Cornwall councillors have granted planning permission for amendments to a new property which was built against planning rules.

Sally Cattran had previously been given planning permission to build a new home in North Street, Marazion, but with strict conditions as the site is in a conservation area and close to several listed buildings.

However when the detached property was built it moved away from the original plans and was in breach of planning regulations.

A wall to the front of the property, which the developer had been told to retain, was demolished to improve vehicular access to the property.

In addition white, modern uPVC windows were installed in the house, an annexe in the garden was built on an elevated platform and a metal chimney was installed on the property – all against the original plans which had been approved.

Enforcement action was started by the council but the applicants submitted a new planning application setting out how they would want to amend the development and make it right.

The application went to Cornwall Council’s west sub-area planning committee in March so that further amendments could be made to the property.

As a result Mrs Cattran has removed the flue and some of the platform and decking which had been placed around the annexe. In addition she has restored some of the wall which was demolished.

The plans came back to the planning committee on Monday morning and councillors said that while they were disappointed that the breaches had occurred they felt that the new proposals went some way to resolving the issues.

Planning officer Adam Carlyon explained that the boundary wall had been removed “unlawfully” and said that while it was “disappointing” the rebuilt wall was satisfactory.

He highlighted that the annexe at the top of the garden behind the property had also been “constructed unlawfully” but said that the agreement to remove some of the raised areas and decking had reduced the overlooking on neighbouring properties.

Derek Laity from Marazion Town Council was very unhappy about the whole saga and urged the council to reject the plans and demand that all the breaches were put right.

He said: “This planning application is a good example of why the planning process is broken. The planning application was for a new property and despite objections from the town council the application was passed.

“The site is of great historic interest and Cornwall Council agreed with us when they imposed conditions to protect the conservation area and the Grade II listed buildings.

“The applicant then ignores those conditions, unlawfully installing a chimney, unlawfully demolishing the boundary wall. Many complaints were made by our council.”

He added: “The proposal has done nothing to preserve the character and appearance of the historic area of the town. There seems to be a complete disregard to the planning process by the applicant. The process has been abused from the beginning.”

Cllr Laity added: “The applicant should be forced to comply with all the conditions. If you approve this application there is little point in putting the conditions in place in the first place.”

The town councillor said that he did not know why the planning officers felt that the applicants would adhere to the conditions being proposed on the new application.

And he said that “public confidence is being undermined in the planning process” and that the council “needs to restore public faith in the planning process”.

Cornwall Council planning chief Mark Broomhead said that he appreciated the frustrations of the town council but that the issues had been resolved to a satisfactory level.

He added: “It is a frustration in terms of the process and what we can achieve. I have put additional conditions in this application and we will make sure it is adhered to.”

Committee member John Keeling said he understood why local councillors had been so angry about the breaches and said that “it beggars belief”.

But he said that it looked like the breaches had been rectified and that the council can ensure that any further changes would happen.

He added: “It is a pity that we can’t recharge the applicant for the amount of time and money it has cost to do this.”

The committee voted unanimously in favour of granting planning permission.