HILLINGDON Council has come under fire from Eastcote residents after it admitted a planning approval was based on faulty drawings.

The development behind the historic Highgrove House in Eastcote was approved in 2007 by the north planning committee, unaware that the council's architects had drawn several houses out of position.

As a result, residents in Kent Gardens have been severely overshadowed by the half-built two-storey mews houses.

However, the council's legal adviser suggested at the latest meeting of the committee on Thursday (14) that the original planning permission was still valid.

A temporary stop notice was only issued on developers Westcombe who purchased the land from the council after permission was granted - when neighbours realised the building was being constructed in the wrong place.

Prior to the alert by residents, the council admitted it had not known about the mistake made by their Greenwich architects BPTW Partnership. Helen Ronchetti said it was a disgrace.

She told the Gazette: "Who in the council is taking responsibility? It is the council that employed the architect that did these plans. I think the council system of planning is totally flawed."

Members of the committee itself vented anger at their own planning officials. Councillor Lynne Allen (Lab, Townfield) said: "Clearly there has been a cock-up here and it needs correcting."

Councillor Carol Melvin (Con, Northwood) added: "Those 2007 plans were approved on incorrect information. I don't understand how they can still stand."

But council lawyer, Nikki Deol, warned: "The planning permission remains intact in my view. There are other mechanisms the planning authority could take in terms of the building."

A petition with 53 names objecting to the development was also presented. Kent Gardens resident Andrew Lakin told the committee: "It will significantly block out natural light. It is intrusive and over-baring. This development is purely motivated by profit with no consideration for local residents."

The committee agreed that given the circumstances, they would not be able to take a decision on the drawing amendments. Their decision was deferred pending the result of further legal advice.

Responding to the criticism, James Rodger, head of planning, said: '"At the planning committee meeting last evening, councillors asked officers to obtain specialist legal advice in relation to this site.

"The purpose of this is to ensure that the legal position is absolutely clear. Once this advice has been received, it will be reported back to the committee."