Here is a “Valid vs. Invalid Objections” Checklist. This is one of the most valuable things you can read, because it stops us from writing long emotional letters about things the Council is legally required to ignore (like loss of a view).

This development is currently in the phase of Public Consultation rather than with Lichfield District Council. Developers are required to hold a public consultation before the planning application is formerly made. The results from what you say are put into a public consultation document. The message you send needs to be clear.

This is your time to send in your objection letter to the developer and their partners. An example letter is linked at the bottom of this page.

✅ Checklist: Valid vs. Invalid Objections

Use this guide to make sure your objection counts. Planning officers can only consider “Material Planning Considerations.” If your objection isn’t on the “Valid” list, it likely won’t carry any weight.

✅ DO Talk About (Valid “Material” Objections)

• Traffic Safety & Capacity:
  • Specifically: The safety of the new junction on Meg Lane.
  • Specifically: Existing congestion at the Ogley Hay Road junction.
  • Tip: Mention specific times of day when it is dangerous or blocked.
• Green Belt Policy:
  • Argue that the site does not meet the “Grey Belt” definition (e.g., if you know the land makes a significant contribution to the Green Belt’s purpose of preventing sprawl).
  • Argue that the harm to the Green Belt is not outweighed by the benefits.
• Loss of Character / Visual Amenity:
  • The design doesn’t fit the local area (scale, density, height).
  • Impact on the setting of the nearby Grade II Listed buildings (32 and 34 Rake Hill).
• Residential Amenity (Your Living Conditions):
  • Overlooking/Loss of Privacy: If new windows will look directly into yours.
  • Overshadowing/Loss of Light: If new buildings will block your sunlight.
  • Noise & Disturbance: (Permanent noise from the new road layout, not just temporary construction noise).
• Infrastructure Strain:
  • Lack of capacity at local schools and GP surgeries. (While the developer pays fees to mitigate this, you can argue that the physical space to expand doesn’t exist).
• Flooding & Drainage:
  • If you have local knowledge of flooding on Rake Hill or Meg Lane that contradicts their technical reports.
• Ecology/Biodiversity:
  • Harm to specific local wildlife species (bats, badgers, newts) known to use the site.

❌ DON’T Talk About (Invalid “Non-Material” Objections)

• Loss of a View: “I currently look out onto a field and this will block my view.” (You have no “right to a view” in planning law).
• Devaluation of Property: “My house will be worth less.” (Strictly ignored by planners).
• “We don’t need more housing”: (General statements against housing targets are rarely effective; focus on why this specific site is the wrong place).
• Construction Noise/Nuisance: “The building work will be noisy.” (This is dealt with by “Conditions” on working hours, not by refusing the plan).
• Character of the Applicant: “The developer is greedy” or “The company has a bad reputation.”
• Moral Arguments: “It’s unfair.”

Click the link below to access the letter. Don’t forget make it your own words as much as possible.