Express & Star

Plans to build homes on poultry farm site rejected

Plans to knock down a poultry farm and build eight new homes on the site have been rejected by South Staffordshire Council – despite receiving support from residents and community leaders.

Published
Last updated
A Google Street View Image Of The Poultry Farm At Great Chatwell Next To The Red Lion Pub

The properties proposed for the site at Great Chatwell were set to include a number of affordable homes.

But South Staffordshire’s planning officers recommended the outline application for refusal because the hamlet is not an area identified for future growth and the proposals would go against policies on development in the open countryside.

Officers said Great Chatwell had no public transport, services or facilities to support the development, meaning residents of the new homes would be reliant on the use of private vehicles to access services.

Agent Cathy O’Toole said the proposals had been welcomed locally however.

Speaking in support of the application at Tuesday’s planning committee meeting, she told members: “The buildings and structures on site are in need of significant refurbishment and this will require substantial investment in the site. In view of the circumstances the owners conclude there may be an opportunity to replace the existing intensive farm with a development more suited to its location within the centre of a village.

“The response to a public exhibition was overwhelmingly in support of the proposal. Residents recognised there was an opportunity to replace the existing use with a small scale residential development. This development will deliver affordable homes which will be available to local people.

“Council officers are resistant to the proposal on the grounds the site is located in open countryside, however they fail to recognise the existing operation results in a significant number of vehicle movements and a number of these are by HGVs which struggle to be accommodated along narrow roads.”

She added that the proposals had been supported by Blymhill and Weston under Lizard Parish Council and read a statement from chairman David Maddocks.

It stated: “It is the ideal site for small development that is greatly needed in this area. I was born in Great Chatwell and in my early years there were more houses than at present – to my knowledge there has not been any new housing in this hamlet for the last 40 years.

“We are trying to improve our facilities throughout the parish – at the moment we are investigating the possibility of a community shop. All of these projects need people to make them viable, including the existing church, public house and village hall, having lost all the rest.

“It is of great concern that at present very restrictive planning rules continue. Many rural villages and hamlets will decay and die.”

But Dave Hayward, objecting to the application, said in a statement read to the meeting: “It will negatively impact the village’s distinctive character. It raises serious issues of public health, safety and contamination risk.

“The proposal will dominate the village and change the architectural style and its local identity forever. We believe the regimental suburban-style layout and the number of proposed dwellings fails to meet the adopted core strategy. It will increase total village dwellings by about a third and is in direct contrast to the scattered nature of local historic buildings.

“The village has a rural infrastructure with few amenities. It has no public transport. The surrounding roads are single-track C-roads with minimal upkeep. We question the lanes’ ability to support new traffic from eight dwellings and vehicle and pedestrian safety.”

Ward councillor Brian Cox called for the application to be approved – and a motion was also put forward to defer the decision to allow further consideration. But this motion was defeated, and planning committee members went on to refuse permission in line with the officers’ recommendation, by 14 votes to five, with two abstentions.

Sorry, we are not accepting comments on this article.