A MAN refused retrospective planning permission for a £10,000 barn has spoken out at "unfair criticism" levelled at him.

Landowner Peter Hughes was accused of changing his business in an attempt to keep the 14-metre by seven-metre barn after he was ordered to tear it down.

Councillors unanimously refused his latest application last week to use it for a fruit and vegetable business, having previously rejected a retrospective bid to base his wrought iron business, Betjamins, there.

Yesterday, Mr Hughes told The Northern Echo that he intended to fight on and appeal the latest decision.

He said that his wife had suffered a severe stroke, so their house, at Holmefield, in Yarm Back Lane, Stockton, was up for sale and he was quitting work to become her full-time carer.

"We don't have a wrought iron business - I work with wood," said Mr Hughes, 48.

"The house was sold and I was applying for permission for the market garden for the new buyer. However, he has pulled out because the application wasn't passed.

"The only reason I built my unit here was because it used to be an industrial site and I was burgled four times when we were on previous industrial sites."

After the initial application to Stockton Borough Council's planning committee to use the barn for a wrought iron business, Mr Hughes appealed and lost, and was ordered to remove the barn within nine months.

However, it remained and Mr Hughes submitted an application to run a market garden business from it instead.

The meeting heard of neighbours' fears that, if passed, Mr Hughes would continue to run his wrought iron business from the barn.

"I feel as though we are being driven out," Mr Hughes said.

He said he will appeal the latest decision in a bid to keep the barn, as it would make the two-and-a-half acre plot and four-bedroomed bungalow easier to sell.

Mike Carr, a spokesman for neighbour Mohammed Khan, who opposed the plans, argued that Mr Hughes advertised his business as an iron monger.

"Neither the Khan family nor anyone else would begrudge or wish to impede this gentleman's opportunity to make a living peacefully, but he has so far failed to do this," he said.

"The planning committee was unable to understand why clear instructions to remove the barn could not be followed."