Solihull planners have refused permission for the construction of a four-bedroom detached home on garden land behind 29 Ulverley Crescent in Olton, following strong opposition from local residents.
The developer, Warmthhomes, had submitted the application to build on the site, which sparked 12 objection letters from neighbours as well as concerns raised by ward councillor James Bradley to Solihull Council.
Tensions were evident during the planning committee’s May meeting when a resident from nearby Fentham Court vocally protested and left the session abruptly as the application was discussed. At that meeting, councillors chose to defer their decision to allow for a site visit, which subsequently took place before the committee’s latest gathering.
READ MORE: Family Car Records Highest Motorway Speed in West Midlands for 2026
Planning officer Matthew Heynes informed committee members that officers had recommended the application for approval, subject to certain conditions.
Speaking during the public session, councillor James Bradley expressed his concerns: “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 – it’s residential gardens and a car park.”
The applicant did not attend the recent meeting, but during the May session Akaash Chudasama, representing Warmthhomes, described the site as an accessible location within an existing suburban area.
During the committee debate, Councillor David Hoey enquired whether the proposal complied with the council’s planning policies and questioned: “Will the garden space provided for what is intended to be a substantial family dwelling meet the council’s expected standards?”
The planning officer responded by noting the variety of residential types in the area and the lack of uniform design, concluding that the proposed dwelling’s design was acceptable. Although the garden depth was less than typically expected, the width was significant enough to provide acceptable amenity space.
Councillor Hoey expressed concerns about the impact on neighbouring residents' ability to enjoy their gardens. Committee chairman Councillor Bob Grinsell agreed, remarking: “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, explained that guidance assesses the distance between properties to determine if the gap is acceptable. In this case, officers considered the gap acceptable but acknowledged that the issue hinged on whether the relationship felt too imposing or intense.
When put to a vote, only two committee members supported the application while six voted against. The official reason for refusal was that the proposal did not comply with planning policy concerning the respect of neighbours’ amenity.
Following this decision, the committee also considered, and refused, a separate application to extend 29 Ulverley Crescent, submitted by another applicant, Mr Rasib, for similar reasons related to planning policy compliance.
The meeting took place at the Civic Suite on 24 July.