bragged ‘I can’t lose’ after constructing a £75,000 man cave without planning permission has been dealt a humiliating blow in his war with the council.

Justin Claybourn, 57, built the annexe behind his detached home in the picturesque East Yorkshire hamlet of Foggathorpe, despite only having permission for a modest single-storey garage.

He was ordered to raze the unauthorised 12-metre hideaway but launched an appeal – defiantly telling the Daily Mail how he was ‘100% guaranteed to win’

‘I can’t lose. I won’t have to demolish it’, he said.

The self-employed plumber fitted a kitchen, bathroom steel staircase, French doors, and first-floor balcony that neighbours complained invaded their privacy.

To make way for the illegal annexe, Mr Claybourn also illegally chopped down a mature 50ft willow tree that had been protected under a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

Eight months on, a government planning inspector has now thrown out his case and upheld East Riding of Yorkshire council’s enforcement notice demanding the structure be torn down.

Inspector M Savage said bluntly: ‘There are no lesser steps and no obvious alternative which can be achieved with less cost and disruption than total removal’.

A brazen builder who scoffed at planning rules and declared he ‘can’t lose’ after constructing a £75,000 man cave – has lost his appeal

Justin Claybourn, 57, had built  the sprawling annexe behind his detached home despite only having permission for a modest single-storey garage

The huge new annex was visible from ground level on the residential street and ‘invaded the privacy of his neighbours’

He added: ‘Garages are not, in my experience, usually fitted with fully equipped kitchens or bathrooms.

‘While fitting a bathroom may not be difficult for the appellant given their profession, it seems likely, from the evidence before me, that what has been constructed is a building of a different character to that which was approved.’

In an additional blow, Mr Claybourn – who vowed last year that ‘if push comes to shove…I’m not knocking it down’ – also lost a bid to force the council to pick up his appeal costs.

He has three months to demolish the ‘entirely unauthorised’ building and staircase – but can keep an adjoining timber pergola.

Mr Savage ruled the structure was ‘overly dominant’ and ‘harms the character and appearance of the area’.

He said the 20ft structure was ‘significantly taller’ than initially approved.

Mr Claybourn argued the building – used for his hobby of restoring classic cars and offering his daughter a place to stay – fell within permitted development rule.

He is claiming the East Riding of Yorkshire Council misread his original plans and accused officials of ‘doing everything they can to stab me in the back’.

Council planners originally green-lit the proposal in 2021, approving a modest brick garage which it said would be similar in height to neighbours’, on the strict condition the mature willow tree would be safeguarded.

Mr Claybourn admitted lopping down the protected tree after completing the build – an action that led to court-ordered fines and costs totalling £5,644.

East Riding council pursued enforcement action claiming that what eventually emerged on the site was not in line with what had been signed off, and included a bathroom, kitchen, reception room and additional Velux windows.

Emma Lister, who lives at Peartree House next door, said the giant annexe had left her family feeling exposed in their own garden.

Mr Claybourn’s neighbours have said that the new development left them ‘exposed’ in their gardens

In an objection to Mr Claybourn’s rebuffed retrospective planning application, the mother-of-two wrote: ‘We strongly object to the addition of glass doors, a balcony or seating area, and an external staircase at the rear first floor of the garage/store, which sits directly next to the boundary of our garden.

‘The elevated position and close proximity of the structure result in significant overlooking, severely impacting our privacy. It is also completely out of character with the surrounding properties in this residential area.’

The planning inspectorate agreed that Ms Lister had suffered an ‘unacceptable loss of privacy’.

He added: ‘Users of the first floor are likely to be able to peer into the rear garden of Peartree House, which users of the garden are likely to find intrusive and may deter them from using part of their garden.’

Refusing an application for the council to pay the appeal costs, Mr Savage said Mr Claybourn knew he was ‘at risk of enforcement action at an early stage but proceeded with the development.’

He ruled: ‘I do not consider that the council has behaved unreasonably.

‘Unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has not occurred and an award of costs is not warranted.’