Angry bungalow owners feel like they are “living in a box” after new houses were built on land behind their gardens.

Residents in Hythe Road, Dymchurch, want the “monstrous” three-beds to be demolished.

But council bosses say no further action can be taken if the two-storey homes are built in accordance with approved plans.

The two new-builds on land to the rear of Willop Close were originally rejected by district councillors in 2021 - but were then given the green light on appeal a year later.

The Planning Inspectorate ruled that “any impact on both outlook and privacy would be limited”.

But Maureen Field - who has lived with husband John, 87, in their Hythe Road bungalow for more than 60 years - told KentOnline: “Everywhere we go in our garden, we are overlooked.

“We feel we’ve been let down by the council and the inspectorate.”

The couple do not want to leave their forever home - and would rather see the new development knocked down before work is complete and families move in.

Mrs Field, 80, added: “It’s a monstrosity. We would like them demolished, but we know that will not be the case.

“We just want to make sure that this builder realises the strong feelings of all these people around here and what it’s done to our mental and physical health because it’s like living in a box, having these facing you.”

The plans submitted for the homes in 2020 received a number of objections and were refused by a Folkestone and Hythe District Council (FHDC) planning committee a year later. Six councillors voted to reject the proposals, while two were in favour and four abstained.

However, the decision was overturned in September 2022 after the applicant J Jones appealed.

Planning inspector Martin Andrews concluded that the new homes “would not cause harm to the living conditions for the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings as regards outlook and privacy”.

The inspector also noted that the FHDC planning officer’s report said the proposed layout “does not present any serious concerns in regards to the impacts on these properties”.

For those residents whose back gardens face the houses, Mr Andrews said there would be “some slight sense of enclosure” but that the gaps between the old and new properties were large enough.

He added that “all development has at least some impact on its surroundings”.

The inspector was also not satisfied that flood risk was a reason for refusal, stating that procedures to assess the risk were sound and followed government advice.

But Peter Johnson, who lives just 26 metres away from the site, remains concerned.

The 73-year-old said: “The flooding has been tremendous. Our property and garden were flooded.

“So it is a flood risk area, but they won’t be flooded because they’re two metres up in the air.”

The residents are being supported by Romney Marsh ward councillor Tony Cooper.

“These residents deserve a remedy,” the Labour member said.

“I’m hoping that the district council will consider implementing planning enforcement because it is stark and so obviously overbearing, denying its neighbours privacy.”

But an FHDC spokesperson said: “This application was refused by the local planning authority but allowed on appeal by the Secretary of State.

“No further action can be taken so long as it is built in accordance with the approved details.”