An artist's impression of the Packington Hall development
An artist's impression of the Packington Hall development

New proposals to convert a listed building near Lichfield into apartments have been approved.

Lichfield District Council has given the green light to the work to create six new homes at the Grade II Listed Packington Hall.

Listed Building Consent had previously been granted, but the amendments – which include internal access and window changes – have also now been approved.

The building was last occupied by residents in the 1930s after which it was converted into a cable manufacturing facility.

A planning statement said:

“The site has been vacant since 2007. The hall was connected to a sprawling manufacturing and warehouse facility that comprised a significant area to the north east.

“The buildings had been vacant for a considerable period of time and were in a state of disrepair prior to their demolition.

“The extant planning permission and Listed Building Consent approved the conversion of the Hhall to create six apartments.

“The alterations to that consent are mainly minor. In the case of the removal of the lift shaft and associated alterations, the changes result in less intrusion to the historic fabric of the building.”

Planning statement

The work is part of a broader development to create 28 new homes on the site.

Full details can be seen on Lichfield District Council’s planning website.

Join the Conversation

16 Comments

Our volunteers moderated 1267 comments in the last 30 days. Say thanks with a coffee.

  1. Normal apartments or retirement?
    How many social , affordable houses for local people have been built , actually built, not proposed, or “ planned”.?

  2. We need more affordable housing for younger people, apartments and smaller houses for single occupancy, with rental and purchase options not high cost senior only occupancy apartments.

  3. Not many John Bishop. God forbid that those that can’t afford to buy are given the opportunity for a nice home in the city they were born in. With only 28 homes to be built on this site they don’t have to provide any social housing. But just wait, the 28 will probably turn into hundreds over time.

  4. No Richard Nelson, completely disagree. People like you are trying to ‘level down’ Lichfield, cramming it with tiny, ugly terraced houses and apartments everywhere. High-density prisons, ruining Lichfield’s character. I bet you’d be chuffed if you saw an ugly apartment block of the sort we see in Birmingham being built in Lichfield wouldn’t you? Have you seen the horrendous sites being built by Taylor Wimpey and Persimmon in south Lichfield? Ugly monstrosities like that are being built because people like you peddle this trite line every week.

    I don’t want to see Lichfield crammed full of small social housing thanks. We’ve already got anti-social behaviour on the increase in Lichfield. We need to build a good mix of small and large houses, so we’re also attracting high-skilled people to Lichfield who can support the local economy. Larger, spaced out homes with green spaces and larger gardens. Beautiful developments that enhance Lichfield, not the horrendous estates with high levels of social housing we’re seeing at the moment.

  5. That’s not to mention where all these extra people will go regarding Drs. surgeries: dentists: etc that are already full?? No- the developers don’t care! They get their money and go: back to probably a nice area miles from here!

  6. “Simon” gosh, aren’t you a cheerful soul. You’re clearly not a true Lichfeldian who’s children are priced out of our City, despite them being “high-skilled”. You really should review your comments.

  7. @Lichfield Since the 1600s, you’ve clearly never looked outside Lichfield, as is the case for many of the myopic people on here. If you think Lichfield is expensive look at the prices of any of the other desirable areas around or in Birmingham, or in places like Oxford, Cambridge, Stratford, Bristol etc.

    You people want to make Lichfield a worse place to live to bring prices down. If you want to live in some of the slums in Birmingham go there, and stop trying to bring Lichfield down.

  8. Simon, you are really rude when you post. You come across as obsessive about house building and also other cities which bear no resemblance to this one.
    I suggest not voting for the tories who can’t stop building. Persimmon are an appalling builder especially, low standards etc.
    As for suggesting people move to Birmingham slums, again, how rude. Some beautiful Victorian villas are actually found in the inner city there. Perhaps you might like one yourself? When people suggest to others that they move elsewhere I usually switch off but in your case why don’t you move away, clearly it all angers you in Lichfield god forbid your house price goes down.

  9. Developers have a way of altering specifications to maximise profits. Usually, as in this case, after original plans have been passed by the council. The age we live in.
    The building was of some interest to the city as Lichfield City Treasurer lived there. It was purchased for war work when the wiring factory moved from Birmingham.
    The expedient of having been used for war work presumably re -categorised it as a brown field site. Thus no need for restoration, just build an upmarket estate.

  10. Simon setting aside your obvious rudeness you really should get your facts right before casting aspersions because those ‘horrendous estates’ you refer to don’t have high levels of social housing, 10% the last time l looked and as with all walks of life there is good and bad in whatever ‘class’ of society one lives in.

  11. The argument often used for more housebuilding is. More availability will bring the prices down.

    This is not the case and the developers actually make the local prices higher. They offer many incentives. They will offer buyers an interest free loan. They even pay their deposit for free. The reason they do this, is not generosity. It is to inflate the prices. They can show a house sold for £330,000. The buyer has actually paid £250,000, or less. That would reduce the values of the other houses.

  12. Simon – your comments fell foul of our rules (note, as per the info on that link, this isn’t up for discussion). Your later posts criticising us and deciding what we stood for etc went the same way (again, this won’t be up for further discussion).

  13. AnnS, the affordable housing element on the Persimmon/Taylor Wimpey sites is nearly 40%.

    I think we need a balance too. It seems to me that the new developments in south Lichfield are mostly small houses, which can appear to be an over development of semi rural areas. I too think a better balance is needed. I also wish they built houses with more character features so they better fit with the older developments in Lichfield and don’t stick out like sore thumbs so much!

    I also agree with another poster that new developments don’t bring house prices down anyway. If anything they make them go up as the prices for these new houses are always inflated.

  14. The concept of ‘affordable’ housing is a bit of a myth. Unless you are prepared to exclude the housing associations and buy to let market then independent buyers scarcely get a look in.
    By skewing bank interest rates the government has created another self fueling market. Developers create the product and investors snap them up. It is its own circle.
    As in many aspects of life if you change anything you change everything.

  15. Wendy, affordable housing is not the same as social housing. Affordable housing is open to a broader range of household incomes than social housing. Households do not have to be eligible for social housing to apply for affordable housing, though people who are eligible for social housing may also be eligible for affordable housing properties.
    Social rented housing is owned by local authorities and private registered providers, (housing associations i.e. Bromford, Midland Heart) for which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime.

  16. AnnS, yes that’s correct, but the social housing is more than double the figure you provided, at well over 20%, and could be higher if the shared ownership homes aren’t snapped up (they aren’t always that popular because they have a bad reputation). I just wanted to correct the record on that point.

    There will be a similar number of social houses built on the Redrow site in Curborough.

Leave a comment
Please familiarise yourself with our comments policy before posting.

Your email address will not be published.