Pensioner says ordering him to demolish his illegal bungalow is a human rights breach
Peter Dick, 74, illegally built a £500,000 bungalow more than a decade ago. He claims that ordering him to tear it down breaches his human rights
A pensioner who has battled authorities who want to demolish his home for more than a decade has claimed his local council is breaching his human rights.
Peter Dick has been ordered to pay £10,000 and demolish his bungalow after illegally building on greenbelt land in Bournemouth. The 75-year-old built a £500,000 bungalow on the West Parley, Dorset land over ten years ago for his ailing wife, without obtaining the necessary planning permission.
The property, located within 400 metres of protected heathland and designated as a Site of Scientific Special Interest, is therefore illegal. Since its construction in 2010, Mr Dick has twice received orders to demolish his home, with notices demanding its demolition arriving in 2012 and 2019.
Ignoring both, he instead chose to reinforce site security with an eight-foot barbed-wire fence and a padlocked gate. His attempt to legalise the property was rejected in 2012, leaving him at the mercy of the local council.
In 2021, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (BCP) took him to court where he was found guilty of failing to demolish the home and issued with a £7,500 fine and told to pay £3,269 costs. The Telegraph reports that is "unclear" whether or not Mr Dick has paid the final costs.
However, three years on, the property still stands. And Mr Dick and his wife are still living in the bungalow - which he has fortified with an 8ft-high padlocked gate and barbed wire.
Now he is being taken back to court again by Bournemouth, Christchurch, and Poole (BCP) council for allegedly breaching an enforcement notice. Mr Dick entered a not-guilty plea when he appeared before magistrates in Poole.
He claims the council did not serve the enforcement notice correctly in 2012. And Mr Dick also says his property should be protected under the European Convention on Human Rights.
He claims his right to a private life and a home under Article 8 and the right not to be treated in an inhumane or degrading way under Article 3 take precedence over planning laws.
His defence counsel has previously argued that his client had "no other property to live in" and criticised the planning system, saying: "The planning regime doesn't work as well as it should have."
BCP council said it could not comment on a case while a live appeal was in progress. It will return to Poole magistrates’ court for trial in November.
