Walsall action group claims council’s green belt approval was ‘unlawful’
A Walsall community group has demanded answers over the recent decision to approve a development on Walsall’s green belt.
Chairman of the Beacon Action Group, Bob Winkle, slammed the planning committee for approving a housing development on Barr Lakes Lane, Walsall.
Members approved the plans at a meeting on June 19, despite the proposals being met with objections by five statutory consultees, including conservation, ecology, highways, planning policy, and trees officers.
Objections were also received from 25 neighbours and interested parties. Walsall Council’s principal solicitor, Alison Sargent, warned members that approving the plans would put the council in a ‘vulnerable position’.
The site, within the Great Barr Conservation Area, is located in the Pheasey Park Farm ward.
Planning officers stated that the reasons for refusal included inappropriate development in the green belt, harm to the open countryside character, insufficient information in terms of heritage, highways and road safety, impacts to ecology, loss of a protected oak tree and an incorrect ownership certificate.
They added that Shahzad Akram, the applicant, had been given a ‘sufficient’ opportunity to address the reasons for refusal.
It was called in to the planning committee by a councillor for the Bentley and Darlaston North ward, Councillor Saiqa Nasreen, who disagreed with the reasons for refusal.
Whenever the planning committee chooses to go against officers’ recommendations, as was the case here, the committee must provide justified planning reasons for doing so.
But Mr Winkle believes the committee failed to provide any reasons. He said: “I was waiting to see what the material planning reasons were going to be for going against officers’ recommendations.
“Some statements were made, but I don’t personally believe that they were material planning reasons. I feel this was an illegal action taken.
“I fail to see what reasons they could have given; the officers’ report was so comprehensive, it covered every aspect of that site. I can’t see how anyone could suggest any valid reasons to support the application.
“The council now faces having to issue a decision notice. I’m going to be very interested to see how long it’s going to take to publish it, and what it’s going to say.”
At the meeting on June 19, Mr Akram offered to adhere to several conditions in order to get the application approved.
These included carrying out improvements to Barr Lakes Lane to install passing places, bringing the level of the land up to be in line with the highway to improve visibility, moving the access road in order to save the protected oak tree, and making changes to a hedge.
Mr Winkle said: “The way they spoke about the conditions, like creating a passing verge, they haven’t said where that’s going to be or from whose land it’s going to be sited.
“If it’s going to be part of the highway, it needs to be built to a standard; should it therefore have a Section 106 agreement?
“Have they notified the landowner? Potentially not; they haven’t submitted the correct land ownership certificate themselves.
“The whole thing appears to be very unusual. It makes me wonder what on earth is going on.”
Prior to the meeting, the Beacon Action Group had submitted a stage one and stage two complaint to the council over the handling of the planning application, as ‘it didn’t feel right’.
Mr Winkle said that the closest properties to the site did not receive notification from the council about the planning application, whereas properties more than one mile away did.
In a previous application for the site, to convert it into a burial ground, Mr Winkle said the properties closest were notified, and those further away weren’t.
He said: “It seems illogical that the immediate neighbours who had objected to the burial ground were not even informed of a new planning application for the very same field.”
The Beacon Action Group said it was notified of the new plans on December 20 last year, and had one week, over the Christmas period, to submit an objection.
The group also complained that the heritage statements had no individual or company name on the documents.
Mr Winkle added: “Barr Lakes Lane is within the historical core of the Great Barr Conservation Area. Surely professional expertise is required. If this were the case, then without doubt their name and professional role would be quite clearly displayed on these documents.
“Whoever prepared the heritage statements has no local knowledge of the area or current information about the Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan.
“I have asked democratic services for a meeting with planning officers, but I’ve had no response yet. I’m not doing this to knock council officers; they do their best under very difficult circumstances.
“I want to have the opportunity to iron things out, if something is wrong, put it right. But at the moment, it doesn’t appear that I am being given that opportunity.”
Walsall Council has been approached for comment.
