DEVELOPERS who build without planning permission came under fire from city councillors over a scheme in a village near Winchester.

Mr A Bennett put in retrospective application after not abiding by planning permission that had been given for three houses, a committee heard. The three two-storey houses, which replaced a 1960s bungalow, were higher than the permission at The Pines, Downs Road, South Wonston.

The scheme attracted nine objections from neighbours including Grant Johnston who said the houses were now "overbearing" and invaded neighbours' privacy.

Bem Kelly, agent for the developer, told the committee he disagreed they were overbearing and said there was several other two-storey buildings in the area.

Local city councillor Stephen Godfrey, who lives in South Wonston, described the retrospective application as "an abuse of the planning system". He said he had been lobbying for several years to change the rules over the legality of retrospective applications.

He said the homes were two foot higher than what was given permission and eight foot higher than the original buildings.

Cllr Brian Laming said he was "very disturbed by this application and this house builder has acted in a cavalier fashion, building something that has not got consent and not taking into consideration the local neighbours."

Cllr David McLean tried to get the application deferred because the councillors had not received information and a video from the objectors. It has been sent to the planning department but not passed on to the councillors. But he not get anyone to second him.

But committee chairman Jane Rutter pointed out that the fact it was a retrospective application was not a planning consideration for the committee. But she added: "It's frustrating we cannot take a retrospective application as a planning reason to refuse this application. "

She said she agreed with Cllr Godfrey and said such developers should be hit with a £1,000 minimum fee.

Catherine Watson, planning officer, told the planning committee that had the developer proposed the scheme he was actually building she would have recommended approval.

Reluctantly the committee approved the scheme by three votes to two, with two abstentions.