THE council’s planning department has been criticised for ignoring the concerns of neighbours over a decision to allow a corner home to be built in the city despite strong objections.

Carl Chaloner, who made a number of strongly-worded objections to a plan to build a two-storey home in Glenthorne Avenue in Worcester as well as speaking to the planning committee before a decision was made in November, has made a complaint to Worcester City Council denouncing its approval.

Mr Chaloner said the development was “totally inappropriate” and said the objections he raised with the council’s planning committee and planning department have yet to be answered.

Mr Chaloner was concerned the house would have a “dramatic effect” on sunlight entering his home and he feared his garden would lose sunlight for several hours a day.

He said: “Overall not enough care, vetting, proof reading and due diligence has been carried out by the planning department.”

Mr Chaloner blasted the council’s planning department for not taking his or any of the other neighbour’s objections into account and for its failure to give explanations for not following the relevant law, South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) policy or planning guidance.

He said the council’s decision - including layout, orientation and car parking - were based on “inaccurate, incomplete or irrelevant” information in the application.

Mr Chaloner added that he would be passing on what he saw as ‘irregularities’ in the council’s administration of the application to the local government ombudsman for investigation - the final stage for complaints made against councils.

In his letter to the council Mr Chaloner said: “I am not against houses being built, in fact I believe the current housing stock is very inadequate and that we should be building.

“Some of the councillors even recommended a compromise for the new build which I would have accepted, but they were shut down.”

At the time, council planners admitted the home would have an impact on neighbouring properties but said it would satisfy the distance between buildings set out in design guide planning documents and would not block windows in any habitable rooms to an “unacceptable” degree.

The home was eventually approved by seven votes to three.