COUNCILLORS have approved plans for the development of up to 72 new homes in Whittington.
Concerns over the location of the plot north of Back Lane being in the green belt and the site being outside village boundaries were dismissed.
The outline application proposed the demolition of 64 Back Lane to create new access to the estate.
Around 43% of the new homes would be classed as affordable housing.
Among the objectors were Whittington and Fisherwick Parish Council who cited a numer of concerns, while 55 local residents highlighted worries about housing density, infrastructure and highways.
However, planning officers have determined that the land should be categorised as grey belt, adding there is a unmet need for this type of development in the district.
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.”
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, Cllr 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 green belt.
“It is not within the former Local Plan and it is not expected to be allocated in the emerging Local Plan.
“We must also address the Whittington and Fisherwick Neighbourhood Plan. This was adopted following a local referendum, so 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.”
The planning committee heard Lichfield District Council is unable to demonstrate a sustainable five-year housing land supply.
Current figures suggest that only three and a half years can be demonstrated, meaning there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Neil Cox, planning agent for the developer, told the committee:
“The site is located in the green belt, however, the contribution the site makes to the relevant green belt purposes is minor.
“In light of new Government guidance, it is agreed with officers that the site falls within the national policy definition of grey belt.
“As the council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and the proposal meets the Government’s golden rules of including a 15% uplift in affordable housing, the proposed development is acceptable in principle within the green belt.”
A number of councillors spoke out against the planned development.
Cllr Thomas Marshall said:
“How many more communities are going to be seen to have developments tagged on to their village boundaries or outside their village boundaries?
“I know one of the rules here is to show there is a demand for houses. Well there is a demand for those houses 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.”
Cllr 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 green belt.
“The grey belt report hasn’t been published to the public. We don’t have a formal grey belt 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 points alone.”
But the planning committee at Lichfield District Council followed the recommendation of planning officers and approved the application with seven votes for and five against.
