A builder says he has been “screwed something rotten” after he and his wife were ordered to pay a fine and legal costs arising from a long-running planning dispute.

Malcolm Hughlock and his wife Tracy were taken to court by Redcar and Cleveland Council after the former refused to remove a balcony from a property in Boosbeck, east Cleveland.

The council had given Mr Hughlock three months to comply with a condition attached to retrospective planning permission he gained requiring the dismantling of the balcony with the home, which, unusually, was built with rubber tyres which were added to its foundations.

The builder claimed the council had broken its own rules “left, right and centre” taking the matter to court, but the local authority has said it is satisfied all the correct procedures were followed. The 70-year-old said he and his wife, who is the owner of the two storey property in Serenity Hollow, had pleaded not guilty at first with the intention of going to trial.

But when the case was heard at Teesside Magistrates Court he said they were advised to plead guilty on the simple basis that the balcony, which overlooks a bungalow, had not been taken down and the condition notice had been breached.

As a result they were each fined £200 with costs of £1,040 each being ordered along with a £34 "victim surcharge" – the sum total amounting to more than £2,500 to be paid within 28 days. A spokesman for the council said magistrates had awarded the costs in full to the local authority.

Speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service in the wake of the hearing, Mr Hughlock criticised the council, claiming it hired a barrister for the case, which he said had only added to the bill and was “overkill”. He said: “I feel as though I got screwed by them to be quite honest, something rotten.

“The overall thing is crazy, they [the council] were just out to punish me, no matter what.”

The council previously said its planning committee expressed the view that Mr Hughlock had displayed a “wilful disregard” for planning regulations, but recognised that in granting retrospective permission conditions could be used to secure an amended scheme.

It said: “His actions have used up valuable staff resources, unnecessarily complicated and prolonged the planning process and caused some distress to adjoining occupiers. It has been made clear that if he [behaves] in a similar manner on any future development the council [will] use appropriate powers to restrain or halt any development.”

Mr Hughlock said the tenant in the house, a friend of his, Stuart Wilcoxan and a next door neighbour had attended the court in support of the couple.

He claimed he had a “100 per cent petition” in support of the balcony being retained, but the council “were not even interested in what people think”. He said: “It’s a glass balcony, it’s for a garden, not to sit on, and it looks lovely now, it’s getting better all the time.”

When the house was originally built, however, several residents in nearby Wandhill Gardens objected, describing it as an “eyesore”, which impinged on their privacy and was not compatible with the housing around it.

Referring to the fine and costs received, Mr Hughlock said: “I have got to pay it, I don’t want to be done for not paying it. I am disgusted with them [the council].”

The saga still may not be over, however, with the pensioner still retaining a right of appeal in planning terms. This would involve submitting a planning application to remove the conditions from the approved application.

If refused, it could ultimately open up the prospect of an appeal to a planning inspector, who acts on behalf of the secretary of state.

Mr Hughlock claimed he had not been told by the local authority he could appeal against the specific condition regarding the balcony, which councillors wanted removed. He said: “They only told me I could appeal on the whole house, in which case if I had lost I would have had to take the whole house down.

“If the council had told me right at the beginning I could appeal on the conditions alone to the planning inspector I would have just done that, and if they had said no, I would have taken it down [the balcony].”

He also complained that he had been sent approximately 200 pages worth of evidence by the council just a day or two in advance of the court case, not giving him the time needed to prepare a defence.

He added: “I have earned nothing . [The tenants] are on a low rent and have these rents for the rest of their lives. I may as well say I am a charity.”

A spokesman for the council, speaking after the court hearing, said it was “satisfied that correct procedures were followed before the court case and the correct advice given” to Mr Hughlock.