A SALISBURY bar owner has blasted Wiltshire Council for wasting money pursuing a “ludicrous” court case over work he did to convert the attic of the bar into a flat without planning permission.

Alex Nettle, 32, who owns Kludo on the corner of Milford Street and Brown Street, was found not guilty by a jury at Salisbury Crown Court of allowing three counts of allowing unauthorised works to a Grade II* listed building on Thursday.

He says the council, which had already granted him retrospective planning permission, should never have pursued a case that was not in the public interest.

He said: “I’m very happy with the result but I’m also angry. We wrote to the council a number of times and said this is not in the public interest.

“This case would never have come to trial had the council taken a more enlightened approach and had they not had such a flagrant disregard for public money and lack of respect for the truth.

“It was like a witch hunt, it was disgraceful.

The council’s costs are estimated at £5,500 and Mr Nettle thinks he will be able to get half of his £32,000 costs back through central funds, which means the taxpayer foots a £20,000 bill.

Mr Nettle, who has restored several other listed buildings in the city, said the attic was in a poor state and the only features of architectural merit are the low doorways and the trusses, which he left intact.

He was granted retrospective planning permission in December last year to convert the attic and part of the first floor into a single residential unit.

He said: “If they had sent me an enforcement notice I would have appealed it and a planning expert would have made the decision.

“I have put blood, sweat and tears into restoring and defending my beautiful buildings. It’s a sad state of affairs when local government employees do their best to destroy local business instead of supporting it.”

A Wiltshire spokesman said: “We have a duty to investigate any complaints we receive of this nature, and in the case of work to listed buildings the council is particularly vigilant because they are part of the history of a town.

“Any changes could affect the building permanently, and when we take these cases to court it is in the interest of the community and not done lightly. We of course accept the decision of the jury.”