Nigel Farage has launched a scathing attack on the government, alleging a blatant case of political interference after a Labour MP's intervention prompted the Home Office to question the legitimacy of his Essex home.
The Reform UK leader finds himself at the centre of a fresh controversy over a property he owns in the protected Epping Forest area. The dispute was reignited after Dan Jarvis, the Labour MP for Barnsley Central, wrote to the Home Office challenging the validity of the planning permission granted for the building.
A Letter Sparks a Whitehall Investigation
In his correspondence, Mr Jarvis raised serious concerns, stating he believed the planning process for Mr Farage's home may have been "improperly influenced". This direct intervention led the Home Office to confirm it is now reviewing the case to determine if the correct procedures were followed.
Mr Farage has vehemently denied any wrongdoing, asserting that all planning permissions were obtained "lawfully and properly" over two decades ago. He has framed the government's subsequent review as a politically motivated attack, suggesting a collusion between a Labour MP and the Conservative government.
Farage's Furious Response
Responding to the developments, Mr Farage did not mince his words. He accused the system of being weaponised against him, telling The Independent: "This stinks to high heaven... It is a collusion between a Labour MP and our own government. This is pure political interference."
He further claimed that the timing and nature of the investigation were suspect, asking: "Why is the Home Office involved in a planning issue in Epping Forest that is 21 years old? This is not a security matter."
The Core of the Planning Dispute
The controversy stems from a cabin built on the land, which the local authority, the City of London Corporation, states was erected without the necessary planning consent. While Mr Farage holds permission for the land's use, the specific structure is the focal point of the legal disagreement.
This situation has escalated beyond a local planning matter, transforming into a national political row that questions the boundaries of ministerial influence and the potential for the state apparatus to be used against political opponents.
