A controversial house extension in Castle Bromwich has been granted planning permission by Solihull Council, despite significant opposition from local residents and a ward councillor.
Neighbourhood Concerns Overruled
The application, submitted by Hitresh Modhwadiq in August 2025, sought permission for a two-storey rear extension and a single-storey side extension to a four-bedroom property on Poundley Close. The proposal went before the council's planning committee on December 15, 2025.
During the public consultation, nine formal objections were lodged. These were supported by Castle Bromwich councillor Alan Feeney, who argued the development would harm the street's uniform design and lead to a loss of parking.
Key concerns from neighbours included:
- The extension's excessive size and dominant appearance.
- Fears it represented overdevelopment and was out of character for the street.
- Worries it could later be converted into a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO).
- Potential increases in traffic and parking pressures.
Committee Debate and Unanimous Decision
At the meeting, held at the Civic Suite, a statement from Coun Feeney was read aloud. He insisted the plan would be "highly detrimental to the street scene" and criticised the loss of "valuable parking space."
However, planning agent Hanif Ghumra countered, clarifying that no front extension was proposed and that the scheme met all planning requirements. This view was supported by planning officer Jon Hallam, who confirmed the extension would not create new bedrooms, with the house remaining a four-bedroom property.
Councillor Dave Pinwell questioned the basis of the objections, noting the visual amenity of objectors on the opposite side of the road would be "completely unchanged." He also challenged the claim of uniform design, pointing out several different property models already exist on the street.
Following the debate, committee chairman Councillor Bob Grinsell moved to a vote. The decision to grant planning approval was unanimous.
Outcome and Implications
The ruling highlights the weight given to professional planning guidance over local objections when a proposal is deemed to comply with policy. The council's officers and committee concluded that the fears over parking loss and dominant size were unfounded, as the work is confined to the rear and side of the property.
This case serves as a reminder of the planning process, where adherence to local development frameworks often proves decisive, even in the face of concerted community opposition.
