A couple ordered to tear down a million-pound home they secretly built have revealed they are moving to Thailand because the loss means they can no longer afford to live in the UK.

Jeremy Zielinski, 75, and his wife Elaine, 80, have almost completed the process of dismantling the property, a year after a planning inspector backed their local council's decision.

They had been given permission for a two-storey commercial building to house a stallion semen collection centre and laboratory, with a small first-floor flat for staff.

The outside of the property, set in 17 acres of land they bought in Great Abington, Cambridgeshire, followed their planning application.

But the interior was converted into a well-appointed three-bedroom home with stunning feature windows overlooking the countryside.

Photos taken by the Mail show how the structure has been taken apart over the last few weeks.

Rather than a full demolition, the Zielinskis arranged a deal with a contractor to carefully remove salvageable parts to cut down on costs.

Mr Zielinski remains bitter about the ruling, which he and his wife said cost them £1 million 'overnight'.

He said: 'Anyone who knows the situation – every single person I've spoken to – they all think it's absolutely ludicrous because the original planning permission was given for the physical building as it was.

'They say 'The housing situation is desperate and they are making you pull down your home without recourse'.

'We've got to sell our stables for a pittance to be able to buy somewhere to live but we couldn't afford anywhere in this country, so we're going to Thailand.'

Dismantling the property to allow the contractor to make use of parts including timber frames, windows and bifold doors is saving them around £2,000 on the approximate £30,000 it would have cost to demolish it.

Once they have sold their stables and the land they stand on, they expect to be left with no more than £350,000 to invest in their new home.

The couple would have preferred to move to Australia where they have a daughter and four grandchildren but complained that was also out of their budget.

Locals were largely unsympathetic, with one woman in her 50s saying: 'They were given permission, they ignored the permission and it had to go. How can they say that was unfair?'

Another said: 'It was a pretty hard decision – the place did look all right on the outside. But if you let something like that go, where does it end?'

There has been some support, however. David Hamper, 61, previously said he felt 'genuinely sorry' for them, adding: 'He's flouted the rules to a certain extent and would admit to that but to have your neighbours saying 'pull it down' is a hard thing for him to see.'

The work to bring down the property piece by piece began in early April, with scaffolding going up around the structure.

A few days later, roofing had disappeared and the wooden beams they housed were on display.

By early this week, the whole of the first floor had been removed and only the skeleton of the building remained.

The work was officially due to be completed by May 6 but Mr Zielinski said council officers had been round and appeared satisfied that it would be finished by the end of this month or early next month. 

There has been some support, however. David Hamper, 61, previously said he felt 'genuinely sorry' for them, adding: 'He's flouted the rules to a certain extent and would admit to that but to have your neighbours saying 'pull it down' is a hard thing for him to see.'

The horse-mad couple bought a house with an outbuilding and 17 acres of land for £100,000 in 1986.

In 2014, they were given planning permission by South Cambridgeshire District Council for a countryside business with a reception area, office, kitchenette, laboratory space, staff changing room and toilet on the ground floor and two bedrooms with en suite bathrooms on the first floor.

But planning inspector Chris Preston noted the property had a 'decidedly residential appearance', including a kitchen with island breakfast bar, domestic furnishings and appliances, a dining area, living room and home office.

Upstairs were two bedrooms with a 'lounge equipped with sofa and television'.

Contractors began work on the property in 2017 and Mr and Mrs Zielinski - who had three children, although one tragically died in 2021 after taking the Covid vaccine - sold their own house two years later, moving into a static home.

The couple believe a jealous neighbour informed on them, leading to planning officers visiting their home and the July 2023 enforcement notice which ordered it to be razed to the ground.

In the submission to the Planning Inspectorate, they claimed lockdown wrecked their business plans for the clinic and they were forced to turn the property into their home, while continuing to run their commercial interests in their grounds.

The order to pull down the entire building was over the top and would leave them without a roof over their heads, they added.

Mr Preston turned down their appeal, concluding it had been built as a house from the start, rather than converted from the approved lab and flat, and the couple had sold their own home and another plot of land with permission for a dwelling.

He also noted there was 'very little evidence that the stallion semen collection and analysis business ever got off the ground to any notable degree'.

The only payment for laboratory fees was £44 for a horse named Dublin but there was 'no indication as to whether the analysis was carried out at the appeal site'.

Mr Preston also considered the owners' claim to need somewhere to live but concluded: 'Given the clear and flagrant breach of planning policy and the associated harm arising, I find that interference with the human rights of the appellant and his wife would be proportionate in this case.'

Mr Zielinski, a former marketing manager for The Injured Jockeys Fund, told the Mail the onset of Covid had battered their hopes of founding the business in their property, while the death of their daughter, Claire, aged 55, had 'taken the wind out of our sails for fighting an enforcement notice'.

He insisted: 'We moved in when it was partially complete to get it ready to operate as a business [and] on the basis that we were going to comply with the planning by living upstairs and running the business downstairs.'

His wife, a GP's receptionist, previously said they had been unaware they were breaking the law.

'We want to carry on living here. It's a warm and comfortable home. I love it,' she explained.

'It doesn't make sense to tear it down. I don't want to go and live in a caravan. If we are chucked out, we will be having to rely on the state.

'We would not have gone on and built this and put all our money into it unless we thought it was totally legal to do it.'

Mr Zielinski, a former marketing manager for The Injured Jockeys Fund, told the Mail the onset of Covid had battered their hopes of founding the business in their property, while the death of their daughter, Claire, aged 55, had 'taken the wind out of our sails for fighting an enforcement notice'.

He insisted: 'We moved in when it was partially complete to get it ready to operate as a business [and] on the basis that we were going to comply with the planning by living upstairs and running the business downstairs.'

His wife, a GP's receptionist, previously said they had been unaware they were breaking the law.

'We want to carry on living here. It's a warm and comfortable home. I love it,' she explained.

'It doesn't make sense to tear it down. I don't want to go and live in a caravan. If we are chucked out, we will be having to rely on the state.

'We would not have gone on and built this and put all our money into it unless we thought it was totally legal to do it.'

Cllr Dr Tumi Hawkins, the district council's lead cabinet member for planning when the Planning Inspectorate backed its enforcement notice, said at the time that she welcomed 'the inspector's clear decision'.

She said: '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.'

A council spokeswoman said: 'Although the enforcement notice required the property to be demolished by May 6, 2026, the contractors advised this deadline would not be met. 

'Following a site visit by the council, it was advised that as works have commenced and are advanced as of May 5, 2026, the council will not take further action provided that demolition is completed by the end of May 2026 and the requirements of the notice satisfied in full.'