“Fed up” councillors have blasted a developer for building a three bed house when there was only permission for two bedrooms.
Work was halted on the new build on narrow Bracken Hill at Mirfield after neighbours raised the alarm, one describing the property as “monstrous”.
Kirklees Council’s planning enforcement team got involved and the applicant agreed to re-apply for planning permission.
Despite the 3ft (0.9m) increase in the height of the home and the extra bedroom, a retrospective application was recommended for approval by Kirklees planning officers.
But councillors on the Heavy Woollen planning-sub committee strongly disagreed, refusing permission for the already constructed higher roof.
Kirklees could now order the building be partially demolished.
The applicant could also appeal the decision with the Planning Inspectorate.
Several objectors and councillors took the chance to slam the applicant’s attitude.
“Residents feel deceived,” said one member of the public. “It makes a mockery of the planning system.”
Independent town planner David Storrie, who was unusually commissioned to speak against the plan, said the height change was “significant”.
“This is no longer a modest two bed dwelling,” he said. “The scales have been tipped beyond what’s appropriate and it is now unacceptable.”
A spokesman for the applicant said they viewed the height change as minor and said they had co-operated with planning on all occasions.
But Clr Andrew Pinnock said: “I think it looks out of place to be frank. We should refuse it and ask the applicant to reduce the roof height.”
Mirfield councillor Kath Taylor said: “I’m fed up of things coming to planning retrospectively. The impact this causes on properties on Bracken Grove, it really is overbearing.”
Clr Bill Armer, added: “Retrospective applications are objectionable. They’re taking the micky.”
Clr Nigel Patrick said: “If it’s not a big difference it won’t take them long to take it down.”
Clr Graham Turner, said: “It shows disrespect to Kirklees officers and the committee and for that reason I’m fed up of this.”
Chair of the committee Clr Paul Kane said he didn’t consider the height issue significant and would approve the plan.
But a move to refuse it was backed by the majority.