Councillors are being asked for their views on proposals for thousands of new homes on land in Lichfield.

Developers have submitted scoping opinion documents – a stage prior to the submission of a full planning application – for the land off Watery Lane.

Described as Curborough North and Curborough South in the applications, the proposals could see a combined total of 3,500 homes built.

The developments would also see the creation of primary and secondary schools, a healthcare hub and a local centre.

The proposals are included on a list of planning applications up for discussion at Lichfield City Council this week as part of the process for consideration of the scheme by Lichfield District Council.

An initial report has recommended the city council call for the development to be rejected.

“We strongly object to the proposed developments on the grounds of the risk of increased flooding on Watery Lane and loss of biodiversity, as well as threats to footpaths in the area, both temporary and permanent.”

Lichfield City Council report

If the scheme goes ahead it will cover a large swathe of currently agricultural land between the Roman Heights development in Streethay, Curborough Hall Farm off Watery Lane and industrial units off Wood End Lane in Fradley.

Documents submitted as part of the application also suggest a further plot – known as Curborough East and covering land to the north-east of Streethay up to the new HS2 line – would be brought forward by another developer in future too.

More details on the Curborough North development can be seen here, while the Curborough South scheme information is here.

Founder of Lichfield Live and editor of the site.

Notify of

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
24 days ago

No!! Enough is enough!!

24 days ago

You know what Trent Valley Island needs? It isn’t hundreds/thousands more cars during rush hour, that’s for sure.

Alan Harper
24 days ago

Yippee! the council will be rubbing their hands together, just thinking what all this extra cash they can “splurge” it on ?

24 days ago

I’ll believe it when it happens health hub joke

24 days ago

Please, please stop this overdevelopment of our city. It doesn’t matter what the developers promise to put in place (schools/health care hub whatever) Lichfield does not have the infrastructure to cope. It is total madness to build more and more. As was well said before- ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!

Mrs H
24 days ago

A ‘Health Hub’??? What does that mean?

We are drowning in new developments, the City is ruined, but hey! The money keeps rolling into the Council’s coffers….

24 days ago

Is there somthing the council isn’t telling us? I would assume they are normal, sanient people with a sense of proportion. Who could imagine the developments proposed and going on is to the betterment of the indigenous people of the city who elected them?
Urban sprawl in Lichfield has become exponential. The council are not serving local people but a perceived future population. A proper explanation as to why they are adopting this policy is long overdue.
Lastly, do I not remember a pledge to abandon the local plan as being too invasive and out of touch with residents. We’ll words are cheap Cllr. Pullen.

24 days ago

I just can not believe it is even up for discussion. This is blatant destruction of the very little open space left. A Hospital and Doctors surgery with real doctors inside it would recieve the greatest welcome but empty promises from developers are out of the question. Sheer Madness.

Paul Knight
24 days ago

Good old Lichfield will be confined to the dustbin enjoy it while it lasts the greed of developers and the thought of council tax money like all things in life pure greed

24 days ago

This totally unacceptable. Lichfield doesn’t have the infrastructure to sustain such developments. What is a health hub? We need proper GP and health infrastructure across the whole city. We need Samuel Johnson Hospital being developed into a proper community hospital offering local services without travelling to Burton or Sutton Coldfield. We need a decent transport structure which operates in the evening and at weekends. 3,000 plus houses is sheer madness.

Curborough Road Resident
24 days ago

How does this fit in with the proposed Curborough Brooks development of which we were notified, out of the blue, late last year ? This is for 2,900 homes. No reference is made to Curborough Brooks in this latest proposal.

M Baumber
24 days ago

If the developers promises are anything like Countryside in Drakelow to build a bridge to replace the Bailey bridge in Walton then nothing other than houses will be built.

The Gardener
24 days ago

With one of the lanes called ‘Watery’ you do have to wonder how suitable this area is for development in relation to flooding issues, yes,the developers will sweet talk the planning committee with ideas about balancing ponds etc for the runoff, but eventually all that runoff has to go somewhere….

23 days ago

It’s already been said, but enough us enough. Lichfield is being destroyed by the over expansion.

Lichfield has already built more houses than it required.

Stop the expansion now.

23 days ago

Interesting comments…….. no one has mentioned “More people will force the need of a better infrastructure” (for everyone)….. or “More people will mean more customers for local businesses and shops”

23 days ago

I find the argument against development in Lichfield bizarre, I am not in favour of Taylor wimpy or other quite frankly ‘ugly’ developments but more housing is going to happen regardless? This idea of Lichfield being now and forever in a permanent stasis is just ludicrous – the lack of housing in cities is leading first time buyers to come into commuter areas and thanks to our 2 train stations this is us. I would want lichfield to be full of working professionals with young families within the next 20 years compared to the likelihood of an ever aging population and a hollowed out city centre full of retirement properties. Yes we need better healthcare – frankly Westgate is a joke compared to what my son has access to at university – but the NIMBY attitude of this forum is ill placed, development is here and ongoing and rather than put our efforts against building more houses we should redirect it to ensure local governance is erecting better services to prepare

23 days ago

No, no, no! Stop it!

This continued residential development into a sprawling identikit landscape is depressing and surely unsustainable.

The lip service paid to providing additional essential services is inadequate to say the least.

Notwithstanding that, what about simple considerations like aesthetics, quality of life for those already living here in what, if memory serves, was a beautiful medieval city?

Once it’s gone it’s gone.

I’ve not seen the quantities of comments and likes for this and the residential sales article on Lichfield Live before.

Do the planners actually get to see the angst and strength of feeling expressed here?

23 days ago

Sadly Lord Edmiston is too wealthy and influential (IM Properties founder)
Clearly not local and does not have to queue daily on ALREADY congested Eastern Ave or TV road.
IM profit is clearly significantly more important that Lichfield residents…

23 days ago

Seems to be a common misunderstanding here but if you build a GP surgery it isn’t automatically filled with doctors. We are short of them, losing them and putting people off medicine altogether. This government have decimated the nhs.

Doug Pullen
23 days ago

@Philip (and others…) – I asked for our draft Local Plan to be withdrawn precisely because of the overdevelopment of Lichfield City.

This site is *not* in the current Local Plan, and my personal feeling is that future site allocations should focus on new settlements, not urban expansion.

This housing site is being promoted by a developer – not by the council.

23 days ago

I assume it’s called Watery Lane for a reason. Poor homeowners when their properties are inevitably flooded.
And will there be a GP or do we assume that the current surgeries can have thousands more patients?

A Drewe
22 days ago

So if that’s how you feel Cllr Pullen then why are you promoting housing development on Friarsgate and not using the site for the leisure centre pool development and taking away yet more green parkland and depriving residents of their green space? You have been told countless times but fail to listen so little wonder there is no respect or confidence in any Councillors.

Scott Armstrong
22 days ago

@Doug Pullen – is this the same draft Local Plan that you and your Cabinet had previously approved and backed as the best for the area? The same draft Local Plan which was drawn up following a period of Conservative-control that saw the the over-development of Lichfield City already taking place?

Stable doors and bolts spring to mind

22 days ago

Sajid Javid unilaterally over ruled ALL parties when he gave the crucial permission for the strategically vital Curborough Lakes development (also IM Properties ) that is already in construction. IM appealed against the refusal by LDC but SJ sanctioned it. The subsequent Curborough developments that are proposed sadly are 100% inevitable. Lord Edmiston is a well documented significant donor to the Conservatives. Please draw your own conclusions…

22 days ago

I live in the vicinity of this proposed rape of our beloved Lichfield countryside. How on earth can we accept this new estate, when all the other eyesores in building just now, demonstrate the inability of our council to retain the beauty and attraction of living in the city of Lichfield for the obscene reason of increased revenues without the inclusion of any infrastructure whatsoever.
All new housing should now be on brownfield sites and upwards not outwards. I am heart broken to see this latest in justice

22 days ago

Some of the problems in Lichfield stem from the collapse of the Andy Street Black Country joint housing plan and the resultant reluctance/delay in the Black Country authorities now formulating their own individual plans. Which would involve large scale building on what is classified as true greenbelt, as defined by the Act. As opposed to a non defined/protected green sites such as Curborough. The result is that Lichfield and other local authorities surrounding the West Midlands conurbation (perhaps to willingly) have taken on the burden of house building and this overspill from the West Midlands.

I would trace back and look for where much of the blame really sits.

22 days ago

@Pete “proposed rape of our beloved Lichfield countryside”?? You may be upset by the development (which from the look for it isn’t even supported by LDC), but calling it rape is extremely disrespectful to survivors of rape. You cannot compare a housing development to something as traumatic and soul destroying as rape.

John Griffin
22 days ago

Shake your heads, but you keep voting in the Tories. While the big builders are significant donors to them, what do you expect? If it suits them they’ll be significant donors to Labour too. There is no democratic way to stop these abuses, since the Tories have almost removed it from the UK, and Labour seem to be aping them daily.

John Robinson
18 days ago

Yet again our council ‘leaders’ neither care or listen to what people are saying about their wanton destruction of this once lovely district of Lichfield nor do they seemingly ever drive around the district to view the mess that they have made of what used to be a most pleasant and enjoyable area to live in. What have we done to deserve this past, current and future spoiling of the Lichfield District? Voted for Cllr Pullen and his uncaring mates, that’s what we’ve done, so unless we get rid of them at the next election we’ve no one to blame but ourselves. We’ve allowed ourselves to be seduced by their grandiose ideas and plans promising a vibrant, beautiful Lichfield time and time again, bitter experience should tell us that our ‘leaders’ neither have the will, the intention nor the ability to deliver the vibrant, lovely place to live in. We have a choice – either we get rid of them or we keep voting for them and if we do the latter we have no more reason to keep on complaining.

17 days ago

@John Robinson if you read the comments you’ll find one from Cllr Pullen. It’s very clear that LDC does not want this development. The developer is promoting this, not the council. The council do not want this development. It’s part of the reason they withdrew the last local plan.