Controversial plans for 69 homes in Locks Heath rejected - but a near identical plan has been resubmitted

However, after the refusal on February 11, Vistry Southern has submitted an identical application, meaning the committee will have to reconsider the proposal in due course.

Outline planning permission for the development was granted in February 2023 giving permission in principle for the scheme. However, the latest “reserved matters” application, setting out the layout, landscaping and appearance of the scheme, was rejected by councillors at the planning committee meeting.

The proposal sparked significant opposition within the community. A key concern raised by residents centred on the loss of protected trees. Speaking on behalf of residents, Tyler Sitch told the council’s local plan was “clear” that protected trees should be retained.

He said: “This proposal seeks to remove 92 trees covered by tree preservation orders.

“Outline planning permission was granted on the basis that no Category A trees would be removed. This proposal includes the removal of five trees, which represents a material change and introduces an environmental impact.

“The officer’s report states that clear justification has been provided for suitable replacements within the site. I’m yet to see any clear justification.”

Resident Peter Cawley said the scheme went “too far”, adding that “this is about balance and equity for all”.

“Vistry has worked hard to modify the plans, but this development is simply too big, too congested and deviates considerably from the original outline model.

“It is out of scale, out of character and out of balance with wildlife and residents’ wellbeing.”

In support of the applicant, Emily Jeffry said the scheme had been shaped prioritising the preservation of higher-quality trees and maintaining key green corridors running west to east and north to south. She said 56 new trees would be planted within and around the site as part of a “robust mitigation strategy”.

Mrs Jeffry added: “Overall, the scheme remains landscape-led, harnessing the existing woodland, retaining important trees and safeguarding ecological corridors.

“The amenity of neighbours, existing residents and future occupants has been carefully protected through appropriate spacing, orientation and landscaping.”

Neil McGregor, senior planning manager for Vistry Southern, said they have worked closely with the council’s tree officer to ensure high-amenity trees were retained, with the loss of 13 per cent of Category A trees.

During the debate, Cllr Joanne Burton questioned how the site had originally been allocated and granted outline permission.

Cllr Burton said: “I gave my head a wobble, how did we get this so wrong? How did this site become an allocated site? How did we give it outline permission?

“I started doubting how on earth, as members, we got it wrong and that piece of land came into the local plan.”

She noted that the council set specific conditions for the site to be develop, including that existing trees subject to tree preservation orders (TPOs) should be retained and incorporated within the design and layout.

She added: “It’s just unbelievable how outline permission for 70 dwellings ever happened.”

Councillor Paul Whittle also said that the committee had been explicit when adopting the site into the local plan that protected trees should be retained.

“If we approve this, we are going against our own condition.”

However, Councillor Ian Bastable argued the site was in the right location for housing, pointing to its proximity to the shopping centre, bus links, doctors and other services.

“It’s not a rural site at all. It’s an ideal location for up to 70 houses.”

Councillor Burton proposed to refused the application due to overdevelopment and conflict with policies. Her recommendation was carried.

Following the decision, she said: “When this land was allocated for development, the council was very clear that existing trees with tree preservation orders should be retained and incorporated into the scheme.

“I simply could not accept the recommended felling of 92 trees. Fortunately, the majority of councillors agreed.

“Sadly an identical planning application has just been registered so we may need to go through all of this a second time.”