Lichfield District Council planning applications
Data as of 5 November 2026
Lichfield District Council decided more than 830 planning applications in the twelve months to 5 November 2026. It refused 17% of those it approved or refused, higher than the middle UK council (9%), and took a median of 48 days to decide one.
Look up one application
Search by reference or address on Lichfield District Council’s own planning portal. Or ask Claude, with the PlanningLedger connector, to find it and read its officer report and decision notice (mcp.planningledger.com).
Recent major decisions
-
30 October 2026 · Refused
Land At Mile Oak Sutton Road Mile Oak Tamworth Staffordshire · 26/00249/OUTM
-
22 October 2026 · Approved
Fradley Airfield, Hanger 5 Wood End Lane Fradley Lichfield Staffordshire WS13 8EL · 26/01067/PNPV
-
9 October 2026 · Approved
Land Adj Hawkesyard Estate Rugeley Road Armitage Rugeley Staffordshire · 25/01221/FULM
-
31 July 2026 · Approved
Land South Of Fradley Park Nanscawen Road Lichfield Staffordshire · 26/00036/FULM
-
23 July 2026 · Refused
Land West Of Roman Lane And Little Aston Park Road Little Aston Sutton Coldfield Staffordshire · 26/00425/OUTM
Figures for Lichfield District Council
| Applications decided | more than 830 |
|---|---|
| Share refusedof those approved or refused | 17%middle UK council 9% |
| Median time to a decisionfrom the valid date | 48 daysmiddle UK council 55 days |
| Householder applications refusedextensions, lofts, outbuildings | Not enough typed decisions |
| Appeals decidedin the last three years | 78 |
| Appeals allowedof those decided on their merits | 27%about one in four |
| Officer reports and decision notices searchable | back to 2017 |
| Local Plan policies held | more than 120plan adopted 2015 |
What inspectors decide appeals on
In their own words, from recent appeal decisions on Lichfield District Council’s planning applications.
-
“The Council’s decision notice cites a single reason for refusal relating to the effect of the proposal on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties. The officer report also identified a conflict with development plan policy in respect of highway matters.…”
-
“The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.”
-
“The main issues in this appeal are: • Whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); • the effect of the proposal on the…”
-
“In light of the above, the main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of Cannock Road; • whether the proposed layout and mix of uses would be suitable for its location within…”
-
“The appeal site is located within the West Midlands Green Belt. The main parties have agreed that the proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt as defined in development plan policy and the National Planning Policy Framework (the…”
How we count, and what each figure leaves out: methodology. The council’s own register is the record, and each application links to it.