A property tycoon who may have to tear down an opulent Roman-style swimming pool built in his back garden has accused council bosses of double standards.

David Martin, 42, has been hauled over the coals by Brighton and Hove City Council in connection with the pool he built at his plush mansion in Tongdean Avenue, Hove.

But Mr Martin, who intends to fight the council, says it has given permission for a nearby housing development, so he cannot understand why it is taking issue with just one outhouse.

He said: "Everyone who has seen the pool has had the same reaction - they cannot believe the council is doing this."

On Monday, the council announced it had secured a prosecution of Mr Martin's company the Hughes Spencer Dowling Trust, which officially owns the home. Mr Martin was hit with a fine and costs.

The court ruled that if a further planning application, due to be heard in September, fails, Mr Martin will have to scrap the outhouse structure which covers the pool.

Referring to the court action, architect Barry Stacey, who has been advising Mr Martin since the row broke out, said: "I've never seen such a travesty and an abhorrent waste of taxpayers' money as this."

The swimming pool, which is set to the rear of Mr Martin's mansion, was built in 2003 without planning permission and an attempt to secure retrospective permission was made in the same year.

Mr Martin had the pool and its outhouse recommended for approval by city council officers.

But complaints from neighbours, followed by representations made by councillors, led to the structure being refused permission.

The court action stemmed from Mr Martin's refusal to comply with enforcement notices demanding that he scrapped the pool. He said: "The only reason the council refused it was because certain councillors stepped in and made it a personal issue."

The tycoon pointed to the large housing development at the north end of Tongdean Avenue - in a conservation area and said the council is applying double standards.

A council spokesman said:

"The court found in our favour on the grounds that Mr Martin had chosen to ignore our previous attempts to enforce planning regulations.

"We are surprised that the points that have been raised weren't mentioned in court.

"If they have cropped up since the judgment then it would not be appropriate for us to comment on them as they imply that further legal action may be under consideration."