'Death by a Thousand Cuts’: Staffordshire residents lose battle against speculative 72-home estate

Councillors have approved plans for the development of up to 72 new homes in Whittington. Concerns over the greenbelt and the development being outside village boundaries were dismissed.

The outline application proposed the demolition of 64 Back Lane to create new access to the estate.The development proposed building up to 72 new homes of which 43 per cent would be classed as affordable housing.

The development is set to take place North of Back Lane in Whittington, on a single agricultural field outside the village boundary. However, planning officers have determined that the land should be categorised as greybelt, adding there is a demonstrable unmet need for this type of development in the district.

No statutory objections were made against the proposal, however, Whittington and Fisherwick Parish Council did lodge an objection citing a number of concerns with the plans. Additionally 55 local residents formally objected, with concerns over the housing density, infrastructure and highways.

Resident Jason Carwood told the planning committee: “Density is a strong consideration, the housing delivery officer notes the design code should be followed, but this again is not mentioned in the report. Villages should provide between five and 25 dwellings per hectare and less so around conservation areas such as this site.

“The adjacent estates to the site provided 18 dwellings per hectare. This site provides 38 dwellings per hectare – a totally inappropriate density for a village, more like an inner village, according to the design code.”

A number of financial contributions have been planned including £67,063 for leisure, £61,535 for healthcare and £486,036 for education. A community infrastructure levy would also be charged on all market houses.

Speaking against the application, ward Councillor Richard Holland said: “This is not a case of not in my back yard, this is a case of protecting the integrity of the planning system and the permanence of the greenbelt. It is not within the former local plan and it is not expected to be allocated in the emerging local plan.

“Furthermore, we must address the Whittington and Fisherwick Neighborhood Plan. This was adopted following a local referendum, it is the will of the people codified into law. It was designed specifically to shape development to reflect community needs.

“This speculative application is exactly the type of encroachment the plan was intended to resist.”

Lichfield District Council is unable to demonstrate a sustainable five year housing land supply. Current figures suggest that only 3.5 years can be demonstrated. This means that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Planning agent for the developer, Neil Cox, told the planning committee: “The site is located in the greenbelt, however, the contribution the site makes to the relevant greenbelt purposes is minor. In light of new government guidance, it is agreed with officers that the site falls within the national policy definition of greybelt.

“As the council cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply and the proposal meets the government’s golden rules of including a 15 per cent uplift in affordable housing. The proposed development is acceptable in principle within the greenbelt.”

A number of councillors spoke out against the planned development. Councillor Thomas Marshall said: “Is this death by a thousand cuts? I ask because we have representations here from places like Shenstone, I’m from Armitage with Handsacre, How many more communities are going to be seen to have developments tagged on to their village boundaries or outside their village boundaries.

“Whilst I know one of the rules here is to show there is a demand for houses. Well there is a demand for those houses arguably, I think, because young people need somewhere to live. So it would be churlish of me to say that we shouldn’t be allowing houses to be built somewhere.

“I’m all for good development but I’m also for good development in the right places, I’m not convinced this is the right place.”

Councillor Serena Mears proposed that the planning committee refuse the application. She said: “This was a speculative application, this land has not been allocated for development. It’s been confirmed that it is greenbelt.

The greybelt report hasn’t been published to the public, we don’t have a formal greybelt assessment for the area. It’s against the local plan for the village. I feel based on that and the fact it’s outside the village boundary, there’s quite a lot of strength to reject the application on those four points alone.”

Despite this the planning committee at Lichfield District Council followed the recommendation of planning officers and approved the application with seven votes for and five against.