A long-running battle between Herefordshire Council and a local builder over a half-built house in the county has taken another, possibly final twist.

The building at Duke’s Walk, Leominster by the town’s Etnam Street car park has been the subject of numerous planning applications, refusals and appeals for over a decade.

Builder Martin Rohde applied in February for a certificate of lawfulness confirming that work had begun on the site in 2011, a year after planning permission for a smaller house on the plot had been granted.

He also applied for permission to knock down the larger building and build back something closer to the original permitted house.

But the council rejected the certificate of lawfulness bid, saying there were “significant anomalies” in Mr Rohde’s account, which was contradicted by the council’s own evidence.

In appealing against this to the government’s Planning Inspectorate, a statement on Mr Rohde’s behalf now says the council had given precedence to non-sworn over sworn evidence in determining how much site work had been done in the early years of the project.

The council also refused his bid for planning permission to rebuild the house, saying this would be “detrimental to the surrounding townscape”.

It then followed up an enforcement notice against Mr Rohde with a county court injunction order served on September 19, requiring him to demolish the building and to “restore the land to the condition it was in prior to the construction of the unlawful development”.

“If you disobey this order, you may be found guilty of contempt of court and may be sent to prison or fined,” it warned.

But the two-month compliance period for the order will not start until six weeks after the result of the Planning Inspectorate’s decision on Mr Rohde’s appeal.

For good measure, the council has also refused a separate bid by Mr Rohde to revamp a derelict former takeaway in Etman Street immediately in front of the Duke’s Walk house, intended to make it more appealing to a potential new tenant.

Planning officer Matthew Neilson concluded that removal of the “traditional” shop front and loss of its symmetry would harm the town’s conservation area.