72-home outline scheme at Land North Of Back Lane, Whittington, Lichfield

The site and surroundings

The site is mainly a 2.9-hectare agricultural field outside Whittington’s built-up area and settlement boundary, within the Green Belt.

“The application site comprises for the most part, a single agricultural field of approximately 2.9ha, immediately outside the built-up area of Whittington and outside of its settlement boundary. The application site is within the West Midlands Green Belt and is generally flat in appearance, though slopes to the northwest.”

“Public footpath (Whittington 6) crosses the site and footpath (Whittington 10(a)) follows the southeastern boundary. They both connect to Back Lane. Whittington Conservation Area is to the southeast, and almost entirely to the south of Back Lane. However, the Conservation Area boundary projects to the north, enclosing Crossroads Farm, Highfields (west and east of Huddlesford Lane respectively).”

Officer report

Planning history

The site has no related planning history.

“There is no planning history related to the site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to conditions and a legal agreement securing affordable housing, open space, infrastructure contributions and environmental mitigation.

“(2) If the S106 legal agreement is not signed/completed by 13 July 2026 or the expiration of any further agreed extension of time, then powers to be delegated to officers to refuse planning permission, based on the unacceptability of the development, without the required contributions and undertakings, as outlined in the report.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the site grey belt, housing was needed, Whittington was sustainable, and public benefits outweighed heritage and landscape harm.

“On the information available, Officers therefore consider the proposal site meets the NPPF definition of grey belt. Further, in terms of the wider distribution of Green Belt across the District, Officers do not consider the proposal would fundamentally undermine the purposes of remaining Green Belt, taking account the pattern of Green Belt distribution across the District.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected, while highways, drainage, ecology, Natural England and other consultees mainly raised no objection subject to safeguards.

“Natural England- no objection subject to Cannock Chase SAC mitigation. (13 February 2026)”

“Staffordshire County Council (Flood Team)- Final comments- No objections. The strategy demonstrates a full water surface out fall can be made to the ground via infiltration. As such we have no objection to the application at this stage, subject to a pre-commencement to ensure that the full detailed drainage design, management and maintenance plan and surface water management plan is submitted for review. (11 December 2025)”

Officer report

Residents’ objections

About 55 objections concerned Green Belt and heritage harm, flooding, ecology, infrastructure, parking, traffic, density, privacy and local capacity.

“A smaller scheme would be far more sympathetic to local character- alternative sites are available • Conflicts with Local Plan Policy Whit4 which allows only small-scale development • Would harm openness of countryside, hence contrary to Green Belt development policies • Whittington Conservation Area and surrounding farmland critical to the setting and character of historic rural village • Red impact zone for Great Crested Newts • Visibility harm to Conservation Area and…”

“Highways • Clarity needed on parking provision. The application suggests double yellow lines would be painted on Back Lane where existing residents and parking would be affected, resulting in net loss of existing parking • More parking required within development • Back Lane and Blacksmiths Lane currently suffers from limited parking • Proposal prioritises the interests of the new development over and above existing residents • Adjustment to Huddlesford Lane totally…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, a ward member and the applicant’s agent made representations before the application was considered.

The committee vote

The committee approved the application in line with the officer recommendation.

“RESOLVED: Approved in line with officer’s recommendations as set out in the report.”

Minutes