Who pays the bill?

But the Government has ruled in its own favour and decided not to foot a £10,000 bill for costs following a public inquiry.

Gary Watson shifted his boundary and removed banking to allow for a two-storey extension at Hoober Court, Upper Haugh.

Planning inspector David Wildsmith ruled that a stopping up order for the Stubbin Lane highway could not be granted retrospectively.

But action group Hands Off Stubbin Lane is angry at being left paying for the costs.

Solicitor Naeem Siraj, acting on the group’s behalf, said: “We were successful in preventing the order at the public enquiry.

“We incurred costs in successfully protecting a public amenity in light of overwhelming evidence. But the Secretary of State himself decides, he says ‘I’m not guilty.’”

A letter from the Treasury Solicitors Department to Mr Siraj at Metis Law said: “In our view such an application would be misconceived.

“There can be no ‘debt’ in the absence of an established legal liability. We do not accept that the Secretary of State would in any circumstances be liable for your client’s costs.

“We would reiterate that the only way the inspector’s costs decision may be challenged is by bringing a claim for judicial review. We maintain that your client’s proposed claim for judicial review is unarguable.”

Mr Watson told the two-day hearing last November that he had “exhausted all avenues” in trying to find who owned the land and took advice from Rotherham Borough Council.

Metis Law served notice on the council under the Highways Act to demand Mr Watson removes the obstruction.

The council decided the obstruction only included the fence — not the extension — and has now served notice on Mr Watson.

Mr Siraj said: “The council said it did absolutely nothing wrong but those officials who deal with stopping up orders advised Mr Watson to do what he did. It shows an amazing level of incompetence.

“But this now means Rotherham Council has finally accepted there is something untoward which needs removing.”

A council spokesman said: “Notice was served upon Mr Watson, stating that he should remove the obstruction, being the fence, or we will exercise powers under the Highways Act to remove it ourselves.

“Mr Watson has time from the serving of the notice for him to opt to act to contest or comply before we can carry out the removal.”