A defiant businessman has vowed he will not pay 'a penny' towards tearing down the £200,000 home he built in his garden after council chiefs ordered it to be demolished following a bitter planning battle.

Luke Perret, 31, has been told he has just nine months to knock down the property he spent three years building in Warrington - after town hall planners ruled it strayed too far from the modest annexe they had originally approved.

But the furious tech shop owner has vowed to fight 'until the end', insisting Warrington Borough Council will have to foot the demolition bill themselves.

He said: 'I'm not paying to have a perfectly good house knocked down. They are the ones who will have to pay for it - because I'm not.

'They can chase me forever but I will not be paying for this place to be demolished.

'I need to keep fighting them out of principle. It's not about the money now - I just don't want to cave in and give the council the satisfaction.

'If the house goes, it goes - but I will be walking away knowing I have done everything in my power.'

The bitter stand-off began after Mr Perrett was granted permission in 2020 to build a one-bedroom annexe on scrubland behind his modest end-terrace house in the Cheshire town.

The proposal was relatively modest - a self-contained annexe with a single bedroom on a mezzanine floor - which, Mr Perret says, was intended as a future home for his mother-in-law.

However, following her sudden death during construction, Mr Perret deviated from approved plans on the advice of his builder brother-in-law without going back to the council for consent.

What instead emerged in 2023 was a bulkier two-bed home containing a basement, study room and walk-in wardrobe, with two dormers added onto the pitched roof.

The off-plan development triggered enforcement action from Warrington council, who claimed the completed house bore 'no resemblance' to the scheme it had approved and was harmful to 'the character and appearance of the area'.

After a retrospective planning application was refused and two appeals were dismissed, Mr Perret now has nine months to tear down the entire property -leaving him facing the prospect a ruinous demolition bill.

Mr Perret told planning officials that his brother-in-law who undertook the build 'used some artistic licence' and 'made changes to the development without thinking to get these ratified'.

Speaking to the Daily Mail, he admitted being 'naive' by agreeing to the alterations and accepted that the house should have been built in line with approved plans.

But Mr Perret, who now lives in the house with his wife - with in-laws occupying his adjoining terraced home - insisted there was never any deliberate attempt to flout planning law.

He said: 'We were naive, our builder was naive - but we didn't do this deliberately.

'We wouldn't have put a brick in the ground if we thought what we were doing was unlawful.

'We honestly believed it would all be fine. But the council have just come after us like we're criminals.'

Mr Perret said he had offered to spend £50,000 remodelling the house to reflect the scheme the council had originally rubber-stamped in 2020.

But officials now say that consent has expired and have told Mr Perret there is no guarantee that it would be approved for a second time.

Mr Perret, who accused planners of being on a 'power trip', said: 'I don't know if they're being vindictive or incompetent, or both.

'We've tried speaking with them to try and find a compromise but they just don't want to talk.

'I can't even see the Warrington council logo when I'm on the bus, it makes me so angry.

'If the house goes, then I'm moving out of this town.

'I will not pay a penny to that council ever again.'

Mr Perret claims he has offered to remove both dormer windows and reduce the height of the property by 1.5 metres in a bid to reach a solution which the council will accept.

He is currently preparing a revised planning application in the hope that the council will approve it and thereby spare the house from the bulldozers.

He also intends to challenge the council's claim that the originally 2020 permission has now expired.

Mr Perret said: 'It's damage limitation now - coming up with a scheme that will appease the council but won't destroy a perfectly good home.

'We've offered to go back to the original plans but nothing we say seems to appease them.

'It would just be so simple if they let us keep what they had originally approved.'

Mr Perret insisted neighbours are 'on my side' and that many had thanked him for building on asbestos-riddled land which had previously been a magnet for drug addicts and fly-tipping.

He added: 'Everyone's happy because the area looks nicer and their property values have gone up.

'The only people who are against us is the council.'

A Warrington Borough Council spokesperson said: 'The development at was found to be unauthorised and materially different from what was originally approved.

'Planning permission had been granted for an annexe and what has been built is, as described by the Inspector at appeal, is an independent dwelling with an 'extensive footprint and accommodation over three floors'. Despite discussions with the applicant, we were not satisfied that the works could be regularised through minor alteration, as the scale, form, and siting of the building differed significantly from the approved scheme.

'We can confirm that the original 2020 planning permission had expired, as development was not lawfully commenced within the required timeframe and the approved plans were not implemented. This position was considered fully during the appeal process and was upheld by the Planning Inspectorate, which supported our enforcement decision.

'Throughout the process, officers engaged with the applicant and considered options put forward. However, where attempts to secure compliance are unsuccessful, we have a responsibility to act in the wider public interest and ensure the integrity of the planning system.

'Decisions must be based on policy, law, and planning merit. The Planning Inspectorate's decision independently confirmed that our enforcement action was justified.'