Share and Follow
A grandfather is reluctantly putting his newly constructed mansion up for sale after being hit with a £300,000 fine by the local council for positioning the building 10 meters off its intended spot.
David Drew has criticized Wokingham Council, accusing them of being ‘spiteful’ and taking advantage of residents by imposing a stringent planning penalty that has plunged him into substantial debt.
Mr. Drew invested several years in designing and constructing his ideal family home on a two-acre lot in the picturesque countryside of Berkshire, spending £1.2 million in the process.
The impressive five-bedroom residence features mock Tudor paneling, well-tended gardens leading to a granny annex, a double garage, ample parking for over six vehicles, and an expansive gravel driveway.
Despite his efforts, the father of two finds himself with no alternative but to list the home for sale, as he cannot afford the £2,300 monthly payments required by the council’s financial demands.
The council insist he breached rules by building his home 10m from where it should have been, and that he had built a second dwelling – the annexe – without permission.
A devastated Mr Drew told the Daily Mail: ‘We built it from scratch and now we’re going to have to sell it. We can’t afford to stay.
‘The housing minister has got something to answer for because these councils need some guidance about what they should be doing and what is fair and right by the local people.
‘Because in a minute there will be a suicide from somebody.
‘They are taking advantage of local people and innocent mistakes.’
David Drew claims he has been forced to sell his newbuild mansion after being fined £300k by the local council for building the property 10 metres to the left
He says he can’t afford to shell out £2.3k a month on a second mortgage he took out to pay off the costs demanded by the council
The ‘mistake’ regarding the 10m occurred after the David realised a driveway (pictured) was needed to drive round to the front of the house
The father-of-two was hit with the hefty bill under the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) – a levy imposed by councils on building works to go towards funds for local amenities such as parks.
The charge is meant to be aimed at developers and is charged per square meter, but homeowners who are ‘self-building’ for themselves are able to apply for an exemption.
Mr Drew, who had obtained a CIL exemption prior to starting works, was shocked to receive an enforcement letter just three weeks after completing the house ordering him to tear it down because it was 10 metres to the left of approved plans.
It was also found that he had not obtained planning permission before building a ‘second dwelling’, which he says is a shed and was temporarily used to live in while building works were ongoing.
The 10 metre ‘mistake’ occurred because David had realised space was needed for a driveway to bring cars round to the front of the property.
While he was able to keep the house after winning an appeal, he was hit with an ‘unexpected’ CIL charge.
He was told CIL exemptions do not apply to retrospective planning permissions, and was ordered to pay £292,174.11.
David says he was forced to take out a second mortgage at £2.3k a month just to foot the costs, and is now looking to sell it.
The 63-year-old told the Daily Mail: ‘They [the council] are aggressive in their tactics.
‘They can see pound signs at the end of it. It’s a money-making scheme.
‘They are so spiteful, I cannot tell you what ulterior motives they have.
‘£292,174.11. That figure is etched in my brain.
Mr Drew spent years designing and building his dream family home on a two-acre plot in rural Berkshire – at a cost of £1.2million
Mr Drew has accused Wokingham Council of being ‘spiteful’ and ‘exploiting’ constituents after officers enforced a strict planning levy, leaving him in thousands of pounds of debt
The house was built on a plot to the back of his original home, which sold off as he built the new, larger dwelling. Pictured, the house build underway
The imposing five-bed property has mock Tudor panelling, manicured lawns leading to a granny annexe, a double garage, parking space for at least six cars and a vast gravel driveway
‘Three weeks after the house was built, they issued me with a notice to knock it down.
‘That notice said that because our planning permission was incorrect, we haven’t got planning for the house, so knock it all down.
‘We then had 30 days to appeal the notice, a very tight window, and fortunately for us the officer said we can keep the house.
‘But for a year we had the threat hanging over us of ‘knock your house down’ that we’ve just spent £1.2million building. I would have been left with a pile of rubble and a £300k mortgage.
‘And then the minute we were told we don’t need to knock it down, they say ‘here’s the bill for £292,000.’
He added: ‘Wokingham Council employ people in the planning department to find out people’s planning mistakes.
‘But when I asked the enforcement officer how they found the mistake, she said satellite imagery.’
Wokingham Borough Council insist that it has ‘not been overzealous in pursuing CIL’ and while it is ‘aware of cases in the country where small admin errors have led to potentially excessive CIL charges’, this was not the case here.
It says the dwelling was built 11m north and 4m further west of where it should have been, meaning it was placed in protected countryside.
The house was built on a plot to the back of his original home, which sold off as he built the new, larger dwelling.
He says there were no complaints from neighbours regarding the placement of the house and it was still within the boundaries of his land.
To one side of the house is a storage and distribution site and to the other is a equestrian facility which provides children with difficulties with therapy with animals.
The ‘mistake’ regarding the 10m occurred after the David realised a driveway was needed to drive round to the front of the house.
The family also erected a ‘shed’ to the back of their plot to temporarily live in while building works were ongoing, but the council ruled this was classed as a separate dwelling and required retrospective planning permission.
The square meters of the shed also contributed to the CIL cost.
David claims an officer from the council’s planning department had visited the house when it was nearing completion and had picked up on a part of the construction which had three windows instead of the stated two.
He asked why, when a ‘small’ alteration had been picked up, the difference in location had also not been picked up at this point.
He added: ‘They wait until you think they’ve signed it off, then three weeks later hit us with a notice to knock it down.
‘They wait so they can hit us with this bill.
‘It’s like a loophole they use just to exploit locals for money.
Pictured: A planning drawing for the home, that was submitted to Wokingham Council
To one side of the house is a storage and distribution site and to the other is a equestrian facility which provides children with difficulties with therapy with animals
David said he paid the bill in 2024, after he was issued the CIL in 2022, because the consequences could have led to a custodial sentence
‘If you made a mistake of any kind, its reasonable to get a fine. In my case, the house should have been 10m further over there.
‘But right at the beginning, I was given a zero-rated CIL notice. So you’ve got to apply in advance, you have to be a self-builder and you have to live in the house for three years, to avoid paying the CIL.
‘I employed Wokingham Council to do the building control. You would think when they come and check it, okay they say its not their job to check the setting out, but then they come 20 times through the course of the build.
‘Then at the end of the build they sign it off and say its all 100 per cent. This was Wokingham Council.
‘Three weeks later the enforcement officer from the council issued us an enforcement notice to knock it down.
‘Immediately after they sign it off, that’s what adds insult to the injury.’
David said he paid the bill in 2024, after he was issued the CIL in 2022, because the consequences could have led to a custodial sentence.
‘It can result in them starting to charge you interest, that’s why I paid it. It can get you a custodial sentence.
‘After you get the bill you think what’s the most economical way of dealing with this.
‘But because of how spiteful the council have been, and they were telling me ways they are going to collect the money, saying, ‘if you don’t pay we’ll take you to court and it can end with a custodial sentence’, so my accountant helped me take a second mortgage.
‘That’s now £2311 a month. I’m going backwards trying to find that every month.
‘I can’t see me getting my money back.
‘I’m resigned to the fact that that’s not happening. They’re digging their heels in at Wokingham. They do everything within their power to stick to their guns.
‘We all make mistakes and we’ve got to face up to it and put it right.
‘But this totally disproportionate.
‘Be reasonable, give me a fine, two and a half grand for the fine or something, fine.’
The council say the breaches came to light when investigating a separate enforcement case relating to David operating his car sales business at the back of the plot. He has since moved his business to another location.
A spokesperson for Wokingham Borough Council said: ‘We are aware of cases elsewhere in the country where small admin errors have led to potentially excessive CIL charges but that is not what has happened here.
‘This was not a not a minor paperwork discrepancy, it was a significant breach of planning rules.
‘The property in question was built more than 10 metres from where it should have been, which placed it in protected countryside.
‘The council’s building control has no statutory duty to check the setting out of foundations. It’s the responsibility of the building contractor to make sure the property is correctly sited in line with planning permission.
‘A second dwelling had also been built when the original planning permission was only for one. These breaches came to light when the council was investigating a separate enforcement case relating to unauthorised business use to the rear of the site.
‘Due to the breach of planning consent, a retrospective application was needed.
‘CIL exemptions are not legally available for retrospective applications, nor for a second dwelling, as the dwelling must be a person’s principal residence.
‘We are not over-zealous in pursuing CIL and would look reasonably at small mistakes by residents who are not familiar with planning regulations.
‘But building more than 10 metres from where you have consent and building two properties instead of one is not the same as failing to tick the right box.’
