On the evening of April 27th, members of the Burntwood Action Group (BAG) sat in the public gallery at Lichfield District Council. We weren’t there for our own sites; we were on a fact-finding mission. A development in Whittington was under fire, and we wanted to see how the current “system” actually works.

What we witnessed was an eye-opener—and a stark warning for every resident of Burntwood. We have included the video of the planning meeting below for your to watch for yourself – was our review of the meeting correct?

The “Expert” Trap: The Case Officer as Kingmaker

The night followed a chilling pattern. The Case Officer recommended approval. From that moment on, the room felt tilted. We watched as the Planning Officer’s word was treated with a weight that seemed almost impossible to overturn. It was clear: if the Case Officer says “Accept,” the Committee is under immense pressure to follow the leader.

The “Appeal Threat”: Planning Under the Shadow of the Chequebook

Perhaps the most revealing moment of the night was when the debate turned to the risk of an appeal. A Councillor openly discussed the fear of “kickback” from the Planning Inspectorate and the potential legal costs to the Council if they refused and lost.

It felt as though the Committee wasn’t weighing up the harm to the Green Belt—they were weighing up the Council’s bank balance.

The Contradiction: We have been explicitly assured in a recent letter from Kerry Challoner (LDC) that the cost of a developer’s appeal is not a consideration in planning decisions. Yet, there it was, out in the open. If decisions are being made based on financial bullying rather than planning merits, the system is compromised.

The “Grey Belt” and the Food Security Debate

We heard the developers use the new national jargon—“Grey Belt”—to “downgrade” the land and make it look expendable. This was coupled with a debate about the land’s Agricultural Land Classification (ALC).

The site was a Grade 2 (Very Good soil). Shockingly, the Case Officer suggested that if the land had been a “Grade 1”, the decision might be different. Let’s be clear: Grade 2 is “Best and Most Versatile” land. It is essential for our national food security. To suggest that “Very Good” soil is worth less because it isn’t “Perfect” is a dangerous game to play in an era of climate change and supply chain issues.

The Great Affordable Housing Myth

Planners repeatedly used “Affordable Homes” as their primary shield. Yet, when Councillors repeatedly asked—“Exactly how many affordable homes are actually needed in this area?”—the planners went silent.

They couldn’t answer. They didn’t have the facts. They were asking for the permanent destruction of the Green Belt based on a “need” they hadn’t even bothered to measure. It was a high-stakes decision being made in a total data vacuum.

The “3.5 vs 15 Year” Supply Math

We heard a compelling argument from the Whittington objector: Lichfield’s emerging Local Plan 2043 is set to increase our housing supply from 3.5 years to a massive 15 years. The Question: If we are about to have a 15-year supply, why are we rushing to pave over the Green Belt today? The planners ignored the “future” 15-year supply and stayed laser-focused on today’s 3.5-year shortage. This “short-termism” is exactly how historic villages are swallowed by urban sprawl.

Conclusion: A Democracy in the Dark

The meeting ended with a vote of 7 for and 5 against. Whittington lost. But BAG has come home with a roadmap for Coulter Lane:

1. The Case Officer is Key: We must ensure Gillian Pinna-Morrell sees the Francis Barber signature and the 30% pond access limits now, so her recommendation cannot ignore the harm.
2. No Financial Bullying: We will hold the Council to Kerry Challoner’s promise. They cannot vote “Yes” because they are afraid of the developer’s lawyers.
3. The Soil is the Shield: Our food security and our “First Village” heritage are not for sale.

Whittington was a warning. Burntwood must be the resistance.

Watch the meeting from the 27th here: