A planning saga over a new garage in Shenstone could rumble on despite having already received the backing of Lichfield District Council on two separate occasions.
Thirteen people wrote to object to plans for a double garage on Foden Close , arguing it would block their views of the countryside and not be in keeping with the area.
Proposals were approved for the scheme in January, however it was brought back before planners at Lichfield District Council again this month after it was a revealed a blunder had led to the wrong plan being shown to the committee.
Nevertheless, the scheme was approved for the second time in two months – but the threat of a judicial review still looms after neighbours said a challenge could be mounted against the latest decision.
Speaking on behalf of those opposed to the scheme, Rebecca Bews said:
“From advice taken – both legally and via an independent planning consultant – we believe you have not been given the correct information by the planning team, and it’s open to challenges by judicial review and the ombudsman.”
Rebecca Bews
Cllr David Salter, Conservative representative for the area, said he also felt the plans should not go ahead.
“The proposed development – by virtue of its design, location and materials – will result in a loss of open space, and visual intrusion.
“Foden Close’s only open space view will be lost. This application is detrimental to the character and appearance of the street scene.”
Cllr David Salter, Lichfield District Council
Cllr Salter said a similar application on a nearby street, involving a two metre wall, was turned down in 2020 – a decision which was also upheld when it was appealed.
He said that application also breached fewer policies than the one being proposed for Foden Close.
Applicant Tom Smith defended his plans. He told the planning committee his new garage is in eeping with the area and is an improvement on what was there previously.
“The double garage that we’re proposing is going to be in keeping with the estate and we’ll be making it as aesthetically pleasing to look at as every other garage on the estate.
“The only discrepancy was the actual gable end. As far as I’m concerned, we’re only here to determine which way the gable is going to go.”
Tom Smith
Council officers explained that in January’s meeting, the plans showed a gable to the front of the garage, whereas the correct plans have a sloping roof to the front.
Legal advisors said this error left the committee’s previous decision – to approve planning permission – open to a legal challenge.
Councillors were invited to rescind the earlier approval, and consider the application afresh. In doing so, they unanimously opted to support the plans.
