Councillors yesterday approved a plan for four new homes in Fulwood – more than two years after an initial application for development on the site was first submitted.

The proposal – on Brooklands Avenue – will see four detached four-bedroom houses built on the site, with an existing bungalow demolished.

Sheffield City Council previously rejected a separate application for the site last year, citing over-development – something which was found to be resolved in the new officer report, despite objections to the contrary from neighbouring properties.

The applicant, James Hinchcliffe, said that he was feeling “more relief than joy” as the decision concluded a two-year ordeal. which involved disputes with nearby residents.

He added: “One of the houses we want to live in, so we want to be their neighbours and we’ve tried to get along but they weren’t interested in having a sensible conversation.”

The Planning and Highways Committee approved the application 4-3, with Joint Chair Councillor Alan Woodcock using his deciding vote in favour.

Other concerns raised by objecting councillors and residents included reduced privacy, increased noise levels, and the safety of the 3.8 to 4.1 metre driveway access.

Councillor Mike Chaplin, who supported the proposal “with reluctance”, said: “I do share the frustrations of members around the room and the people who have come today in lodging objections and then finding that the planning policy, for them, falls short. But it is very much geared towards development.”

Councillor for Shiregreen and Brightside, Peter Price, added: “What we’ve seen from the officers and what the inspector has said, has led me to believe that this gives just about all of what the officer was demanding.”

Added to the proposal by councillors were conditions for the driveway surface to be permeable and for the installation of swift bricks to counteract a net loss of biodiversity.

On these additional conditions, Mr Hinchcliffe said: “It’s not their position to start bringing in conditions like that that are planning conditions.”

“And I just think that it felt rather biased. There wasn’t any positives. It should be a balanced conversation: pros and cons. And it was just all negatives.”