You will probably have seen or heard that Lichfield District Council is considering withdrawing its Local Plan 2040 and starting again on a new Local Plan. The Cabinet proposal received cross-party support, and the final decision will be made at the full Council meeting on 17th October. What might this mean in practice?

During the preparation of the Local Plan Review, which then became the Local Plan 2040, the Civic Society argued, as it had consistently done for many years, that further peripheral development around the edges of the city was not the solution to development pressures and that a new settlement within the district was the answer (see our newsletters of March 2020, and February, March, April, May, June, October and November 2021). But, despite our lobbying, correspondence and meetings with the lead elected member, this idea was rejected.

In the event, the new Local Plan was not submitted to the Planning Inspectorate until June 2022. The appointed Inspectors were clearly unimpressed by it and sought clarification from the Council on several aspects of the plan through further evidence to justify the proposals. In September 2022 the Council requested that the formal examination of its proposals be delayed by 9-12 months. This request was approved, subject to regular reporting of progress towards making the Plan fit for examination. Work undertaken since the Plan was submitted has sought to fulfil this requirement, albeit using consultants because of the departure of District Council planning policy staff and subsequent recruitment difficulties.

It seems a shift of power within the Council following the May 2023 local elections is now leading to a complete change of approach. The new Cabinet considers that the Local Plan 2040 is not fit for purpose and the Council is poised to recommend that it be withdrawn from examination. The idea of a new settlement instead of further development bolted onto the city is now suddenly finding favour.

What might this change of approach mean for the city of Lichfield?

It makes no difference to developments enshrined in the current adopted Local Plan: St. John's Grange, Deanslade Farm (Bower Park), and the land between Cricket Lane and the A38. Nor does it affect the development of up to 750 houses at Curborough Hall Farm off Watery Lane, work on which is beginning. This last was not in the Local Plan and was refused planning permission by the Council, a decision upheld by an independent planning inspector when appealed. It was the Secretary of State at Westminster who controversially overturned the Inspector's decision and granted permission for the development.

The main change for the city would be that the allocation of land for 3,300 dwellings between Streethay and Curborough is scrapped. But such a major change of policy, withdrawing a Local Plan that has already been submitted, carries significant risks.

The Secretary of State has the power to instruct that the already submitted Plan be examined and put into effect. Such an action is thought to be unlikely as numerous planning authorities are withdrawing their plans, chiefly because of recent changes in Government policy on planning and housing allocations.

The greatest danger is spelt out in the report to Cabinet. "By withdrawing the Local Plan 2040 from examination there will be a longer period where the council is without an up-to-date local plan and as such will continue to rely on the adopted Local Plan, parts of which may be out of date."

"Determination of planning applications takes account of diminished weight of some local plan policies and other material considerations having regard to the lack of up-to-date policies. Where planning appeals are made, the council will need to defend such appeals appropriately having regard to the policy context at the time of any such decision."

In other words, landowners and developers may speculatively seek to build on land not now or ever previously allocated for development - a free-for-all. This in turn may present a greater risk of decisions to refuse applications being overturned on appeal, a scenario sometimes referred to as "planning by appeal", as opposed to a plan-led system. Failure to maintain a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites will substantially increase the risk.

So, while a decision to withdraw the Local Plan 2040 and start again along the lines long favoured by the Civic Society is to be welcomed, the challenges that the Council will face because of its change of tack must not be underestimated. The City and district are far from safe from further inappropriately sited developments.

To minimise these risks while there is no up-to-date Plan, the Council must ensure it has adequate resources and suitably qualified professional staff to undertake the new Local Plan Review in an effective, efficient and speedy manner; achieving a Plan for submission that has gained public support through participation, whilst at the same time ensuring that speculative planning applications and appeals for inappropriate sites are robustly resisted.

With the proposed restart of work on preparation of the Local Plan, the Council also has an opportunity to strengthen its heritage protection policies. In recent years these have failed to protect and enhance the special quality of the historic city centre, as evidenced by several overbearing and unsympathetic new developments.

Members will recall the recent national research project for which Lichfield provided a case study. The resulting report (summarised in the May 2023 Newsletter) recommended that in formulating strategic planning policy for an area, environment and heritage elements should be fundamental to Plan preparation and addressed alongside the housing numbers to be accommodated. The Civic Society will continue to press for this and the implementation of, and then compliance with, such policies.

With thanks to Roger Hockney, Mike Pearson and John Thompson for advice and assistance.

William Henwood
August 2023