A PLAN to build two homes in a garden in St John’s was rejected because the drive would not have been wide enough to allow car doors to open.

The two three-bed homes, which would have been built in a garden on the corner of Melrose Close and Comer Road in St John’s, were rejected because councillors felt the car parking spaces at the front were far too small despite it fitting within highways standards.

Councillors also said the plan should be refused because it was overdevelopment of the site.

Cllr Richard Udall, who represents St John’s, said the plan was a “significant overdevelopment” and the car parking spaces were too small.

“Bluntly, the two car parking spaces for each property are completely inadequate because it would not leave space for people to actually reach their front doors,” he told the council’s planning committee on Thursday (July 25).

“There is not much space left after that and certainly not enough space if both cars are parked there and were to open their doors.”

Cllr Udall said neighbours had accepted the land would be built on but one rather than two homes would be more appropriate.

Worcestershire County Council’s highways department said it was “content” that two cars could fit on the drive and its size was within guidelines.

Karen Hanchett from the county council's highways department said: “I’m not going to try and deny it is tight. It is tight but it does meet the minimum standards within the design guide."

Cllr Louis Stephen said: “As drawn, it looks like you can’t even open one door let alone two. How can you open the door? It just doesn’t seem like you could.”

Cllr Marc Bayliss said the front of the homes looked “very cramped” and weekday on-street parking restrictions meant the driveway had to be the right size.

He said: “That means this parking must work then. On-street parking is totally unacceptable and will not work in this area. That for me makes this more difficult to approve.”

Cllr Roger Berry said the plan should be approved because it passed the council’s planning requirements and was making use of an existing space.

Cllr Alan Amos said: “I actually agree with Cllr Udall unusually. If there was just one house on there you could perhaps make some sense of it.

“It is overdevelopment. We cannot go on blighting this city with little bits of housing by just squeezing them in. People who live in these communities have rights as well.”

The plan was rejected by seven votes to two.

The committee’s decision is that it is “minded to refuse” the plan when means it will reappear at a future planning meeting.