'Cooking odour' fears over house extension plans in Great Barr

Mr J Singh was given the green light to build a new bedroom, kitchen and living room space at his home in Monksfield Avenue.

But the proposal sparked objections from residents who raised concerns about loss of privacy to neighbouring properties; loss of light to nearby properties; and increased outdoor noise and cooking odours.

Sandwell Council planners received mixed responses for the construction of a single and two storey rear extensions at the home on Monksfield Avenue, Great Barr.

The proposed plan aims to create a new kitchen and additional living space at ground floor level. One additional bedroom at first floor level, is also proposed, creating a four bedroom property.

In the application, Mr Bingsley, who represented residents at Monksfield Avenue, said: “The national model design code provides the definition of privacy as the distance between dwellings to ensure private community, in particular the distance between windows of habitable rooms.

“For planning purposes or habitable room is defined as any room used or intended to be used for sleeping, cooking, living, or eating purposes. The dining room will clearly fall into this category, and will be unacceptable 18.3 metres from the rear of this extension.”

According to the Sandwell residential design guide, a separation distance of 21 metres (minimum) is needed between building rear faces from two storey dwellings, rising to 27.5 metres for three storeys and above where a main living room and kitchen windows are located above ground floor.

The application was deferred at a previous meeting in July, for a site visit to enable councillors to assess the issue of privacy between houses.

Attending Sandwell council’s planning committee meeting on Wednesday evening, Mr Singh said: “The planning officers have twice now said the application should be approved in its current form.

“The important thing to keep in mind is that the properties to the rear, and on the site have been extended. This is a new application for extension.”

Mr Singh appeared confused by the objection listed as cooking odours to neighbouring residents.

He said: “The objection to cooking smells? I don’t know why that’s been raised. Is it because I am of Asian background? Why is there an objection on cooking? Is that just to increase the number of objections?

“I’m not proposing to run a restaurant there. It’s my family I can cook whatever I want in my house, and there are extra funds and anything that can be done to make sure that those things can be minimised.”

Mr Singh said he had reached out to his neighbours last Wednesday, and allowed them into his property and back garden. The neighbours provided their own “tape measure” to view the planned dimensions of the extension.

While neighbours have objected on the grounds of loss of privacy, Mr Singh said he would plant fir trees to the rear of the garden as a “goodwill gesture”.

“Planting these trees is a cost to myself. I’m willing to pay that. These delays are causing me an enormous amount of money to mortgages, bills, and council tax for two properties,” he said.

“We just want to be good neighbours. We want this to be our forever home, and hence we want the house to be accommodating for three generations,” he added.

Councillor Peter Allen, Lab, a member of the planning committee, proposed a motion to mitigate the loss of privacy by residents by asking Mr Singh to plant trees.

Councillor Charn Singh Padda, Lab, seconded the motion, adding: “Sandwell has housing shortages, and we need to keep the family together. So I back Councillor Allen’s motion.

“We recognise the privacy of the bungalow, and the need for screening. If [Mr Singh] is bringing [the property] forward by 12 feet, there’s no screen there at the moment today, so I think we should move the motion, subject to the trees, to tackle that issue.”

The planning application was approved, subject to conditions.