Football club chairman in £100k battle over bid to tear down 'eyesore man cave'

A football club president is locked in a £100,000 court fight with his neighbour after constructing an "eye-sore man cave" - complete with TV and bar - in his suburban garden.

Justin Salmon found himself at war with neighbour Andrianna Neophytou after erecting a 24ft "den" with plastered walls, carpeting, furniture and even an electric doorbell at the bottom of his garden in Surrey in 2018.

The "garden room" provided Mr Salmon and wife Karen with extra living space during the Covid lockdowns, but he was forced to alter it after his neighbour complained.

Mrs Neophytou, who is the freeholder of the Salmons' ground-level maisonette as well as their upstairs neighbour, had secured a tribunal ruling that the sprawling "man cave" was in breach of their lease and permission for a pergola and simple toolshed in the garden.

But she is now suing him in court in a bid to have the structures torn down completely, arguing that work he did to comply with his lease did not go far enough, since he merely converted the "cave" into an open-sided outdoor bar on the same footprint, swapping his "Man Cave" sign for one reading "Shed for Domestic Purposes".

In a case which is predicted by lawyers to run up legal bills totalling more than £100,000, Mrs Neophytou is demanding that Mr and Mrs Salmon demolish the structures in their garden in Tollers Lane, Coulsdon.

However, the couple deny that they are in breach of the lease, claiming that - despite including a bar - the structures now amount to no more than a normal garden shed and pergola.

Sitting at Mayors and City County Court, Judge Nicholas Parfitt was told that Mr Salmon lives in a maisonette with his wife, with Mrs Neophytou above the Salmons and her garden behind theirs.

Having played for and coached the team, which was founded by his father Alan Salmon in 1978, Mr Salmon is now president and senior secretary at non-league Sutton Common Rovers FC.

Mrs Neophytou was approached as freeholder by Mr Salmon for permission to build a pergola at the bottom of the garden in 2017, granting him permission to do so.

But having erected it, Mr Salmon then built a shed alongside, before gradually developing the structures until they consisted of a roofed garden room, with UPVC windows and doors, plastered walls, carpeted floors, furniture, and "Man Cave" and "The Den" signs.

Giving evidence, Mrs Neophytou told the judge that the neighbours fell out badly in 2020, after which she brought First-tier Tribunal proceedings, arguing that the "eyesore" structures were in breach of the Salmons' lease.

"When I looked out the back, I had that great big room and marquees and everything else," she said from the witness box.

"There was nothing pleasurable about looking out of my windows and that did upset me."

After the tribunal found that the structures were in breach of the lease, Mr Salmon said he would do work on the "den" to make it comply, and went on to turn it into an open garden bar.

But Mrs Neophytou says what was done was not enough, telling Judge Parfitt: "It doesn't look like a pergola or a shed now. It's all one long structure. It's an eyesore."

Her barrister, Dilan Deeljur, said a clause of the Salmons' lease prohibits them from having any additional building on the land without written permission, save for a shed for domestic purposes.

"The claimant accepts that she agreed in 2017 to a basic open wooden pergola," he told the judge.

"She did not agree to a solid roofed, enclosed, extended, fence-supported or garden-room structure. Nor did she grant any written licence. That distinction matters.

"This is not a case about whether neighbours can use a garden socially. It is a case about a long lease which required prior written licence before additional buildings or erections were placed in a small divided residential garden.

"The defendants say that the left-hand structure is now a pergola-type structure with a roof, and that the right-hand structure is now a domestic shed.

"The claimant's case is that this is not a cure. It is the retained framework and footprint of the earlier garden-room development, stripped of some doors, windows and finishes, with new labels applied after the First-tier Tribunal decision."

He said the First-tier Tribunal had recorded the initial garden room - prior to Mr Salmon's remedial work and creation of the bar - as including "full-height UPVC patio doors, separate mains electricity supply, an electric doorbell, and exterior signs reading 'man cave' and 'the Den'."

"It also recorded Mr Salmon's account that the building was heated, insulated, plastered, soundproofed, painted and decorated, had carpet tiles on the floor, and was valuable additional living space during the pandemic," he continued.

"The tribunal rejected the defendants' interpretation of 'domestic shed'. It held that the structure was a permanent structure in the garden, used as an extra living room, and that its construction required the claimant's prior consent, which had not been sought or obtained.

"The real question is whether the later works removed the mischief, or whether the defendants retained the substance of the unauthorised building or erection.

"Mr Salmon says UPVC doors and windows, carpet tiles, the front and right-hand walls, insulation, plaster, soundproofing and an electric doorbell were removed, and that a wooden wall was installed to create an enclosed right-hand space.

"The claimant's evidence is that the defendants made piecemeal changes but did not remove the garden-room structures. She says they placed signs stating 'Shed for Domestic Purposes' and 'Pergola with a covering to prevent birds mess'.

"The court should focus on objective character, not labels. If the retained footprint, roof, support, boundary relationship, base and overall mass of the earlier development remain, the removal of doors, windows or internal finishes does not necessarily cure the breach.

"The 2022 works did not remedy the breach. They removed some obvious room-like features, but did not remove the substance of the additional building or erection.

"The claimant acted reasonably in refusing to accept the structures. This is not a case of a technical or harmless breach. It concerns substantial built structures in a small divided garden, constructed without prior written licence, retained after an FTT determination and defended through a shifting vocabulary of pergola, shed, garden room, den and man cave."

For the Salmons, barrister James Culverwell said whatever name is given to it, the structure containing the bar at the bottom of the Salmons' garden is now a "pergola-type" structure and therefore within the terms of the agreement.

As to the shed alongside it, he continued: "There is no legal definition of ‘shed’, nor any definition in the lease, save that it must be for domestic purposes.

"Shed is an ordinary, common-sense word meaning ‘a small building that is used for storing things such as garden tools’. This precisely describes the ‘shed’ which is in the defendants’ garden.

"The claimant has not adduced any evidence to support her contention that the shed is not a shed."

"My clients say they have changed what was there before and it complies with the agreement and with the lease.

"Whatever the court’s decision on the pergola and the shed, the claimant has singularly failed to justify her claim for an injunction requiring the complete removal of either structure."

Giving evidence himself, Mr Salmon said he had been given the "man cave" sign as a birthday present and insisted that he had rolled back his garden development so that what remains complies with the lease and the agreement for a pergola.

"It's now a shed for domestic purposes and the pergola is back as what was agreed with the claimant," he told the judge.

The neighbours are also in dispute over a locked porch which Mrs Neophytou has had built over the steps leading up to her door, with the Salmons claiming they have a right to access the steps themselves.

The judge reserved his ruling on the dispute until a later date.