A desperate father who built a 'flood survival shed' to protect his family's belongings after being swamped by filthy river water so many times they couldn't get insurance has been ordered to tear it down. 

Robert Rycroft, 57, put up the huge steel-framed outbuilding in the garden of his home in Horbury, West Yorkshire, after years of devastating floods left them scrambling to move treasured possessions out of the water's path.

The father-of-three, who is a full-time carer for his 16-year-old daughter Rose, who has Down's syndrome, says the shed was never intended as a luxury addition to their secluded property.

Instead, he says it was a 'lifeline' to haul their belongings above the flood level at a moment's notice whenever the neighbouring River Calder burst its banks.

However, Wakefield Council ruled the 4.5 metre-tall metal structure was built without planning permission in the Green Belt.

A planning inspector has now upheld an enforcement notice ordering the family to tear down the building and clear the land within six months.

Mr Rycroft, who lives at the 18th-century cottage with wife Joanne, 55, daughter Rose, and sons Cole, 22, and Kendall, 19, has been subjected to four serious flood events since purchasing the home in 2015.

He said the demolition ruling has left the family fearing the next flood will wipe them out again.

Mr Rycroft said: 'I'm going to lose everything I've got again, aren't I?

'If it can't go upstairs in the house, then it'll get ruined. It might not be today, it might not be this year - but there will be another flood at some point.

'The shed was just a really obvious way of protecting what's ours. It was the difference between saving our belongings and watching them go under water again. It was a lifeline for us.

'Without that building, we are back to losing everything again. 

'It makes no sense. We are not hurting anyone. We are just trying to protect our home and our family.'

The Rycrofts bought the property in 2015, hoping to knock down the existing cottage and build a raised bungalow on the plot to escape the cycle of flooding, but claim planning obstacles made that impossible.

Within months, they were hit by flooding - and again in 2020, 2022 and 2024 - with filthy water rising through the ground and surging into the house.

Mr Rycroft said: 'Water from the river absolutely hammers the place.

'As soon as it starts raining, I can see the colour drain from my wife's face.

'The water comes up through the ground in no time, because it's all sand and gravel. Before you know it, it is in the house.

'It has risen so high it covers the radiators and comes just below the window sills.

'The smell is vile. You cannot escape it. Even with dehumidifiers running day and night, the damp stays for months.

'The repeated floods have taken a heavy toll on the whole family.'

Mr Rycroft said Rose, who has Down's syndrome and was born with a serious heart condition, becomes overwhelmed by the fear and disruption.

He said: 'It spirals her into panic.

'She sees her toys, the sofa, the house - everything - at risk. It is too much for her.

'She will talk about it over and over because she is frightened.

'We have all ended up in one bed, the five of us, listening to the water and smelling it. You cannot get away from it. It changes your life.'

The family say they have lost furniture, electrical equipment, machinery and outdoor items in repeated floods, while Mrs Rycroft's BMW was written off.

They have claimed on insurance to replace damaged possessions, but say they were advised to take steps to 'mitigate' against future flooding or risk payouts being refused.

Mr Rycroft said that left him with little choice but to find a practical solution.

During the Covid lockdown, he began building the outbuilding himself, believing he did not need planning permission because it replaced a larger, derelict structure that had stood on the land for decades.

The new building sits around a metre higher than the family cottage, meaning Mr Rycroft can move possessions into it quickly using a loader when flood warnings are issued.

He said: 'From September to February, that's all you do - you move stuff.

'Before the shed, if a flood warning came in and I started at nine in the morning, I might still be moving things at three in the afternoon.

'I would be carrying things upstairs or ferrying them down the lane to higher ground.

'With the shed, I could get everything in one safe place quickly. It was the difference between saving our belongings and watching them go underwater.

'You cannot just keep claiming for the same things over and over again. At some point you have to protect yourself.'

Wakefield Council said it received a complaint while the building was being constructed and told Mr Rycroft that planning permission was required.

Mr Rycroft later submitted a retrospective planning application in August 2023, which attracted no objections.

But the application was refused in February 2025, with enforcement action following.

Council officers concluded the structure amounted to 'inappropriate development' in the Green Belt.

Mr Rycroft insists the shed is surrounded by trees, does not overlook anyone and cannot be seen from nearby homes.

He said: 'You can't see it from anywhere. The only way you can see it is from the air.

'I'm not overshadowing anyone. I'm not affecting anyone. I'm causing harm to no one.

'My nearest neighbours are on the other side of the river, about 100 metres away.

'There are other buildings around here - some bigger than mine - and they have been allowed. I fail to understand why we are being treated differently.'

The family argued in their appeal that the outbuilding was essential to help them 'survive during incidences of flooding'.

Their planning agent said in submissions to the Planning Inspectorate: 'The property is well screened and only visible from above by drones.

'Access to the site is restricted to the appellant and visitors only. Therefore the development has no impact upon the surroundings but is vital for the family to survive during incidences of flooding.

'The family have had to replace goods on several occasions due to flooding which restricts their further ability to obtain any form of insurance.

'The demolition of the building and removal of materials is considered excessive and unreasonable.' 

Mr Rycroft built the unit by himself over a two-year period during his down time when his daughter attends school.

'The appellant's daughter has Down's syndrome with Mr Rycroft acting as her full-time carer,' the planning agent said in the appeal.

'Mr Rycroft would describe himself as a person that tries his hand at everything therefore, he has numerous pieces of plant and equipment that all need storage and a facility to move goods and equipment in a hurry when flood warnings are issued.'

But the appeal was dismissed, leaving the Rycrofts facing the loss of the building.

Mr Rycroft accused 'jobsworth' council officials of showing no compassion for the reality of living in a flood-hit home with a vulnerable child.

He said: 'I am visibly shake when I see a council van.

'They've ruined my family's life from the moment we moved in. I think they've been vindictive. We're not hurting anyone, we're just trying to protect what is ours.

'Every time there is heavy rain, we are looking at the river, looking at the floor, wondering if this is the day it all happens again.'

Mr Rycroft is planning to meet with newly elected Reform councillors in Wakefield in a bid to find a way forward. 

Joe Jenkinson, Wakefield Council's Service Director for Planning, Transportation and Strategic Highways, said: 'Retrospective planning permission was refused due to the building being in the Green Belt and not providing sufficient information to demonstrate that it would not be at risk of flooding or wouldn't create a flood risk elsewhere.

'Following the refusal of planning permission an enforcement notice was served which was appealed.

'The Planning Inspectorate is completely independent of the Council, and having looked at it impartially, have dismissed the owner's appeal and upheld the enforcement notice.'