More than 300 objections lodged to plans for dozens of homes near Staffordshire-Shropshire border
Controversial plans to build up to 46 homes near a site of special scientific interest near the Staffordshire–Shropshire border have already attracted more than 300 objections.
Residents have until the end of this week to submit further comments on the outline proposal for 4.85 acres of land off Fenton House Lane in Wheaton Aston.
Although the site is not within the green belt it is outside the settlement boundary of Wheaton Aston. Despite this South Staffordshire Council currently has just 1.17 years of deliverable housing supply. Under national policy, this creates a presumption in favour of sustainable development unless harm clearly outweighs the benefits.
The plans include 46 houses, made up of a mix of two- to four- bed houses. The majority would have three bedrooms and 18 of the homes would be classed as affordable. Due to the council's housing policies, five of the properties will be bungalows which will meet the needs of older residents.
The proposal has been objected to by Lapley, Stretton and Wheaton Aston Parish Council which stated: “The development sits near Mottey Meadows, a designated site of special scientific interest (SSSI) and special area of conservation (SAC) known for its species-rich hay meadows, including rare flora like snake’s-head fritillary. It is estimated that the proposed development is approximately 500m from the site.
“Ground nesting birds (sky larks and curlews) reside in the reserve and fields, both are protected species. Fenton House Lane should remain as the village boundary as a protection to this much valued SSSI.”
Additionally the local councillor Robert Nelson has requested that the application be determined by the planning committee due to development being outside the settlement boundary and in open countryside.
The plans have also received attracted from 337 residents, with just one comment in support. Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge MP Sir Gavin Williamson has objected to the plans, urging the council to reject them ‘at every opportunity’.
He said: “I am deeply concerned that this development will further encroach on green belt thus significantly affecting the character of the village. It is also concerning that the development is likely to affect the water table and aquifers which maintain the hay meadows.
“Furthermore, the proposed entrance road into the development will lead onto a single track road which is used extensively by farm vehicles and is the main route for children to walk to school. This raises obvious safety concerns. I note that the developers have also used a flood risk report for another part of the village, whilst also claiming facilities include a post office and a café – it does make you wonder if the developers have even been to the village.”
Natural England said that, subject to appropriate mitigation measures being secured, it is satisfied the development would not result in adverse impacts. The developer has additionally stated that existing habitats would be retained where possible and the proposals have been designed to ensure there would be no adverse impacts to Mottey Meadows.
The planning statement stated: “The development, which is in a sustainable location, makes effective use of land, provide affordable homes, result in a well-designed place and does not involve areas or assets of particular importance development must be granted permission unless the adverse impact of doing so would outweigh the benefits.
“The site is immediately adjacent to Wheaton Aston, a main service village offering a range of amenities and public transport connections. It is not within the green belt, lies in flood zone one, and is free from heritage or ecological constraints that would preclude development. The proposals have been shaped by a landscape-led approach, retaining existing hedgerows, introducing green buffers, and delivering biodiversity enhancements.”
The application and supporting documents can be viewed on South Staffordshire Council’s planning portal (reference 25/01040/OUTM). It is currently under consideration, with public comments accepted until February 27.
