A FORMER councillor has hit out at the "double standards"

being used by his local authority in the construction of a controversial road.

Darlington Borough Council has said that, despite the Eastern Transport Corridor being seven feet higher than originally planned, these are only "minor"

changes to the original plan.

Yet Peter Foster, who used to represent Hurworth on the council, has said two years ago he had to spend several thousand pounds altering his barn conversion when the roof was built two breeze blocks higher than originally planned.

The council has said the two cases are incomparable.

The Eastern Transport Corridor is being built at a cost of £12.5m to link Haughton Road to the A66 in a bid to reduce congestion.

Removing the extra seven feet will cost £1.5m.

However, residents of adjoining streets say the extra height will mean passing cars will be able to see into their bedrooms.

Mr Foster, who is also the chairman of Hurworth Parish Council, said: "I have friends that live on Red Hall and they're very concerned.

"I really feel for them. Some of them have lived there for years.

"They accepted that the road was going there, but they weren't expecting this."

Mr Foster said when his barn conversion was discovered to be too high, the roof had to be cut into three sections.

Each section then had to be lifted up by a crane while the offending breeze blocks were moved out.

He said: "Nobody had complained about my building but there was no way round it, I had to do it. What we've got here is one rule for them.

"Darlington council has said it's trying to put right accusations that they're not listening to people.

"But here they are going to ride roughshod over them."

A Darlington Borough Council spokesman said: "The two cannot really be compared in terms of scale and the context of the developments.

"The extra height on a house project could significantly alter the character of the scheme.

"In the context of a major, multi-million pound new road development it was our planning department's view that the extra height was not so significant as to warrant further planning permissions being sought."