More than 30 residents of a Kenilworth road have claimed they have been ignored after permission was granted for a new house to be built there.
A new two-bedroom semi-detached house, which was originally going to be an extension, will now be built at the northwest side of 62 Rounds Hill after Warwick District Council’s planning committee approved the plan in April.
There will also be a new parking area to the rear of the building.
But after its decision, residents blasted the council’s reasoning and its new policy of not putting site notices up about new plans.
One resident, Julie Elliott, said: “Over 30 of us took the time and trouble to object, just to be completely ignored. That’s what it felt like.
“There’s a loss of green space, and it’s not in keeping with the area.
“The people who should be supporting us aren’t supporting us - they’re supporting the applicants.”
This is not the first time plans have been made to build on the land.
A plan for a four-bedroom detached house in 2012 was refused because it was not in keeping with the area.
But when an application for an extension to the house was made in November 2016, the council did not think the area would be harmed, and was approved.
Many Rounds Hill residents claimed they did not know about it, and therefore did not object, due to the council’s new consultation policy, which came into force in May 2016.
The policy means the council no longer puts site notices up for minor applications. It instead only sends letters to adjacent properties about plans.
The council has still not updated its website to inform people about the policy, a year after the change was made.
It reads: “A site notice is posted in the nearest public place to the proposed development inviting any other interested parties to comment within the same time frame,” making no reference to the new policy.
Chairman of the planning committee Cllr John Cooke said ‘nothing unusual’ had happened in the consultation process and said the committee had listened to the residents.
He added: “Had we not had these letters of objection, it wouldn’t have gone to committee at all.”