Councillors say 'threatening' letter was sent to 'blackmail' them for planning permission

The email was sent by the applicant of a plan for the bungalows, who claimed he would sue the council if they turned it down.

It caused fury in a planning meeting this week as both councillors and members of the public vented frustrations over the plans for land adjacent to Corngreaves Road, in Cradley Heath.

Two councillors said the email had been sent to the council by applicant Adrian Lloyd, of DY9 Limited, claiming if councillors did not approve the planning application – by supporting the Highways departments’ objections instead – it would intend to sue.

Further frustration was also caused when the service manager for planning at Sandwell council John Baker also warned that voting against the plans on the grounds of highway safety “may not be a suitably robust argument” at any subsequent appeal.

But members of the planning committee argued they felt they were being “blackmailed” into approving the application.

Councillor Julie Webb said she was “really angry” at the contents of the email.

She said: “How dare [the applicant] dictate to us, and blackmail us into making a decision on his behalf?”

Councillor Ellen Fenton, said she could no longer make an “unbiased decision” on the planning application.

She said: “I put on record my frustration at that email. I had some serious questions that I wanted to raise about this, and offer the opportunity for the developer to be able to answer them for me, so that I could make an unbiased decision.

“However, he’s put us in the position where not only has he not attended [the meeting] to help us understand and answer those questions, but that does sound to me very frightening.

“We’ve been robbed of our opportunity to ask questions and make an unbiased decision. The only people here to ask questions of now are objectors.

“I just don’t see how I can make an unbiased decision on this. Now given the fact that threatening and saying if we find in favour with our highways department, who said to us [the application] will be a problem, I’m not comfortable with that. That makes me uncomfortable, chair.”

The application, for two three-bedroom dormer bungalows with boundary fencing and associated car parking, had first been submitted in September last year.

A previous application, for consent to build one dormer bungalow, had already been approved in January 2020.

But residents had raised objections to more bungalows being built, arguing that eleven houses already occupy the site, and if more houses were built, traffic would substantially increase.

They also queried if their electric or water supplies would be affected by the construction sites.

Richard Ellis, who lives in a bungalow at Corngreaves Road, said: “There are three properties that are mainly affected. The two properties, one each side of the drive, and then there’s my bungalow at the top of the drive.

“The concerns of the other residents further along the road, they’re mainly on the amount of vehicles which have to use the driveway, and the lack of privacy which they will be subjected to.

“Due to parking restrictions at the front of the house, an increasing number of residents have to park on the road up to, and including, the bus stop which is never clear. This means that getting in and out of getting out through park cars is very risky.

“The noise and vibration on the slope that the council have seen today (February 15) would be quite substantial. Is it a very steep drive at the bottom and it’s not very wide.

“And I can’t see any other way that the applicant could put sewers, electric, and water supplies, other than by big digging up the driveway, and I just think that is ridiculous.”

But one supporter, in an statement of support, said; “The development will smarten up an area which is essentially wasteland. The current building on the site is dilapidated and is an eyesore. Have had issues with large rats coming into the garden from there.

“My property would be more secure if the site was developed. The neighbours have been broken into, I suspect the culprits entered from the area outlined for development.

“The revised proposal if anything, has reduced the area of house (the side) facing my property, which is preferable to the original plans.”

A motion, submitted by Councillor Ellen and seconded by Councillor Webb, to refuse the planning application had failed in an even split. Councillor Zahir Hussein, and chair of the planning committee, held the casting vote.

Permission for the application was granted, subject to conditions.

The agent and applicant have been approached for comment.