Decision day for disputed Aldridge homes plan

Members of Walsall Council’s planning committee are due to decide on a proposal by Levison Homes for a development on Little Aston Road at a meeting on Thursday.

The developer said the homes would help address a housing shortage across the borough, adding it was an ‘efficient use of land’ and not over development.

But residents living nearby have strongly opposed the scheme citing reasons including inappropriate back-land development, highway safety issues, fear of crime and drag-out distances for bins.

The original application for six houses went before committee last October, with officers recommending refusal, but a vote – which was split between members – saw a deferral agreed to enable parties to consider and respond to concerns.

An amended scheme, for two houses and four bungalows, was due to be considered in February, again with officers recommending refusal, but was deferred at the 11th hour.

The latest plan shows amendments to the layout with the main access point being moved but this has failed to placate planning officers who are again recommending the proposal is rejected.

Michael Manraj Singh, of Lapworth Architects, will represent objecting residents at the meeting.

He said a legal letter from planning barrister Christian Hawley sent in February has been re-submitted to the authority which raises issues around connections some committee members had with Mark and Beverley Brindley, who own one of the houses.

The authority said it was for each member to determine whether or not they should disclose an interest on any matter discussed.

Mr Singh added: “The council has not acted consistently with their policy of allowing one amendment per planning application, whereas this application has already gone through six rounds of amendments and the site plan has been amended 14 times.”

A Walsall Council spokesperson said: “This application is being processed in accordance with the council’s constitution and relevant planning legislation and guidance.

“While we have brought in a one amendment procedure in an effort to speed up the planning process for certain application types, this does not supersede or replace the democratic process whereby elected members who sit on the planning committee can debate, vote on and decide whether an application is deferred to allow for further negotiations, or to reach a decision that differs from a recommendation contained within published committee reports.

“Interested parties including residents have been notified of the submitted revisions and provided with an opportunity to submit further comments at that time.

“All received representations have been taken into account as set out within our published reports and all amended plans are available to view on our website.”