Solihull Council's planning committee has refused permission for a proposed four-bedroom detached home on garden land behind 29 Ulverley Crescent in Olton, following objections from neighbours and the local ward councillor. The decision, made at a meeting on July 24, came after a site visit and intense debate over the impact on residents' enjoyment of their gardens.
Application details and objections
Developer Warmthhomes submitted the application to build the home on a parcel of land near Ulverley Crescent and Fentham Court. The proposal drew 12 objection letters from neighbours, as well as opposition from ward councillor James Bradley. Tensions escalated at a previous meeting in May, when a resident of nearby Fentham Court shouted and stormed out during the proceedings.
At the May meeting, councillors deferred their decision to allow a site visit, with the application returning to the committee in July. Planning officer Matthew Heynes reminded members that officers had recommended approval, subject to conditions, but the committee ultimately disagreed.
Councillor and officer views
Speaking at the meeting, Councillor James Bradley said: "Thank you for deferring in May and undertaking a site visit - I hope it has given you an opportunity to see how the dwelling really fails to sit in the area. The property fails to fit the streetscene because arguably this is not a streetscene - its residential gardens and a car park."
The applicant did not attend the July meeting, but at the May meeting Akaash Chudasama, representing the applicant, had argued the site was in an "accessible location to local services" within an existing suburban area.
During the committee's debate, Councillor David Hoey questioned whether the scheme complied with planning policies and asked: "Will the garden space provided for what is intended to be a substantial family dwelling meet the council's expected standards?"
Officer Heynes responded: "There is a mix of residential types in the area. Given there is not a kind of uniform design it was considered a dwelling of this design is acceptable in this location. Although it is not the depth (of the garden) we would necessarily expect, it has got quite a significant width so it is considered to have acceptable amenity space."
Amenity concerns dominate
Councillor Hoey then expressed concern that the scheme would affect the ability of neighbours to enjoy their gardens. Committee chairman Councillor Bob Grinsell agreed, saying: "In the recent 20 days of hot weather you want to sit out. People reference their gardens as another room - my view is it is an amenity issue."
Mark Andrews, the council's head of planning, acknowledged the crux of the issue: "Our guidance will look at the distance between respective properties, the proposed and existing, and whether that gap is acceptable or not. In this case officers feel that gap is acceptable. It comes to the crux of the issue if you feel that relationship is too imposing or intense."
Vote and refusal
When the vote was held, only two committee members voted in favour of the scheme, with six against. The committee's official reason for refusal was that the scheme did not comply with planning policy regarding respect for the amenity of neighbours.
Immediately following this item, a separate application to extend 29 Ulverley Crescent, submitted by applicant Mr Rasib, was also refused by the committee for similar non-compliance with planning policies.
The meeting was held at the Civic Suite on July 24, and the decisions reflect the committee's commitment to protecting residential amenity in the Olton area.
