PLANNING experts who helped stop hundreds of homes being built on York’s green belt have sparked condemnation by swapping sides and fighting for the builders instead.

Residents and councillors in Huntington criticised the consultancy firm Nathaniel Lichfield And Partners, which has been hired by Barratt Homes to advocate plans for 400 new homes in New Lane. Five years ago, the same firm was hired by Huntington Parish Council and successfully got the land removed from the list of housing sites in the York Local Plan. Huntington councillor Keith Orrell said: “I am very disappointed that Nathaniel Lichfield is now working for a developer proposing the development of green belt land that they previously defended for the parish council.”

The land at the heart of the dispute is between New Lane and Huntington Stadium. Councillors are legally advised not to commit themselves to permanent opposition to building on the green belt, but Coun Orrell said that, in his opinion: “Whatever you think of such development it seems, at best, unethical for a firm to work to protect an area from development for one client and then a few years later work for a developer who wants to develop the same piece of land.”

But the firm rejected the suggestion that there was any conflict of interest.

The parish council was represented by Lichfield’s Newcastle office, while Barratt is being represented by the firm’s Manchester team.

Peter Vaughan, former parish council chairman, said: “I have no idea how the offices liaise with each other to avoid the kind of cock-up this undoubtedly is.”

Michael Watts, director of Nathaniel Lichfield And Partners, denied the firm had done anything wrong or had created a conflict of interest. He said there was no need to build on the green belt in 2004, but that had now changed.

“Sustainable urban extensions to York, including land within the draft green belt, will be required to meet future housing requirements,” he said.

“This was not the case when we previously assisted the parish council and showed the site was not needed for housing.”

He said his firm had not worked for the parish council since 2005, and said its work in 2004 was based on whether the site was needed, not whether development was suitable.