Telford man's wheelchair access plans rejected for sixth time - despite support from neighbours

A Telford man's sixth attempt to build wheelchair accessible extensions to his home has been rejected by council planners.

Paul Smith was backed by local clergy, an occupational therapist, his neighbours, and residents from across Telford in proposing a changed scheme.

But planners at Telford & Wrekin Council say Mr Smith's latest proposals for Jubilee Avenue, Donnington, still mean that the extension would be bigger than the house and they cannot support it.

Mr Smith had told officials that the new plans were "materially different" and had 'directly addressed' concerns regarding full-width development, overhanging roof elements, maintenance access and the loss of openness beside the extension.

But he told planners that an internal footprint has been retained because it represents the minimum practical accommodation required to meet the needs of the disabled wheelchair user.

"The extension represents the minimum practical accommodation required to allow a disabled wheelchair user to access and use the home safely, independently and with dignity.

"It is therefore respectfully submitted that the previous refusal reasons have been addressed and that planning permission should now be granted."

Some 23 comments in support of the scheme were received, with no objections.

A next door neighbour wrote: "We wish to make it completely clear that we strongly support the revised application and believe planning permission should now be granted."

Mrs Katie Daniels, of the Salvation Army in Oakengates, wrote that "any perceived harm is massively outweighed by the community support and the benefit to occupants and neighbours improving the street scene and views from their windows with the removal and demolition of an aged and decelerated garage which neighbours have to look at daily."

The Rev George Fisher of the New Testament Church Of God, in Ketley, wrote: "We wholly support this proposal and hope that the permission is granted so the changes can be made to enable use of the home."

Mrs Jenna Ralphs, an occupational health advisor, wrote: "After five previous refused applications and repeated attempts to revise the design, I respectfully ask that significant weight is now given to the clear and continuing needs of the disabled wheelchair user and to the extensive changes made to address the matters previously raised."

A Wellington resident wrote: "The council should be working to find a solution that works instead of repeatedly rejecting applications when there are no public objections only public support and praise for the applications."

Another member of the public wrote that the council "should be ashamed of themselves refusing it so many times when no one has even objected to it."

Council planners wrote that they had taken all the comments into account and were 'sympathetic' to the needs of the disabled person.

"Whilst the personal circumstances of the proposed occupier are a material consideration and do carry weight towards this decision, the scheme as a whole is also required to be assessed against current local and national policies," officials noted.

"Whilst amendments have been made to the design of the proposed extension, the overall scale and massing remain largely unchanged."

They added: "The proposed extension would create an additional footprint of approximately 64.49sqm compared to the host dwelling's existing ground floor footprint of approximately 41sqm.

"These dimensions are the same as previously refused and dismissed at appeal. As such, the extension is still considered disproportionate in scale and massing, resulting in an overly dominant addition that would not appear as subservient to the existing dwelling and is therefore contrary to policies."

They added: "It is acknowledged that the applicant advises that modifications to the dwelling are required for the needs of a disabled member of the applicant’s household; and that the proposed development would provide single floor living facilities for a disabled person.

"However, overall, it is considered that the confidential information submitted for the justification of the size and scale as proposed, does not outweigh the harm to the character or setting of the area by virtue of the proposed scale, massing and design of the scheme as a whole."

Five previous applications for changes at the property had been previously been rejected, starting in 2023.

Three of the applications were taken to planning appeals where government inspectors had supported the council on each occasion.