AN executive house worth £350,000 could be pulled down after a council refused to accept its height.

Charles Church builders were criticised for building the detached, two-storey property in Ingleby Barwick, near Stockton, before getting permission on the ground levels.

Councillors at Stockton Borough Council refused to grant the company retrospective planning permission yesterday to allow for an extra half a metre on the home, which is still under construction.

Charles Church said it had to build the property higher than others in the vicinity because of drainage issues. But Councillor Eileen Craggs described the issue as a "carbuncle" and "ugly" and said if she lived behind it, she would be "screaming from the rooftops".

Councillor Bob Gibson said: "I would have thought the answer here is get it down, put it right and then build it.

"A planning committee is expected to bend and weave to let these things happen - and it should not. These are not amateur builders. The answer is knock it down and get it right."

People living behind the house complained that its height had led to a loss of their privacy and had not been agreed by the council.

Yesterday, planning officers recommended that the application be agreed with a raft of conditions, but councillors unanimously voted against it.

Nick Matthews, who lives inBrougham Close, applauded them.

He said the conditions were "ridiculous" and were not enforceable or permanent.

The conditions included:

* Closing a path alongside the property so the owners could not use it;

* Fixing the kitchen window shut and fitting it with obscure glass;

* Putting trellis above the fence adjoining neighbouring gardens.

But Mr Matthews said the neighbours would have been able to look straight down into his garden, and said he believed Charles Church had a responsibility to him and his neighbours.

"Why should we, the residents, be punished because Charles Church made a mistake," he said.

Councillor Maureen Rigg said she had grave concerns about the kitchen window and how enforceable it was.

"I think the whole thing is a mess and I don't think it should be allowed," she said.

The application was refused on the grounds that it had an adverse impact on neighbouring houses, as well as on the people who buy it.

No one from Charles Church was available for comment.