RAISING roofs at a Swindon development could cost a company.

Swindon Council's planning committee will next week debate taking legal action against a developer who built homes on Argyle Street in Gorse Hill, which were higher than agreed.

When planning permission was granted the developer told the council the homes would be no taller than existing buildings next door.

But at the time no-one spotted that the company miscalculated the height of the adjacent homes so when the new homes were built they were at the agreed height but taller than those nearby.

Residents spotted the mistake early on and complained to planners.

On Tuesday officers will bring the case to councillors, and they are recommending members back legal action to get the situation put right.

"I think the developer used a mechanism to hoodwink the planning committee," said Coun Maurice Fanning (Lab, Gorse Hill and Pinehurst).

"I want the extra height removed so that the buildings are back to the two-storey height we approved.

"I am all for enforcement action in this case because I am extremely annoyed about the way this has been done."

In a report prepared for councillors, officers describe the impact of the development on neighbours as substantial.

"Your officers recommend that a breach of planning control has taken place and it is expedient to authorise the taking of formal enforcement action," the report concludes.

At the same time, the company, Cotswoldgate, has applied for planning permission to build the final property on the site - but this time so that it blends in with the others on the street.

Officers are recommending approving that application.

Building height concerns also prompted an application for retrospective planning permission for four flats in Rodbourne to go before the planning committee.

The scheme won planning permission last December - but council planners later received complaints the building was being built higher than agreed, When officers investigated they found the building's height was raised 70 centimetres and an extra floor had been created in the roofspace.

So the developer has applied for retrospective planning permission for the building.

In papers, officers wrote: "It is unfortunate that the building has been constructed differently to that approved and neither officers nor members can condone this."

But, they concluded, the house posed no unacceptable harm' to the surrounding area and said as long as the developer paid the council outstanding funds for the scheme, the councillors should wave the permission through.

But Coun Des Mofatt (Lab, Western) said: "The developer has driven a coach and horses through the planning procedure and if approved this could set a terribly dangerous precedent.

"If the developer can get away with this then it will undermine the whole process of planning regulations."