Worcestershire landscape gardener furious after council tells him his garden wall is an 'obstruction' Garry Painter, 54, built metre-high wall around his garden in Worcestershire Now six years on the local council has decided it is 'obstructing' the road Mr Painter owns the land but council said he had a 'duty' not to build on it He has a month to tear it down or face a £3,500 bill for a contractor to do it A landscape gardener who built a wall on his own land has now been told it's an 'obstruction' by the local council which is making him pay £3,500 to have it torn down. Garry Painter built the metre-high brick wall around his garden after buying a converted barn in Bromsgrove, Worcestershire. However, council officials claim that even though the 54-year-old owns the land it's built on, it must come down as it is obstructing the public highway and he had a 'duty' not to build on it. Anger: Garry Painter has been ordered to tear down the garden wall he built at his home in Worcestershire Mr Painter moved in to the home with his partner and their two daughters in 2007, and says he spent four months and £4,000 tidying up the adjacent plot of land by re-turfing the ground and erecting the garden wall. Two years later, Worcestershire County Council ordered him to return the land to its original state by demolishing the wall and ripping up the turf. Although he is the legal owner of the land, the council claims that part of it has traditionally been a public highway, meaning he has a duty not to build on it in order to allow unimpeded access for motorists and pedestrians. The wall is situated on a verge, with a gap of around 1ft between the wall and the road. Legal battle: Mr Painter has spent four years trying to prove to the council that he has the right to build 'Obstruction': The council claims the wall is built on a public highway and is therefore illegal Following a four-year legal battle, the council has now given Mr Painter a month to tear down the wall or face a £3,500 bill for them to hire a contractor to do it. 'All my neighbours think my wall and lawn look great and it really improves the look of the area,' Mr Painter said. 'I can't see how the council can possibly think that ripping up my lawn and tearing down the wall is a good idea. 'The wall's been there for more than six years now. I just can't see what the problem is. I feel as though it's David versus Goliath, and I won't give in to these bullies.' When Mr Painter's solicitor wrote to the council pointing out that he owned the land, they replied: 'The ownership is worthless to your client as it relates to the subsoil ownership only and does not supercede any highways rights that exist over the surface.' But the gardener said: 'I have taken a piece of land which I own and significantly improved it. If I didn't own it and had just tidied it up, it would still be ridiculous but I could understand. But they want me to knock down my wall and rip up all of the turf on my own land. And the council have the cheek to bill me for the demolition, which they say is £3,500 plus a tipping charge. Letter: The council told Mr Painter's lawyer that his ownership of the land is 'worthless' Deadline: The wall is due to be demolished later this month and Mr Painter will have to pay He is now seeking an injunction to stop the council knocking down the wall, and says the case has already cost him £5,000. 'I am not going to back down and I am prepared to take this to court,' Mr Painter said. I know 100 per cent I will win my case as the wall is on my land and I have the papers to prove it. 'There are so many abandoned and shabby properties which need demolishing which the council aren't interested in, but I try to make my small patch of land look neat and tidy and suddenly they want to knock it down. It is ridiculous. It may seem petty to some people but this wall means the earth to me. I had it built to improve my land and I am fully within my rights as the landowner to do so. A spokesman for Worcestershire County Council refused to comment, saying: 'This is currently a matter which is the subject for discussion between respective solicitors.'