Appeal launched against controversial plans for 100 homes in a Staffordshire village

Controversial plans for more than 100 homes in Fradley, previously refused twice, have now gone to appeal. Councillors argued that the plans were not in compliance with the local plan.

In total the scheme planned to provide 109 new homes, split into 97 two storey two, three and four bedroom houses along with two three storey apartment blocks each containing 6 apartments. The apartments would be an equal mix of both one and two bedrooms. The development would have also contributed 31 affordable housing units.

The plans received a significant number of objections from stakeholders and local residents, with 112 objections received by the planning department from local residents. Fradley Parish Council said it‘unequivocally’ oppose the scheme.

Despite being recommended for approval by planning officers ahead of their July 2024 meeting, planning committee members refused the application. They have two reasons for refusal, firstly, that the development was outside the settlement boundary and the land has been allocated for employment use and the second reason related to highways and noise.

Now the developers – Vistry Homes Ltd and Greenlight Developments Ltd – have appealed the decision. This means a hearing is set to take place later this year, with initial statements due by mid-June.

Since the appeal was lodged there have been several changes to the national planning policy framework. This has caused the housing needs across Lichfield district to increase. In a letter sent to the applicant in February this year the council has confirmed that it will no longer defend the first reason for refusal.

This means only the second reason relating to highways and noise will be defended by the council. However neither National Highways nor the highways department at Staffordshire County Council objected to the proposals.

An earlier version of the scheme, for 115 houses, was also refused and subsequently appealed. Following the inspector’s comments, the plans were revised to address the issues raised.

In their statement to the planning inspector the applicant said that noise impact would comply with the planning requirements to avoid significant adverse impact.

The developer states: “The proposed development delivers much needed affordable housing and appropriate house sizes and tenures; achieves good design; public open space is policy compliant; and the Council’s residential amenity standards are met.

“Turning to the now sole reason for refusal (refusal reason two), the first part of that reason has already been considered and rejected by an Inspector at appeal, and the second part amounts to vague and generalised complaints about the impact of development that are not supported by the evidence.

“The appellant’s principal position is that the proposed development is in accordance with the Development Plan as a whole, and in line with NPPF paragraph 11(c) it should be approved without delay.

“Even if there were deemed the proposed development was not in accordance with the Development Plan, that objection would be overcome by other material considerations, namely the contribution to the Council’s five-year housing land supply in a highly accessible location.”