A Castle Bromwich ‘mancave’ has been given approval by Solihull planners. Applicant Abbas Yousuf put forward his plans for a garden outbuilding, described as “lounge space/mancave”, to Solihull Council last July.
But residents objected saying it was “overbearing” and “out of character”. The application for the building at the home in Woodford Avenue was first considered at the authority’s planning committee in December.
On that occasion members decided to delay a decision saying they wanted to see the already partly-built building for themselves. A site visit took place on Wednesday, (January 8), hours before the committee’s latest meeting.
READ MORE: ‘Utter tripe’ – delay on Castle Bromwich ‘mancave’ sparks backlash
For more stories from across Solihull including BHX, breaking news, politics and what’s on, sign up to our MySolihull newsletter
A joint statement from Woodford Avenue neighbours John Spiers and Elizabeth Watson was read out which said: “We believe this project raises significant privacy concerns for both our home and gardens. The placement of windows directly faces our living spaces including lounges, kitchens and gardens severely diminishing our privacy and sense of security.
“We hope the council understands the importance of privacy for both of us.” Councillor Dave Pinwell said: “We saw this morning this outbuilding is comfortably the size of a small bungalow.
“We would not permit a small bungalow to be built.” Jon Hallam, an officer at the authority, stressed a building with a flat roof would come under permitted development which would not require the committee’s permission.
(Image: Solihull Council)
“It (this building) could conceivably be reduced in height, alterations to make it permitted development, and you would still have a large outbuilding with windows and doors in exactly the same position,” the officer said. Councillor Bob Grinsell, the committee’s chairman, said: “What we are trying to achieve here is to find the best solution for the neighbours on either side of this ‘mancave’.
“We refuse it would mean it would have to be done under permitted development. We lose control if we refuse it, effectively. If we approve it, with the hipped roof, I’m suggesting conditions – the side window be obscured; any further permitted development rights are taken away.”
When the vote was taken there were seven votes for, one against with one abstention. The chairman added: “The matter is approved, subject to conditions.”