A map showing the development site in Fradley
Picture: Geoff Perry Associates Limited

AN appeal has been launched after plans to build 41 new homes in Fradley were rejected last year.

The development had been proposed for land along Hay End Lane and Brindle Lane.

But following the decision by Lichfield District Council to refuse planning permission, developer Walton Homes is appealing the decision with the planning inspector

Council officers ruled that the scheme was “unacceptable” given the site has not been allocated and is within open countryside.

A number of objections to the scheme were also raised by statutory consultees including, highways, the flood risk officer, Cadent Gas and Fradley and Streethay Parish Council.

In turning down the application, planning officers said:

“Overall, the proposal is considered to be unacceptable in principle in terms of the site not been an allocated housing site given the withdrawal of the draft Local Plan 2040 and is therefore housing located in the open countryside.

“Lichfield District Council can currently demonstrate over nine years of housing land supply and as such, the proposals are contrary to the development in the first instance.

“Overall, the development does not comply with the spatial strategy of the adopted Local Plan and several other policies therein. As such, in accordance with national and local policy, the proposal is duly refused planning permission.”

However, in submitted appeal documents the developer argues that the council has less than four years of supply. 

“While there is harm caused by the conflict with the development plan, the development strategy is clearly failing to deliver a five-year supply of housing.

“The proposed development will deliver significant benefits. Social benefits would arise from the provision of much needed open market and affordable homes and this should be given very substantial weight.

“Economic benefits associated with construction and employment and support for services and facilities in Fradley would amount to significant weight.”

Subscribe
Notify of

0 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments