A decision by councillors to approve a redevelopment scheme in Lichfield has been hailed as “excellent news” by a community group.
Members of the planning committee at Lichfield District Council gave the green light to the project on land around the former Angel Croft Hotel.
A report from a planning officer had recommended the development be rejected over concerns about the impact on local historic buildings.
But although some conditions are still to be decided at a meeting in March, the Friel Homes project has been given the go-ahead in principle.
The developers hope to build a boutique hotel and new homes on the land, as well as creating a new link between Beacon Park and the city centre.
Beacon Street Area Residents’ Association said locals would welcome the news.
“It is excellent news that councillors in Lichfield have listened to the electorate and backed the development.
“The tragedy is that this development has been delayed for so long.
“There are still some details to be resolved, but hopefully they will be sorted soon.”
The planning committee meeting was told by Cllr Andy Smith, Leomansley ward representative, that officers had failed to take into account the level of support for the development.
“There have been no objection letters. The main reason for refusal appears to be our own heritage officer and Historic England – but the question is balance.
“Historic England say the authority needs to weigh up heritage concerns with the public and economic benefit of the development. I think our planners have failed to take that balance into account.
“This will replace a pot-holed, unmaintained car park with an excellent development that fits in very well.”
Cllr Andy Smith, Lichfield District Council
Shame it takes so many people to speak out for these kinds of things to be done. If only the councillors turned their hearing aids up they’d hear a lot more. Whether they decide to act on it though is another matter.
Historic England never seen concerned about the Lego Land Noddy houses built elsewhere within our once lovely historic Lichfield? Shame on them & the planners
In view of all the positive comments about no 1 Beacon Street development and taking into account the comments I made about 2 other horrendous “things” being built at this moment in Lichfield , maybe Councillors should seriously look at the planning officer/department ‘s ideas of what is really best for Lichfield and the Lichfield people.
@Elaine Slater… Yes I suspect the development in Beacon Street is the result of developer pressure rather than public demand.
Lichfield Live reported that a development in Upper St. John Street had been refused planning permission. I walk that way regularly so was surprised to see it going ahead. I contacted the council office who confirmed that there had been no appeal and she would contact the compliance officer. I got no follow up reply.
I then contacted my district councillor who is on the Planning committee (by now the buildings were above ground floor level). She said that she too was concerned as this had been a contentious development. She advised me that she would make enquiries. When after some days I still had no reply I contacted her again. Apparently her enquiries were still on going. More time has passed and the buildings will be near finished soon. Still no answers. Is this simple request result really the state of the Planning department and any legitimate doubts the public might have.
Perhaps Ross might do a follow up report on the original article. There is more chance of some outcome than what I have been having from our local democracy.
I think there is something unusual about this development. I seem to remember Michael Fabricant and Doug Pullen were saying months ago how wonderful this development would be.
The Planning Officer said this should be rejected.
If Planning Officers have concerns, they should be listened to. We have been told they are overworked and demoralised.
If they say approve. It is approved. If they say do not approve. It is approved. Why would the Planning Officers make life difficult for themselves? They may as well just let everything go through. It also sets a dangerous precedent for future planning applications.