The president of a football club has been ordered to demolish a 24ft “man cave” after a dispute with his neighbour, in a legal battle expected to have generated more than £100,000 in fees.
Justin Salmon angered Andrianna Neophytou after building what he called a “den” at the bottom of his garden in Coulsdon, south London, in 2018. The structure included a television, bar, plastered walls, carpet, furniture and an electric doorbell.
Mrs Neophytou took the president of non-league Sutton Common Rovers FC to court, seeking the complete removal of what she described as an “eyesore”.
She is the freeholder of the Salmons’ ground-floor maisonette and also lives in the property above them.
Mrs Neophytou had already obtained a tribunal ruling that the large garden structure breached the terms of the lease, which allowed for a pergola and a basic toolshed in the garden.
She later sued Mr Salmon for the shed’s complete removal, arguing that the alterations he made to comply with the lease were insufficient.
Mrs Neophytou claimed Mr Salmon had simply transformed the “man cave” into an open-sided outdoor bar on the same footprint, replacing a sign reading “Man Cave” with one labelled “Shed for Domestic Purposes”.
Mr Salmon must now demolish the main structure after a judge rejected his argument that the bar area qualified as nothing more than a garden pergola.
Football club president Justin Salmon and his wife Karen are pictured outside Mayor’s and City County Court in London following a hearing over the 24ft “man cave” he built
Their neighbour Andrianna Neophytou, also pictured leaving court, described the Coulsdon structure as an “eyesore” and called for it to be demolished
The so-called “den”, complete with a TV, bar, plastered walls, carpet, furniture and an electric doorbell, was first built at the bottom of the Salmons’ garden in 2018
At Mayor’s and City County Court, Judge Nicholas Parfitt said the building was “not a pergola” but a “garden room entertainment area” for which Mr Salmon had no permission. Lawyers expect the case to result in legal bills exceeding £100,000.
The judge ordered Mr Salmon to take down the garden room but ruled that he could retain the shed beside the bar, concluding that it fell within his rights.
Judge Parfitt also ordered Mrs Neophytou to remove a porch that had been built alongside the house, reaching up to her maisonette.
The court heard that Mr Salmon lives in a maisonette with his wife, while Mrs Neophytou occupies the flat above them and has a garden behind the Salmons’ outdoor space.
Mr Salmon serves as president and senior secretary of non-league Sutton Common Rovers. He previously played for and coached the club, which was founded by his father, Alan Salmon, in 1978.
In 2017, Mr Salmon asked Mrs Neophytou for permission to construct a pergola at the bottom of the garden, and she agreed.
After the pergola was completed, Mr Salmon added a shed beside it. The two structures were then gradually expanded until they formed a roofed garden room.
The finished structure had UPVC windows and doors, plastered walls, carpeted flooring, furniture and signs bearing the names “Man Cave” and “The Den”.
Mrs Neophytou previously told the judge that the relationship between the neighbours deteriorated badly in 2020, leading her to begin proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal.
Mr Salmon installed signs on the structure – including the one pictured here
KEEP READING: California Senator Previews Schiff’s Role if Democrats Win Midterms
She argued that the ‘eyesore’ structures were in breach of the Salmons’ lease, saying from the witness box: ‘When I looked out the back, I had that great big room and marquees and everything else.
‘There was nothing pleasurable about looking out of my windows and that did upset me.’
After the earlier tribunal finding that the structures did breach the lease, Mr Salmon said he would do work on the ‘den’ to make it comply – going 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, except a shed for domestic purposes.
He accused the Salmons of only making ‘piecemeal’ changes without removing the garden room structures.
For the Salmons, barrister James Culverwell said whatever name is given, the building containing the bar at the bottom of the Salmons’ garden was now a ‘pergola-type’ structure and therefore within the terms of the agreement.
Mrs Neophytou’s barrister said that Mr Salmon placed signs stating ‘shed for domestic purposes’ and ‘Pergola with a covering to prevent birds mess’ after the initial ruling.
Giving judgment, Judge Parfitt said: ‘Looking at the photographs, the present structure provides a garden room entertainment area on the left hand side and a storage area to the right. The two structures are contiguous.
‘The garden room is laid out in a manner more like a bar/diner than anything else, in that it contains a counter with three bar stools and a preparation area behind.
‘There is also a table suitable for dining with benches on two sides. While the front is open, with heavy curtains available to close it off, the other sides and the roof are blocked off in one way or another.
‘I have no doubt that the left hand side is not what was permitted by the claimant’s agreement that the defendants could construct a pergola.
‘What is there is not a pergola, within any ordinary and natural sense of the word, because it provides less an opportunity to make use of the garden when it otherwise might not be convenient to do so, but rather remains the ‘additional living space’ which Mr Salmon described to the Property Chamber’.
Once it was built, Mr Salmon then added a shed alongside, before gradually developing the structures until they comprised a roofed garden room
He said the bar side of the structure would now have to be removed, unless more work is done to make it comply with the permission for an open-sided pergola.
As to the porch which Mrs Neophytou had built to enclose the stairs leading up to her maisonette, he said it was an ‘interference’ with the Salmons’ right to pass alongside the house and a ‘trespass to their walls’.
However, he said injunctions relating to removal of the garden room and Mrs Neophytou’s porch should allow a period of several months for the work, which would enable the parties to instead resolve their row by agreement.
‘In both instances, but for different reasons, the waste of resources in removing the entertainment room and porch may be mitigated by the parties coming to terms,’ he said.
‘In my view this would be a far preferable outcome. It is a matter for them.’
The judge has not yet made a decision on what proportions of the legal bills the parties will have to pay.
