A builder says he's been "screwed" by a council after being fined for refusing to take down a balcony added to a property they own.
Malcolm Hughlock and his wife Tracy were involved in a lengthy dispute with their local authority and failed to comply to conditions added to retrospective planning permission.
The terrace was built onto the couple's home in Boosbeck, near Saltburn, in North Yorkshire, which itself unconventionally makes use of tyres in the foundations.
However, neighbours on a nearby street complained to Redcar and Cleveland Council, describing the addition as an "eyesore", and said it was impinging on their privacy.
Council planners had said the upstairs balcony unacceptably overlooked an adjacent bungalow.
The homeowners were given three months to comply with a condition attached to the retrospective permission.
Mr and Mrs Hughlock pleaded guilty to failing to comply with the notice notice.
They were each fined £200 plus £1,040 costs and a £34 'victim surcharge'.
After the hearing, Mr Hughlock, 70, slammed the council, claiming it had hired a barrister which had raised the court costs.
He told YorkshireLive: "I feel as though I got screwed by them to be quite honest, something rotten. The overall thing is crazy, they [the council] were just out to punish me, no matter what."
The council previously said its planning committee expressed the view that Mr Hughlock had displayed a “wilful disregard” for planning regulations, but recognised that in granting retrospective permission conditions could be used to secure an amended scheme.
It said: “His actions have used up valuable staff resources, unnecessarily complicated and prolonged the planning process and caused some distress to adjoining occupiers.
"It has been made clear that if he [behaves] in a similar manner on any future development the council [will] use appropriate powers to restrain or halt any development.”
Mr Hughlock said the tenant in the house, a friend of his, Stuart Wilcoxan, and a next door neighbour had attended the court in support of the couple.
He claimed he had a “100% petition” in support of the balcony being retained, but the council “were not even interested in what people think”.
He said: “It’s a glass balcony, it’s for a garden, not to sit on, and it looks lovely now, it’s getting better all the time.”
Referring to the fine and costs received, Mr Hughlock said: “I have got to pay it, I don’t want to be done for not paying it. I am disgusted with them [the council].”
The saga still may not be over, however, with the pensioner still retaining a right of appeal in planning terms.
This would involve submitting a planning application to remove the conditions from the approved application.
If refused, it could ultimately open up the prospect of an appeal to a planning inspector, who acts on behalf of the secretary of state.
Mr Hughlock claimed he had not been told by the local authority he could appeal against the specific condition regarding the balcony, which councillors wanted to be removed.
He said: “They only told me I could appeal on the whole house, in which case if I had lost I would have had to take the whole house down.
“If the council had told me right at the beginning I could appeal on the conditions alone to the planning inspector I would have just done that, and if they had said no, I would have taken it down [the balcony].”
He also complained that he had been sent approximately 200 pages worth of evidence by the council just a day or two in advance of the court case, not giving him the time needed to prepare a defence.
He added: “I have earned nothing. [The tenants] are on a low rent and have these rents for the rest of their lives. I may as well say I am a charity.”
A spokesman for the council, speaking after the court hearing, said it was “satisfied that correct procedures were followed before the court case and the correct advice given” to Mr Hughlock.
