A pensioner who has waged a 14-year war over an illegal £500,000 home he built for his disabled wife has been backed by his neighbour – who said moaning locals have ‘double standards’.
Peter Dick, now aged 75, built the red-bricked chalet bungalow in West Parley, Dorset on greenbelt land that he owns in 2010 – but didn’t secure planning permission from the council.
In a long-running battle he was first refused retrospective permission to keep the home, before the council ordered him to demolish the building.
More notices continued to come – all of which the stubborn occupant ignored – before the council took him to court in 2021.
But three years on the property is still standing. Mr Dick and his elderly wife are still living in the illegal bungalow, fortifying their property with an 8ft high padlocked gate and barbed wire.
And neighbours have blasted complainers – saying that objecting locals have ‘double standards’ and the build isn’t doing any harm.
One told MailOnline: ‘It doesn’t bother me, I don’t really care what he does there.
Peter Dick, now aged 75, built the red-bricked chalet bungalow on greenbelt land that he owns in 2010 – but didn’t secure planning permission from the council
In a long-running battle he was first refused retrospective permission to keep the home, before the council ordered him to demolish the building
Mr Dick and his elderly wife are still living in the illegal bungalow, fortifying their property with an 8ft high padlocked gate and barbed wire
Read More
Pensioner, 74, who has spent 11 years fighting to keep £500,000 home he illegally built for his wife with a degenerative condition on greenbelt land is ordered to pay £10,000 – and he still has to knock it down
‘I have never actually seen the property, you can’t see it from my house but I don’t think it’s doing any harm.
‘I know there are a few people on the road who object, but I think some people have double standards because they would all like to develop their own land and you can’t have it both ways.
‘There is an SSSI on the heathland, but the houses have been here a long time, since the 1960s I think, and there are a few businesses as well.
‘I do think the council don’t go after big developers when they break the rules but they will go after individuals like him, it’s all about who’s got the money.’
Called Longcroft, the house is within 400m of protected heathland, a special conservation area and a site of special scientific interest.
Mr Dick has now launched a fresh bid to defeat the council after ignoring their £10,000 fine, as he is being taken back to court again by BCP Council for another breach of an enforcement notice.
The pensioner entered a not guilty plea when he appeared before magistrates in Poole last week.
He told the court that he intends to fight the matter, claiming the local authority did not serve the enforcement notice correctly in 2012.
Mr Dick also cited the European Convention on Human Rights for why he should win his case.
Mr Dick is now being taken back to court again by BCP Council for another breach of an enforcement notice
He told the court that he intends to fight the matter, claiming the local authority did not serve the enforcement notice correctly in 2012
Called Longcroft, the house is in West Parley, Dorset, and is within 400m of protected heathland, a special conservation area and a site of special scientific interest
The pensioner entered a not guilty plea when he appeared before magistrates in Poole last week
Read More
Pensioner faces court for refusing to knock down the £500,000 bungalow he illegally built on green belt land without planning permission
He believes his rights to a private life and a home under Article 8 and the right not to be treated in a inhumane or degrading way under Article 3 trumps planning laws.
For their part, BCP Council pointed out that they successfully relied upon the 2012 enforcement notice for the two previous cases against Mr Dick.
At a previous court hearing Mr Dick said he had the house built for his wife as she has degenerative muscular dystrophy.
He said: ‘My wife has muscular dystrophy which is progressive and the layout of the house is designed for her.’
There is a steel-clad industrial warehouse on Mr Dick’s land that was converted into residential use in 2003 and has since been declared ‘lawful’.
He and his wife lived there until the illegal bungalow was built.
In a separate move, last year Mr Dick applied to demolish the steel structure and replace it with a brick-built home which was refused as inappropriate development harmful to the green belt.
He is now appealing this decision and the planning inspector will make a decision in the near future.
But a spokesperson for nearby Hurn Parish Council claimed this application was merely a ‘tactic to delay the demolition’ of the bungalow and should not be considered until the enforcement order had been complied with.
At a previous court hearing Mr Dick said he had the house built for his wife as she has degenerative muscular dystrophy
For their part, BCP Council pointed out that they successfully relied upon the 2012 enforcement notice for the two previous cases against Mr Dick
Mr Dick also cited the European Convention on Human Rights for why he should win his case
They said: ‘There is a long history of illegal construction on this site which is within the green belt and within 400m of an SSSI.’
A pensioner who has spent 14 years resisting an order to demolish his £500,000 home he built without permission is citing the human rights act in his fight to keep it.
Mr Dick first built the property on land that he owns in 2010.
But he didn’t secure planning permission for it and was refused retrospective consent two years later.
He was then served with a legal order to demolish it which he ignored.
A second enforcement notice to demolish the illegal building was served in 2019, which he again ignored.
In 2021 his local council took him to court for being in breach of the notice under the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act.
He was convicted of the charge and issued with a £7,500 fine and told to pay £3,269 costs. It is unclear whether he has paid this.
BCP Council said they cannot comment on a case while a live appeal is in progress.
The case will return to Poole Magistrates’ Court for a trial in November.
