TAMWORTH LOCAL PLAN 2001-2011 Inspector’s Report

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1. Paragraph 1.36

Objections: 146/679 Mr & Mrs Whorton

Key Issues: a) Whether it is unclear if the SPG is a part of the plan; b) Whether the SPG contains important matters that ought to be part of the plan. Inspector’s Reasoning: 1.1.1. If this paragraph is read in the context of the section entitled ‘How to Use the Plan’ it is reasonably apparent that the Local Plan consists only of the Written Statement and the Proposals Map (with inset). The SPG is not intended to be a part of the development plan. 1.1.2. SPG must not be used to avoid subjecting to public scrutiny, in accordance with the statutory procedures, policies and proposals which should be included in the plan. The SPG documents issued at the same time as the Local Plan are not the subject matter of this report, so I make no comment on their detailed contents. However, I am confident that the council is well aware of the limits to which SPG can reasonably go. Recommendations: 1.1.3. I recommend that no modification is made in response to this objection.

1.2. Paragraph 1.8

Objections: 95/1101 Advantage West Midlands

Key Issues: a) Whether this paragraph should be brought up to date; b) Whether there should be references to Regional Economic Strategy (RES) and to other regional strategies.

1 Chapter 1: Introduction

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

Inspector’s Reasoning: 1.2.1. This Paragraph, under the general heading of ‘Policy Background’, deals specifically with regional planning guidance. I do not think it necessary to include here references to the other regional documents, important though they are. The former Regional Planning Guidance is now of course the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). It would be helpful to make this clear. In its response to the objection, the council suggested a form of words (SC1) that deals with the point satisfactorily. Recommendations: 1.2.2. I recommend that the Local Plan is modified in accordance with SC1. The heading of the Paragraph should read: ‘Regional Spatial Strategy’.

2 Chapter 1: Introduction

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

Chapter 2: Strategy

2.1. Strategy Objections: 89/190 Mr R Lancaster 159/797 Country Land & Business Association 159/798 Country Land & Business Association

Key Issues: a) Whether the key objective (‘to develop the town as a sustainable place….’) is matched by the detail in other parts of the Plan; b) Whether points from PPG7 regarding rural sustainable development should be included in the Plan; c) Whether in the section on Transport Strategy there should be more recognition of the separate transport needs of rural residents. Inspector’s Reasoning: 2.1.1. There is no difficulty with the Key Objective as a general statement. There may be room for disagreement about whether individual policies, elsewhere in the Plan, take adequate account of that Key Objective, but there is no doubt that it has been consciously addressed. There are various references, throughout the plan, to relevant ‘sustainability principles’. Objections to individual polices will be considered at the appropriate point in the report. 2.1.2. Tamworth’s rural area is modest in size and in close proximity to the town. In these circumstances the scope for application of the points from PPG7, which are referred to, is necessarily somewhat limited. There is no advantage in setting them out in the Strategy Chapter of the Plan. (PPG7 has now of course been replaced by PPS7.) 2.1.3. Similarly, the rural parts of Tamworth Borough are close to the main urban area, and its various services and facilities. It is not necessary to include a special section, in this Chapter, on rural transport issues. Recommendations: 2.1.4. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

3 Chapter 2: Strategy

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

Paragraph 2.2

Objections: 142/646 Compass Roadside Limited

Key Issues: a) Should the objective dealing with transport be expanded, to include the phrase ‘for all transport users, on the national and local transport network’? Inspector’s Reasoning: 2.1.5. The objective as contained in the deposit plan is only intended to be a very broad statement. There would be no advantage in expanding it in the manner suggested. Recommendations: 2.1.6. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to this objection.

2.2. Paragraph 2.6

Objections: 101/375 Staffordshire Wildlife Trust

Key Issues: a) Whether the Local Plan should contain specific targets for Biodiversity Action Plan objectives, or at least contain a strong commitment by the council to produce its own nature conservation strategy or biodiversity action plan. Inspector’s Reasoning: 2.2.1. This legitimate concern is addressed in Policy ENV4 and the explanatory text. (It is also mentioned under ‘Targets and Indicators’ at the end of Chapter 3 of the Plan.) For Tamworth district it is quite reasonable to pursue the matter by reference to the Staffordshire Biodiversity Action Plan, as stated in the policy and supporting text. Whether there should, in addition, be some SPG on the topic is a matter for the council, and will not be the subject of a recommendation in this report. Recommendations: 2.2.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to this objection.

4 Chapter 2: Strategy

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

Paragraph 2.8

Objections: 94/218 CENTRO 142/645 Compass Roadside Limited

Key Issues: a) Whether the Transport Strategy should refer to the fact that commuting to the conurbation will continue and whether measures should be in place to encourage such trips to be made by public transport; b) Whether the MSA at junction 10 of the M42 should be identified on the Proposals Map and whether the ‘provision of roadside facilities’ should be mentioned in the strategy. Inspector’s Reasoning: 2.2.3. The strategy already puts some emphasis on the encouragement of public transport use. That use of public transport will inevitably include a significant amount of commuting to the conurbation. This obvious point need not be added to the text. It is of course the case that the wider objective is to reduce all forms of commuting to the conurbation. 2.2.4. As the MSA already exists, there is no clear advantage in identifying it on the Proposals Map. The objector draws attention to the safety advantages of appropriately sited MSAs. However it is not necessary to ‘pick out’ this particular aspect of highway safety in a broadly-worded Transport Strategy. Recommendations: 2.2.5. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

2.3. Paragraph 2.9

Objections: 94/219 CENTRO 107/422 Campaign to Protect Rural England

Key Issues: a) Whether the spatial strategy should be amended to reflect the fact that there will continue to be commuting into the conurbation;

5 Chapter 2: Strategy

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

b) Whether there should be no greenfield development, pending further study. Inspector’s Reasoning: 2.3.1. The objective of the strategy is to ‘minimise’ the need to travel. That is entirely in accordance with government guidance. The objector is right to point out that there will continue to be a substantial amount of commuting to the conurbation. However that fact does not undermine the validity of the strategy which, essentially, looks to the future. There is no need to alter the spatial strategy in this respect. 2.3.2. Re-use of previously developed land should take priority over development of greenfield sites. However, considerable study of various options did take place before the decision to identify a strategic greenfield site in the Anker Valley. Leaving that matter aside, it is not realistic to suppose that the needs of the Borough (for land for housing, employment and other purposes) can be met without any greenfield development whatsoever. Recommendations: 2.3.3. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

2.4. Paragraph 2.10

Objections: 90/1329 Mr K Forest

Key Issues: a) Whether the word ‘consultation’ should be added at the end of this paragraph. Inspector’s Reasoning: 2.4.1. The council has accepted that a reference to consultation would be appropriate. I agree that this would improve the paragraph. Recommendations: 2.4.2. I recommend that: • the plan is modified by adding the words ‘and consultation’ at the end of paragraph 2.10, in accordance with SC2.

6 Chapter 2: Strategy

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

Chapter 3: Environment

3.1. ENV1: Accessible Green Space

Objections: 79/1210 Mr M Wright 101/374 Staffordshire Wildlife Trust 102/376 English Nature 105/1138 Wiggington and Hopwas Parish Council 107/1066 Campaign to Protect Rural England 153/715 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 166/856 Environment Agency

Key Issues: a) Whether the policy has been unacceptably weakened by the various changes made from the first deposit draft, for example by the introduction of the word ‘encouraging’; b) Whether the word ‘encouraging’ should be replaced by ‘ensuring’; c) Whether in the policy or supporting text there should be targets (as recommended by English Nature) for the provision of ‘accessible natural greenspace’ and its location in relation to the population concerned, and whether there should be targets for the provision of local nature reserves; d) Whether the term ‘green wedge’ is unsatisfactory; e) Whether riverside corridors, waterside recreational space and the promotion of water recreation should be specifically mentioned. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.1.1. This policy appears to have two broad objectives: (a) the protection of undeveloped or ‘natural’ areas or features, and links between them, in the interest of nature conservation; (b) the promotion of the accessibility of such areas for the benefit of residents (e.g. by encouraging the use of footpaths as a means of access to the countryside). 3.1.2. As can be seen from the Proposals Map, very substantial areas both within and outside the main built-up part of the town are intended to be covered by the policy. Land affected ranges from publicly-owned parks of major significance, such as the Castle Pleasure Grounds, to playing fields, to outlying areas of private and agricultural land with very little public access except along the rights of way. 3.1.3. It is not easy to devise a policy that covers satisfactorily such a broad spectrum of land uses. For that reason, I consider it would be appropriate

7 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

to keep this policy on a fairly general basis (as in the Revised Deposit draft) and rely on policies elsewhere in the plan to provide additional policy coverage for specific types of land. 3.1.4. With that in mind, I do not consider it realistic for the policy to seek ‘to ensure’ the attainment of all the matters mentioned. In such a general policy it would not be appropriate, either, to include detailed targets for the provision of ‘accessible greenspace’, or local nature reserves. 3.1.5. I see no difficulty with the term ‘green wedge’. It is fairly well-understood and, in any event, is explained in the accompanying text. 3.1.6. An objector correctly draws attention to the value from an amenity point of view of ‘water features’. However it is generally accepted that ‘open space’ includes areas of water; (see for example PPG17). No addition to the policy is necessary. 3.1.7. In its responses to some of these objections the council has drawn attention to CD125 (the recently completed audit and assessment of open space). The council has stated an intention to use this open space study as a basis for putting forward modifications to the local plan that would result in standards for different types of open space. I do not comment on the specific standards recommended in the study, but there is little doubt that the approach suggested in the study is one that accords generally with government guidance. Recommendations: 3.1.8. I recommend that: • No modification to this Policy is made in response to these objections.

3.2. ENV2: Green Belt

Objections: 110/444 Sport England 120/545 Tarmac Central Ltd. (see also under EMP2) 130/582 Sam Phire Properties Ltd.(see under HSG2) 131/597 Mr & Mrs Butler (see under HSG2) 161/810 House Builders’ Federation

Key Issues: a) Whether criterion b), in particular the phrase ‘of a scale appropriate to the Green Belt’, is ambiguous; b) Whether the second sentence of Paragraph 3.14 should be deleted, because Green Belt boundaries may need to be altered to allow for housing development;

8 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

c) Whether the Green Belt boundary in a location south of Hedging Lane is illogical and should be amended to create a more defensible line. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.2.1. I agree that there is a possibility that the phrase in criterion b) mentioned above might be misinterpreted. As I understand, the phrase is intended to prevent ‘substantial’ facilities being constructed, that would undermine the purposes of the Green Belt. I shall recommend an addition to the explanatory text, using some of the wording in PPG2 paragraph 3.5. At the same time the explanatory text could usefully note that engineering and other operations, and the making of any material change of use of land are inappropriate development unless they maintain openness; (see paragraph 3.12 of PPG2). 3.2.2. PPG2 advises that Green Belt boundaries should not be changed unless necessitated by exceptional circumstances. I consider the merits of some of the proposals for localised alterations to Green Belt boundaries, to accommodate development, elsewhere in this report. Even if it were the case that such local adjustments were required, it does not follow that there needs to be a full ‘review’ of the district’s Green Belt boundaries. The second sentence of Paragraph 3.14 can remain. 3.2.3. An objector has proposed an amendment to the Green Belt boundary in the Hedging Lane area. Some land would be added to the Green Belt and some removed. I agree that, in terms of simplicity and ‘easy identification’ there may be something to be said for the proposal. Nevertheless, as a general proposition, the ‘defensibility’ of the Green Belt depends as much on consistency of application of policy as on the precise characteristics of individual parcels of land, including those lying either side of the edge of the defined Green Belt boundary. So I see no reason to expect that (with the Green Belt boundary as it now exists) development on ‘Area A’ would undermine the viability of the Green Belt covering nearby land. Exceptional circumstances are needed to justify a boundary alteration. I am not satisfied that they have been demonstrated in this instance. I conclude that there should be no alteration of the boundary here. Recommendations: 3.2.4. I recommend that: • The Plan is modified by the addition of the following sentences at the end of Paragraph 3.13. ‘Essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation (see above) should be genuinely required for uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it. Possible examples of such facilities include small changing rooms or unobtrusive spectator accommodation for outdoor sport. It should be noted also that carrying out of engineering and other operations, and the making of material changes of use of land, are inappropriate development unless they maintain openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.’ • No other modification should be made in response to these objections.

9 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

3.3. Paragraph 3.15a: Flooding

Objections: 90/1330 Mr K Forest 90/1718 Mr K Forest 153/1028 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 166/1720 Environment Agency

Key Issues: a) Whether the title of the Paragraph is incorrect; b) Whether the indicative flood plain on the Proposals Map is out of date; c) Whether there should be a separate policy on flood risk, instead of relying only on the relevant policy in the Structure Plan. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.3.1. As the council agrees, the title ‘Flood Risk’ would be more accurate. 3.3.2. I understand that the ‘indicative flood plain’ was based on the most up-to- date information available at the time. The council has stated that it will amend the map, in any case, in the light of further information. I shall also make a recommendation to that effect; (see also SC34). 3.3.3. There is some force in the council’s argument that there is no real necessity to repeat the Flood Risk policy already contained in the Structure Plan. Nevertheless, in the light of the potential importance of the topic, and government advice, I consider it advisable for there to be a flood risk policy in the local plan. However it should generally follow the form of the Structure Plan policy (points a – d). Recommendations: 3.3.4. I recommend that the local plan is modified as follows: • Delete the heading ‘Flooding’ and replace with ‘Flood Risk’; in accordance with SC3. • Insert a new policy ENV2A reading: ‘Policy ENV2A Flood Risk. Development will not be permitted which would: a) be located in the floodplain, unless acceptable mitigating measures are provided; b) be at risk of flooding or increase the risk of flooding elsewhere; c) result in an increase in surface water run-off unless the increase is satisfactorily controlled; d) affect the integrity of existing flood defences or hinder future access to watercourses for maintenance purposes.’ • Delete the last sentence of Paragraph 3.15a. • Bring the information on the Proposals Map about the extent of the floodplain up to date.

10 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

3.4. ENV3: Protection of Designated Nature Conservation Sites (Renumbered and re-named as Policy ENV3A: Development Affecting Sites of National Nature Conservation Importance)

Objections: 90/1331 Mr K Forest 101/373 Staffordshire Wildlife Trust 102/377 English Nature 120/548 Tarmac Central Ltd. (R2ndDep; NFC) 153/717 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 309/1456 Mr Wolverstan

Key Issues: a) Whether plan NE1 (in the first deposit draft) should be re-instated, and improved; b) Whether the explanatory text should be amended to recognise the possibility of development affecting internationally designated nature conservation sites outside the borough boundary; c) Whether the part of the policy that deals with mitigation measures needs amendment. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.4.1. In the first Deposit Draft of the Plan there was only one policy (ENV3), covering sites of National and Local importance. In the revised Deposit Draft, the council, quite correctly, split the policy into two, so that sites of National and Local importance are dealt with separately. This will clearly indicate the different degrees of importance that should be attached to the two categories. 3.4.2. I consider that the revised policy (ENV3A) with its reference to compensatory measures, and the use of conditions or planning obligations, is reasonable for national sites; (see also below under ENV3B). 3.4.3. I see little advantage in adding explanatory text referring to the matter of ‘international’ sites outside the Borough boundary. 3.4.4. The ‘substitute plans’ included in the Revised Deposit plan are sufficient for identification purposes. The council has clearly stated that the information on these plans will be included on the main Proposals Map in due course. I do not consider it necessary to re-instate plan NE1 as well, (whether enlarged or not).

11 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

3.4.5. The council has also noted that a minor correction is needed in the wording of Policy ENV3B (see below) in that ‘Site of Biological Importance’ should read ‘Site of County Biological Importance’. Recommendations: 3.4.6. I recommend that: • No modification of Policy ENV3A is made in response to these objections.

3.5. ENV3B: Development Affecting Sites of Local Nature Conservation Importance

Objections: 153/1003 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 153/1029 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 159/801 Country Land & Business Association 101/372 Staffordshire Wildlife Trust

Key Issues: a) Whether the protection given to sites of local nature conservation importance is too great; b) Whether the policy should be so worded that development likely to have an unacceptable adverse effect on a local nature reserve should only be permitted where adequate mitigation measures have been agreed beforehand; c) Whether the list of RIGS needs amendment; d) Whether the site of the Warwickshire Moor SBI has been drawn incorrectly on the Proposals Map. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.5.1. An objector rightly draws attention to the inappropriateness of according ‘local’ sites the same degree of protection as nationally designated sites. This point is largely met by the introduction of separate polices for the two categories of site. That said, it is entirely appropriate to offer some protection to local sites (provided that too many sites of limited value are not included). This approach would accord with government guidance. In fact, the number of named, local sites in Tamworth district is low. I have no reason to think that the protection of these sites is unnecessary or inappropriate. 3.5.2. As I understand, this policy has two parts. There might be certain cases (probably extremely few in number) where development should be permitted, even though an ‘unacceptable adverse effect’ is anticipated. That situation is covered in the first part of the policy. The second part of

12 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

the policy refers to a more common situation where development can be permitted, but only where appropriate ‘mitigation measures’ are an integral part of the project to ensure that harm to nature conservation interest is either avoided altogether, or minimised and properly compensated for. Clearly an assessment of the merits of the project as a whole has to be carried out on a case by case basis. I do not consider the policy needs redrafting. 3.5.3. As the objector concerned has accepted, it is not necessary to list sites in the explanatory text. However I agree with the objector and the council that it would be reasonable to mention ‘Local Nature Reserves’ in Paragraph 3.18a. A minor correction is appropriate in the wording of the Policy itself. SC4 and SC5 deal with these drafting points in a satisfactory way. 3.5.4. The council has accepted that the list of RIGS to be shown on the Proposals Map will need to be brought up to date (in particular by the removal of Averill Brickworks) 3.5.5. Those concerned agree that a small parcel of land at the north-west side of the Warwickshire Moor SBI should be excluded from that designation. There is contradictory information about whether a compensating addition at the south-east corner has also been agreed. In these circumstances, and in the absence of clear-cut evidence about the biological importance of the piece of land in question, I shall not recommend the addition at the south- east corner. Recommendations: 3.5.6. I recommend that: • Policy ENV3B is modified in accordance with SC4; • Paragraph 3.18a is modified in accordance with SC5; • The list of RIGS to be shown on the Proposals Map is corrected by the deletion of Averill Brickworks – see SC35; • The area for the Warwickshire Moor SBI on the Proposals Map is reduced at the north-west edge (in the manner shown in SC32). • No other modification is made in response to these objections.

3.6. ENV4: Creation of Habitats & Enhancement of Biodiversity

Objections: 102/379 English Nature (R2ndDep NFC) 153/718 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates (R2ndDep NFC) 159/802 Country Land & Business Association

13 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

Key Issues: a) Whether this policy should be supported by additional guidance. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.6.1. The question of whether SPG should be produced is for the council to decide. However, I do not think SPG is likely to be essential in this instance. Recommendations: 3.6.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

3.7. ENV5: Habitats and Biodiversity outside Designated Nature Conservation Sites

Objections: 96/1192 Staffordshire County Council (R2ndDep NFC) 153/719 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 153/1004 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 159/803 Country Land & Business Association 166/859 Environment Agency

Key Issues: a) Whether the policy is too onerous; whether the word ‘avoid’ should be deleted, and whether the words ‘where appropriate’ should be inserted, for example in the first paragraph after the phrase ‘… avoid or minimise any adverse effects…’; b) Whether SPG on biodiversity issues should be produced; c) Whether ‘wetlands’ should be covered separately, possibly in SPG. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.7.1. To my mind, the phrase ‘avoid or minimise’ leaves open the possibility that it may not be possible to ‘avoid’ all adverse effects. So ‘avoidance’ is not required in all cases. The word ‘avoid’ can remain. 3.7.2. Taken as a whole, the policy is not too onerous in that the prime focus is on safeguarding features of ‘major importance’ and, as far as relocation is concerned, focussing on species of ‘high nature conservation importance’. 3.7.3. As mentioned above, whether SPG should be produced is primarily a matter for the council. It does not seem likely to be essential in this case. 3.7.4. The word ‘habitats’ includes rivers, streams, wetlands, etc., so no addition to the policy is required.

14 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

3.7.5. The council also put forward SC6 and SC7. These were not included in the direct responses to objectors, and they are not strictly necessary to deal with the points raised by these objections. So I have not made a formal recommendation in respect of them. Recommendations: 3.7.6. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

3.8. ENV6: Habitats of Legally Protected Key Species

Objections: 90/1337 Mr K Forest 96/1191 Staffordshire County Council 101/369 Staffordshire Wildlife Trust 102/380 English Nature 102/1069 English Nature

Key Issues: a) Whether the first criterion iii) (which refers to ‘satisfactory mitigation’) is inaccurate or misleading; b) Whether the phrase ‘alternative habitats’ (second criterion iii)) can include enhancing and improving adjacent habitats; c) Whether the policy should differentiate between the different levels of protection afforded to different species (European protected species and, for example, species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981). Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.8.1. It was agreed at the inquiry and in written representations that the Policy as worded is unsatisfactory. There is ambiguity, and the Policy does not differentiate between the levels of protection offered to different species. The new wording proposed in SC8 would (as I understand) meet most of the concerns of English Nature and would also remove some of the ambiguity. There is a minor typographical error in the text, as supplied, (lines 2-3) causing duplication of words. Recommendations: 3.8.2. I recommend that: • Policy ENV6 is reworded in accordance with SC8 (subject only to the removal of the minor typographical error).

15 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

3.9. ENV7: Protection of Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows

Objections: 99/314 Bloor Homes 100/338 David Wilson Homes 153/721 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 161/812 House Builders’ Federation

Key Issues: a) Whether the policy duplicates other controls; b) Whether the policy is unduly onerous; whether the word ‘exceptionally’ should be deleted. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.9.1. Some of the objections to this policy were at least partly met by the changes introduced at Revised Deposit stage. The first paragraph of the policy strikes a reasonable balance between, on the one hand, trees, woodland, etc. which are significant for the character of the landscape and, on the other hand, the need for a development. 3.9.2. The second paragraph appears to refer to any case where trees are lost through development, even if they are not ‘significant’ trees. In that context the use of the word ‘exceptionally’ seems inappropriate. If this word is omitted, the policy will still ensure that replacement planting will take place, but at an ‘appropriate scale’ and in accordance with a landscaping scheme. That gives an opportunity for the relative significance of the trees that are lost to be taken into account, in deciding what level of replacement it is reasonable to require. 3.9.3. I do not accept that the policy duplicates other controls. There may very well be instances when important trees are affected by development but those trees are not the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. Recommendations: 3.9.4. I recommend that: • The word ‘exceptionally’ is omitted from the second paragraph of the Policy; • No other modifications are made in response to these objections.

16 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

3.10. ENV8: Protection, Enhancement and Restoration of River and Canal Corridors

Objections: 159/804 Country Land & Business Association

Key Issues: a) Whether there needs to be explicit recognition of the effect that proposals may have on the use of their land by owners or occupiers of river and canal banks. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.10.1. In effect, this policy merely states that the council will ‘support’ positive proposals that benefit river and canal corridors. In assessing any such proposals the impact, if any, on neighbouring land uses will have to be taken into account as a part of the usual process of development control. This does not need to be set out in this policy. Recommendations: 3.10.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to this objection.

3.11. ENV9: Impact of Development on Water Courses

Objections: 100/339 David Wilson Homes 153/723 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 153/1005 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

Key Issues: a) Whether the policy needs amendment to clarify that developers do not need to help ‘improve’ a watercourse, where that is not directly related to the development; b) Whether the word ‘exceptionally’ in the first paragraph of the policy should be deleted. Inspector’s Reasoning:

17 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

3.11.1. As now worded, the policy does not require developers to make contributions that are not related to the development being undertaken. No further modifications to this aspect of the policy are needed. 3.11.2. In my view, development that results in ‘pollution or degradation’ of groundwater resources, etc, should be an ‘exception’, so the use of the word ‘exceptionally’ is not inappropriate here. At the same time, the policy does not rule out such development altogether. However it does require adequate mitigation measures. That seems a reasonable approach. Recommendations: 3.11.3. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

3.12. ENV10: Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems

Objections: 101/367 Staffordshire Wildlife Trust 101/1002 Staffordshire Wildlife Trust 153/724 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 153/1006 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

Key Issues: a) Whether the text has been unacceptably weakened, by the deletion of the word ‘requirement’; b) Whether the words ‘where appropriate’ should be added at the beginning of the policy. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.12.1. While one objector emphasises the advantages and general applicability of sustainable drainage systems, another objector points out that they may not be practicable in all circumstances. In my view, the correct approach is to make the use of these systems a ‘requirement’ wherever their use is ‘reasonably practicable’ in the circumstances. I agree that the term Sustainable Drainage Systems should be used. I prefer this approach to that indicated in SC9 (which relates only to terminology). Recommendations: 3.12.2. I recommend that: • The policy should be termed: ‘Sustainable Drainage Systems’ and the same term should be used in the explanatory text.

18 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

• The wording in the policy should be deleted and replaced by: ‘The use of appropriate sustainable drainage systems will be required in all new developments, wherever it is reasonably practicable to do so.’

3.13. ENV11: Protection of Open Space

Objections: 99/317 Bloor Homes 145/119 Walton Homes Ltd. 145/120 Walton Homes Ltd. (See also under HSG2 – Whitley Avenue) 145/1181 Walton Homes Ltd 153/725 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 153/1007 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 161/815 House Builders Federation 161/1202 House Builders Federation

Key Issues: a) Whether the policy suggests that developers should make good existing deficiencies in open space; b) Should the policy acknowledge that existing open space that is under-utilised could be developed? c) Whether it is unreasonable to expect a developer to demonstrate that open space is surplus to requirements, since it is the council’s responsibility to undertake an audit of open space; d) Whether the list of criteria is too onerous, and instead of ‘will not be permitted…’ the words used should be ‘will be considered in the light of the following criteria…’; e) Whether it should be specified that the methodology of any assessment of open space should be in accordance with PPG17. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.13.1. Preliminary PPG17 (‘Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation’) provides the key government advice against which to assess the policies in this part of the Local Plan. Among other things, PPG17 advises local authorities to undertake robust assessments of the existing and future needs of their local communities for open space, sports and recreational facilities; in addition, there should be ‘audits’ of existing facilities, considering both quantitative and qualitative elements. These assessments and audits are seen as the starting point for establishing effective strategies for open space, sport and recreation at the local level, and for effective planning through the development of appropriate plan

19 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

policies. Standards for the provision of open space should be set locally, and based on the local assessments of need and audits. 3.13.2. Some of the objections to the policies and text within the Local Plan have their basis in the fact that at the time the plan was prepared there was no completed local assessment and audit and, consequently, no locally-set standards. The council was evidently well aware of the disadvantages of this situation and commissioned a study comprising an assessment and audit. The study was completed and made public close to the end of the main part of the inquiry. By that date, most objectors proceeding by written representation had submitted their documents, and all hearings on the relevant Chapter of the Plan had been completed. 3.13.3. It is apparent that the council regards the policies in the current deposit plan as something of an ‘interim’ stage, pending the carrying out of any necessary public consultations and the making of new planning policies which will have the recent assessment and audit as their foundation. The council’s intention is to incorporate the new policies in this Local Plan by means of a formal Modification procedure. The procedure used to establish the new policies is a matter for the council, and I do not comment on the option chosen. However, I do strongly endorse the council’s objective of replacing the current draft policies as soon as practicable with policies arising from the assessment and audit. Clearly, it would not be appropriate for this report to review the detailed conclusions of the open space study, especially the various standards suggested (since, with very limited exceptions, there has not been an adequate opportunity for interested persons to make their opinions known). That said, is right to acknowledge fully the suitability of the general approach now being taken by the council, since it is likely to result in new policies compatible with PPG guidance. 3.13.4. As the Open Space Study and the relevant cabinet report (CD125) were submitted to the inquiry they are ‘material considerations’. However, for reasons indicated, I have to treat them with caution, and mainly as an indication of how the council intends to proceed in the future. I realise that this may give an air of artificiality to the consideration of the individual objections on this topic, since both objections and recommendations are probably going to be overtaken by events anyway, before adoption of the local plan. However, outstanding objections do need to be dealt with, although in the circumstances, I can do so very briefly in many instances. Note that under the heading of Policy ENV11, below, I include a recommendation that is deliberately worded in broad terms, supporting the early formulation of new policies. 3.13.5. The Objections Turning to the specific objections to this Policy, it was clarified by the council at the inquiry that this policy was directed at ‘public open space’ or at least ‘open space’ to which the public had some measure of access. In contrast, ‘greenspace’ might include all kinds of undeveloped land that was merely of visual amenity value. It was also accepted that there was room for confusion on this point, as both sorts of land had the same notation on the Proposals Map. It seems to me that the Proposals Map should have separate notations for: (a) areas which are public open space, playing fields, sports pitches, play areas, etc, and are of the kind to which specific ‘standards’ for provision will apply in the future, and (b) other areas (possibly including private, agricultural land) which on general

20 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

planning grounds the council may wish to keep open for visual amenity reasons, but to which detailed standards or ‘public open space policies’ would not be applied. 3.13.6. The policy should not require developers to make good pre-existing deficiencies in public facilities, which do not arise in any way as a consequence of their projects. I do not think the intention was that the policy should do so, although the use of the word ‘redressing’ in criterion a) may lead to uncertainty. The difficulty could be dealt with by deleting that word. Subject to that, I see no reason to alter the first part of the policy. It does not require that all proposals should contribute towards all the objectives set out in criteria a) to i). That would be impossible. It only requires that these objectives should not be ‘prejudiced’. As a general proposition, that is not unreasonable. 3.13.7. The last paragraph of the policy leaves open the possibility that in certain instances it might be demonstrated that there is a piece of open space that is ‘surplus to requirements’. The reference to ‘agreed by the Borough Council’ is inappropriate. The phrase should be ‘…of the kind indicated in PPG17’. I agree that it is onerous for developers to do their own assessments. However, PPG17, paragraph 10 indicates that this can be a way forward in some circumstances, so there is nothing wrong in principle with what is contained in the last paragraph of the policy. 3.13.8. Land at Whitley Avenue The objector wishes this site to be deleted from the ‘open space network’ with a view to using it for housing. The land is privately-owned and could be fenced-off to prevent all public access. (At present, it appears to be used unofficially by local people for dog walking, etc.) I was told that it was originally within a much more extensive area that was the subject of the outline planning permission for the development of the nearby residential estate. This particular piece of land was left undeveloped. The intention at the time (at least in the mind of the local planning authority) was that it would form ‘amenity open space’ for the benefit of the residential estate. Possibly owing to the absence of a suitable planning condition or obligation, it was never formally adopted or utilised for that purpose. 3.13.9. Given that history, I can certainly well understand why the council wishes, in principle, to retain the whole of this site as ‘open space’ in some form. However, its current use as ‘access land’, whilst certainly of some value, cannot be given great weight, because access is unofficial, and could be prevented. As a ‘visual amenity’ the site is only of moderate value, in my judgement. There was little evidence that it has special importance for biodiversity. It follows that if there were a convincing case for allocating the land for housing purposes, on grounds of need, I would take the view that the designation as ‘open space’ on the draft Proposals Map should not prevent an allocation of at any rate a part of the site for housing, with consideration being given to making the remainder more ‘officially’ available as ‘amenity greenspace’. That would seem a reasonable approach, in the circumstances of allocation being required on grounds of housing need. 3.13.10. I add the following. In the open space study (CD125) this site is classified as ‘natural and semi-natural open space’. The objector considers that the district is well-provided with land in this category. This is not the place to come to final conclusions about either (a) the ‘recommended local

21 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

standards’ for the various categories of open space or (b) whether sites other than this one should be included in this category. Nevertheless, I believe that the objector’s analysis reinforces my view that if part of this land were required for housing, on grounds of housing need, that should take priority over the ‘open space’ designation in this instance. I review the housing need position later. (In summary, I do not think there is a current necessity to use this site for housing. It can therefore remain, meanwhile, as part of the open space network.) Recommendations: 3.13.11. I recommend that: • The council proceeds as soon as practicable to formulate and adopt new planning policies, incorporating standards for provision of different kinds of open space, taking into account the recently completed open space study; subject to that, I recommend that: • The Proposals Map differentiates between (a) parks and public gardens, public open space of all kinds, greenspace to which the public does have some right of access, greens and commons, play areas, outdoor sports facilities of all types, allotments, etc, (and to which ENV11 is intended to apply) and (b) other open areas (with little or no public access) which it is desired to keep open primarily for the purpose of visual amenity; • In Policy ENV11 a) the words ‘Redressing or..’ are deleted; • In the last paragraph of Policy ENV11, the words ‘agreed by the Borough Council’ are replaced by ‘of the kind indicated in PPG17’; • No other modification is made in response to these objections.

3.14. Paragraph 3.44: Provision and Use of Open Space

Objections: 102/1068 English Nature

Key Issues: a) Whether ‘natural greenspace’ should be included in the audit of open space. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.14.1. Natural and semi-natural open space is included in the study. No modification is needed to the Paragraph. Recommendations: 3.14.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to this objection.

22 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

3.15. ENV12: Open Space for New Developments

Objections: 100/340 David Wilson Homes 110/447 Sport England 145/121 Walton Homes Ltd 146/674 Mr N & Mrs R Whorton 153/726 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

Key Issues: a) Whether the standards set out in SP policy R6, or other standards, should be reproduced in the Local Plan; b) Whether the standards should be regarded as a ‘baseline’ only, with enhanced provision where possible; c) Whether contributions to open space provision should be made by all housing developments, or whether there should be exceptions; whether the level of contributions should be specified in the local plan, in order to increase certainty. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.15.1. I agree that standards for open space provision expected from new developments should be in the Plan; (see also the recommendation under ENV11). The standards might of course be exceeded, but the Policy should concentrate on setting out the minimum ‘objectives’, for the different types of open space provision that are being sought. 3.15.2. The standards for provision should not be presented in the form of an absolutely rigid ‘formula’ or applied ‘in blanket form regardless of actual impacts’. There should be some room for negotiation in the light of the circumstances of the particular application. 3.15.3. It was suggested by an objector that there were three situations where open space provision should not be expected from housing developments: (a) defined geographical areas, such as the town centre; (b) certain types of housing (such as sheltered housing for the elderly); (c) sites below a given size threshold (smaller than 10 houses was recommended). It was also said that if there was already enough provision in the locality for existing residents and for the residents of the new development, no contribution at all should be required. 3.15.4. My views are these. In principle, all residents, even if living in the town centre, or if elderly, may have needs for, or could benefit from, open space.

23 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

It might not, of course, be the same kind or amount of open space as that required on a new estate of family housing. I consider that there should be no ‘blanket exemption’ for defined geographical areas, or types of housing. Instead, explanatory text should make it clear that in settling the amount and type of open space to be provided account will be taken of the type and location of the development, in particular whether it is designed for elderly persons, or is in a built-up part of the town centre. 3.15.5. Similarly, residents of small developments also have ‘open space needs’. I accept that it may not be practicable, in very small developments, to provide a useable amount of open space on site. In that situation, a financial contribution towards the improvement of, or provision of, facilities off-site would be appropriate. I add that there needs to be a clear link between the financial contribution and the facilities in question, which must be reasonably accessible to the residents of the development. Otherwise the financial contribution could amount to no more than a ‘levy’ from which the development itself derives no benefit. 3.15.6. I agree that there may be exceptional cases, where provision is already so generous, in terms of variety, quantity and quality that no further provision is needed, even for new development coming forward. In those circumstances it would not be necessary, and therefore not reasonable, to require any open space provision or financial contribution. 3.15.7. I note that SC10 recommends that the actual standards should be specified in the Policy (not just included in the explanatory text). Recommendations: 3.15.8. I recommend that: • The standards for the amount, and type, of open space expected to be provided in connection with residential development should be set out in the Plan. In the event that no other standards are formulated and adopted by the council, the standards contained in SP Policy R6 should be adhered to and included in the Policy. • Explanatory text should state: (i) in fixing the type and amount of provision for open space in, or in connection with, individual residential developments, some allowance will be made for special circumstances affecting a particular application, such as a town centre location or accommodation designed specially for elderly persons; (ii) the amount and quality of existing open space will also be taken into account, but only in circumstances of clearly demonstrable adequate provision, in terms of quantity and quality, for both existing and proposed development, will no further provision, or contribution towards provision, be expected; • Paragraphs 3.45-46 should be adjusted accordingly.

3.16. ENV13: Redressing Open Space Deficiencies

Objections:

24 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

90/1353 Mr K Forest 90/1356 Mr K Forest 90/1357 Mr K Forest 110/1061 Sport England 153/727 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

Key Issues: a) Whether this Policy, and the supporting text, should be re-instated to emphasise the importance of redressing deficiencies in provision; b) Whether is useful to have a policy that merely states the council’s intention to address the question of deficiencies in open space; c) If the policy were to be retained should it be made clear that developers should not bear the responsibility for redressing deficiencies that are not related to their own developments? Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.16.1. The Policy was deleted in the Revised Deposit Draft. That was reasonable, as there was no means of accurately quantifying deficiencies. The open space study has now been completed. However, as things stand in relation to the inquiry into the local plan, the position regarding ‘local standards’ has not changed. This policy should not be re-instated in its First Deposit Draft form. Recommendations: 3.16.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

3.17. ENV14: Loss of Playing Fields & Sports Pitches

Objections: 90/1361 Mr K Forest 90/1362 Mr K Forest 97/281 Government Office for the West Midlands 110/1062 Sport England

Key Issues: a) Whether the policy (as set out in the First Deposit draft) needs to be put in more positive terms; whether the policy should be more ‘robust’;

25 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

b) Whether Paragraph 3.51a should require consultation and agreement with the local community, in relation to replacement playing fields. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.17.1. The point about making the policy more ‘positive’ was largely addressed at Revised deposit stage. I do not consider that additions to the policy are required to make it more robust. As it stands, it is generally in line with government guidance. 3.17.2. As pointed out by an objector, the paragraphs following 3.51 (3.51a-c) need re-numbering. That is dealt with by SC11. 3.17.3. I agree that consultation with the local community on the topic of replacement playing fields is important. That said, I do not consider it correct to include the word ‘agreement’ here. The reason for that is that it would be the council’s responsibility to make the actual decision, probably in connection with consideration of a planning application. Recommendations: 3.17.4. I recommend that: • The Plan is modified in accordance with SC11. • No other modification is made in response to these objections.

3.18. ENV14A: New Football Stadium and Related Facilities

Objections: 79/1209 Wright (Proposals Map) 90/1360 Mr K Forest 90/1362 Mr K Forest 90/1363 Mr K Forest 90/1364 Mr K Forest 90/1429 Mr K Forest (Proposals Map) 90/1450 Mr K Forest (Proposals Map) 105/1140 Wiggington & Hopwas Parish Council (Proposals Map) 105/1721 Wiggington & Hopwas Parish Council (Proposals Map) 144/1168 Trustees of the Estate of Mr J Aucott 144/1170 Trustees of the Estate of Mr J Aucott (Proposals Map) 418/1113 Thamesway Properties 79/1209 Mr M Wright

26 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

Key Issues: a) Does the removal of land off Dunstall Lane from the greenspace/open space network prejudice or inhibit proper consideration of proposals for a new ground for Tamworth Football Club? b) Should all the alternative sites be identified in the Plan; and should the existing site be allocated for housing purposes? c) Whether the criteria in the Policy confuse matters relating to alternative sites with development control issues, that would need to be addressed in any case; d) Whether the criteria and supporting text need detailed amendment. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.18.1. As the council explained, Tamworth Football Club have indicated that they wish to find a new site, because the existing ground does not match their aspirations. The council is generally supportive of this objective. At the same time, it is said, there is uncertainty about whether the Club will relocate within the plan period and, consequently, whether there is any need to identify the alternative site at this stage. For that reason, no site has been selected. Instead, a policy has been devised which, in effect, guides the selection process, and lays down criteria which should be met by whatever site is chosen. 3.18.2. I note that it could be argued that if a site may not be needed in this plan period, any policy relating to a new football stadium is premature. I would not agree with that approach. Given that finding a new football stadium site is not necessarily going to be a straightforward process, it seems sensible to include a policy now that can enable the ‘search process’ to commence on the right lines. So I support the inclusion of this criteria-based policy. Furthermore, whatever judgement is made about the precise timescale for the relocation, as a matter of fact no full assessment of the merits of potential sites has yet taken place. Consequently, no site can now be identified on the Proposals Map as the ‘best option’. I was given no list of the alternative sites, and it is not clear to me that there is a complete list, so a list cannot be added to the plan. As the existing site is (a) one of the ‘options’ and (b) may not be available in the plan period anyway, it would not be appropriate to allocate it for housing in the Plan. Criteria-based policies to guide possible development are commonplace, and do not have to lead to ‘uncertainty’. 3.18.3. It appears that the Club has an ‘initial preference’ for a site off Dunstall Lane. With that in mind, the council (at Revised Deposit Stage) removed some land from the ‘greenspace/open space network’. It appears that this was done as a ‘generally supportive gesture’ for the football club. However, it was emphasised to me that this move did not indicate that the council would necessarily agree that this was the best site. That must be so, because the assessment of all possible sites, including the existing site, has not occurred. I can fully understand why the council wished to ‘support’ the club in this way. However, this change to the Proposals Map brings a slight contradiction into the council’s position. The change removes a possible ‘obstacle’ in the way of one site, before the comparative exercise required by the council’s own policy has taken place. In order to preserve

27 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

the value of the exercise required by Policy ENV14A, the change to the Proposals Map should be reversed.1 3.18.4. Turning to the criteria, I doubt that there is a clear-cut distinction between ‘alternative site criteria’ and normal ‘development control criteria’. Clearly, the extent to which the various sites meet ‘normal’ development control criteria will help to identify the preferred alternative. On the whole, for a possible major development of this kind it is helpful to bring together the main ‘issues’ that would need to be considered. That does not mean that any other relevant development plan policies could be ignored. 3.18.5. An objector has correctly drawn attention to some typographical and presentational points, which do not need to be mentioned in the formal recommendations below. A number of detailed suggestions have also been made, aimed generally at making the policy and text more comprehensive. None of these suggestions would cause any harm, but I accept the council’s view that in the main they are not necessary. However, as the council agrees, it would be worth mentioning pedestrians in Paragraph 3.51c. Recommendations: 3.18.6. I recommend that: • Land off Dunstall Lane (Map 14 – amendment to Proposals Map at Revised Deposit stage) is reinstated in the Green space/Open space network. • In Paragraph 3.51c (as numbered in the Revised Deposit draft), delete the words ‘… public transport and cycle routes’ and insert the words ‘public transport, pedestrian routes and cycle routes.’ • No other modification is made in response to these objections.

3.19. ENV15: Increasing Public Access Land

Objections: 99/319 Bloor Homes 130/588 Sam Phire Properties Ltd 131/596 Mr & Mrs Butler 153/729 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 161/817 House Builder’s Federation

Key Issues:

1 In making the recommendation on this matter, I am aware that the council may substantially revise the policies on greenspace and open space in any event.

28 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

a) Whether the justification is too negative and ignores the possibility of improving public access through ‘planning gain’ (for example through alterations to the Green Belt boundary in the Dosthill area); b) Whether the policy should be deleted, because the council has other powers to negotiate or acquire rights for public access; c) Whether this policy should be deleted, because it is a statement of intent, which does not have any specific land-use implications, or criteria against which planning applications can be judged. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.19.1. I have some sympathy with the argument that as the policy expresses intent it should be removed. However, on balance, bearing in mind (a) the significance the council evidently attaches to the question of public access to open space in the district, (b) the fact that a named area of the district is to be given particular attention as far as public access is concerned and (c) the content of SP Policy R4, the policy and text should be retained; (see also the notation on the Proposals Map). 3.19.2. I do not accept, in this instance, that merely because the council has other powers to acquire rights of access, the policy is inappropriate. Open space access arrangements are often a part of negotiations in connection with planning obligations related to planning applications. The fact that increased access might be one of the council’s objectives in such situations can usefully be indicated here. 3.19.3. The merits of housing proposals at Dosthill are considered elsewhere in the report. However, as a general proposition the offer of increased access, in itself, would rarely amount to the exceptional circumstances justifying an alteration of Green Belt boundaries. No modification of the policy is needed. Recommendations: 3.19.4. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

3.20. ENV16: Anker Valley Public Access Area

Objections: 17/51 Mrs C Gardner & Mr M Doak 80/176 Mr & Mrs Chadwick 113/528 William Davis Limited 140/637 J.R. Gilman & Sons 151/692 George Wimpey UK Ltd 153/730 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

29 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

161/818 House Builders’ Federation

Key Issues: a) Whether there is any certainty that the objective of a public access area will be achieved (in conjunction with other development); b) Whether the proposed public access area is too large; c) Whether the cost of the provision of public access land could prejudice the development of the Anker Valley; d) Whether it is inappropriate to have this separate policy relating to just one aspect of the proposed Anker Valley development, and whether it would be preferable to have a single ‘urban extension policy’ in the plan, dealing with all matters connected with the project; e) Whether the words ‘where possible’ should be inserted at the beginning of this policy; f) Whether the whole of Anker Valley should be retained as undeveloped land and open space; g) Whether this policy should be deleted, because it is only a statement of intent. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.20.1. Some of the points raised by objectors to this policy are similar to those raised in connection with Policy ENV15; see above. That discussion need not be repeated. In summary, whilst there can be reservations about an ‘intent’ policy, it is not unreasonable to have one in this instance. 3.20.2. The merits of housing and employment development in the Anker Valley, in principle, are considered elsewhere in this report; (see for example under HSG1-3). As far as the question of retaining views of ‘unspoilt fields’ and existing access to open space is concerned, it is obviously the case that the appearance of the area would be substantially altered by such a major project. It might be argued that this change in appearance would cause a ‘loss of amenity’. That is almost inevitably the case, to a greater or lesser extent, when there is a development of a previously ‘greenfield site’. On the other hand, there is good reason to think that permitted public access to the parts of the Anker Valley that would not be developed could be usefully improved as a consequence of the project. Overall, I am of the opinion that the specific issue of loss of ‘visual amenity’ by reason of building on the undeveloped land (when considered in the context of improved public access) is not a basis for saying that the proposed development should not occur. 3.20.3. This policy itself does not completely define the public access area; it only states an objective. The Proposals Map however does show a ‘public access area’ but in the light of the Policy wording, I do not take that Proposals Map notation as setting a final or rigid boundary. It shows the position of the access land, in so far as that can be defined at this stage. To emphasise this point, I shall recommend that the explanatory text states that the boundaries indicated on the Proposals Map may need adjustment. In doing so I note the suggestion that ownership difficulties may, possibly, prevent some of the indicated ‘public access area’ becoming available.

30 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

3.20.4. In the light of the above, the precise extent of the ‘public access area’ need not be addressed here, except to note that much of the proposed access area is probably unsuitable for housing and employment development in any event, largely because of the floodplain The area indicated on the Proposals Map seems broadly appropriate, in land use terms. I was given no concrete evidence about the effect on the ‘viability’ of the project, but in view of the proposed low-maintenance nature of the access land, I doubt this will be a critical factor for the whole development. 3.20.5. Criticisms have been made of the SPG dealing with the Anker Valley. That is not something to be commented on in this report. It would no doubt be possible to devise one policy covering all aspects of the proposed Anker Valley housing and employment site. I do not think there would be major advantages in doing so. 3.20.6. This policy can be retained. Recommendations: 3.20.7. I recommend that: • No modification is made to the Policy; • An additional sentence is added at the end of Paragraph 3.56 reading: ‘The boundaries of the public access area, shown on the Proposals Map, may need adjustment to take account of various practical considerations.’

3.21. ENV17: High Quality Design

Objections: 90/1368 Mr K Forest 99/320 Bloor Homes 100/341 David Wilson Homes (R2ndDep NFC) 127/1124 Future Energy Solutions 150/1153 Alfred McAlpine Special Projects 153/731 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates (R2ndDep NFC) 161/819 House Builders Federation

Key Issues: a) Whether there is a typographical error in the supporting text; b) Whether there are too many criteria which are too subjective; c) Whether the plan needs to make clearer the distinction between the two issues of energy efficiency and renewable energy;

31 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

d) Whether the phrase ‘make a positive contribution’ (criterion a)) should be modified; whether the ‘thorough analysis’ required should apply only to complex or large- scale development proposals; e) Whether these matters should be incorporated within SPG. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.21.1. As the council acknowledges, there is a typographical error (‘divided’ for ‘derived’) in the explanatory text. This will no doubt be corrected by the council in any event, and need not be the subject of a formal recommendation. 3.21.2. In my view, there is benefit in having a criteria-based ‘development control’ policy such as this, which describes the factors which the council will take into account when assessing projects. Inevitably, there is in practice an element of ‘subjectivity’ when deciding, for example, whether a proposed building is ‘well-related’ to its surroundings in terms of scale. However I do not consider that this factor rules out the use of such criteria. They should be in the plan, not merely in SPG, because they may form the basis for determining planning applications. In the light of government guidance on design (now contained in PPS1) I consider it reasonable for the council to ‘expect’ a new development to make ‘a positive contribution’ to its surroundings. 3.21.3. A ‘thorough analysis’ does not necessarily mean a lengthy or complex analysis. For a straightforward or small project an analysis may be sufficiently ‘thorough’ even if quite brief. Certainly, I do not think design of new buildings should be based on an analysis of context that is less than ‘thorough’ in relation to the particular nature and scale of what is proposed. The phrase can remain. 3.21.4. An objector quite correctly points out the distinction between ‘energy efficiency’ and provision of energy from renewable sources. However, I do not think any real confusion is caused in this case by mentioning both these issues in the explanatory text. No modification is needed. So I shall not recommend a modification as suggested in SC12. Recommendations: 3.21.5. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

3.22. ENV18: Protection of the Built Environment

Objections: 153/732 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 161/820 House Builders Federation

32 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

Key Issues: a) Whether there needs to be a specific acceptance that redevelopment and renewal may have an impact on the existing built environment; b) Whether the policy should be deleted, because buildings worthy of protection will be statutorily listed, protection of non-listed buildings can be achieved through a development brief, and erosion of spaces should be addressed through a design guide. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.22.1. The policy does not say that removal of existing buildings cannot take place. It focuses on proposals that ‘would have an unacceptable adverse effect… through the removal of buildings..’. That is a reasonable approach. 3.22.2. Some buildings and areas have specific protection under statutory provisions, or as a result of conservation area designation. However there are other areas which have a character that is worth preserving or respecting which have no such protection. This policy indicates the approach that the council would take when considering applications which might have an unacceptable impact on those areas. The policy can be retained. Recommendations: 3.22.3. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

3.23. Paragraph 3.67: Historic Environment

Objections: 107/432 Campaign to Protect Rural England

Key Issues: a) Whether this paragraph misstates the purpose of maintaining and enhancing the architectural and historic heritage and is at odds with the later objectives and policies. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.23.1. In effect, Paragraph 3.67 points out that the historic buildings we value and wish to conserve have, in some cases, been subject to adaptation and change of use in the past. Such adaptations to new circumstances may have been one of the reasons for their survival. It is not unreasonable to suggest that further adaptations or changes of use may in some instances be necessary to ensure the continued viability and survival of the buildings. Clearly, what it is proper to permit in a particular case has to be determined having regard to statutory requirements, the development plan and all

33 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

material considerations. The Paragraph does not indicate a ‘free for all’, and refers to ‘appropriate’ development. Development that did not comply with statutory requirements, policies, etc, would not be ‘appropriate’. Read as a whole, the paragraph is acceptable; (see generally paragraphs 3.12- 15, and 4.16, of PPG15). Recommendations: 3.23.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to this objection.

3.24. ENV19: Development within or affecting Conservation Areas

Objections: 99/321 Bloor Homes 151/694 George Wimpey UK Ltd 153/733 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 153/1009 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

Key Issues: a) Whether the policy unnecessarily repeats the council’s statutory duties; b) Whether there needs to be a special policy dealing with the relationship between the proposed Anker Valley development and the Amington Hall Estate Conservation Area; whether the wording of the current policy would inhibit possible development up to the boundary of this Conservation Area; whether there would be a conflict between this Policy and the development, already proposed in the Plan, in the Anker Valley; c) Whether the policy needs altering to ensure that development outside a Conservation Area is not affected by the policy; d) Whether the policy should be amended to reflect the guidance in paragraph 4.19 of PPG15. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.24.1. PPG15, paragraph 4.15, advises that a council’s policies for conservation areas, insofar as they bear on the exercise of development controls, should be set out in the local plan. 3.24.2. This policy deals not only with development within conservation areas, but also with development ‘affecting the setting of a conservation area’. It is reasonable for the policy to deal with development that takes place outside a conservation area, but which affects its setting. However it would be preferable if these two aspects of the Policy were more clearly

34 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

distinguished. I am also of the view that the wording should read ‘preserve or enhance…’. 3.24.3. An objector correctly draws attention to guidance in PPG15. This points out that the key objective ‘of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance’ of the area, may exceptionally have to give way to other considerations. However, there is always the possibility that the provisions of a development plan policy may have to give way to other material considerations, ‘in exceptional cases’. That will apply in the instance of Policy ENV19, as in the case of many other policies. It does not need to be made explicit for each individual policy. 3.24.4. No doubt the layout and design of the proposed Anker Valley development will have to take account of the Amington Hall Estate Conservation Area. It is not necessary in my view to have a separate policy to deal with this. It is correct to suggest that the policy might inhibit proposed development that reaches up to the boundary of the Conservation Area (or is proposed within the Conservation Area). However the Policy would, in effect, only inhibit development which does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, or which adversely affects its setting. That is a reasonable approach. 3.24.5. Representations have referred to the Conservation Strategy and the reasoned justifications for individual Conservation Areas. The Policy itself should not state that development ‘shall comply’ with SPG. Those documents are however important material considerations and can be mentioned in the reasoned justification. Recommendations: 3.24.6. I recommend that: • The first sentence of the Policy (ENV19) should read: ‘Development within a conservation area shall seek to preserve or enhance all features, including buildings and open spaces, which contribute positively to the area’s character or appearance.’ • The third sentence of the Policy (beginning ‘All development shall comply…..) should be deleted. An additional two sentences should be added to the beginning of paragraph 3.72a (in the reasoned justification) reading: ‘Attention is drawn to the Conservation Strategy for Tamworth and the reasoned justifications for individual conservation areas. These documents are material considerations which will be taken into account in assessing all proposals within, or affecting the setting of, conservation areas.’ • A new paragraph should be added at the end of the Policy (so that it forms part of the Policy) reading: ‘Development outside a conservation area but affecting the setting of the conservation area, or affecting views into or out of the conservation area, will be assessed in the light of the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.’ • No other modification is made in response to these objections.

35 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

3.25. ENV19A: Demolition of Unlisted Buildings within Conservation Areas

Objections: 99/1147 Bloor Homes 109/1088 English Heritage

Key Issues: a) Whether this Policy and Policies ENV20A and ENV20B should be combined in one policy; b) Whether there should be a requirement that in all cases where demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area is proposed, an acceptable detailed scheme for redevelopment of the site should have been submitted to and approved by the council. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.25.1. Listed buildings are generally subject to a greater degree of protection than unlisted buildings, even those in Conservation Areas. It is advisable in my view to have separate policies for listed and unlisted buildings. There should also be a separate policy for development in Conservation Areas. 3.25.2. In the light of government guidance in paragraphs 4.27 and 4.29 of PPG15, there is some merit in applying the requirement for an acceptable redevelopment scheme to all instances where an unlisted building is to be demolished in a Conservation Area. The wording proposed below is a little stronger than that suggested in SC13. However, for the explanatory text I have adopted the wording in SC14. Recommendations: 3.25.3. I recommend that: • Policy ENV19A is modified by the deletion of criterion iv). • Policy ENV19A is further modified by inserting as a separate paragraph at the end of the Policy: ‘In all cases where the total or substantial demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area is proposed, permission will not be granted for the demolition unless an acceptable detailed scheme for redevelopment of the site has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.’ • In paragraph 3.72b, immediately before the last sentence, the following two sentences are inserted: ‘Even where a building makes little or no contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area, it is important that redevelopment is seen as an opportunity to enhance the quality of the street scene. For this reason, the Borough Council will require developers to submit details of proposed redevelopment alongside an application for demolition.’

36 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

3.26. ENV20: Development affecting Listed Buildings

Objections: 161/822 House Builder’s Federation

Key Issues: a) Whether the subject matter of this Policy is adequately covered in SPG. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.26.1. Policies which could be a basis for determining planning decisions relating to listed buildings should be in the development plan, not merely in SPG. In principle, it is appropriate to have a local plan policy dealing with ‘Preservation of Listed Buildings’. The policy can remain in the plan. Recommendations: 3.26.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to this objection.

3.27. ENV20A: Alteration, Extension or Change of Use of Listed Buildings

Objections: 99/1731 Bloor Homes

Key Issues: a) Whether this Policy should be combined with ENV19A Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.27.1. This matter has been dealt with under Policy ENV19A. Recommendations: 3.27.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to this objection.

3.28. ENV20B: Demolition of Listed Buildings

Objections:

37 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

90/1380 Mr K Forest 99/1149 Bloor Homes (see under Policy ENV19A, above) 109/1091 English Heritage

Key Issues: a) Whether the Policy should say that demolition will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances; b) Whether there should be a paragraph in the Policy relating to conditions to be imposed regarding the redevelopment of the site of a demolished listed building; c) Whether Paragraph 3.76d needs strengthening. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.28.1. The wording of the Policy already makes it reasonably clear that demolition of a listed building will be permitted only rarely. That interpretation is reinforced by the explanatory text which refers to ‘exceptional circumstances’. 3.28.2. On the other hand I consider there is merit in the suggestion that the Policy should say that conditions dealing with the redevelopment of the site will be imposed; (see PPG15, B.5). I propose wording below, in preference to that suggested in SC15. 3.28.3. I agree with the objector that it might be worthwhile if Paragraph 3.76d explicitly mentioned ‘partial demolition’ (even though for planning purposes ‘building’ is generally taken to include ‘part of a building’). In addition, the text could refer to ‘alteration’, to ‘cover’ instances where valuable features might be lost or obscured by alterations permitted under Policy ENV20A. On the other hand, having regard to the advice in PPG15, I do not think it necessary for the text to deal with those situations where ‘hidden features’ may come to light in the course of works. Where that is thought to be a possibility the council could, in any event, impose a suitable condition, as described in PPG15, paragraph 3.24. 3.28.4. I note that the council intends to correct a typographical error (‘ENV20B’ for ‘ENV20A’) in the last paragraph of the Policy. Recommendations: 3.28.5. I recommend that: • An additional paragraph is inserted in Policy ENV20B, after the end of criterion iii) but before the paragraph beginning ‘Proposals that would not result…’. The additional paragraph should read: ‘Where permission for demolition of a listed building is granted the council will consider imposing a condition preventing any demolition taking place before a contract for carrying out the works of redevelopment on the site has been made and planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment for which the contract provides’. • Paragraph 3.76d should be modified so that the first part of the first sentence reads: ‘Where demolition, partial demolition or alteration of a listed building is considered to be acceptable….’.

38 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

• No other modifications are made in response to these objections.

3.29. ENV21: Development Affecting Locally Listed Buildings

Objections: 90/1381 Mr K Forest 115/475 Smith Brothers (Tamworth) Ltd. 159/806 Country Land & Business Association

Key Issues: a) Whether the words ‘some interest’ in the explanatory text are inappropriate; b) Whether the financial implications of a ‘local list’ have been adequately considered; c) Whether this policy should be removed from the plan because it will be an additional burden on owners. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.29.1. The compilation of a ‘local list’ of buildings is allowed for in PPG15. There may well be buildings that are worthy of local recognition, and special attention through the normal development control system, which do not merit statutory, national listing. I conclude that there is no reason why there should not be such a local list in this district. 3.29.2. As the explanatory text to the Policy indicates, the council takes the view that buildings on the ‘local list’ would be eligible, in principle, for consideration under its scheme for grant aid. I add that it does not necessarily follow that inclusion of a building on ‘local list’ would cause a financial burden to the owner. 3.29.3. The explanatory text makes it clear that buildings on a local list are not of the same merit as statutory ‘listed buildings’. In that context, the phrase ‘some interest’ is acceptable. Recommendations: 3.29.4. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

3.30. ENV22: Character of the Town Centre

Objections: 153/736 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

39 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

3.30.1. Note: this Policy was deleted entirely at Revised Deposit stage; no further comment is necessary. Recommendations: 3.30.2. I recommend that: • No further modification is made in response to this objection.

3.31. ENV23: Historic Landscapes

Objections: 96/1190 Staffordshire County Council 100/342 David Wilson Homes (R2ndDep, NFC) 109/503 English Heritage 109/1093 English Heritage 153/737 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates (R2ndDep, NFC)

Key Issues: a) Whether the Policy (deleted at Revised Deposit stage) should be reinstated; b) Whether paragraph 3.83a should be amended. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.31.1. The historic landscape characterisation has not been completed. There is no register of historic landscapes and landscape features for Tamworth. That does not automatically rule out the possibility of including a policy such as this; (see for example the discussion of Policy ENV21). However it does appear that the council is not confident of obtaining all the necessary information in the reasonably near future. In those circumstances, deletion of the policy (as provided for in the Revised Deposit draft) is reasonable. If it were re-instated there is a distinct possibility that it would be in effect a ‘dead letter’ for the likely duration of this plan. 3.31.2. In response to points made by objectors, the council has accepted that the explanatory text (that will remain a part of the plan) should be amended to reflect more accurately the work that is being carried out by the County Council and English Heritage. I agree that the revised wording is to be preferred; (see SC16). Recommendations: 3.31.3. I recommend that: • The Plan is modified in accordance with SC16.

40 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

3.32. ENV24: Archaeology

Objections: 109/504 English Heritage 109/1092 English Heritage 153/1010 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

Key Issues: a) Whether further detailed amendments to the Policy wording are needed to bring it more closely into line with PPG16. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.32.1. The council has accepted that further amendments are needed. The wording originally proposed by English Heritage seems reasonable. It has been repeated in SC17. Recommendations: 3.32.2. I recommend that: • Policy ENV24 is modified in accordance with SC17.

3.33. ENV25: Percent for Art

Objections: 99/322 Bloor Homes 100/343 David Wilson Homes 115/476 Smith Brothers (Tamworth) Ltd. 130/583 Sam Phire Properties Ltd 144/666 Trustees of the Estate of Mr J Aucott 144/1169 Trustees of the Estate of Mr J Aucott 145/123 Walton Homes Ltd. 145/1185 Walton Homes Ltd. 146/675 Mr N & Mrs R Whorton 146/1174 Mr N & Mrs R Whorton 150/5 Alfred McAlpine Special Projects 150/1154 Alfred McAlpine Special Projects

41 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

153/739 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

Key Issues: a) Whether planning conditions, not obligations, should be used for this purpose; b) Whether the policy should be deleted altogether, because it does not comply with government guidance. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.33.1. Most of the objections to this Policy were based on the view that any ‘requirement’ to finance public art was contrary to the advice in Circular 1/972, at least unless the provision of art was somehow directly related to, or necessitated by, the development in question. It was said that the ‘Percent for Art’ policy was a further financial burden on developers, which would make it less economic to proceed with schemes. 3.33.2. In my view these objections were for the most part satisfactorily met by the changes in the Revised Deposit Plan. First, the provision of artwork within, or closely associated with, substantial development can reasonably be seen as one factor that contributes to making that development satisfactory in design and planning terms. It is not an ‘unrelated’ public benefit, but an aspect of the whole scheme, and one that can contribute towards the objective of ensuring that large developments make a positive contribution to the built environment. Second, the revised policy does not ‘require’ a contribution; it encourages such contributions. I conclude that a ‘Percent for Art’ Policy can remain in the Plan. I do accept however the council’s suggestion (SC18 and SC19) that the reference to planning obligations should be placed in the supporting text rather than in the Policy. 3.33.3. Bearing in mind the comments above, and that it would not always be appropriate to ‘require’ the provision of art, I do not consider that conditions should necessarily be used in preference to ‘planning obligations’. Recommendations: 3.33.4. I recommend that: • Policy ENV25 and Paragraph 3.90 are modified in accordance with SC18 and SC19.

3.34. Miscellaneous Environment Objections

Objections: 11/35 Mr G Taylor 15/44 Mr J Walton 96/1193 Staffordshire County Council

2 Now replaced by Circular 05/2005.

42 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

97/282 Government Office for the West Midlands (see under Paragraph 3.15a) 109/505 English Heritage 109/506 English Heritage 127/575 Future Energy Solutions (see under ENV17/Para. 3.63a) 130/587 Sam Phire Properties Ltd. 166/872 Environment Agency 166/868 Environment Agency (see under Paragraph 3.15a) 166/871 Environment Agency

Key Issues: a) Whether a public house should be built on land at Amington; b) Whether Proposals Map 4 should differentiate between Dosthill Quarries SBI and Dosthill Church Quarry RIGS; c) Whether there should be an extra Policy to protect Tamworth Castle and St Editha’s church from the impact of development in distant views (a skyline policy); d) Whether there should be ‘indicators’ related to the historic environment; e) Whether a site should be identified for a waste transfer station/recycling centre; f) Whether there should be separate Policies on (a) development of contaminated sites and (b) landfill gas. Inspector’s Reasoning: 3.34.1. The plan contains no proposal to build a public house at Amington. 3.34.2. The council accepts, and I agree, that the Plan should differentiate between ‘Dosthill Quarries SBI’ and ‘Dosthill Church Quarry RIGS’. This matter is dealt with satisfactorily in SC36 and SC37. 3.34.3. I agree about the importance of the views that can be obtained, from various points, of the Castle and the Church. That said, I do not think that a special policy is necessary, and accept that other Policies, already in the Plan should be sufficient. 3.34.4. I see the attraction of specifying an ‘indicator’ of the state of the historic environment. However, it may not be easy to find one that can easily provide a clear-cut, quantitative measure of progress in improving/protecting that environment. The kind of measures suggested (e.g. ‘number of archaeological assessments required…’) may not directly measure the ‘quality’ or state of the historic environment. On balance, I conclude that there should be no such indicators included in this Plan. 3.34.5. Facilities for dealing with waste would be covered in the Waste Local Plan. The particular site mentioned by an objector has planning permission for residential use. 3.34.6. Clearly, site contamination and the possibility of a site being affected by landfill gas are important issues to be addressed in connection with many

43 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

forms of development. As far as residential development is concerned these matters are probably adequately addressed in Policy HSG4. In relation to industrial uses, the council refers to Policy EMP8. However the Policy itself is more concerned with the industrial use causing contamination than with the effect of existing contamination on users of the site. (I accept that both aspects are mentioned in the explanatory text following this Policy.) In the circumstances, I consider that a brief additional Policy, relating to all forms of development, and drawing attention to the question of contaminated land and landfill gas would be worthwhile. Recommendations: 3.34.7. I recommend that the Plan is modified as follows: • Dosthill Quarries SBI and Dosthill Church Quarry RIGS should be differentiated on the Proposals Map as shown in SC36 and SC37; • An additional Policy (ENV17A) be inserted in the Plan, to read as follows: ‘Contaminated Sites and Landfill Gas. In the case of any application for planning permission where there are indications that the proposed site may be contaminated, or affected by landfill gas, the council will need to be satisfied that these issues have been properly investigated, and dealt with as appropriate, as a part of the development proposal.’

44 Chapter 3: Environment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

Chapter 4: Transportation

4.1. Paragraph 4.1: Background

Objections: 104/405 Network Rail (R2ndDep.NFC) 104/1730 Network Rail

Key Issues: a) Whether there should be provision for reuse of land that is no longer needed for railway purposes. Inspector’s Reasoning: 4.1.1. There are already policies in the Plan that promote the reuse of brownfield sites; no special policy for redundant railway land is necessary. Recommendations: 4.1.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

4.2. TRA1: Users Priority

Objections: 97/283 Government Office for the West Midlands 153/740 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

Key Issues: a) Whether the Policy should be deleted. Inspector’s Reasoning: 4.2.1. The policy was deleted in the Revised Deposit Draft; no further comment needed. Recommendations: 4.2.2. I recommend that: • No further modification is made in response to these objections.

45 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

4.3. TRA2: Pedestrians & Cyclists

Objections: 115/477 Smith Brothers (Tamworth) Ltd 155/2 Christopher Williams

Key Issues: a) Whether greater thought needs to be given to providing easy access from the highway to the cycle path; should dropped kerbs be provided? b) Whether enough account is taken of pedestrian safety, for example by segregating cyclists and pedestrians; whether other measures should be taken, such as dealing with parking on cycle lanes; Inspector’s Reasoning: 4.3.1. The objector may be correct to say that the question of easy transfer from highways to cycle paths should be considered. However that is not a matter that would normally be addressed in a local plan. Similarly, another objector raises some detailed design questions which, whilst they may be quite legitimate, are not points that need be included in this policy. As the council states, the matter of ‘safe access’ is referred to. Recommendations: 4.3.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

4.4. TRA3: Public Transport

Objections: 94/216 CENTRO 95/1060 Advantage West Midlands 97/284 Government office for the West Midlands 100/344 David Wilson Homes (R2ndDep NFC) 104/406 Network Rail 136/1159 W M Morrison Supermarkets PLC 153/742 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 153/1012 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

46 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

161/826 The House Builders Federation

Key Issues: a) Whether the policy should identify proximity to rail transport as a factor to be taken into consideration; b) Whether the approach to planning obligations in revised paragraph b of the Policy is too prescriptive; or whether, alternatively, there is a need to specify (perhaps via SPG) the scale of development to which obligations will apply and a clear list of improvements (going possibly beyond bus services) to which the additional funding will be directed; c) Whether the Policy should be further amended to make clear that an obligation will only be sought where there is a need to improve accessibility by public transport; d) Whether the policy is insufficiently specific about bus priority measures; whether the level of service specified should be improved, and whether there should be a reference to interchange between transport modes; e) Whether the Policy focuses too narrowly on bus services and whether the requirement to fund services for at least 3 years may be unnecessary. Inspector’s Reasoning: 4.4.1. The Policy covers public transport in general. It is unnecessary to deal separately with rail transport. In any event, this is not the appropriate place in the Plan to deal with specific issues of location of development. The explanatory text (paragraph 4.9) draws attention to the Local Transport Plan, the Area Transport Strategy and the Residential Design Guide. 4.4.2. The Policy states that the council will ‘seek’ an obligation to secure ‘appropriate’ local bus services. That does not strike me as too prescriptive. Clearly, the current level of bus services has to be taken into account in assessing what is ‘appropriate’. It could be that services are already adequate and ‘appropriate’. I do not consider it necessary to modify the policy to indicate, specifically, that the existing level of public transport will be taken into account. 4.4.3. The main object of this Policy, as I see it, is to make sure that the issue of accessibility of public transport is taken into account at the planning application stage. It is not necessary here to set out a complete ‘shopping list’ of improvements, or a definition of the scale of development which might contribute to such improvements. It is not necessary or appropriate, either, to enter into details about service frequency. ‘Easy interchange between transport modes’ is only one aspect of ‘taking public transport into account’ when designing development. Again it does not need to be included in the Policy. 4.4.4. In many instances it may be necessary to secure bus provision for ‘at least three years’, in order to give the service a reasonable chance of becoming ‘self-financing’. But I accept that this may not be so in all cases. A small addition to the Policy would allow for that possibility. 4.4.5. Whether there should be additional SPG on any of these topics is not a matter for this report. Recommendations:

47 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

4.4.6. I recommend that: • The following words should be added at the end of the last sentence of the Policy (i.e. immediately after the word ‘thereafter’): ‘(unless local circumstances are such that a shorter period would be adequate)’. • No other modification is made in response to these objections.

4.5. TRA4: Traffic

Objections: 130/584 Sam Phire Properties Ltd (R2ndDep NFC) 153/744 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 153/1013 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

Key Issues: a) Is there any conflict with Policy TRA1? b) Should the Policy make it clear that developers are only required to fund measures to deal with the consequences of their own development, and not remedy existing deficiencies? Inspector’s Reasoning: 4.5.1. Policy TRA1 has been deleted. I agree that current thinking on these matters is directed at least partly towards improving safety and reducing pollution, rather than simply accommodating traffic. I do not believe that Policy TRA4 necessarily conflicts with those objectives. That conclusion is supported by reference to Paragraph 4.10. 4.5.2. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Policy (especially when read in conjunction with other parts of the Plan) to support the view that the ‘mitigating measures’ have to include the resolution of existing problems (although in particular cases they may have the effect of doing so). I conclude that the Policy can remain as it is. Recommendations: 4.5.3. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

4.6. TRA4A: Transport Assessments

Objections: 99/1150 Bloor Homes 153/1723 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

48 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

257/1612 M H Crick 153/1014 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 188/1483 Mr J W Joiner (See also under Paragraph 4.23) 188/1484 Mr J W Joiner (See also under Paragraph 4.23)

Key Issues: a) Whether Transport Assessments should be agreed with the Highway Authority rather than with the Borough Council; whether the scope and content of the Transport Assessment should necessarily be agreed prior to submission; i.e. should there be more flexibility? b) Whether the second paragraph of the Policy inappropriately refers to issues of funding; and whether it implies that there will be measures funded by developers in all cases; c) Whether phasing, mentioned in the last sentence of the Policy, is always necessary; d) Whether it is wrong to allow developers to commission transport studies; Whether the Borough Council should design and implement all necessary infrastructure prior to the release of land, and whether public transport arrangements should be guaranteed for 25 years (with the cost of this being recovered through Section 106 obligations); e) Whether this Policy diminishes the importance of Transport Assessments, making them merely appendages to planning applications; Whether these Transport Assessments should be agreed with the Highway Authority prior to the adoption of the local plan, and whether they should have a design year that is 5 years beyond the current local plan period. Inspector’s Reasoning: 4.6.1. It is reasonable for Transport Assessments to be agreed with the Borough Council, as local planning authority, which is the authority that will determine planning applications for the developments concerned. Of course the local planning authority would have to consult the Highways Authority, as appropriate. It is improbable that the local planning authority would accept as satisfactory a Transport Assessment that the Highway Authority had advised was unsatisfactory. The implication of PPG13 is that at any rate the scope of the Transport Assessment should be agreed with the local authority in advance of submission of the planning application. In any event that seems to be sensible practice. 4.6.2. There is no necessary implication in the Policy that ‘mitigation measures’ will automatically be required in every case (or that developers are automatically required to deal with entirely pre-existing problems as a pre- condition of obtaining permission). I agree that phasing may not always be necessary. This is a very minor point, but could be dealt with by the insertion of ‘where appropriate’ in the final sentence of the Policy.

49 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

4.6.3. There is no objection in principle to developers funding Transport Assessments3. In practice, the documents would be scrutinised by professionals at district and county level and I see little risk that the officers would allow inadequate data to be accepted. The procedure for providing the Assessments seems to accord with PPG13. It is not necessary for the full Transport Assessment to be provided as a part of the local plan process, provided that (a) sufficient work is done by that stage to give a reasonable assurance that there are no overriding highway objections to a particular allocation and (b) the complete assessment (satisfactory to the local planning authority as advised by the highway authority) is done prior to the determination of any planning application. The appropriate design year for any particular scheme (affecting highways) is mainly a matter for the highways authority. 4.6.4. Where a public transport service is provided in connection with a development it is commonplace for the service it to be ‘subsidised’ by the developer for a reasonable period of time. This is partly to test whether the service is likely to attract sufficient passengers to make it a viable proposition in the longer term. It is not realistic to expect a ‘guarantee’ that any public transport service of this kind would continue for 25 years. Recommendations: 4.6.5. I recommend that: • The words ‘Where appropriate,’ should be added at the beginning of the last sentence of the Policy (i.e. immediately before the words ‘the Assessment should also identify’); • No other modification is made in response to these objections.

4.7. TRA5: Green Travel Plans

Objections: 100/345 David Wilson Homes 115/478 Smith Brothers (Tamworth) Ltd 153/745 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 188/1104 Mr J W Joiner 90/1389 Mr K Forest

Key Issues: a) Whether ‘major developments’ should be defined; b) Whether the last sentence (with its reference to phasing) should be deleted; c) Whether the Policy should also include residential developments.

3 I consider here only the question of Transport Assessments in general. Some of the comments about Transport Assessments arose from concerns about the Anker Valley development. For further discussion, see under TRA8 and Paragraph 4.23.

50 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

Inspector’s Reasoning: 4.7.1. This policy derives from guidance in PPG13. That document gives a definition of major development. The appropriate PPG13 reference is noted in the ‘side column’ adjacent to the Policy in the local plan. That being so, it is unnecessary to repeat the definition in the Plan. 4.7.2. ‘Travel Plans’ are primarily designed for single ‘sources’ of travel demand which generate a significant number of trips, such as places of employment or supermarkets. They encourage measures such as car-sharing and cycling to work, and may involve the initiation of a new or diverted bus route to the particular location. Travel Plans are not easy to design and implement effectively for a residential estate where the occupiers will be travelling to and from a considerable number of different destinations at various times. I note that PPG13 does not include residential developments in the list of types of development for which travel plans should be produced. (There is of course a separate and important issue relating to residential estates, concerning their location and design, so that use of means of transport other than the private car is encouraged as far as possible.) 4.7.3. The last sentence of the Policy merely says that ‘development may be required to be phased’. That is a fair statement of the position. It does not imply that phasing will necessarily be required in all cases. The Policy does not need modification. Recommendations: 4.7.4. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

4.8. TRA6: Traffic Management

Objections: 153/746 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 153/1015 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

Key Issues: a) Does the Policy merely duplicate Policy TRA4A? b) Would it be better to address this problem when highways are being designed, so that roads are not ‘over-engineered’ resulting in excessive speeds? Inspector’s Reasoning: 4.8.1. I agree that there is some overlap with TRA4A. That said, as this Policy addresses a specific issue (arising from new development) it can remain in the Plan. I also accept that new highways should be appropriately designed, for example to prevent excessive speed. However, many of the problems this Policy seeks to address arise on existing highways, where

51 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

traffic calming measures may be appropriate. I conclude that no modification of the Policy is needed. Recommendations: 4.8.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

4.9. TRA7: Car Parking Standards

Objections: 99/326 Bloor Homes 115/479 Smith Brothers (Tamworth) Ltd 119/535 West Midlands Regional RSL Planning Consortium 153/747 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

Key Issues: a) Whether there should be a definition of a parking space; b) Will the failure to provide adequate parking on-site cause off-site as well as on-site car parking problems? c) With particular reference to affordable housing, should the Policy make it clearer when parking provision below the maximum would be ‘accepted’? d) Should any contributions towards public transport improvements etc (sub- paragraph c)) be proportionate to the savings from reduced parking provision? Whether it would be unrealistic to expect contributions from developers as provided for in sub-paragraph c). Inspector’s Reasoning: 4.9.1. It is unnecessary to define a ‘parking space’ in the Policy. I note that the SPG contains some technical criteria for parking space size and garage size. 4.9.2. The standards are ‘maximum standards’. That accords with current government policy. In broad terms, one of the objectives of ‘maximum’ car parking standards is to discourage undue reliance on motorised transport and encourage more use of alternative modes of travel. When such an approach is adopted there is always the possibility that in some situations people will use cars anyway, and the parking spaces will be insufficient. That may lead to some people parking in unsuitable places instead. However, in new developments the design of the development can at least reduce the likelihood that this ‘additional parking’ causes actual risks to highway safety. In any event I do not think the solution is to increase the ‘maximum’ permitted level of parking provision, or abandon ‘maximum standards’ altogether. The parking standards are one element in a wider strategy to reduce excessive reliance on private cars.

52 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

4.9.3. Paragraph 14 of Circular 6/98 recognises that car ownership rates are generally lower for occupants of affordable housing than for those of general market housing. It is recommended that local planning authorities should therefore be ‘flexible on car parking standards’. The council’s car parking standards for residential developments are not expressed as minimum standards, and that is in accord with guidance in PPG3. In those circumstances there is already some flexibility for the provision of lower standards in appropriate cases. As PPG3 says: ‘Developers should not be required to provide more car parking than they or potential occupiers might want.’ In these circumstances I see no need for an addition to the Policy or text to deal with the possibility of lower provision in the case of some affordable housing schemes. 4.9.4. The Plan needs to be read as a whole. I do not consider that paragraph c) of the Policy means that developers would be ‘required’ to provide more by way of planning obligations than can be justified by (a) the size and nature of the development and (b) the advice in government guidance. 4.9.5. I conclude that no modification to the Policy is needed. Recommendations: 4.9.6. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

4.10. TRA8: Transport Proposals

Objections: 132/603 Mr D W Pyke 142/643 Compass Roadside Limited 19/54 Mr D P Wilson 17/52 Mrs C Gardner and Mr M Doak (See under ENV16) 161/830 The House Builders Federation 158/904 Mark Hambly 158/1707 Mark Hambly 142/644 Compass Roadside Limited Key Issues: a) Whether the Amington to Shuttington Road should be re-routed to connect to the Anker Valley link; b) Does the Policy need more detail about when and how these schemes are to be implemented? Should there be a reference to ‘enabling development’ necessary to fund the Dosthill bypass? c) Whether the Anker Valley Link Road (AVL) and the Amington Link Phase 2 (AL2) should be completed before any development in the Anker Valley; d) Are there contradictions between Paragraphs 4.23-4 and Paragraphs 6.11-612a?

53 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

e) Whether there should be a Policy in this Chapter of the Plan dealing with the role and function of Motorway Service Areas (MSAs); f) Will the construction of AVL and the associated link have an adverse affect on the setting of Amington Hall? Inspector’s Reasoning: 4.10.1. On the basis of the currently proposed level of development in the Anker Valley, I see no need for the Plan to provide for a further road proposal (Amington to Shuttington road diversion), of the kind suggested. Indeed it is not clear from the information available to me that the suggested re- routing of the Amington to Shuttington Road would necessarily be required, even if further development in the Anker Valley were to be promoted. 4.10.2. Amendments to the reasoned justification (included in the Revised Deposit Draft) have met some of the points raised about ‘when and how’ schemes will be carried out. That is clearly desirable; (see for example PPG12 paragraph 5.17). I doubt that any further useful information can be provided, bearing in mind that to a greater or lesser extent the implementation of these schemes is dependent on the provision of private finance and/or is linked to the progress of other developments. 4.10.3. The position in relation to the Dosthill bypass has been clarified as far as is possible. There are no developments proposed in the plan which could be named as the ‘financial contributors’ to the scheme. 4.10.4. The AVL is an integral part of the proposed Anker Valley Development. Putting the matter in very general terms, the AVL will have to be built in conjunction with the construction of the development as a whole, and at an early stage, to make sure that it is fully available to serve all the housing and employment areas as and when they generate traffic. It is a critical part of the whole project. Nevertheless, it was agreed by the highway authority that there was the possibility of up to 250 houses being occupied prior to the completion of the AVL, subject to certain other road improvements. 4.10.5. The position in regard to the AL2 is different. This road is regarded as a high priority by the council and many local people, who wish it to be built in any event, and regardless of any development at Anker Valley. They consider that the road is ‘needed’ anyway. However it is improbable that it can be built wholly with public funds in the foreseeable future. On the other hand, private funds will only be provided as a consequence of more development (which itself generates traffic). The question of the extent to which the Anker Valley project can be required to pay for the AL2 had not been fully resolved by the work undertaken, at the date of the inquiry, by the council, the highway authority and the developers. No doubt it would be very welcome if building the AL2 were made ‘more possible’ by the Anker Valley development. However in view of the substantial cost of the AL2 scheme, the suggestion of some objectors that the AL2 must be built before the commencement of development at Anker Valley is not realistic. I also note here that the professional view from the highway authority at the inquiry was that if the Anker Valley development went ahead without completion of AL2 that would adversely affect traffic conditions, but would not make them ‘impossible’. I conclude that it would not be correct for the

54 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

Plan to specify that both these roads (AVL and AL2) must be completed before any development is commenced at Anker Valley. 4.10.6. I accept that there is some room for confusion between ‘Anker Valley Link’ and ‘Ashby Road Link’ in different parts of the plan. A common terminology would be preferable. (As far as Paragraph 6.12 is concerned, the council has put forward SC29, to address the matter.) 4.10.7. There is a MSA at Tamworth. I see no necessity to have a special policy to deal with development proposals within the site. Any planning applications can be dealt with on the basis of planning policies of a more general nature within the Plan. 4.10.8. It is unlikely (subject to appropriate detailed design) that the AVL and associated development will have a material effect on the setting of Amington Hall. I observe that the probable line of the road is a considerable distance from the listed building. Recommendations: 4.10.9. I recommend that: • No modification is made to Policy TRA8 in response to these objections; • That the term ‘Anker Valley Link’ is used in preference to ‘Ashby Road link’ throughout the Plan, including in Policy HSG3 and Paragraph 6.12.

4.11. TRA8[a]: Transport Proposals - Dosthill Bypass

Objections: 131/598 Mr & Mrs Butler 131/600 Mr & Mrs Butler (see also under HSG2) 153/748 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 90/203 Mr K Forest 130/579 Sam Phire Properties Ltd 130/589 Sam Phire Properties Ltd 97/297 Government Office for the West Midlands Key Issues: a) Whether it should be made clear that the provision of a Dosthill railway station needs the early completion of the Dosthill bypass in order to provide an access; Whether it is made sufficiently clear that private finance is needed to finance the bypass; b) Is the Dosthill bypass either desirable or achievable? Whether the purpose and funding of the scheme is sufficiently well explained in the text; Should there be a target in the Plan that the Dosthill bypass will be built in five years? c) Whether no further housing development should take place which could affect the amount of traffic in Dosthill, prior to the building of the bypass;

55 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

d) Whether the Proposals Map should show the route of the bypass in North Warwickshire District. Inspector’s Reasoning: 4.11.1. The reasoned justification (including text added in the Revised Deposit draft) indicates the general objective of the bypass and that it is likely that substantial private finance will be needed to fund the bypass. Nothing further need be added on that matter. The text does not make the additional point about the claimed link between provision of the bypass and provision of the railway station. I do not consider it necessary that it should do so. 4.11.2. The merits of proposals for housing development are considered elsewhere in the report. As a general proposition, the possibility of financial support for a road would not be an ‘exceptional’ circumstance that would justify an alteration of green belt boundaries. 4.11.3. The bypass would materially improve environmental conditions in Dosthill High Street, so it is ‘desirable’. It is identified as an ‘other major County and City Transport Scheme’ in the SP, as explained in the reasoned justification, paragraph 4.22a. Achievability is dependent (in all probability) on private finance. It is reasonable to retain the scheme in the Plan, but in view of the uncertainty about finance it would be unrealistic to include a specific target of building it in five years. 4.11.4. At the inquiry it was explained to me that for some while development in the Dosthill area had been expected to contribute to a fund that would be used to fund the building of the bypass. It was understood that a substantial sum had been accumulated, but the total was very far short of the total amount needed. However the opinion of the highway authority (which I accept) was that conditions in the High Street are not so bad that an absolute prohibition should be imposed, preventing all development whatsoever in the locality. The consequence is that it will not be essential to wait for one large development to provide all the necessary funds for the bypass ‘in one go’ before any development at all goes ahead. In other words, it would be acceptable to continue to accumulate the funds on a gradual basis. 4.11.5. The Proposals Map would normally only show schemes within Tamworth District. In any event, the question of whether the part of the proposed road which would be in Warwickshire should be included in the North Warwickshire Local Plan is a matter being considered by a separate inquiry. Recommendations: 4.11.6. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

4.12. TRA8[b]: Transport Proposals - Amington Link Phase 2

Objections:

56 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

3/902 Mr J A Garner 153/775 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 232/1567 Patricia Jones 43/94 Mr J Tennant 97/298 Government Office for the West Midlands 90/207 Mr K Forest

Key Issues: a) Whether this link road is given sufficient priority in the Plan; should it be completed in order to relieve traffic congestion in Amington and elsewhere? b) Is a footnote needed to explain the likely form and route of AL2 (as a probable footpath and cycle link)? Is it correct for the reasoned justification to call this route ‘essential’? c) Can this road be funded and is it deliverable in the plan period? d) Would the proposed arrangements for joining the southern end of AVL to Brindley Drive (and AL2) lead to an unacceptable loss of playing fields? Inspector’s Reasoning: 4.12.1. The AL2 is in the Plan’s ‘Transport Proposals’. It cannot be given any higher ‘priority’, especially bearing in mind uncertainty about funding. Whether the AL2 is properly described as ‘essential’ is a matter of judgement. In the light of the high importance attached to it by residents and the council, I do not consider the use of the word ‘essential’ in the reasoned justification is inappropriate. Furthermore I see no basis for a footnote that might ‘downgrade’ the proposed highway to a footpath and cycle link. 4.12.2. There are understandable doubts about whether the road can be delivered in the plan period. These doubts arise mainly from uncertainty about funding. Although, as indicated, the scheme is considered ‘essential’ by the council and many local residents, public finance (or sufficient public finance) is not likely. The extent to which private finance will become available (e.g. from Anker Valley) is also unclear. For those reasons, I have considered recommending deleting the scheme (in spite of its local importance). On balance I consider it should remain in the Plan. The reasoned justification sets out the position adequately. 4.12.3. A local resident explained that the playing fields, to the south of the railway line, and which would be affected by the junction between the AVL and Brindley Drive/AL2, were well-used by children (for informal play) and by football teams. There were other open spaces in the locality but they were not of such good quality. Open space on the other side of the railway would not be so convenient, although it was agreed that provision for adult football teams could reasonably be in such a location. There was also the question of safety, arising from the proximity of the new road to the remaining area of playing fields.

57 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

4.12.4. As I understand, it is currently anticipated that about 50% of the playing fields would be lost. The council confirmed that adequate replacements would have to be provided, and I am confident that the council would ensure that this happened. It was said that it was possible that some of the replacement playing areas would be on the far side of the railway and some on the southern side. The resident pointed out that playing areas for small children are, preferably, overlooked by houses. That is a worthwhile point. It could perhaps be addressed by suitable allocation of different parts of the total space available to appropriate types of playing area. However no modification of the Plan policies is required. Recommendations: 4.12.5. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

4.13. TRA8[c]: Transport Proposals - Anker Valley Link

Objections: 38/83 Mrs S Cattell 90/1390 Mr K Forest (see under TRA8b) 113/1122 William Davis Limited 145/122 Walton Homes Limited 145/1183 Walton Homes Limited 145/1184 Walton Homes Limited 153/776 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 234/1571 Mr J B Olorenshaw 153/1030 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 182/1695 Mrs H Metcalfe 19/1468 Mr D P Wilson 76/167 Mr and Mrs J S Hollis 80/177 Mr and Mrs Chadwick 59/138 Mr and Mrs M Harrison 62/1690 Mr and Mrs C J Bright 63/160 Mr J M Kelly 186/1706 Mr and Mrs M Morris 170/1683 Mrs S Coffey 183/1461 Ms A Allen 183/1696 Ms A Allen

58 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

105/391 Wiggington and Hopwas Parish Council 97/299 Government Office for the West Midlands 156/784 Mr J L D Stack 177/1687 Mr M J Ellison 246/1592 Mr A Harris 421/1197 Mr R G Clarke 172/1684 Mr J Hurley 90/204 Mr K Forest (see also under 4.23 below) 90/1392 Mr K Forest 105/392 Wiggington and Hopwas Parish Council (see also under Paragraph 4.23. below) 105/1143 Wiggington and Hopwas Parish Council (see also under Paragraph 4.23, below) 38/1100 Mrs S Cattell

Key Issues: a) Would the AVL greatly increase traffic on roads such as Mercian Way, Pennine Way, Brindley Drive, Browns Lane, Gillway and Tamworth Road, Amington? Would there be industrial traffic on Moor Lane? b) Whether the route of the AVL should be marked as ‘indicative’ on the Proposals Map; Should the AVL be designated a ‘County’ road scheme? c) Whether employment traffic travelling through Amington Fields would be undesirable; d) Would the route originally proposed (in the First Deposit draft) be preferable to that in the Revised draft? e) Whether the railway crossing would cause a noise nuisance or be visually intrusive if it were a bridge, or would be environmentally damaging if it were a tunnel; f) Whether the loss of playing fields, open space, countryside or floodplain would be unacceptable; g) Whether the AVL should run directly to the roundabout adjacent to the station; h) Should this road and the AL2 both be built together? (see discussion under Policy TRA8, above) i) Will the development at Anker Valley (and facilitated by construction of the AVL) cause extra congestion at Fountains Junction? (for Fountains Junction see under Paragraph 4.23, below) j) Could the housing and employment sites be accessed off Ashby Road (i.e. without constructing the AVL as shown on the Proposals Map)? Whether the revised route of the AVL would cause large amounts of unsuitable commercial traffic to use Brindley Drive. Inspector’s Reasoning:

59 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

4.13.1. There is no doubt at all that this road proposal would have a material effect on the amount of traffic, including ‘employment traffic’ on many of the roads and areas mentioned by various objectors. However, from my site inspection and the evidence supplied to me, I do not accept that that traffic levels would become unacceptable, as a consequence of the AVL. The information provided by the highways authority demonstrates that the capacity of roads such as Mercian Way and Pennine Way is sufficient in principle to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the Anker Valley project. (It might well of course be the case that a Transport Assessment discloses the need for work to improve some of the road junctions.) As a result of the amended route of the AVL there would be significant extra traffic along Brindley Drive. However, from what I was told and saw, I do not consider that this road is unsuitable for the extra traffic. It appears to me to have been designed so that it could cater for more traffic than that generated by the adjacent residential estate. 4.13.2. I do not think it would be practicable in highway terms for the whole of the proposed development to be accessed solely from Ashby Road. Other alternative routes for the AVL have been suggested, but none are obviously superior (in environmental or highway terms) to the indicative route shown in the Revised Draft. 4.13.3. Bearing in mind the small scale of Map 19 in the Revised Deposit Plan, it would be reasonable to describe the route shown for the AVL as an ‘indicative route’. The council agreed that a note should be added to the Proposals Map to that effect. I do not consider that, as this is agreed to be an ‘indicative route’, the Proposals Map settles the exact position or the method or precise alignment of the crossing of the railway. 4.13.4. The AVL is intended to cater primarily for traffic generated by the Anker Valley development. The main purpose of constructing it is not to cater for ‘through’ traffic, which has origins and destinations outside Tamworth. The AVL should not therefore be designated from the start as a ‘County Council scheme’ – i.e. one that the County Council is taking the responsibility for promoting. In connection with this point, there was some dispute about whether the AVL should be designated or built as a ‘primary distributor’ or a ‘district distributor’. From the point of view of the Local Plan I doubt much turns on this point. The highways authority’s view was that the AVL would (in its own right) function only as a district distributor. That is likely to be correct, because of the small amount of through traffic that would be attracted. The picture is not so clear if AL2 is also completed. The AVL might however still not function as a primary distributor. The council appears to take the view that the AVL should be a primary distributor. Plan TR A in the Revised Deposit plan shows AVL as a primary distributor, on the assumption that AL2 is also built. I do not take that as a statement that AVL should necessarily be constructed as a primary distributor from the start. (Nevertheless Plan TR A can remain as it is.) If, in the event, the circumstances make it appropriate it would be possible (according to the highways authority) to upgrade a route from ‘district’ to ‘primary’ status. No modification to the Plan will be recommended in relation to this topic. 4.13.5. As I understand, the original route of the AVL, in the First Deposit draft, has been shown to present a number of technical problems. I accept the council’s view that it would not be a feasible alternative to the current route.

60 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

4.13.6. A suggestion was made that the AVL could link directly to the existing road network near to the railway station. This scheme has not been the subject of a full technical appraisal, but on the limited information available there would be practical difficulties, as the road would, it is presumed, have to go over one railway, then, within a short distance, go under the next one. 4.13.7. A number of objectors expressed a wide variety of what might broadly be called ‘environmental’ concerns, either about the AVL or about the development that it is intended to facilitate. Many of these points have in effect already been addressed elsewhere in this report. The concerns are very understandable, not least because if the project goes ahead there will be major changes in the Anker Valley, and in many respects its character will be significantly altered. 4.13.8. The floodplain would be affected, but there is provision for compensatory measures, including floodplain re-modelling, to ensure that there is no net increase in flood risk. From what I was told, the council is going to insist on proper replacement of any playing fields that are taken by the project. Obviously, substantial areas of hitherto ‘open land’ would be built on, and ‘countryside’ and ‘openness’ would be noticeably reduced. There would therefore be loss of ‘amenity’ to that extent. On the other hand, I see opportunities for increasing legitimate public access to parts of the Anker Valley that would not be built-on, which would be a public advantage. Whatever method of railway crossing is utilised (tunnel or bridge, at right angles or ‘skewed’) there will be questions of noise, visual impact, ecology and safety to be taken into account. This report cannot properly decide which is the most satisfactory option for all concerned, but from what information is available it appears that, in principle, a satisfactory crossing could be constructed, which did not have an unacceptable ‘environmental cost’. Recommendations: 4.13.9. I recommend that: • On the Proposals Map the line of the AVL is clearly annotated as an ‘indicative route’; • No other modification is made in response to these objections.

4.14. Policy TRA8 (d) Transport Proposals (Dosthill Railway Station)

Objections: 104/408 Network Rail 97/300 Government Office for the West Midlands 60/139 Dorian Porter

Key Issues:

61 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

a) Whether the proposed station is too close to Wilnecote station; whether there ought to be a ‘need analysis’; whether the technical, operational and commercial aspects of the project require further analysis. Inspector’s Reasoning: 4.14.1. Objectors have mentioned a number of cogent points that cast considerable doubt on whether there has been enough preliminary study of this proposal to make it a likely proposition in the plan period. For that reason I considered recommending its deletion. However, the reasoned justification does indicate that ‘feasibility’ is under discussion. In the circumstances, the proposal can remain in the plan. Recommendations: 4.14.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

4.15. Policy TRA8 (e) Transport Proposals (Additional Parking at Wilnecote Railway Station)

Objections: 104/419 Network Rail 87/301 Government Office for the West Midlands 89/199 Mr R Lancaster

Key Issues: a) Whether the details of the Policy need to be reviewed and the linkages between the Policy and the Local Transport Plan explained; whether the proposals are technically and operationally viable; whether there should be a free Park and Ride facility. Inspector’s Reasoning: 4.15.1. Most of the points made by objectors were ‘resolved’ by changes made at Revised Deposit stage. In particular, it is now proposed to promote extra car parking, not a Park and Ride facility. The link to the Local Transport Plan has been included in the reasoned justification. No further amendment is necessary. Recommendations: 4.15.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

62 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

4.16. Paragraph 4.23

Objections: 90/1393 Mr K Forest 103/1047 Lichfield District Council 153/1017 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 156/1492 Mr J L D Stack 188/1487 Mr J W Joiner 191/1481 Tamworth Northern Alliance 236/1578 Mr & Mrs K Williams 253/1604 Mr J Dick 254/1606 Mr J T Mitchell 305/1464 Phillip Bennion 307/1460 Mr J Wells 309/1455 Mr F C P Wolverstan 195/1477 Mr M Price 226/1559 Mrs I Bishop 227/1558 Mr J Browning 238/1584 Mr D J Garratt 235/1473 Ms Anna Shotton 251/1601 Mr M Kirk 241/1591 Mrs S Storr 254/1606 Mr J T Mitchell 193/1501 Mr R Evans 253/1604 Mr J Dick 248/1595 Mr P Thurgood 249/1596 Mr R Cope 239/1586 Mrs A Garratt 288/1662 Mrs C Price 303/1472 Mr M Pickering 293/1668 Mrs A Leedham 295/1671 Mr M Williams 296/1672 M G Parsonage 297/1676 Mr and Mrs B M Tipping

63 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

298/1680 C M Parsonage 299/1682 Mr V J Warner 189/1493 Ms J North 290/1664 Mr N Price 190/1496 Mr M G Sansome 286/1658 Mr J Edwards 284/1654 Mr G Hughes 201/1512 Mr R Browning 199/1510 M L Pegg 198/1506 Mr P Wilkie 268/1630 Ms J McAneny 194/1502 Mr S Marsh 255/1608 Mr M Stevens 292/1666 Mr W Leedham 209/1528 R A Morris 223/1553 A M Bell 225/1556 Mr A Glover 219/1545 Mr H Brookes 220/1548 Mr M Powell 215/1540 C M Pointer 213/1536 Gordon Cheneler 262/1622 Karen Williams 210/1529 Lynn Cheneler 237/1581 A D Levell 207/1526 R C Sercombe 206/1523 Penny Rowley 205/1521 Tony Rowley 204/1519 Robin Dutton 105/1141 Wiggington and Hopwas Parish Council 158/1488 Mark Hambly 202/1513 A J Reynolds 211/1533 Mr and Mrs B Harber 280/1646 Roy Hughes 260/1618 Mrs Josephine Small 268/1628 Janet Harrison

64 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

259/1616 Enid P Ashmore 269/1631 Mr Eric McAneny 272/1632 K Lakin 273/1635 Mr David Stone 276/1640 Peter Southan 222/1552 J R Hillerby 279/1644 Mr and Mrs P Emery 221/1551 C F Ellis 282/1648 Mr and Mrs A Hall 285/1657 F L Atkins 229/1561 Mr W A and A Flynn 240/1587 Mr Donald Storr 208/1574 Mr John Downes 236/1578 Mr and Mrs K Williams 256/1610 Neil Redfern 76/1642 Mr and Mrs J S Hollis 187/1700 Mr and Mrs Scott 310/1322 Andrew Gilman 306/1462 Mrs P Priestley 175/1686 Eric and Christine Isherwood 178/1688 Mr D Jones 179/1689 Carol Lawlor 180/1693 Graham Wain 181/1694 Mrs Southall 424/1746 Russell and Gillian Morris 185/1699 Mr Jason Norbury 283/1094 Patricia Craig and Geoffrey Rayson 261/1621 Nicholas Wilding 184/1697 Mr and Mrs R Hutchings

Key Issues: a) Whether any development at all in the Anker Valley would worsen existing traffic conditions in the Fountains Junction area; b) Whether AL2 should be constructed before any development in Anker Valley (and in this connection whether there are inconsistencies within Paragraph 4.23);

65 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

c) Whether the Transport Assessment (TA) should take into account all the effects of possible future development outside Tamworth (in Lichfield District); d) Whether AL2 should not be constructed at all because: it would use ‘greenbelt land’, would cause more traffic and pollution on Brindley Drive, would cause disturbance to local residents, or would spoil or interfere with Station Fields Caravan Park; e) Whether it should be built as a cycleway and footpath only; f) Should there be a site allocated for a station car park (in connection with the Anker Valley development) or should there at least be a requirement for a car park? Inspector’s Reasoning: 4.16.1. Fountains Junction Many objectors considered that there were severe congestion problems in the Fountains Junction area. They believed that if any development at all were permitted in the Anker Valley, things would simply get worse. (As requested, I visited the locality concerned to observe the situation at the ‘morning peak’ as well as at other times.) 4.16.2. Personal observation is useful. However from what I saw, and from what I was told by objectors, the Fountains Junction may be one where the amount of delay experienced by drivers on the various ‘arms’ of the junction may vary significantly from day to day. For that reason I rely more on the results of the traffic surveys that have been undertaken and were reported in CD89. 4.16.3. A starting point is the virtual certainty that traffic in most parts of Tamworth will increase substantially over the plan period, in any event, quite regardless of whether there is development in Anker Valley. Congestion is likely to get worse, anyway. It is improbable that any publicly-financed highway programme will be forthcoming that can prevent that happening. 4.16.4. The highways authority report (CD89) on local traffic modelling work was criticised by objectors, in relation to its substance and its presentation, but I see no reason to doubt its main findings. Whilst I accept the objectors’ point that computer modelling needs to be checked against personal experience, and assumptions need to be questioned, I consider that traffic modelling is a very well-established and accepted ‘tool’ for examining these situations. 4.16.5. The highways authority has devised a ‘package’ of improvements to the Fountains Junction area road layout and traffic signals. The authority’s assessment is that if these (privately financed) improvements were carried out, up to 250 Anker Valley houses could be occupied, before the AVL was built. Traffic conditions (with the 250 houses and the highway improvements) would be, if anything, better than they would be without the improvements, but without the 250 houses. I agree with that view. 4.16.6. Leaving aside the main issue of traffic congestion, there were some detailed criticisms of the proposed highways improvements around Fountains Junction. These related to matters such as air quality, loss of part of the footpath adjacent to the school and cycleway/footpath provision on the Ashby Road bridge. As I understand the position, the intention is to provide (if possible) a separate footbridge over the railway, (i.e. not as a part of the Ashby Road bridge). The footpath/verge in the vicinity of the school is reasonably wide. Looked at as a whole, the net effect of the

66 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

‘improvement package’ should be that conditions for pedestrians are slightly better. Air quality is naturally a concern where there is a school near a busy junction. There was no evidence about whether, or to what extent, the changes in traffic quantities, brought about solely by the proposed Anker Valley development, would actually cause harm to health by reason of deteriorating air quality. 4.16.7. My overall conclusion is that up to 250 houses could be completed in Anker Valley (prior to building the AVL) provided the improvements to the Fountains Junction were completed prior to occupation of the houses. 4.16.8. Amington Link (AL2) A variety of views were expressed about when or whether AL24 should be built. A substantial majority of those who lodged objections on this topic considered AL2 should be built before any development in Anker Valley. (Some of course considered AL2 should be built, but that there should be no development in Anker Valley.) The council attaches a high priority to this scheme, and that is reflected in the Revised Deposit Draft. 4.16.9. The question of the relationship between AL2 and the Anker Valley development is a difficult one. A new route towards the centre of Tamworth from the east of the town, by means of an extension of Brindley Drive, would be beneficial, by providing an alternative to the Amington Road. The council’s opinion is that such a route is needed. It will not be provided by public finance in the plan period. The question of whether or to what extent the Anker Valley development could be ‘required’ to finance the scheme was not finally settled during the inquiry. However the indications were that (having regard to government advice on planning obligations) the Anker Valley scheme could not be ‘required’ to finance AL2, at any rate not to a sufficient extent to ensure it was actually built as a full-width road in the plan period. So, simply for present purposes, I shall assume that the ‘overall proposal’ is for an Anker Valley development with Fountains Junctions improvements and AVL, but no AL2; (see in this connection CD113). Many residents would oppose that scenario, and I can understand why. For that reason I have seriously considered whether the possibility of worsening traffic conditions in some parts of the town (in the scenario I have assumed) is a basis for recommending that the Anker Valley project is abandoned. However, when I questioned the highway authority on this matter, their evidence was the traffic situation would not be ‘impossible’ or ‘totally intolerable’. There was no professional evidence to the contrary. I do not think therefore that the Anker Valley scheme should now be removed from the Plan solely because of substantial uncertainty about the AL2. That said, a full Transport Assessment will have to be provided by the promoters of the Anker Valley before a planning permission can be granted, and clearly that Assessment will have to convince the relevant authorities that all the traffic consequences of the development itself can be satisfactorily dealt with. I add at this point that it is not reasonable to require the complete Transport Assessment to be provided at this stage, as advocated by some objectors. 4.16.10. Extent of the Transport Assessment When the TA is carried out it should take into account all the effects of the Anker Valley development

4 Except where otherwise indicated, by ‘AL2’ I mean the complete ‘full width’ Amington Link Road, not merely the footpath/cycleway option.

67 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

itself, wherever they occur, to the extent that it is reasonable to do so. (It is often accepted that where the anticipated effect of a development on a junction is an increase in traffic of less than 5%, that junction need not be considered in detail. However that level of prescription of the scope of a TA need not be included in the Plan.) It would also be appropriate for the TA to demonstrate that the Anker Valley proposals have allowed for the possibility of development in Lichfield, in the sense of not being designed in such a way that this future development is prejudiced. That approach would include making sure that the scale and nature of the accesses to Anker Valley were appropriate. Additionally, the TA would need to show that AL2 was not prejudiced, either. 4.16.11. The TA will also complete the work to determine whether and to what extent the Anker Valley development can be required to finance AL2 (see above). SC20 is designed to clarify that point and I include the council’s suggested phrase in the recommendation for a modified wording of Paragraph 4.23. 4.16.12. I turn briefly to the points made by those who oppose AL2 for reasons not connected with Anker Valley. The most important of these concerns relates to the Station Fields Caravan Park. Part of that site would be needed for the road. The Caravan Park is a long-term or permanent ‘residence’ for some people. That being so, their interests should certainly be taken fully into account. On the other hand, the interests of those residents have to be balanced against the public advantages of the road scheme, to which the council attaches considerable significance. It appears to me that in view of the probable length of time it will take for the road scheme to become a practical reality there should be enough opportunity for alternative and satisfactory arrangements to be made, by or for the residents. I conclude, on balance, that the Station Fields Caravan Park is not a reason for deleting AL2 from the Plan. 4.16.13. AL2 would use some undeveloped land; it is not ‘greenbelt’. As Brindley Drive would no longer be a cul-de-sac, traffic and noise would certainly increase near some residents. I do not believe that this would occur to such an extent that AL2 is unacceptable in principle. A direct footpath and cycle link, along the suggested route of AL2, to the station area of town, would probably be advantageous, and certainly better than no link at all. Nevertheless, in spite of the obstacles in the way of realisation of the complete AL2, I conclude that the proposal should remain in the Plan. 4.16.14. One of the advantages of the proposed Anker Valley residential allocation is that it gives an opportunity for relatively easy access by foot and cycle to the railway station and to the town centre. Indeed, a demonstration of the extent to which the site gives openings for the promotion of modes of transport other than the private car should be a part of the TA. Clearly, the position of the site in relation to the station should encourage some of the future residential occupiers to use rail rather than car for longer journeys. That is to be welcomed. The provision of additional station car parking might well reduce car mileage overall, by making rail journeys more attractive. That said, it could, conceivably, also encourage those who might otherwise have walked or cycled to the station to use a car for that part of their journey. On the whole, I would expect station car parking, suitably controlled, to reduce car mileage. I note at this point that a ‘new car parking facility’ is included in the list (in CD113) of what might need to be

68 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

provided to deal with the assessed traffic implications of the Anker Valley development. As was conceded, it is not clear whether the whole cost of a station car park should be borne by the Anker Valley developers. That being so, the reference to consideration of a ‘Park and Ride’ scheme in Policy HSG3 f) is sufficient. Recommendations: 4.16.15. I recommend that: • Paragraph 4.23 is modified by deleting the whole Paragraph after the end of the second sentence. The deleted sentences should be replaced by: ‘A full Transport Assessment is required which will consider the transport impact of the Anker Valley development as a whole. This work will ascertain whether the Amington Link Phase 2 is required as an integral part of the development of the Anker Valley (and also the standard of the link that is required). In any event, the Transport Assessment will have to demonstrate that neither the implementation of possible development north of Tamworth in Lichfield District, nor the construction of the complete, full-width Amington Link Phase 2, would be prejudiced.’

4.17. Paragraph 4.24

Objections: 90/1394 Mr K Forest 153/1016 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates (see under TRA8c) 309/1457 Mr F C P Wolverstan 105/1142 Wiggington & Hopwas Parish Council (see discussion under TRA8c and Paragraph 4.23) 104/1053 Network Rail

Key Issues: a) Whether the status of the AVL in the road hierarchy can be left to be determined at a later stage; b) Whether the route of the AVL would result in the inappropriate mixing of residential and commercial traffic and cause unnecessary disturbance to residents; c) Whether the Plan should refer to the need to consult Network Rail. Inspector’s Reasoning: 4.17.1. The ‘status’ of the AVL in the ‘road hierarchy’ was the subject of considerable comment and discussion. As already indicated, I do not think it should now be designated as a ‘County Scheme’ that the highways authority will promote. The best evidence is that, by itself, the AVL will not cater for much ‘through traffic’ but will act as a district distributor rather than a primary distributor. The position is less clear-cut if AL2 is also built. The

69 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

council wishes both AVL and AL2 to be designated, at this point, as primary distributors (see SC21). In the light of the doubt about the role of the AVL, there is merit in an objector’s suggestion that the matter be left to be determined at a later date. I conclude that whilst Plan TR A can be left as it is, the last sentence of Paragraph 4.24 should be deleted. 4.17.2. The AVL would carry all kinds of traffic, including both residential and ‘employment traffic’. Subject to suitable detailed design, I doubt that this ‘mixing’ of different types of traffic will cause undue difficulties, or cause nuisance to residential occupiers. There would be practical difficulties in using the originally proposed AVL route; (see First Deposit Plan). 4.17.3. Network Rail would have to be consulted as a matter of course on matters that affect the railway. That point need not be spelled-out in the Plan. Recommendations: 4.17.4. I recommend that: • The last sentence of Paragraph 4.24 is deleted.

4.18. TRA9: Road Hierarchy

Objections: 161/831 The House Builders Federation

Key Issues: a) Whether this Policy is incompatible with other Policies, in particular whether the Policy on car parking standards will increase on-street parking on local distributors. Inspector’s Reasoning: 4.18.1. Current government policy is that there should generally be ‘maximum’ rather than ‘minimum’ parking standards. PPG3 explains that car parking standards that result, on average, in development with more than 1.5 off- street car parking standards per dwelling are unlikely to reflect the government’s emphasis on securing sustainable residential environments; (see paragraphs 59-62 of PPG3). 4.18.2. I accept that if these standards are adhered to there is a risk that people who have ‘additional’ cars will park them in ‘undesirable places’. The possibility of this happening can be reduced to an extent by appropriate design of new housing developments, and the relationship between the residential units and the relevant distributor roads. In spite of the risk referred to, I do not consider that is a sufficient reason to recommend that either (a) policies on car parking standards should be relaxed or (b) car parking should be explicitly tolerated on roads where Policy TRA9 now states this should be restricted. Recommendations: 4.18.3. I recommend that:

70 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

• No modification is made in response to this objection.

4.19. TR A Plan: Proposed Road Hierarchy

Objections: 153/1018 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

Key Issues: a) Whether the Amington Link Road should be notated as a ‘Strategic Highway Network Proposal’. Inspector’s Reasoning: 4.19.1. There is no convincing evidence that the use of the Amington Link Road would qualify it as a part of the Strategic Highway Network. Recommendations: 4.19.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to this objection.

4.20. Miscellaneous Transportation Objections

Objections: 104/418 Network Rail 52/105 Linda Randeria 89/198 Mr R Lancaster 104/403 Network Rail

Key Issues: a) Whether there should be a Policy which safeguards sites for storage and distribution uses (particularly for bulk goods) in locations served, or with potential to be served, from railway sidings; b) Whether there should be no further pedestrianisation of the town centre; c) Whether the plan should include proposals to create pedestrian links within Ventura Park and with the town centre. d) Whether the Plan should include a list of the requirements of Network Rail in so far as they relate to possible development adjoining railway lines. Inspector’s Reasoning:

71 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

4.20.1. The objection related to freight transport does not identify any particular sites (accessible by rail) which are thought to be suitable for safeguarding in the manner proposed. That being so, it would not be useful to go beyond SP Policy T10 (Freight Transport). I note that there is a reference to that Policy in Paragraph 4.10a in the Revised Deposit Plan. 4.20.2. An objector considers that pedestrianisation makes access to the town centre difficult for people who are not fully fit, but who are not sufficiently disabled to qualify for a ‘badge’. I can understand that concern. Finding the correct balance between the advantages of easy car access and the advantages for shoppers of having ‘car-free’ streets is a matter of detailed ‘town centre management’ and cannot be addressed properly through the local plan process. 4.20.3. More pedestrian links within Ventura Park, and linking with routes to the town centre, would be advantageous. It is unlikely that these will be created except as part of, or as a consequence of, a larger proposal for development. They might be negotiated by the council if, for example, there was further retail development in the Ventura Park area. 4.20.4. There are some Plan allocations of land adjoining railway lines. Obviously in designing (and implementing) development projects proper account will have to be taken of the operational needs of the railway, and safety issues. However, it would not be useful to include a general list of possible ‘rail related’ issues in the Plan. Network Rail would be consulted on relevant planning applications in any event. In some instances SPG prepared by the council draws attention to the operational needs of the railway. Recommendations: 4.20.5. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

72 Chapter 4: Transportation

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

Chapter 5: Employment

5.1. Paragraph 5.6: Local Plan Objective

Objections: 109/508 English Heritage

Key Issues: a) Might an attempt to accommodate all of Tamworth’s employment needs within the Borough boundary be at the expense of the environmental quality of the area and its environmental capacity? Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.1.1. Employment Land Provision - general considerations This objector raises an important issue which is also raised, directly or indirectly, by many other objectors. The Local Plan was designed, quite correctly, to conform generally to the Structure Plan. This states (Policy E1) that provision will be made between 1996 and 2011 for 120 ha of employment land in Tamworth. As the district is very constricted geographically, there is inevitably a limited choice of land that might be suitable for employment use. On the council’s analysis, much of the land needed to meet the target will have to be ‘greenfield’. Since there is relatively little undeveloped land within the administrative boundaries of the district, almost any ‘loss’ of open land is noticeable. 5.1.2. My approach has been to take the Structure Plan quantitative requirement as a starting point. That said, I consider that there is a sound basis for arguing that (in the particular circumstances of Tamworth) conformity with the SP can be achieved (as far as employment land is concerned) by provision which, ostensibly, is materially below the 120 ha level. I say ‘ostensibly’ here because I was told at the inquiry that in calculating the employment land provision for Tamworth no account was taken of any ‘windfall’ employment sites that come forward during the plan period; (contrast the position in relation to the housing land supply). 5.1.3. There are other reasons for thinking that conformity (in relation to employment land) can be achieved even if the SP figure is not entirely met. First, the SP itself says that emphasis is placed on the ‘range and quality of land available rather than on the total level of provision’. It is true that in paragraph 6.14 of the SP it is also stated that ‘..the land allocation figures may be applied with some degree of flexibility but they should not be significantly exceeded or under-provided’. However, in my view, what is ‘significant’ has to be judged pragmatically, taking into account all relevant factors. Second, RSS Policy PA6C/D encourages a review of existing employment sites to establish their continued suitability for employment development. I regard that as particularly relevant if (a) there is serious doubt about the marketability of a site for Class B uses and (b) there is a

73 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

good prospect of the site being used for another purpose which (whilst not in Class B) would nevertheless provide a worthwhile number of jobs. Third, there is overwhelming evidence, from take-up rates of employment land over a substantial period, that if the full 120 ha of land in Tamworth were made available, a considerable portion of it would not get used within the plan period. (There is a marked difference in my opinion between this situation and the situation in relation to housing land supply. In the case of housing, the problem is more likely to be a lack of housing sites to meet the demand than a lack of demand for any housing that may be provided.) Fourth - and this is linked to the third reason - there are substantial and attractive employment locations (for example at Birch Coppice) which are beyond, but very close to, the Borough’s boundaries, and which can reasonably be expected to provide some jobs for Tamworth residents. 5.1.4. In summary, and assuming that the fundamental, underlying objective of the SP policy is to provide an adequate number and range of job opportunities for Tamworth residents, an approach that resulted in a moderate shortfall below the 120 ha figure would not , in my view, be ‘out of conformity’ with the SP. I apply this approach in dealing with various objections to this Chapter of the Plan, and to the Chapter on Town Centre and Retailing. 5.1.5. The Employment Topic Paper (CD85) sets out the council’s calculation of the employment land supply position as at 31 March 2004 (and allowing for the Pre-Inquiry Changes). It shows 114.6 ha of land as being ‘made available’ for the whole period 1996-2011. (As already mentioned, the council’s figures make no allowance for ‘windfall’ employment sites.) My recommendations in response to objections would result in a reduction by a further 7.37 ha5 to 107.23 ha, making a total shortfall of 12.77 ha, below the 120 ha ‘target’, but still less than a 12% ‘shortfall’. 5.1.6. The Topic Paper shows 90.5 ha in the categories of ‘commitments’, ‘re- allocated sites’ and ‘new employment sites’. On my recommendations that figure would reduce to 83.13 ha. On agreed, historic take-up rates of around 3 ha per annum, that is a very generous supply. Even if, for the sake of illustration, it is assumed that half that land is not immediately available, or turns out to be unsuitable for some reason, that still leaves a supply that is more than ample for the remainder of the plan period6. I conclude firmly that in the Tamworth context there would not be either (a) ‘significant’ under-provision or (b) lack of ‘conformity’ with the SP. 5.1.7. No modification is needed in response to objection 109/508. Recommendations: 5.1.8. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to this objection.

5 I assume site areas as follows: Coton Lane 3.5 ha; Aucott proposed retail site 1.97 ha; Hedging Lane 1.9 ha. 6 Note: In SC22 and SC33 the council proposed a small additional reduction in the area of one of the allocated employment sites. As I am not recommending the adoption of those two SCs, that additional reduction has not been included in the calculations set out above. However, if it were included, that would make no difference to my conclusions.

74 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

5.2. EMP1: Provision of Employment Land

Objections: 159/807 Country Land & Business Association 89/195 Mr R Lancaster 90/139 Mr K Forest 97/286 Government Office for the West Midlands (R2ndDep NFC) 105/1135 Wiggington & Hopwas Parish Council 79/1213 Mr M Wright 90/1396 Mr K Forest

Key Issues: a) Whether the policies need to be amended to take account of the scope for re-using existing rural buildings for commercial purposes; b) Whether insufficient land is being retained for future employment use or, alternatively, whether the allocations could be reduced further without compromising the objective of adequate employment land provision; c) Whether the figures in this Policy are out of date. Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.2.1. Tamworth has a very restricted rural area. That being so, it is unnecessary to amend the Employment Chapter to take account of the point about re- use of rural buildings for commercial purposes. 5.2.2. On the general question of the amount of employment land, see comments above under the heading of Paragraph 5.6. As explained, I take the SP target as the proper starting point for consideration of the topic but have also taken the view that a moderate shortfall below that target would be acceptable in the circumstances. Nothing further need be added in response to the general objections on this matter. 5.2.3. Unavoidably, the figures mentioned in Policy EMP1, and in the text and table in Paragraph 5.9 in the Revised deposit draft, are out of date. (The figures were of course further amended by the PICs.) At the inquiry, the council supplied new figures, updated to March 2004 and I have referred to these figures in the general discussion, above. These figures could possibly be updated even further, say to March 2005, before adoption of the Plan. I shall therefore recommend that this is done. The question of the efficiency or regularity of council ‘monitoring’ is not something I consider it necessary to comment on here. 5.2.4. Turning specifically to the PICs, PIC1 will be supported, as it draws attention to the important question of the ‘range and quality’ of land available. PICs 2 and 3 seek to bring figures in EMP1 and Paragraph 5 9 up-to-date. I fully support the principle of these PICs, and the wish to bring

75 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

the figures up-to-date. The figures actually quoted in the PICs may no longer be accurate however because of (a) developments since they were compiled and (b) recommendations in this Report. I shall therefore merely recommend that the figures are brought up-to-date. Recommendations: 5.2.5. I recommend that: • The Plan is modified in accordance with PIC1. • The figures in Policy EMP1 and in Paragraph 5.9 and in the accompanying table are brought up to date, to at least the end of March 2005 if possible. (Additionally, the necessary modifications should also take into account my recommendations in relation to specific employment sites, made elsewhere in this report. They include recommendations in support of certain SCs put forward by the council.)

5.3. EMP2: Provision of Employment Land - Allocated Sites7

Objections: 30/70 Mr K Dawes (see also discussion under TRA8 and Paragraph 4.23) 90/200 Mr K Forest 96/252 Staffordshire County Council 106/395 Royal London Asset Management 119/536 West Midlands Regional RSL Planning Consortium 126/572 Morston Group (see under EMP5) 135/616 Redbourn Group PLC (see also generally under Chapter 7 Town Centre and Retailing) 138/625 R E Matthews Ltd 149/686 RPS Plc 153/751 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates (see also under EMP2a)) 62/910 Mr C J Bright 150/15 Alfred McAlpine Special Projects

Key Issues: a) Whether the ‘30%’ limit on B8 uses on new employment sites should either be modified or removed completely; Should it be possible to use new ‘employment

7 The letter references to the various employment sites in the First Deposit Plan (a – f) do not always coincide with the lettering used in the Revised Deposit draft (a – l). In this report I use the Revised Deposit identification letters.

76 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

sites’ for other (non B class) uses, subject only to the kind of criteria set out in Policy EMP5? Should the limit relate to the B8 ‘building area’ rather than the plot area, as B8 uses normally have a lower car parking requirement? b) Is there any conflict with PPG3, paragraph 49? c) Whether the reasoned justification should provide more detail about access to the sites, their relationship with the highway network and how they can be made ‘more sustainable’; d) Whether there is any need for more employment sites, because of the number of empty and unused units on industrial estates and business parks; e) Whether employment development should be at Statfold Barn Farm, rather than in the Anker Valley; f) Whether there should be a mixed-use allocation of the land at the Doulton Works site8. Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.3.1. The objectives of the Plan’s employment policies are not confined to providing enough land in total. It is also desired to provide a range and choice of sites, and a range of employment opportunities. There is a perception that B8 units sometimes provide relatively few jobs, in relation to their size, and also provide a limited range of job opportunities. That, as I understand, is the rationale behind the ‘30%’ limit. However, there are a great variety of uses that are properly classed as ‘B8’ and not all of them have the disadvantages mentioned. No doubt it was with that in mind that the wording of the Policy implies some flexibility. 5.3.2. The question is, therefore, whether the Policy is already sufficiently flexible, or whether, as worded, it might result in worthwhile employment-generating opportunities being turned down for fear that a more ‘valuable’ employment use might be lost in the future. My view is that there is some basis for the ‘doubt’ about allowing too much B8 development on a particular site, but that no harm would result in a modest, further relaxation of the limit on B8 uses. In view of what is in reality an ample supply of employment land, I do not believe a modest relaxation would damage long-term prospects for the quantity and quality of job opportunities. Indeed it may well prove beneficial. I shall recommend that the ‘limit’ is raised to 40%. (The existing flexibility in the wording of the Policy should of course be retained as well.) Similar considerations apply to the limit in Policy EMP3. 5.3.3. On the other hand, I do not accept the suggestion that there should, in effect, be no clear-cut ‘preference’ for B class uses on these allocated sites. To accept that argument would be contrary to the intentions of SP Policy E1. It would, possibly, make it too easy for B class development on all these ‘new sites’ to be inhibited by the hope that permission for another more valuable use might be forthcoming. 5.3.4. An objector makes a valid point about the distinction between the area of actual building used for a particular class of development and the area of the site used for that purpose, and how the proportions may vary, according

8 This proposal is for the re-use of a site previously in industrial use. I consider it here as a matter of convenience, although the objector’s proposal does not include ‘Class B’ employment uses.

77 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

to the nature of the development. Nevertheless, I think it more straightforward to keep to the ‘site area formula’ indicated in the policy. For reasons I have already alluded to, I do not think it would matter much if keeping to that ‘formula’ meant modest departures from the originally envisaged ratio of B8 to other B Class development. 5.3.5. PPG3 promotes ‘mixed-use’ development, especially in town centres. I do not believe however that the allocation of specifically ‘employment sites’, in compliance with the SP, contravenes government advice, including that in PPG3. 5.3.6. Each of the allocated sites raises its own issues about access, effect on the highway network, and ‘sustainability’. Some of these points, in relation to particular sites are mentioned below, in the discussion of the individual allocations. If there were an overriding objection to any site, as a consequence of these ‘highways and transport questions’, that could be a reason for recommending deletion of the site. However I do not think it necessary for the reasoned justification to set out the ‘highway details’ for all the allocations. I note that some of the material that has been requested is contained in SPG. 5.3.7. An objector draws attention to the existence of vacant units on existing industrial estates. Clearly they provide a useful supply of commercial premises, particularly for small to medium-sized companies. However, I do not think it is correct to say that no new sites are needed. Some enterprises, that might be useful sources of jobs for Tamworth residents, need or prefer new or purpose-built premises. 5.3.8. It is argued that development at Statfold Barn Farm would be preferable to development at Anker Valley for a number of reasons, including: the fact that it could be accessed from junction 11 of the M42, no link road would be required, it would not be near houses, traffic congestion in Tamworth town centre would be prevented and there would be no loss of floodplain. 5.3.9. Whilst I take those points into account, I consider there are serious disadvantages, primarily arising from the proposed site’s clear separation from the urban area, which would make it a somewhat isolated piece of development in a relatively ‘unsustainable’ location. I also consider that as the development would be on higher ground, large commercial premises here would be unduly conspicuous in the countryside. I conclude that land adjacent to Statfold Barn Farm should not be allocated for employment purposes. 5.3.10. Doulton Works is a substantial, vacant site within the urban area. In accordance with government advice it should be a priority for redevelopment for beneficial purposes. For example, I see no reason in principle why it should not provide a significant number of houses. Unfortunately, I am unable to recommend a local plan allocation on the basis of the extremely limited information in the objection, as submitted. What is requested is an allocation for non-food retailing, health and fitness centre, restaurant uses and housing. Some of that ‘mixture’ would no doubt be quite acceptable. However, the objection gives no information about the relative proportions of the various uses that are envisaged, or even broad indications as to their likely locations (sufficient to make an assessment for local plan purposes). More importantly, I have grave reservations about the ‘non-food retailing’ element of the project, bearing in

78 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

mind the First Secretary of State’s appeal decision relating to non-food retailing on the Doulton Works land. Having regard to guidance contained in PPS6, I am very doubtful about whether this should be a preferred location in Tamworth for new retailing units of anything more than very local significance. I conclude that no recommendation for an allocation, in the form requested, should be made. I think it likely that planning permission may be granted in the near future for a redevelopment of the site. In the event that does not happen, I believe the council should urgently consider the best way to promote re-use of whole of the land indicated on the objector’s plan RPS CW 02. A recommendation to that effect will be made. 5.3.11. The phrase ‘in accordance with Supplementary Planning Guidance’ which was in Policy EMP2, in the First Deposit draft, has been removed. Recommendations: 5.3.12. I recommend that: • In Policy EMP2 and in Policy EMP3 ‘30%’ is deleted and replaced by ‘40%’; • In the event that planning permission has not been granted for the redevelopment of the whole or greater part of the land indicated on plan RPS CW 02 (objection 150/15), prompt consideration be given to the best way to encourage appropriate redevelopment, including the possibility of an allocation being made as a part of the modifications stage of the Local Plan process.

5.4. EMP2[a&b]: Provision of Employment Land - Anker Valley Objections: 15/46 Mr J Walton 80/174 Mr & Mrs Chadwick 15/47 Mr J Walton 85/183 Mrs D E Owen 17/50 Mrs C Gardner & Mr M Doak 90/205 Mr K Forest 31/74 I G Thomas 90/206 Mr K Forest 36/79 Mr D Cooke 99/327 Bloor Homes 38/82 Mrs S Cattell 101/364 Staffordshire Wildlife Trust 57/129 Mr R Aldis 104/409 Network Rail 58/127 H E & E Sadler 104/410 Network Rail 59/137 Mr & Mrs Harrison 109/509 English Heritage 62/142 Mr C J Bright 123/554 Mark Taylor 62/143 Mr C J Bright 153/1703 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 62/1691 Mr C J Bright 153/1704 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

79 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

63/144 Mr J M Kelly 157/793 Highways Agency 63/145 Mr J M Kelly 163/852 Merris-McDonald MCJJ 67/153 Mrs K W Devey 166/881 The Environment Agency 76/166 Mr & Mrs J S Hollis 309/1454 Mr F Wolverstan 77/169 K M Millward 412/1316 Mrs Beverley Lander 145/1182 Walton Homes Ltd 123/636 Mark Taylor 153/1019 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

Key Issues: a) Whether the whole allocation is unnecessary anyway, because there is enough employment land elsewhere, especially in the urban area; b) Whether the development would cause a serious loss of floodplain; whether it would result in problems such as visual intrusion, noise and excessive traffic (for example on Ashby Road and Brindley Drive); whether the loss of open land, and the loss of opportunities for walking and informal recreation is unacceptable; would Moor Lane be spoiled from an amenity point of view? c) Whether the TA (for Anker Valley) should address the effects of all employment allocations mentioned in EMP2; whether the interests of Network Rail need to be safeguarded; d) Would ‘wildlife interests’ be harmed? e) Whether these employment sites would adversely affect the setting of Amington Hall or the character and appearance of the Conservation Area; f) Is more employment land needed in the Anker Valley? Should the reduction in the amount of employment land (originally proposed in the First Deposit draft) be reversed? Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.4.1. A number of the objections related, partly or entirely, to the specific location of the Anker Valley employment allocations, as shown in the First Deposit draft. In the Revised Deposit draft, the employment areas (2a and 2b in the First Deposit draft) were combined, partly repositioned and reduced in area. In so far as the objections have been resolved by the changes at Revised Deposit stage they need not be commented on further. 5.4.2. The general approach to the quantum of employment land has been set out under Paragraph 5.6 above. In some ways therefore, I agree with those objectors who consider that there is adequate employment land. That said, it is important for Tamworth to offer not only enough land (in total) but also a reasonable range and choice of sites, in order to attract employment- generating businesses that will support the town over the long-term, and reduce the necessity for out-commuting. It is not realistic to suppose that this can be done simply on the basis of re-using existing industrial sites, or without some greenfield allocations. I add here that some long-established industrial sites within urban areas prove more viable for re-development for housing purposes than for commercial purposes. Many firms (looking for a

80 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

place for B class development) seek modern premises with an emphasis on good access arrangements. 5.4.3. The allocation of employment sites in the Anker Valley is partly a consequence of SP policy H1. The SP ‘policy provision’ for release of land in the Anker Valley (Policy H1) is discussed in the explanatory memorandum, paragraphs 7.33-34, which refers to ‘… a mixed use development, incorporating permitted employment areas….’. Even if it were not for this SP memorandum, I would think it desirable, in the light of government guidance on reducing the need to travel, to place some of the town’s ‘new’ employment sites within close range of the significant new housing that is proposed in Anker Valley. As some objectors point out, there is no guarantee whatsoever that many or indeed any of the occupiers of Anker Valley housing will work at Anker Valley employment sites. However, all the local plan can do is to make that linkage a practicable and, it may be hoped, an attractive possibility. This site would probably be classed as a ‘good quality employment site’ and would be a worthwhile part of the local ‘portfolio’ of employment sites. 5.4.4. There are advantages, from the point of view of minimising visual impact, in placing large, commercial buildings on low-lying land as far as possible. In this instance, that advantage has to be set against the important constraint of the flood plain of the River Anker. On the information I have, the employment site will encroach on the flood plain to an extent, but any loss of flood plain capacity can be compensated for. CD112 indicates that the Environment Agency is satisfied, in principle, with the approach being adopted. I see no reason to disagree. 5.4.5. There were objections related to various other ‘environmental concerns’. As mentioned elsewhere in this report, I can understand the regret at loss of ‘openness’ in the Anker Valley. On the other hand there is a good possibility of an increase in legitimate public access to remaining areas of undeveloped floodplain. Large buildings cannot be completely hidden, and in landscaping terms it may not always be desirable to do so. Nevertheless given good design and careful siting I think it unlikely that residential amenity would be seriously affected by ‘visual intrusion’ as a consequence of what is proposed. (In coming to that conclusion I have considered the position of existing residential areas at various locations on the south side of the railway line.) Noise and traffic would certainly increase on some roads and in some areas. This point has already been mentioned in the Transport Chapter of this report. In summary, whilst I can understand these concerns, there is no evidence sufficient to convince me that these factors would be so serious as to make this development inappropriate, in principle. 5.4.6. The broader traffic issues have been mentioned in the report’s Transport Chapter. The TA should consider in sufficient detail the effect of the whole Anker Valley development. It does not need to deal in that way with the effect of other employment allocations. Policy TRA4A is relevant here. There is no need for the Plan to refer to the ‘operational needs’ of the railway. Network Rail would of course have to be consulted in any case on any development close to or affecting the railway.

81 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

5.4.7. I have had regard to CD116 (Statement of Common Ground on Ecology). Taking that and other evidence into account I am satisfied that there need be no unacceptable impact on ‘wildlife interest’ in the area. 5.4.8. Bearing in mind the ‘amended siting’ of the employment areas, I believe that, subject to sensible design, neither the setting of the Listed Building at Amington Hall, nor the character and appearance of the conservation area should be materially affected. 5.4.9. One or two objectors advocated a complete ‘reorganisation’ of the housing and employment allocations in Anker Valley, for example by placing residential development on the east side of whole allocation. Whilst that would make perhaps a reasonable relationship with parts of Amington, it would place the new houses further from the railway station and town centre. On the whole it is preferable to use the lower land for commercial development and the higher land for the residential element of the scheme. 5.4.10. Promoters of the Anker Valley site proposed additional land allocations either for housing or, failing that, partly for housing and partly for employment purposes. The ‘extra’ employment land would include land allocated at First Deposit stage (and then deleted) and some further land. For reasons already set out in this Report, I do not think the extra employment land is needed, because a moderate ‘shortfall’ below the 120 ha SP figure would (a) still leave ample land in practice and (b) in the circumstances would still result in a local plan in general conformity with the SP. That being so, it is unnecessary to review the merits of the proposed ‘extra’ employment land, except to note that there is nothing in the evidence to suggest it is superior to the land currently allocated in Anker Valley. The amount of employment land currently allocated in Anker Valley is likely in my judgement to give reasonable scope for finding jobs near at hand for the residents of the associated new housing. From the point of view of Tamworth as a whole, no extra land is likely to be needed in the plan period in the ‘good quality employment site category’. 5.4.11. Finally, I note that the council has proposed (SC23) a minor alteration to Paragraph 5.13 (deleting a reference to SPG). That change can be recommended. Recommendations: 5.4.12. I recommend that: • The Local Plan is modified in accordance with SC23. • No other modification is made in response to these objections.

5.5. EMP2[c]: Provision of Employment Land - Bonehill Road

Objections: 29/68 Margaret Jones 79/171 Mr M Wright

82 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

89/191 Mr R Lancaster 98/303 British Waterways 105/388 Wiggington & Hopwas Parish Council 114/468 The Inland Waterways Association 138/628 R E Matthews Ltd 166/882 The Environment Agency 167/81 Mr B Parkes 79/1849 Mr M Wright 105/389 Wiggington & Hopwas Parish Council

Key Issues: a) Whether this site would cause unacceptable harm to the pleasantness and attractiveness of the canal and/or the rural area generally; whether the loss of greenspace would be unacceptable; would the setting of listed canal bridges be damaged? b) Whether it would damage the wildlife corridor between the canal and the river; c) Whether development should be limited to B1 uses only; d) Whether the effect on the floodplain has been considered; e) Whether a larger area should be shown on the Proposals Map. Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.5.1. I refer to the discussion under the heading of Paragraph 5.6. Those points need not be re-iterated. 5.5.2. In criticising this allocation (and also EMP2g) two objectors drew attention to the council’s Sustainability Appraisal. It was said that this appraisal was a missed opportunity because it was used by the council to assess the EMP2 policy as a whole, rather than as a means of deciding the relative merits of different sites. In relation to this allocation, it was suggested that this site was ‘over-rated’ by the council on the criterion ‘improved levels of access for all to development, services and facilities’. This was because of the lack of nearby housing and the lack of a bus route. I take these points into account. 5.5.3. This site has better links with the strategic highway network than the Anker Valley site. For that reason the council considers it could be classed as ‘sub-regional employment site’ (using the terminology of RSS Policy PA6). The site does not currently fulfil the criterion in that policy relating to public transport (see above), but the broad description of the site as (potentially) a ‘high-quality attractive site’ seems reasonable. I certainly think it has a greater chance than most other sites in Tamworth of attracting clients with an international/national/regional choice of location. That being so, I do not accept that it can simply be regarded as an ‘equal alternative’ to Anker

9 This objection and 389 were categorised as ‘objections’ to the Sustainability Appraisal. It is convenient to deal with them here.

83 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

Valley. It might serve a different part of the commercial premises market, and should be retained to enhance the ‘range and choice’ of available sites. 5.5.4. Development here would greatly alter the appearance of an attractive rural area close to the canal. That factor has to be weighed against the advantages of employment-generation. I can appreciate that those who enjoy using the existing lane for walking or riding will regret the loss of open land and open views. On the other hand, I believe some of the comments relating to the effect on the amenity of the canal may be over-stated. If this allocation is developed as a ‘high quality’ site there is likely to be opportunities for landscaping between the buildings and the canal. The council’s SPG gives some useful pointers towards considerations of that kind. The setting of listed canal bridges could also be adequately protected, as it seems to me. I do not consider that limiting uses to Class B1 only would make a critical difference from an ‘appearance’ perspective. On the other hand, it would seriously diminish the usefulness of the land as an employment site. 5.5.5. The wildlife corridor between canal and river would be reduced. It would not be eliminated. Bearing in mind the PIC proposal to delete the Dunstall Lane extension (a PIC proposal which I support) I consider it is likely that there would still be adequate ‘linkage’ between river and canal. 5.5.6. On the basis of the information available, the floodplain would not be significantly affected. The Environment Agency would have to be consulted on matters such as the precise location of buildings, and measures to ensure that the functioning of the floodplain was not impeded. 5.5.7. The council argues that the site is correctly shown on the Proposals Map (although it is acknowledged that the SPG is incorrect.) I think it likely that the council is right in that respect. In any event, I see no need to add to the area of employment land shown on the Proposals Map in this location, which is the area I have considered. 5.5.8. My overall conclusion is that the allocation should be retained. Recommendations: 5.5.9. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

5.6. EMP2[g]: Provision of Employment Land - Land Off Coton Lane

Objections: 79/1212 Mr M Wright 240/1588 Mr Donald Storr 90/1397 Mr K Forest 241/1590 Mrs Suzanne Storr 103/1044 Lichfield District Council 248/1594 Peter Thurgood 104/1049 Network Rail 249/1597 Robert P Cope

84 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

105/1136 Wiggington & Hopwas Parish 251/1600 Michael Kirk Council 156/1490 Mr J Stack 253/1605 Mr John Dick 188/1485 Mr J W Joiner 255/1609 Michael Stevens 189/1495 Jane North 258/1615 Gerard Robert Ashmore 190/1497 Mr M G Sansome 260/1620 Mrs Josephine Small 191/1479 Tamworth Northern Alliance 262/1624 Karen Williams 195/1476 Maurice E Price 272/1634 K Lakin 198/1508 Peter Wilkie 274/1636 Mrs Joy Stone 202/1515 A J Reynolds 279/1645 Mr & Mrs Emery 204/1518 Robin Dutton 284/1652 Gregory Allan Hughes 205/1522 Tony Rowley 285/1656 F L Atkins 206/1524 Penny Rowley 286/1660 Mr J Edwards 208/1576 Mr John Downes 290/1663 Norman Price 210/1531 Lynn Cheneler 291/1074 Mr & Mrs J Maddocks 211/1534 Mr & Mrs Harber 295/1670 Mark Williams 213/1537 Gordon Cheneler 296/1674 M G Parsonage 215/1541 C M Pointer 297/1677 Mr & Mrs B M Tipping 217/1542 R V Smith 298/1678 C M Parsonage 220/1546 Michael Powell 300/1475 David John Smith 221/1549 C F Ellis 303/1471 Michael R Pickering 225/1555 Mr A G Glover 305/1465 Phillip Bennion CC 229/1563 Mr W & A Flynn 309/1451 Mr F Wolverstan 231/1565 Christopher Poulton 310/1323 Andrew Gilman 233/1569 Mr G J Arblaster 311/1320 Richard Kingstone 235/1572 Anna Shotton 313/1216 Malcolm Davies 237/1579 A D Levell 415/1000 Coton Green Primary School 238/1582 David John Garratt 424/1716 Russell & Gillian Morris 239/1585 Mrs A Garratt

Key Issues: a) Whether the allocation is necessary; b) Whether development here would have serious effects on views northwards from Coton Lane, from footpaths and from the canal towpath; c) Whether it would set a precedent for further development on the north side of Coton Lane, possibly spreading into Lichfield District;

85 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

d) Would floodplain be affected? e) Would the development encourage HGVs to use the A51 through Hopwas? f) Would the highway capacity of Coton Lane be adequate to take the additional traffic? Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.6.1. To my mind, the key issue here is ‘need’. This site was included in the Plan at Revised Deposit stage to compensate for a reduction in the employment land available in Anker Valley. That reduction followed investigations of floodplain capacity and related matters. I refer to comments made under the heading of Paragraph 5.6. Coton Lane would be a ‘good quality employment site’ in RSS PA6 terms, i.e. the same as Anker Valley. At the inquiry the council fairly acknowledged that it was ‘second choice’ for this purpose. If there were a clear need for the site, either to ensure conformity with the SP, or to provide, in practice, sufficient range and choice of sites, there would be serious points to be made in its favour. Those points would include the proximity of an existing industrial estate and the relatively easy access to the strategic highway network. However, having regard particularly to the data on employment land take-up rates, I am sceptical about whether the site will be needed in this plan period. If it were deleted there would still be a sufficient supply overall, and also sufficient employment land in this ‘category’. If this site were deleted, and even taking account of my recommendations on other employment sites, I am satisfied that, on reasonable analysis, the local plan would still be in general conformity with the SP. 5.6.2. In the light of my comments in the previous paragraph of this report the various ‘environmental’ and highway objections can be reviewed very briefly. There is already some development on the north side of Coton Lane. Development of this site would substantially extend the amount of ‘urbanisation’ in this location. However, having viewed the site from various positions, I consider that the likely visual impact may have been over-stated by some commentators. Clearly, most people would prefer to see open countryside rather than an industrial estate. Yet, the quality of the land, in landscape terms, that would be used, is not high in my judgement. Furthermore, I consider the site would be just far enough from Hopwas Woods and the canal towpath to prevent serious impact on the amenity of those attractive features, assuming that detailed design, landscaping, etc were satisfactory. I attach little weight to the ‘precedent point’. If land further north, in Lichfield, were not allocated for industrial development in a development plan I see no reason why it should be granted planning permission, assuming other planning policies were against such an outcome. Only a little of the site is in the floodplain, according to the latest information. 5.6.3. The highway authority evidence was that the capacity of Coton Lane is adequate. Some HGV drivers might be tempted to travel via Hopwas, but the extent to which that became a serious problem would rest largely on the question of enforcement of existing restrictions 5.6.4. To summarise: the disadvantages of the site are not so overwhelming that it could never properly be allocated for employment use. However, the site

86 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

is not needed in this plan period. That being the case, the allocation should be deleted. Recommendations: 5.6.5. I recommend that: • In Policy EMP2, allocation g) (Land off Coton Lane) should be deleted. The Proposals Map (see Map 24 in the Revised Deposit draft) should be correspondingly modified to allow for this deletion. The site should be restored to the ‘Green Space/Open Space Network’ (subject to any decisions the council may make in response to the Open Space study). • The Plan should not be modified as proposed in PIC4 (in so far as PIC4 relates specifically to an addition to the Coton Lane site); the Plan should not be modified in accordance with PIC6.

5.7. EMP2[g] (PIC4): Provision of Employment Land - Land off Coton Lane

Objections: 105/2201 Wiggington & Hopwas Parish 509/2057 J Joyner Council 155/2122 Mr C Williams 510/2058 K Wainman 166/2215 The Environment Agency 511/2059 Colin & Lucy Bean 208/2005 Mr J Downes 512/2060 C Hartless 219/2008 Mr H Brookes 513/2061 A Mann 237/2179 A D Levell 514/2062 J Thompson 300/2073 Mr D Smith 515/2063 J Champion 311/2158 Mr R Kingstone 516/2064 Mrs J Smith 322/2013 Andrew & Dawn Vaughan 517/2065 W Collett 327/2092 Mr P Conboy 518/2066 John Johnson 331/2146 Mrs J Mearns 519/2067 S Shepherd 335/2117 Mrs H Baldwin 520/2068 F & B D Feneley 368/2089 A C Hester 521/2069 D E Blake 370/2147 Ms P Brown 522/2070 Mrs J Blake 372/2160 Mrs V Bloxham 523/2071 T Stockton 392/2084 Mr T Waugh 524/2072 M Scott 394/2159 Mr F Bloxham 525/2074 M L Pilling 408/2090 Mr K Lomas 526/2075 J Serrage

87 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

425/2164 Jennifer Hayes 527/2076 S B Serrage 426/2165 Mrs S Howell 528/2077 J Dann 427/2039 Mr & Mrs Pitchford 529/2078 Daniel James Smith 428/2166 David Bond 530/2079 A Stockton 429/2167 Mrs S Kesterton 531/2080 Kristian Waterhouse 430/2168 Mr A Bunce 532/2118 Craig McGregor 431/2169 Mr J Downing 532/2081 Craig McGregor 432/2170 Keyleigh Young 533/2082 Lindsey Smith 433/2171 Wayne Bassford 534/2083 C M McGregor 434/2172 Paul A Young 535/2085 J N Pilling 435/2173 H P Young 536/2086 Mrs K Adcock 436/2174 Mr R D Norton 537/2087 A Winfield 437/2006 Mrs McGinnigle 538/2088 L J Thompson 438/2175 Mr H K Davis 539/2091 Ruth Drake-Chapman 439/2176 Mrs Prudence& Mr Price 540/2093 Mrs P Waugh 440/2178 Mr & Mrs Garrison 541/2094 P J Plater 441/2180 Mrs S Nerney 542/2095 W H Plater 442/2181 Philip Mortimer 543/2096 G M Robinson 443/2182 Mrs P E Cliffe 544/2097 John Gilbert 444/2183 Mr & Mrs Jenkins 545/2098 J A Cobbold 445/2184 Roy K Leese 546/2099 J E Cobbold 446/2185 Mr K Williams 547/2100 A Hollyoake 447/2186 Linda Thornley 548/2101 Mr Philip Wilkins 448/2187 Tina Larvin 549/2104 E Johnson 449/2188 Julie Bell 550/2105 S P Johnson 450/2189 Mrs M Homer 551/2106 J H Beale 451/2191 Mr W R Roe 552/2107 H M Johnson 452/2192 Rebecca Jenkinson 553/2108 H Johnson 453/2193 Amar & Helen Rajput 554/2109 D E Jones 454/2194 Mr J M Jennings 555/2110 Mr P J Eaton 455/2017 David Lloyd & Sandra Tromans 556/2111 K Eaton 457/2177 W T Kesterton 557/2112 R A Needham 458/2190 Michael Thornley 558/2113 Eileen Needham 463/2004 A Farrington 559/2114 A Carvel 464/2007 P A Smith 560/2115 J Anker

88 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

465/2009 Lisa Graham 561/2116 H Carr 466/2010 M Vaughan 563/2119 S Brady 467/2011 T Vaughan 564/2120 Edward Kinseh 468/2012 Mrs W J McLaughlin 565/2121 M A Jones 469/2014 D Skinner 566/2123 Julie Edwards 470/2015 A Bennett 567/2000 Raymond John Summers 471/2016 Katie Thornley 568/2001 J Longworth 472/2018 J P Cheal 569/2002 C Clarke 473/2019 M Demain 570/2003 Graham G E Talbott 474/2020 A J Dunford 571/2124 G Webb 475/2021 L J Hancock 572/2125 S Trowman 476/2022 C Wheeler 573/2126 P A Benford 477/2023 G Pitchford 574/2127 Daldeed Kalr 478/2024 R D Wright 575/2128 Lajuir Dhillon 479/2025 Jagsit 577/2129 T B Jones 480/2026 P Gozzard 578/2130 T & M Thompson 481/2027 Keith A Cox 579/2131 G Bate 482/2028 M Williamson 580/2132 Linda Lewis 483/2029 J H Winspur 581/2133 D J Burley 484/2030 S J Littlewood 582/2134 Paul Hartman 485/2031 G M Coleman 583/2135 C A Sandford 486/2032 T Franks 584/2136 Leah Sandford 487/2033 P J Sherratt 585/2137 Susan Wood 488/2034 B Vincent 586/2138 Michael Frederick Wheeler 489/2035 P Bevan 587/2139 Mrs H & Mr TL Mears 490/2036 P Hunt 588/2140 Iris Green 491/2037 K Didcote 589/2141 D Morris 492/2038 K Ford 590/2142 I Henderson Morris 493/2041 K Pitchford 591/2143 A J Nally 494/2040 A Thornley & D C Jones 592/2144 V & SW & J Edgar 495/2042 M L Garnell 593/2145 E Andre 496/2043 C Jennings 594/2148 Renu Rajput 497/2044 E & J Foster 595/2149 A E Hicken 498/2045 B J Bradbury 596/2150 P Hicken 499/2046 R Rainsford 597/2151 M A Blood

89 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

5/2053 Mr K Stilgoe 598/2152 J E Blood 500/2047 C Roworth 599/2153 K J Blood 501/2048 P Page 600/2154 Sharon Cope 502/2049 M O Shapland 601/2155 L A Kingstone 503/2050 Mrs P L Roberts 602/2156 J E Harris 504/2051 D Hetherington 603/2157 M Hanslow 505/2052 Sylvia Mandefield 604/2161 M Tieman 506/2054 J Marshall 605/2162 Jagjit Singh 507/2055 R Shiner 606/2163 P Mears 508/2056 J Morris

Key Issues: a) See above, under EMP2 g). Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.7.1. Most of the objections to PIC4 (relating to Coton Lane) were in reality objections to the principle of the Coton Lane allocation (rather than to the small addition to the site proposed in PIC4). The issues raised have been covered under EMP2 g) and there is nothing to add. Recommendations: 5.7.2. I recommend that: • No further modifications (additional to those set out above) are made in response to these objections.

5.8. EMP2[g] (PIC6): Provision of Employment Land - Land off Coton Lane

Objections: 104/2213 Network Rail 456/2102 Philip Horrobin

Key Issues: a) Whether part of the site may be needed on a temporary basis in connection with the ‘four-tracking’ of the West Coast Main Line; b) Whether additional employment land is required. Inspector’s Reasoning:

90 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

5.8.1. In the light of my recommendation to delete the whole of the site, this matter need not be considered further. Recommendations: 5.8.2. I recommend that: • No further modification is made in response to these objections.

5.9. EMP2[h]: Provision of Employment Land - Land off Sandy Way

Objections: 90/1398 Mr K Forest

Key Issues: a) Whether the site would be more suitable for housing. Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.9.1. This is a small site in council ownership. It is a disused car park near to the ‘Phase 1’ Amington industrial estate10, which is also council-owned. 5.9.2. Whether the site were used for housing or for employment purposes would make little difference to the overall ‘land supply’ situation for either category of development. 5.9.3. From what I was told and from what I saw on my site visit, I consider the site could be used for either housing or employment. It is certainly the kind of urban, vacant site that ought to be utilised one way or another. On balance I consider that the current allocation is preferable. That is because (a) the site is adjacent to the Amington industrial estate and this might constrain the extent to which, or the manner in which, it could be used for housing (assuming that the industrial estate itself is redeveloped for B class purposes) and (b) (less importantly) if the site were a separate housing development, access would probably have to be obtained by means of an extension of Brookweed, which is at present a cul-de-sac. I would envisage some objections to that project. Recommendations: 5.9.4. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to this objection.

10 I note, for clarification, that this objection properly relates only to the car park, not to the ‘Phase 1’ industrial estate to the south. I consider the objection on that basis.

91 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

5.10. EMP2[i]: Provision of Employment Land - Dunstall Lane Extension

Objections: 90/1399 Mr K Forest 358/1261 Mrs Glenda Smith 103/1046 Lichfield District Council 358/1318 Mrs Glenda Smith 144/1164 The Trustees of the Estate of Mr 359/1262 J C Knopp J Aucott 253/1570 Mr John Dick 360/1263 Ms Gail Evans 305/1467 Bennion CC 361/1264 Mr Konrad Heywood 308/1459 Mrs Frances Wolverstan 362/1265 Mr & Mrs Edden 309/1452 Mr F Wolverstan 363/1266 Ms Helen Lamb 310/1325 Mr Adrew Gilman 364/1267 Derrick & Jane Gibson 311/1321 Mr R Kingstone 365/1268 Mr Andrew Harwood 312/1214 Ms Lorraine Jackson 366/1269 Ms Maureen Parkes 313/1215 Mr M Davies 367/1270 R W N Deane 314/1217 Mrs D Mattison 368/1271 A C Hester 315/1218 Ms Ruth Garstang 369/1272 Mr & Mrs Smith 316/1219 Mr & Mrs Speck 370/1273 Pauline Brown 317/1220 Ms Denise Titterton 371/1274 Mr Andrew John Hunter 318/1221 Mr Ben Purkis 372/1275 Mrs V Bloxham 319/1222 Ms Clare Purkis 373/1276 Mr James Edgar 320/1223 Robert & Linda Aberdeen 376/1279 Ms Susan Weatherill 321/1224 Simon & Lesley Fox 377/1280 Mr Andrew Edgar 322/1225 Andrew & Dawn Vaughan 378/1281 Mrs M M Slaney 323/1266 Ms Anne Ashton 379/1282 Mr David Danks 324/1227 Andrew Brown 380/1283 Mr Jonathan Dale 325/1228 G & H Carvel 381/1284 Mr & Mrs Mogg 326/1229 Chris Payne & Helen Phillips 382/1285 Mrs Valerie Edgar 327/1230 Mr Peter Conboy 383/1286 W Sadler 328/1231 Mrs J A Kirk 384/1287 Mr & Mrs Robinson 329/1232 Mr I B McLaughlin 385/1288 Mr Darren Lees 330/1233 Mr D Swift 386/1289 Mr Richard Reilly 331/1234 Mrs J Mearns 387/1290 Mr Ian Tyers 332/1235 J R Biddulph 388/1291 K Kennington – Crowe

92 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

333/1236 Glenn & Sandra Eaton 389/1292 Mr & Mrs Brown 334/1237 Mr P Mearns 390/1293 Ms Ruth Drake-Chapman 335/1238 Mrs H E Baldwin 391/1294 Mr & Mrs Tyers 336/1239 Miss K M Sollis 392/1295 Mr Thomas Waugh 337/1240 Mr K J Sollis 393/1296 Mr & Mrs Dale 339/1242 Ms Jillian Swift 394/1297 Mr F Bloxham 340/1243 Mr & Mrs Carr 395/1298 Mrs Rita Beardsmore 341/1244 Mr A Gilbert 396/1299 Mrs McGregor 342/1245 Mr & Mrs Sadler 397/1300 Ms Helen Murphy 343/1246 Mr & Mrs Taft 398/1302 Mr & Mrs Sandford 345/1248 Mrs M E Salmon 399/1303 Mr David Wimbush 346/1249 Mr John Jackson 400/1304 Mr Philip Gosling 347/1250 Ms Sue Purkis 401/1305 J E & E Goldsmith 348/1251 Mr S P Jones 402/1306 Mrs F E Mander 349/1252 Mr Peter Tyers 403/1307 Mrs Ann C Singleton 350/1253 Mr Peter Barker 404/1308 Mr & Mrs Darrall 351/1254 Mr A M Borman 405/1309 Ms Lavinia Langford 352/1255 Mrs Joan Nield 406/1310 Mrs Rosemary Vanstone 353/1256 Ms Josephine Turton 408/1312 Mr Keith Lomas 354/1257 Mr M H Chesters 409/1313 Peter & Wendy Farrell 355/1258 Mr & Mrs Bott 411/1315 Mr Philip Hall 356/1259 Ms Helen Watson 422/1317 Mr Peter S Smith 357/1260 Mrs J A Marshall 423/1319 Mr Francis John Parkes

Key Issues: a) Whether this allocation should be retained on the grounds of need for additional employment land; b) Whether the land is a ‘natural extension’ of the employment land allocation at Bonehill Road (EMP2c); c) Whether it would be possible to provide a secondary access/emergency access from the north or whether any difficulty that there may be in identifying suitable access arrangements is an insufficient reason for deleting the site; d) Whether there are reasons to delete the site arising from matters such as: use of open countryside; reduction of the ‘buffer’ between Tamworth and Hopwas; loss of wildlife habitats; visual intrusion. Inspector’s Reasoning:

93 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

5.10.1. I refer again to general remarks about employment land supply under the heading of Paragraph 5.6. 5.10.2. On employment land supply grounds, I see no pressing need to allocate this site in this plan period. As a possible site to meet employment land requirements, it is inferior to some other proposed sites simply because of its location in relation to the main built up area of Tamworth. It is a yet further extension north-westwards of the existing and proposed employment land in the general Dunstall Lane/Bonehill Road area. As such, it would be something of an intrusion into the countryside (with open land to north-east and south-west) and would be less suitable than some other sites on ‘sustainability’ grounds (from the point of view of proximity to housing developments). In addition, I accept the council’s argument that there is considerable doubt, at least, as to whether practicable and satisfactory access(es) can be provided. Although suggestions have been made, such as a secondary access from Plantation Lane, I do not believe that studies of these possibilities have been taken far enough to be able to conclude, in principle, that adequate access to the site would be available. In the light of the above I conclude that the council was correct to propose the allocation’s deletion from the Plan. Note that the recommendation for the implementation of PIC5, where that PIC relates to the Green Space/Open Space Network, may be affected by decisions to be made by the council in response to the Open Space Study. Recommendations: 5.10.3. I recommend that: • The Dunstall Lane Extension employment site (EMP2 i) is deleted, in accordance with PIC4 (in so far as it relates to Dunstall Lane) and that the Plan is also modified in accordance with PIC5.

5.11. EMP2[i] (PIC4): Provision of Employment Land - Dunstall Lane Extension

Objections: 138/2214 R E Matthews Ltd.

Key Issues: a) See above, under EMP2 i). Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.11.1. There is nothing further to add to the comments made under EMP2 i). Recommendations: 5.11.2. I recommend that:

94 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

• The plan is modified in accordance with PIC4 (in so far as it relates to Dunstall Lane).

5.12. EMP2[j]: Provision of Employment Land - Bitterscote North

Objections: 106/394 Royal London Asset Management 144/661 The Trustees of the Estate of Mr J Aucott (See also under Policy TCR2) 166/883 The Environment Agency

Key Issues: a) Whether the restriction on the proportion of B8 uses should be removed; (see discussion under Policy EMP2, above); b) Whether the Environment Agency needs to be consulted on any development in this area; c) Whether part of the EMP2 j) allocation (as shown on the plan attached to the objection) should be allocated for retail use instead. Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.12.1. The Environment Agency would be consulted in any event on any applications within the area of this allocation. No amendment to the Policy is needed. 5.12.2. In respect of the Aucott site (proposed for retail use) at Bitterscote North, I consider at this point principally the employment land implications of the project. In this connection, see the general remarks under the heading of Paragraph 5.6. 5.12.3. This site has been allocated for employment use for many years and there has been no firm interest in developing it. That may well be partly because of its proximity to the existing retail parks, which makes it less attractive to those seeking land for Class B employment purposes. If this site were removed from the ‘employment land supply’ that would increase the extent to which there was a shortfall below the SP 120 ha employment land ‘target’. On the other hand, if the site were retained as ‘employment land’, the chance of it being utilised in practice for Class B uses are probably not good. In that connection, and as already noted, RSS policy PA6 C/D has some relevance. If the site were to be used for retail purposes, jobs would be created, albeit not within the Class B sector. Finally, take-up rates for ‘new’ employment land have been low for years and there is no reason to think that will change. If the site were de-allocated, and even allowing for my other recommendations on employment land, there would still be more than adequate land, in reality. There would also be an adequate choice of

95 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

types of site. On balance, I conclude that the site should be removed from the employment land allocation. Recommendations: 5.12.4. I recommend that: • The site referred to in objection 144/661 (about 1.97 ha) should be deleted from the employment land allocation referenced as EMP2 j) (Bitterscote North); • No other modification is made in response to these objections.

5.13. EMP2[k]: Provision of Employment Land - Stonydelph (Retained Land)

Objections: 166/884 The Environment Agency

Key Issues: a) Whether the Environment Agency needs to be consulted on re-development proposals. Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.13.1. The Environment Agency would be consulted as necessary on applications relating to this land. No modification of the Policy is required. Recommendations: 5.13.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to this objection.

5.14. EMP2[l]: Provision of Employment Land - Hedging Lane

Objections: 7/26 Mr R Baxter 117/490 Invotec Circuits

Key Issues: a) Whether the Dosthill by-pass should be built, and a weight restriction order on Dosthill High Street should made, prior to the development of this site;

96 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

b) Whether this site should be ‘de-allocated’ as an employment site. Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.14.1. At the inquiry, evidence was submitted to demonstrate that, largely because of the ground conditions on this former landfill site, there is no reasonable prospect of it being economically viable to develop the land for employment purposes. Quite properly, in my view, the council accepted the evidence and indicated that it would have no objection to a recommendation to ‘de-allocate’ the site. As it is highly improbable that the site can make any contribution to the usable employment land supply in this plan period it should be deleted from the list of employment sites. 5.14.2. It is not necessary to review the points about the Dosthill bypass and the weight restriction order, except to note that the main advantage of these suggested measures would be to reduce the environmental impact of heavy commercial traffic on Dosthill High Street. As the recommendation is to remove the site from the list of employment sites, that recommendation would meet the concern about any long-term increase in HGV traffic, from this particular site, using the High Street. Recommendations: 5.14.3. I recommend that: • The site given the reference EMP2 l) (Hedging Lane) should be deleted from the ‘allocated sites’ listed under Policy EMP2.

5.15. EMP2: Omission Sites

Objections: 106/393 Royal London Asset Management 108/442 Tarmac Limited 120/547 Tarmac Central Ltd

Key Issues: a) Whether consideration should be given to ‘expanding the range of uses/development that will be supported’ at Cardinal Point (employment land at Bitterscote North) or ‘the inclusion of possible additional supporting text in relation to this site’; b) Whether there should be an additional employment site at Hedging Lane (adjacent to EMP2 l) amounting to around 1.7 ha. Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.15.1. The objection does not propose any particular, different use for the part of the Cardinal Point land which is referred to, so that possibility cannot be taken further here. (Note however the recommendation elsewhere in the

97 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

Report about relaxing the limitation on the proportion of B8 uses.) Similarly it is unclear, from this objection, exactly what alterations to the supporting text are envisaged. In any event I see little advantage in expanded supporting text, under the general heading of EMP2, but relating only to this part of the Bitterscote North land. 5.15.2. In relation to the proposed additional employment site at Wilnecote reference should be made to the general discussion under Paragraph 5.6 and to the relevant comments relating to this site under the heading of ENV2. There is little to add. I note the comments about the ‘illogicality’ of the Green Belt boundary in this vicinity, and also the remarks about the continuing popularity of the area for industrial/employment development. As already indicated, I see no ‘practical need’ to provide in Tamworth (for this plan period) the full 120 ha mentioned in the Structure Plan. It is unlikely that it would all be used. Without this proposed site there would still be adequate ‘range and choice’. I do not therefore see any real advantage in adding this site to the ‘portfolio’. There is not an ‘exceptional’ situation here that would justify an alteration of Green Belt boundaries. 5.15.3. On a subsidiary point, it is not necessary to state in the Plan the ‘category’ into which each allocated employment site is thought to fall. Recommendations: 5.15.4. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

5.16. Paragraph 5.13

Objections: 90/1400 Mr K Forest

Key Issues: a) Should the additional text (added at Revised Deposit stage) be deleted because it is contrary to the general policies and principles of the Plan? Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.16.1. The additional text is acceptable. It states that floodplain re-modelling will be required, which is evidently the case. It refers to consultation with the Environment Agency, which is what would be appropriate. Floodplain remodelling, in itself, is not necessarily in conflict with ‘general policies and principles’, provided of course that the particular scheme is properly designed. Recommendations: 5.16.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to this objection.

98 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

5.17. Paragraph 5.15

Objections: 115/480 Smith Brothers (Tamworth) Ltd (R2ndDep NFC)

Recommendations: 5.17.1. I recommend that: • No further modification is made in response to this objection.

5.18. EMP3: Uses within Established Employment Areas

Objections: 106/396 Royal London Asset Management 135/617 Redbourn Group PLC 149/689 RPS Plc 150/7 Alfred McAlpine Special Projects

Key Issues: a) Whether the extent of the ‘Established Employment Areas’ should be shown on the Proposals Map; b) Whether Policies EMP2 and EMP3 are unnecessarily restrictive in prohibiting uses other than those in Class B2, B2 and B8; c) Whether the limit on the proportion of B8 uses should be removed or modified; (see under Policy EMP2, above). Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.18.1. How much information should be included on the Proposals Map is a matter of judgement. As far as the Established Employment Areas are concerned, given that (a) they are listed in the Plan, and (b), because they are ‘established’, they can generally be readily identified ‘on the ground’, it is not essential that they be added to the Proposals Map. I add here that as this Proposals Map is ‘monochrome’ rather than coloured, there is a limit to the number of different ‘designations’ that can conveniently be added to it without the risk of confusion. On balance I conclude that the Established Employment Areas should not be shown on the Proposals Map.

99 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

5.18.2. I agree that some land uses, which do not fall within Class B, generate worthwhile employment opportunities. One example is use for retail purposes. That said, I do not accept that the key employment policies in the Plan should be entirely ‘open – ended’ as far as the nature of the ‘employment-generating use’ is concerned. That is mainly for two reasons. (a) If there were no controls at all on the nature of the employment- generating uses there would be a risk that on some sites the hope or possibility of ‘higher-value’ uses (that do nevertheless generate jobs) would inhibit development for B class uses. It is important that the full-range of employment opportunities, especially within Class B, is maintained. (b) With particular reference to EMP2, the allocations have been made in the course of implementation of SP Policy E1, which states that employment land is for industrial, office, warehousing and distribution purposes; (see Policy EMP1). Recommendations: 5.18.3. I recommend that: • No further modification is made in response to these objections.

5.19. EMP5: Change of Use of Employment Areas

Objections: 99/328 Bloor Homes 100/346 David Wilson Homes 106/397 Royal London Asset Management 115/481 Smith Brothers (Tamworth) Ltd 119/537 West Midlands Regional RSL Planning Consortium 126/573 Morston Group 130/590 Sam Phire Properties Ltd 135/618 Redbourn Group PLC 139/634 Marks & Spencer PLC 141/640 British Telecommunications PLC 144/662 The Trustees of the Estate of Mr J Aucott 149/687 RPS Plc 150/8 Alfred McAlpine Special Projects 161/832 The House Builders Federation

Key Issues: a) Whether the Proposals Map needs amending to identify the areas referred to;

100 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

b) Whether the Policy should cover proposed as well as existing employment areas; c) Whether the Policy is ambiguous; do all the criteria have to be met? d) Is it too rigid? Should there be more flexibility in the criteria? Should there be an exception for housing, especially affordable housing? Has enough attention been paid to PPG3 paragraph 42? Should other uses be permitted provided that they are ‘beneficial’? e) Is the Policy inconsistent with the allocation of the Tame Valley Alloys site for housing? f) Should special provision be made for the Tame Valley Shopping Area? Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.19.1. The question of the Proposals Map has already been reviewed, under EMP3 above. 5.19.2. There is some uncertainty, which is reflected in the representations that have been made, as to whether the Policy is intended to apply only to the ‘established employment areas’ (see Paragraph 5.15) or whether it is intended to apply also to land identified in Policy EMP2. The reasoned justification (Paragraph 5.20) indicates that the Policy is intended to apply only to ‘established employment areas’. Yet that phrase (‘established employment areas’) does not appear in the Policy itself which uses the phrase ‘land identified for employment use’ which could cover ‘allocated sites’ as well. As previously discussed, Policy EMP2 already limits the purposes for which the ‘development’ of those new allocated sites can take place. However some ambiguity remains in the plan about whether these currently allocated ‘new’ sites could, subsequent to the initial development, be re-developed for some other non-B Class purpose. In principle, if there is to be a Policy controlling the re-use of ‘employment land’, it should apply to the land mentioned in EMP2, as well as to the ‘established employment areas’. 5.19.3. As mentioned above, I see good reason to control the use of employment land, in the interest of maintaining a wide-range of employment opportunities for the local population. There would be little point in identifying ‘employment land’ if that land could then be used without restriction for any ‘beneficial purpose’ or even for any ‘employment generating purpose’. There is support for that broad approach in SP Policy E8. 5.19.4. All the same, as the SP itself seems to acknowledge, instances can arise where continuing retention of an ‘employment site’ serves little purpose, because for example: (a) it is very unlikely to be re-developed for employment purposes and (b) there is an opportunity to use it for some other worthwhile purpose, such as housing. Presumably this is the thinking behind PPG3 paragraph 42. 5.19.5. The criteria in Policy EMP5 are cumulative, so all of them have to be met for the Policy to be complied with. So some objectors may not be correct to assume that their concerns could be met merely by the addition of an extra criterion. As the criteria stand, they are, in total, quite restrictive. There would be few cases where on a strict interpretation they would all be met. That applies especially to criteria i) and ii). Criterion i) might be difficult to apply in the case of a disused brownfield ‘employment site’.

101 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

5.19.6. The most important point is contained in criterion iii). If there is convincing evidence that (a) the site (if not currently in active use) is unlikely to be re- used or re-developed for employment purposes in the foreseeable future or (b) if it is in current use the change of use will not materially reduce the range and choice of employment land or local job opportunities, it would be reasonable to let an alternative development take place. That of course is subject to compliance with other Plan policies. In the light of all the above I recommend an alternative wording for the Policy. Some consequential modification of the explanatory text will be required. 5.19.7. As the council explains, the Tame Valley Alloys site is now an allocated housing site. There is no contradiction between this allocation, as a part of the local plan process, and Policy EMP5. 5.19.8. Within the Tame Valley Industrial Estate there are some retail uses; (see representations 126/571-3). Whilst I accept that these outlets may be popular, I consider that expansion or consolidation of the ‘retail area’ there should not be endorsed or encouraged. In coming to that view, I have had regard to government policy in PPS6, with its strong emphasis on supporting defined town centres. I conclude that the ‘retail area’ at Tame Valley should not be designated a ‘Secondary Shopping Policy Area’. Recommendations: 5.19.9. I recommend that: • Policy EMP5 (Change of Use of Employment Areas) should be reworded as follows: ‘Planning permission will not be granted for the change of use or redevelopment, for any purpose that is not an employment use, of any land within the established employment areas, or of any land identified in Policy EMP2 that has been developed for an employment use, unless all the following criteria are met. i) If the land is not currently in active use, there is convincing evidence that it is unlikely that it could be re-used for employment uses in the foreseeable future; ii) there is convincing evidence that the proposed new use would not result in any significant reduction in either the range and choice of employment land or in local employment opportunities; iii) other relevant Plan policies are complied with.’ • There should be a consequential modification to Paragraph 5.20, so that it reads: ‘This policy will ensure that land identified for employment use will be retained for that purpose, unless it is clear that its use for another purpose will not prejudice the objectives of the Policies in this Chapter of the Plan, and that other Plan policies will be complied with.’ • No other modification is made in response to these objections.

102 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

5.20. EMP6: Retail Use of Employment Areas

Objections: 106/398 Royal London Asset Management 126/574 Morston Group (see under Policy EMP5, above) 135/619 Redbourn Group PLC 139/633 Marks & Spencer PLC 144/663 The Trustees of the Estate of Mr J Aucott 149/688 RPS Plc 150/9 Alfred McAlpine Special Projects

Key Issues: a) Whether the Policy is unnecessary as it either duplicates or contradicts Policy EMP5; b) Whether it is too inflexible in its approach to retail uses. Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.20.1. Objectors see this Policy as putting extra restrictions on retail use of employment land, going beyond those restrictions contained in Policy EMP5. The council on the other hand explains in its representations that it sees the ‘purpose of Policy EMP6’ as being to recognise that some manufacturing uses require showroom facilities in order to promote and distribute their goods. 5.20.2. On the face of it, this Policy would prevent any ‘primary’ retail use on employment land, even if all other Policies, including Policy EMP5, were complied with. As I understand the position, that is not the council’s primary objective, which is to facilitate limited ancillary retail development. In that connection, it seems to me that if the ‘retail development’ on employment land were genuinely ancillary to the primary employment use, no planning permission for the ancillary use would be required.11 5.20.3. The way forward here is to delete the Policy altogether, and leave proposals for primary retail use of employment land to be considered against the other Policies of the plan, including EMP5 and those in Chapter 7 (Town Centre and Retailing). Paragraph 5.22 can also be deleted. However, Paragraph 5.23 can be retained in slightly modified form to cover the council’s concern about ancillary showrooms. Recommendations: 5.20.4. I recommend that: • Policy EMP6 and Paragraph 5.22 are deleted. The words ‘Justification of Policy’ before Paragraph 5.22 will also need deleting.

11 Obviously, that is subject to the terms of any relevant planning permission, and planning permission might be needed for any necessary building works.

103 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

• Paragraph 5.23 is retained, as part of the reasoned justification for Policy EMP5, but slightly modified to read: ‘It is recognised however that some manufacturing and warehousing uses require ancillary showroom facilities in order to promote and distribute their goods. Applications for such, strictly ancillary, facilities will be considered on their merits.’

5.21. Paragraph 5.22

Objections: 106/399 Royal London Asset Management 149/691 RPS Plc

Key Issues: a) Whether the summary of government policy in this Paragraph is incorrect. Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.21.1. I have recommended, above, that this Paragraph is deleted, so the matter need be taken no further. Recommendations: 5.21.2. I recommend that: • No further modification is made in response to these objections.

5.22. Paragraph 5.23

Objections: 106/400 Royal London Asset Management (see under Paragraph 5.22,above) Recommendations: 5.22.1. I recommend that: • No further modification is made in response to this objection.

104 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

5.23. EMP7: Relocation of Existing Industrial Uses

Objections: 115/482 Smith Brothers (Tamworth) Ltd

Key Issues: a) Whether the Policy extends to financial help in relocating inappropriately sited businesses. Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.23.1. The Policy has been deleted and the material incorporated in supporting text. I do not think the Paragraph as it now is commits the council to any particular form of assistance. Recommendations: 5.23.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to this objection.

5.24. EMP8: Controlling the Risk of Pollution

Objections: 112/457 Health & Safety Executive (R2ndDep NFC)

Recommendations: 5.24.1. I recommend that: • No further modification is made in response to this objection.

5.25. Paragraph 5.30b

Objections: 90/1402 Mr K Forest

Key Issues: a) Whether the Paragraph includes incorrect figures, is based on out-of-date data, and fails to include a reference to the source of the material.

105 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.25.1. The council acknowledged some errors in this Paragraph. By SC24 it is proposed to delete the Paragraph altogether. The omission would not materially diminish the usefulness of this chapter of the Plan, and so should be accepted. Recommendations: 5.25.2. I recommend that: • Paragraph 5.30b is deleted, in accordance with SC24.

5.26. EMP9: Employment Training

Objections: 151/703 George Wimpey UK Ltd 161/834 The House Builders Federation

Key Issues: a) Whether this Policy is in accordance with government guidance; b) Whether the application of the Policy should be better defined. Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.26.1. Policies on planning obligations should conform to government guidance12. Obligations should be relevant to planning, necessary, directly related to the proposed development, fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development, and reasonable in all other respects. 5.26.2. The reasons why the council has included the Policy are set out in the Reasoned Justification, Paragraphs 5.31-32. The objectives are perfectly understandable. They include: (a) making sure local people have the appropriate skills to contribute to the ‘labour pool’; (b) ‘targeting suitable employment opportunities to serve areas of deprivation and social exclusion to ensure equality of access to employment opportunities’; (c) contributing to the relief of social exclusion and improving chances of local unemployed persons finding work. 5.26.3. I am very doubtful whether contributing to the achieving of these objectives (by financing training, etc) would usually be ‘necessary’ in land-use terms to enable developments to go ahead. 5.26.4. One circumstance in which financing training might appropriately be the subject of a planning obligation is when a large employer has a long-term need for employees with particular skills, who are not available locally. Training local people to acquire those skills could reduce the need to draw

12 Now in Circular 05/2005.

106 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

employees from a wider catchment area, and so make the development acceptable in ‘sustainability terms’. The Policy as drafted goes far beyond that situation. Indeed, it refers merely to ‘new development’ although that presumably is meant to mean ‘major employment developments’, as mentioned in Paragraph 5.32. The council refers to CD92. That document does not resolve the doubts raised by this Policy. It implies that the expectation is that all ‘commercial floor space’ developments above 100 square metres will contribute. 5.26.5. I conclude that the Policy and most of the Reasoned Justification should be deleted. However, it would be appropriate to include a brief note under the existing heading of ‘Employment Training’ drawing attention to the possibility that for some developments to be acceptable in terms of ‘sustainability’ a contribution towards employment training may be necessary, and may be sought by the council. Recommendations: 5.26.6. I recommend that: • Policy EMP9, the words ‘Justification of Policy’, the text of Paragraph 5.31, and Paragraph 5.32, should be deleted. • New text for Paragraph 5.31 should read: ‘Some large employment developments may have a known need for employees with particular skills, who are not available locally in sufficient numbers. In those circumstances, in order to reduce the longer-term environmental impact of the development, by controlling the need for long-distance commuting of employees, it might be appropriate for the council to seek, and the developer to provide, a contribution towards training local people.’

5.27. Paragraph 5.32

Objections: 95/1728 Advantage West Midlands (See under Policy EMP9, above)

Recommendations: 5.27.1. I recommend that: • No further modification is made in response to this objection.

5.28. EMP10: Working from Home

Objections:

107 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

161/835 The House Builders Federation (R2ndDep NFC)

Recommendations: 5.28.1. I recommend that: • No further modification is made in response to this objection.

5.29. EMP11: Telecommunications Masts

Objections: 141/641 British Telecommunications PLC 152/304 One 2 One Personal Communications Ltd 97/287 Government Office for the West Midlands (R2ndDep NFC) 128/576 Orange PCS Ltd 122/522 Vodaphone Ltd 419/1125 Mobile Operators Association (MOA) 141/1099 British Telecommunications PLC

Key Issues: a) Whether the third and fourth criteria of the Policy (in the Revised Deposit Plan) are inappropriate or go beyond the advice in PPG8; b) Whether the reference to mast sharing is superfluous as it is already mentioned in PPG8; c) Whether the words ‘where appropriate’ or ‘where appropriate and subject to technical requirements’ should be added after the list of criteria; d) Whether there should be an extra criterion referring to health concerns and ICNIRP compliance; e) Whether the third criterion duplicates the first criterion. Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.29.1. The Policy, as originally set out in the First Deposit Plan, was substantially re-written for the Revised Deposit draft. Some of the objections to the First Deposit version were wholly or partly met by the wording of the Revised Deposit draft. 5.29.2. The objection to the third criterion is, essentially, that on one interpretation it might require ‘expensive and unnecessary design solutions’ in low- amenity areas such as industrial estates. In my view, the criterion is necessary in order to emphasise the importance of checking all alternative means of providing the service in question, with the aim of identifying the most environmentally acceptable. If a mast is proposed in a ‘low-amenity

108 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

area’, it is still appropriate to seek to minimise additional, adverse environmental impact. The objector’s concerns would be met by a minor adjustment to the wording: namely the addition of the word ‘materially’ before ‘less’. That should help to ensure that the context (such as the quality of the surrounding area) in relation to which the proposal is made is taken into account when judging whether the solution proposed is acceptable. 5.29.3. I am doubtful whether an applicant can effectively take into account future demands of all other operators. The reference to other operators in the fourth criterion can be omitted. 5.29.4. According to PPG8 it is ‘the Government’s firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards’. I do not think it is necessary to include in the Policy any material relating to ICNIRP compliance. 5.29.5. On the other hand, consideration of mast and site sharing is an important aspect of the process of identifying the correct ‘solution’ in planning terms, and should remain a part of the Policy. Recommendations: 5.29.6. I recommend that: • In EMP11 the word ‘materially’ is inserted before the word ‘less’ in the third criterion; • In the fourth criterion, the words ‘.. including that of other operators..’ should be deleted.

5.30. Paragraph 5.37a

Objections: 419/1126 Mobile Operators Association (MOA)

Key Issues: a) Whether the third sentence is ‘too emotive’. Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.30.1. The sentence is a statement of what is the current position in many communities. It does not commit the council to agreement with any particular viewpoint. It can remain. Recommendations: 5.30.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to this objection.

109 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

5.31. Paragraph 5.37b

Objections: 419/1127 Mobile Operators Association (MOA)

Key Issues: a) Whether there is inappropriately emotive language. Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.31.1. The point is adequately met by the council’s SC25. Recommendations: 5.31.2. I recommend that: • Paragraph 5.37b is modified in accordance with SC25.

5.32. Paragraph 5.37c

Objections: 419/1128 Mobile Operators Association (MOA)

Key Issues: a) Whether it is unreasonable to expect ‘coverage plots’ for alternative sites in the case of all applications. Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.32.1. The point raised is adequately resolved by the council’s SC26. Recommendations: 5.32.2. I recommend that: • Paragraph 5.37c is modified in accordance with SC26.

5.33. Paragraph 5.37d

Objections: 109/1751 English Heritage

110 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

419/1129 Mobile Operators Association (MOA)

Key Issues: a) Whether the words ‘and their settings’ should be added; b) Whether the Paragraph is unduly negative. Inspector’s Reasoning: 5.33.1. This Paragraph does not say that apparatus cannot be installed on listed buildings, etc. It says that permission will not be granted for development which would be harmful to their special character. That is not unreasonable. A reference to ‘settings’ in respect of listed buildings and ancient monuments would be reasonable, but the ‘setting’ of conservation areas need not be given the same protection. (I do not therefore accept SC27.) Recommendations: 5.33.2. I recommend that: • Paragraph 5.37d should be modified to read: ‘Planning permission will not be granted for the installation of telecommunications apparatus which would be harmful to the special character of listed buildings and ancient monuments (or their settings) or to the special character of conservation areas’.

5.34. Omissions

Objections: 116/489 Tamworth Football Club (see also under Policy ENV14A) 142/647 Compass Roadside Limited 144/1167 The Trustees of the Estate of Mr J Aucott 153/1032 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

Key Issues: a) Whether a site should be allocated for the relocation of Tamworth Football Club at Bonehill Road; b) Whether land known as Relay Park should be designated for ‘employment and MSA use’; c) Whether there is an error on the Proposals Map; d) Whether clarification is needed in relation to the notations on Plan 25b. Inspector’s Reasoning:

111 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

5.34.1. As I understand the position (a) it is not clear that the club will relocate within the plan period and (b) as yet, not all potential sites (including the present football ground) have been fully assessed to find the most suitable one. That being the case, the criteria-based policy (ENV14A) is quite appropriate, and it would be premature to allocate a specific site. 5.34.2. As ‘Relay Park’ is an ‘established Employment Area’ (see Paragraph 5.15) there is no need for a special Policy to deal with its use. 5.34.3. The council acknowledges that ‘EMP2d’ on the Proposals Map should read ‘EMP2j’ (see the written statement). The council will no doubt make the necessary correction; no formal recommendation need be made. 5.34.4. In essence, Map 25b sets out the consequences of the repositioning of the Anker Valley employment land, following the receipt of more detailed information about the floodplain. The Map is adequately clear for this purpose. Recommendations: 5.34.5. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

112 Chapter 5: Employment

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

Chapter 6: Housing

6.1. Paragraph 6.3

Objections: 119/538 West Midlands Regional RSL Planning Consortium

Key Issues: a) Whether in the third ‘key housing objective’ there should be a reference to an up-to- date Housing Needs Survey. Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.1.1. An up-to-date and reliable housing needs survey is an important means of ensuring that ‘housing is available to meet the specific housing needs of the local community’. However the question of a housing needs survey is dealt with in Paragraph 6.26 of the Plan. It is unnecessary to mention it in the list of housing objectives. Recommendations: 6.1.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to this objection.

6.2. HSG1: Provision of Housing

Objections: 21/55 Mr N O’Connor 66/1144 STW Branch Labour Party 89/196 Mr R Lancaster 90/1407 Mr K Forest 90/1407 Mr K Forest 96/253 Staffordshire County Council 97/289 GOWM 99/329 Bloor Homes 103/385 Lichfield District Council 103/1041 Lichfield District Council

113 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

107/435 Campaign to Protect Rural England 113/519 William Davis Limited 113/1115 William Davis Limited 113/1117 William Davis Limited 119/539 West Midlands Regional RSL Planning Consortium 125/568 Taylor Woodrow 125/1725 Taylor Woodrow 131/599 Mr & Mrs Butler 132/605 Mr D.W. Pyke (See also under HSG2) 151/704 George Wimpey UK Ltd 153/758 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 158/906 Mark Hambly 161/836 The House Builders Federation 161/1203 The House Builders Federation 161/1204 The House Builders Federation 421/1194 R G Clarke 421/1199 R G Clarke

Key Issues: a) Flexibility allowances; windfalls (greatly under-estimated in the light of historical trends, or exaggerated?); sufficiency of allocations to meet SP ‘requirement’; 5 and 10 year housing land supply; densities; appropriateness of Structure Plan figure; b) Should affordable housing be dealt with in this Policy? c) Is the Urban Capacity Study adequate? d) Should houses for Tamworth people be built on brownfield sites outside the district? e) Should the council invest in a new football stadium rather than in new housing? Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.2.1. Preliminary – Anker Valley It is convenient to begin by considering whether the Anker Valley urban extension site should be deleted from the Plan, as a matter of principle. That consideration will refer mainly to housing issues, although it must be borne in mind that the proposed development site includes a large employment allocation; (see Chapter 5 of this report). 6.2.2. Put very briefly, the statutory and procedural background is as follows. This local plan is being progressed under the ‘transitional provisions’ set out in Schedule 8 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Sections 36(4) and 43(3) of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act (local

114 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

plan to be in general conformity with the structure plan) continue to apply13. The procedural regulations are the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) (England) Regulations 1999. The current Structure Plan (SP) was drafted to cover the period 1996-2011, although it will cease to have effect after the expiry of 3 years from the coming into force of Section 38 of the 2004 Act (unless the Secretary of State directs otherwise). 6.2.3. The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) is now a part of the development plan. Section 38(5) of the 2004 Act provides that ‘if to any extent a policy contained in a development plan for an area conflicts with another policy in the development plan the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy which is contained in the last document to be adopted, approved or published…’. Regional Planning Guidance 11 (West Midlands) is dated June 2004, and became the RSS from 28 September 2004. 6.2.4. I interpret these provisions as having these consequences. (a) This local plan must be in general conformity with the current SP. (b) If there is a conflict between a SP policy and a RSS policy, the latter policy shall prevail. (c) When deciding if the local plan is in general conformity with the SP, a SP policy should be ‘set aside’ if, but only in so far as, it is in conflict with a RSS policy.14 6.2.5. It follows that the initial focus has to be on the relationship between the deposit draft LP, the SP and the RSS. I begin with the SP. The local plan Anker Valley allocation arises from two linked aspects of SP policy, both contained in Policy H1, and explained in the reasoned justification, especially paragraphs 7.33-34. These are (a) the requirement to provide sufficient land to enable 5000 dwellings to be completed 1996-2011 and (b) the indication that some of that land should be in the Anker Valley. 6.2.6. I consider the question of housing numbers and housing land supply further, below. At this point I note my conclusion that, on the weight of the evidence given to me, it is unlikely that, if Anker Valley were deleted, 5000 houses would be completed by 2011. It is not apparent that sufficient genuinely-suitable, alternative sites are available. Furthermore, the shortfall in housing land would be significant. Therefore, at this stage in the discussion, it appears that the Anker Valley project is necessary to achieve general conformity with the SP. 6.2.7. I turn to the RSS. The RSS (and previous to that RPG11) was available well before the start of the inquiry, and all parties had ample opportunity to take it into account in making their representations. I consider first the extent of the conflict between the RSS and the SP. 6.2.8. As was noted in various submissions to the inquiry, the RSS represents a major shift in policy on location of housing in the West Midlands. It seeks to re-direct investment and development to the Major Urban Areas, and allow (relatively) less in the other areas (including south Staffordshire). Policies

13 I have not been notified of any direction made by the Secretary of State under paragraph 11 of Schedule 8 of the 2004 Act. 14 I am aware of a possible alternative argument that, in the absence of a direction under paragraph 11 of Schedule 8, the local plan should conform to the SP as adopted, and as it stands. However, if that is correct (and the approach I have adopted above is wrong) that would reinforce, not weaken, my conclusions on this topic.

115 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

CF1-3, and Table 1 are relevant here. However, the shift in emphasis (what was called the ‘step-change’) is not intended to take place instantly. The shift is envisaged as taking place over a period, with the greatest change for Staffordshire taking place after 2011. The professional evidence at the inquiry from the council, the county council and various objectors was clear: as far as Staffordshire is concerned there is only a small difference between the number of houses ‘required’ by the SP during the SP period, and the number that is provided for by the RSS, in the period to 2011.15 That is potentially a significant point. It is true that the RSS (unlike the SP) does not provide figures at district level. However, on the assumption that for the period up to 2011 (and unless and until other guidance is issued) existing SP proportions should be maintained16, it would appear that RSS policy (simply on housing numbers up to 2011) does not obviously conflict with what the SP policy requires in Tamworth. I add this extra point: as a consequence of the RSS, housing figures (as specified in RSS Table 1) outside the MUAs are to be applied as maxima, not minima. 6.2.9. Another way of reviewing the figures is to look at RSS Policy CF2 C, which says that the function of the other large settlements17 ‘should not generally be to accommodate migration from the MUAs’. Paragraph 6.7 puts the matter a slightly different way: ‘outside the MUAs progressively lower levels of housing growth are proposed, so that they ultimately meet local needs…’. Some of the evidence about ‘local housing need’ at the inquiry may have been based on fairly old data. Nevertheless, the county council’s useful contribution to the RTS, and the council’s housing topic paper (CD86) (supplemented by the comments of other parties) gives support to the view that the current SP ‘requirement’ for Tamworth does not exceed, or materially exceed, what is required to meet local demographic need, for Tamworth. I conclude that there is nothing in the RSS which indicates that, on policy grounds, a decision should be made to provide fewer houses within Tamworth district than stated in the SP18. 6.2.10. Although there was some helpful discussion about ‘household projections’ the evidence was not clear-cut, and does not lead to an inevitable conclusion that a figure of 5000 (for Tamworth, for the whole of the period 1996-2011) should be regarded as completely obsolete. 6.2.11. I now look, in a very broad way, at the question of location of housing. It goes without saying that as far as possible (and subject to other needs) it should be provided on brownfield land. CD86 indicates that it was anticipated that around 62% of the 5000 completions would be on brownfield land. Some objectors argued that the council’s urban capacity studies were inadequate, and even more brownfield sites could be identified. Whilst I note what was said, there were remarkably few

15 The RSS does not give housing figures for a period corresponding to the opening years of the SP period, so in the Housing Topic Paper (CD86) paragraphs 3.7-9, use is made of figures in the draft RPG. 16 See the covering letter to the then RPG11. 17 I.e. including Tamworth. 18 I emphasise strongly that I am considering only whether the figure of 5000 houses ‘allocated’ by the SP to be built in Tamworth to meet Tamworth’s needs is compatible with the RSS, and are in accord with government guidance. I make no comment about whether the extra 1000 houses, ‘allocated’ to be built in Lichfield but to meet Tamworth’s needs, are also justified.

116 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

brownfield, housing ‘omission sites’ put forward for the inquiry’s consideration. I have more sympathy for the view, put forward by one objector in particular, that the capacity of sites already identified would prove to be greater than calculated. Even so, on the evidence I was given, it seems unlikely that the SP target could be reached without use of a substantial greenfield site or sites. 6.2.12. The question of where Tamworth’s housing need should be met was considered at length by the Panel carrying out the Examination in Public of the SP. This is not the place to review the merits of their reasoning or their conclusion that Anker Valley was an appropriate location for some of the provision. I note however two points. (a) RSS paragraph 6.13 deals with the sequential approach to identifying housing land and refers to PPG3. Paragraph 30 of the PPG indicates that ‘urban extensions’ are the second choice in the sequence after previously-used land and buildings. (b) In principle, the Anker Valley site offers the opportunity to provide housing with good links (by means other than the private car) to the railway station and town centre, and this is a significant advantage of the site over some other greenfield sites to the south of the town. 6.2.13. Notwithstanding the comments in my previous paragraph, it is appropriate to draw attention to paragraph 3.9 of the RSS, under the heading of ‘Spatial Strategy’. This is not itself a RSS ‘policy’ but clearly informs the policies19. Paragraph 3.9 c) proposes that outside the MUAs housing needs will be satisfied in the sub-regional foci rather than by the peripheral expansion of the other large settlements. There are two additional factors to take into account when relating that paragraph to the Tamworth situation. First, no sub-regional focus is identified in Staffordshire. That being so, it is not entirely clear where housing needs should be satisfied (i.e. as the preferred alternative to ‘peripheral expansion’)20. Second, whilst almost any greenfield site that is not wholly surrounded by urban development might be called ‘peripheral’, one of the attractions of the Anker Valley allocation is the extent to which at least some of it is positioned close to the town centre, rather than attached to the outer edge of the main urban area. 6.2.14. The covering letter to the RPG (now RSS) cautions against ‘… significant, particularly greenfield, allocations which could be inconsistent with the principles of RPG11’. In the light of the discussion above, my conclusion is that the Anker Valley allocation is ‘a significant greenfield allocation’, but not one that is ‘inconsistent with the principles of RPG11’. In coming to that view, I have taken account of CD120 and CD133. 6.2.15. During the inquiry the suggestion was made that the Anker Valley allocation should be removed from the Plan, and that the subject of housing provision in Tamworth should be addressed through the production of a Development Plan Document (DPD), as a part of the Local Development Framework. (That option remains open to the council.) That DPD would be informed by the results of the forthcoming partial review of the RSS. There are attractions in postponing decisions on the housing issue in this way, for example because of the possibility (although it is no more than that at this stage) that the outcome of the partial RSS review could be an agreement

19 See for example Policy CF6. 20 I understand however that work is underway to assess whether Burton on Trent should be a focus.

117 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

that some of Tamworth’s housing needs are met outside Tamworth. However it seems unlikely that the DPD could be adopted before 2008. Meanwhile, as it appears from the council’s assessment, there would be far less than a 5 years supply of housing land. That situation would not easily be reconciled with government guidance about the importance of a retaining an adequate housing land supply. Be that as it may, and in any event, in the light of my conclusion that the relevant policies of the Local Plan and the SP are not inconsistent with the RSS, it would not be correct to recommend this very substantial modification of the plan. On my analysis such a modification (a) is not called-for by the RSS and (b) would result in a local plan not in general conformity with the SP. 6.2.16. My principal reservation about the Anker Valley allocation is based not on policy, but on practicality. The evidence of the promoters of the scheme, (with which the council concurred at the inquiry) was that a crossing of the main railway line could be provided, in time, and that the other necessary infrastructure works could also be provided, in time, in order to ensure that 1300 houses were completed during the plan period. There was relatively little detailed evidence to contradict that point of view.21 Nevertheless, in spite of the council’s and the promoters’ position, I have concerns that delays may arise, possibly because of the need to complete negotiations with the railway authorities, or possibly because of the need to accommodate legitimate environmental concerns when finalising the infrastructure designs. As can be deduced from the review above, the acceptability of the Anker Valley scheme obviously rests partly on the assumption that it will indeed ‘deliver’ by 2011, since after that date the ‘housing numbers equation’ may change significantly.22 On balance, I come to the conclusion that there is a reasonable prospect that the site can be provided in time and that therefore the houses can be built by 2011. So the allocation should (on the basis of a consideration of that issue) remain in the Plan. 6.2.17. Housing Land Supply This section relies substantially, but by no means entirely, on the useful contributions made at the housing land supply RTS, and summarised in the notes of that session. I comment here, shortly, on most of the main points raised, but it has to be said that in many instances the differences between the parties were of small significance in relation to the overall land supply position. For convenience, the comments and figures all relate to the updated ‘housing requirement’ table at page 10 of CD86, which has a base date of 31/3/04. 6.2.18. Completions, committed sites, sites under construction. The figures were not controversial. The rate of completions to date is running some way behind the average annual requirement derived from the SP (333 per annum). So substantial ‘catching-up’ will be required during the remainder of the plan period if the 5000 total is to be reached. On this point the relatively large number of outstanding commitments gives encouragement to the belief that some ‘catching-up’ is likely. One participant queried the

21 There was more evidence about the likely ‘productivity’ of house-building sites at Anker Valley, but that is a slightly different matter. 22 I say ‘may’ because of course the contribution of Tamworth district to total RSS housing numbers after that date is unknown.

118 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

flexibility allowance on commitments, but the council’s data on past trends leads me to think that the allowance is soundly based. 6.2.19. Small Windfall sites and Windfall sites (both on previously developed land). PPG3 says that allowances should be based on ‘examining past trends’ and the ‘likely future potential as assessed in a capacity study’. For small windfalls (less than 10 dwellings or 0.4 ha) the council relied principally on past trends, but the data I was given showed that there had been some ‘rounding-up’ to make 20 p.a. throughout the plan period (total 200). 17 per annum over the 10 years (total 170) would be a safer figure, and would be closer to the experience of very recent years. The ‘allowance figure’ in the table, for this item, covering the contribution over remaining plan years, should be 130 (170-40) not 160. 6.2.20. There was considerable discussion about windfalls (i.e. large windfalls). Some thought that there should be no allowance for these at all, or at most a greatly reduced allowance. The argument was that the UCS should have identified and allocated all genuinely available sites above 0.4 ha. At first sight there is considerable force in this argument. However, it is quite apparent that in practice there has continued to be a substantial contribution to the housing land supply in Tamworth from this source. It would be artificial and potentially misleading to exclude it. The council’s assumption of 40 p.a. over the plan period (total 400) has in any case taken account of a significant ‘reduction’ from the level of historical trends. An allowance should be retained. 6.2.21. An interesting point was raised about potential ‘double-counting’ in that the (substantial) figure for ‘commitments’ in the upper part of the table must include some commitments on windfall sites. Yet the allowance in the lower part of the table is for anticipated windfall completions in the remaining years of the plan. Some of those completions would certainly be on sites already included in the ‘commitments’. The council’s response was twofold. (a) It must be remembered that at the start of the plan period any figure in the table for commitments would necessarily include commitments carried forward from prior to the plan period. (b) The two halves of the table should not be ‘linked’ in the way the question implied. The upper half showed actual, measured progress to date, the lower half simply showed ‘assumptions’ about future supply. I am not satisfied that the council’s explanation entirely meets the logical objection raised. Nevertheless, bearing in mind that the indications are that the windfall allowance will be achieved anyway23, I do not think it necessary to reduce the allowance in the table. Looking at all the information I was given, and remembering the inherent ‘uncertainty’ about this source of supply, I consider the allowance of 400 is acceptable. 6.2.22. Allocations. The main issue was flexibility allowances. There are two principal arguments. On the one hand, it was said that flexibility allowances are not compatible with ‘plan, monitor and manage’. On the other hand, it was said that in practice some allocated sites will be delayed or not come forward and (at the least) some measures should be taken now to deal with that possibility. Furthermore, it was illogical to provide a flexibility allowance on commitments and not on allocations, since commitments were closer to becoming ‘completions’ than were sites that were merely

23 As at 31/3/04 windfall completions were running ahead of the assumed rate of 40 p.a.

119 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

‘allocated’. I consider the latter point is valid. Some allocated sites (or parts of sites) may not come forward, and it would be reasonable to allow for that. Although larger flexibility allowances were advocated by some, I consider 10% would be adequate (i.e. the same as the allowance on commitments). It should be shown in the table as an additional 10% of the ‘uncommitted balance’. However it should be noted that the recommendation of this modest allowance has not led me to conclude that any extra land should be allocated simply to ‘compensate’ for the notional reduction in allocated site capacity. In particular it has not led me to think that there should be any ‘substitute’, peripheral, greenfield allocations at all. I note in passing here (in connection with ‘plan, monitor and manage’) that the method of managing the phased release of housing sites set out in Policies HSG5A and HSG5B may be less effective in the last years of the plan period; i.e. when the ‘Phase 2’ period has already been reached. 6.2.23. The recalculated housing land supply position (as at the base date of 31/3/04) shows a very minor shortfall below the 5000 figure for the whole period 1996-2011. That is quite acceptable, bearing in mind the move towards ‘maxima’ provision outside the MUAs. 6.2.24. Density The council’s calculations are based on the range of densities advised in PPG3. As far as Anker Valley was concerned, I was told that the expected density would be around 37 dph. 6.2.25. Other Matters Related to Sufficiency of Housing Land Supply. PPG3 paragraph 34 says that sufficient sites should be shown on the Proposals Map to accommodate at least the first five years of housing development. It was agreed that the five years runs from the date of adoption of the plan, which will not be before 2006. So in this case the ‘first five years’ would reach approximately to the end of the plan period. Clearly, by the date of adoption the calculation of the ‘5 years supply’ will have altered somewhat from the position as at 31/3/04 (or indeed from the position at the end of the inquiry). Having regard to the calculations I was given (e.g. those provided by the House Builders Federation to the RTS) it is likely that the Proposals Map itself will probably not show a full ‘5 years supply’. That said, I am satisfied that (taking account of my recommendations, including those related to the windfall allowances) the Plan will provide for adequate housing land for the plan period. 6.2.26. Reference was also made to PPG12 paragraph 6.8 and the Ministerial Statement of July 2003 (relating to the need for a 10 year housing supply to be identified in the Plan). I note the following. (a) Unless the Secretary of State directs otherwise this Plan will only last for 3 years after adoption. (b) As already mentioned, a partial review of the RSS will very shortly be underway. In these circumstances, it would be sensible for housing requirements beyond 2011 to be addressed by means of a suitable DPD. There would be very considerable disadvantages in delaying adoption of this Plan in an attempt to ‘extend’ it to deal with housing land needed after 2011. 6.2.27. Taking account of the conclusions above, the figures in the ‘updated table’ on page 10 of CD86 would read as follows. Structure Plan Requirement 5000 Built (to 31/3/04) 2275

120 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

Committed (725-73) 652 Under Construction (at 31/3/04) 318 Uncommitted Balance 31/3/04 – 2011 1755 Add flexibility allowance (10% of 1755) 176 1931 Deduct Allowance (small windfall) 130 Deduct Allowance (windfall) 211 Balance to be provided up to 2011 1590

6.2.28. On page 11 of CD86 there is a table showing how this balance would be provided. On the basis of the recommendations in this report the position would be as follows24. Balance to be provided: 1590 Glascote Farm 74 Parkfield House 16 Cottage Farm Road 40 Hedging Lane 78 Brookside Way 25 Anker Valley 1300 Total provision by allocations 1533

6.2.29. The ‘under provision’ (57) is very marginal in relation to a requirement of 5000 (1996-2011). Indeed, I am of the opinion that a somewhat larger, theoretical under-supply, of say around 5%, should be not be a matter of concern, in the general context of the RSS approach to housing land outside the MUAs. In any event, as one objector helpfully demonstrated, there has been a tendency for the number of housing units actually completed on allocated sites gaining permission to exceed the number originally anticipated by the council. Finally, and assuming matters are progressed as anticipated, it is likely that before the end of the plan period (2011) the partial review of the RSS will have been completed, and a new, housing allocations DPD may have been adopted. In that case, the SP 5000 figure will be ‘overtaken by events’. 6.2.30. Other Matters Raised under the Heading of HSG1 This policy is not the most useful point in the Plan to deal with affordable housing provision. There is a separate Policy (see HSG10). 6.2.31. The Urban Capacity Study (CD22) is not a part of the Plan (although it is an important document underpinning the some Plan policies). I shall not therefore review the UCS in detail. I agree it does not explain as fully as

24 I am aware e.g. from CD124 (Housing Topic Paper Update) of some developments post 31/3/04. For instance planning permission has been granted for development of part of the Parkfield House site. For clarity, I do not attempt to incorporate those changes in the figures given.

121 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

some similar documents exactly how the potential intensification of housing within the urban area has been appraised. Nevertheless, bearing in mind the restricted size of the district, and the fact that ‘detailed site visits’ were carried out, I think it likely that the results of the study were reasonably reliable. No further comment is needed. 6.2.32. The origin of the 5000 SP figure has been questioned. It has also been suggested that some of Tamworth’s housing should be on brownfield sites outside the borough. It is not useful to re-visit the original SP process that led to the ‘allocation’ of 5000 houses to Tamworth. The question of the compatibility of that figure with the RSS has been looked at, above. The point about provision for Tamworth on brownfield sites outside Tamworth might be one that will be considered by the RSS review. It is not one that can be considered in this report. 6.2.33. It is not necessary to comment on the financing of any new football stadium. 6.2.34. The figure in the first line of this Policy is potentially confusing. I accept that the word ‘proposes’ is used. Nevertheless the Policy purports to refer to the total number of new dwellings ‘between 2001 and 2011’. However the figure in the first line (in the Revised Deposit Draft) has been adjusted to the date 31/3/02 (in the light of developments in the first year of the plan period). I shall recommend that in the wording of the Policy the provision in the Plan period is related to the SP requirement (for the longer period 1996- 2011) but that the Table at page 81 is brought up to date, at least to 31/3/04. Recommendations: 6.2.35. I recommend that: • The first two lines of Policy HSG1 are reworded as follows: ‘The Local Plan proposes the development of sufficient land for new dwellings, between 2001 and 2011, to bring the total provision of new dwellings to 5000 during the years 1996 to 2011, through the following:-…’‘ • The Table on page 81 (under Paragraph 6.5) is brought up to date, at least to 31/3/04, using (for 31/3/04) the figures set out in paragraph 6.2.27 of this report. • No other modifications are made in response to these objections.

6.3. Paragraph 6.5 and 6.6: Provision of Housing

Objections: 103/1040 Lichfield District Council 103/1042 Lichfield District Council 113/1116 William Davis Limited

122 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

125/1726 Taylor Woodrow 145/1177 Walton Homes Ltd 151/705 George Wimpey UK Ltd 151/1059 George Wimpey UK Ltd 421/1195 R G Clarke

Key Issues: a) Whether there should be a flexibility allowance for either committed sites or for the uncommitted balance or for both, and what level that allowance should be; b) Whether the Table should be brought up to date. Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.3.1. The issues raised in respect of these Paragraphs have already been considered under the heading of HSG1. 6.3.2. The figures in Paragraph 6.5 need to be brought up to date, in the light of my recommendations above (HSG1). Paragraph 6.6 can be reinstated. Recommendations: 6.3.3. I recommend that: • The figures in Paragraph 6.5 are brought up to date (at least to 31.3.04) having regard to my recommendations under HSG1, above. • Paragraph 6.6 should be reinstated in the Plan.

6.4. HSG2: Housing Proposal Sites

Objections: 1/1 Mrs J.M. Evans 96/255 Staffordshire County Council 107/436 Campaign to Protect Rural England 142/1102 Walton Homes Ltd 144/1171 The Trustees of the Estate of Mr J Aucott 153/759 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates (see under HSG2 j)) 161/837 The House Builders Federation 161/1205 The House Builders Federation

Key Issues: a) Whether extra sites are needed, for example to replace sites that have been deleted between the first and revised deposit drafts of the Plan;

123 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

b) Whether all the allocated sites are genuinely available (and therefore whether extra sites should be allocated); c) Whether anticipated densities of development on brownfield sites are too low; d) Does Tamworth either want or need more housing? Should more emphasis be given to employment and business provision? e) Should the reasoned justification clarify how access will be achieved for all the sites, how the sites can be made more sustainable in transport terms, etc? Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.4.1. Comments on individual allocated sites are dealt with as far as possible under the relevant heading for those sites, below. The general comments about sufficiency of allocations are adequately covered in the discussion of Policy HSG1. In summary, notwithstanding my recommendations about flexibility allowances and windfall allowances, no extra land need be allocated (i.e. extra land to compensate for those recommendations). 6.4.2. I can understand that some existing residents may feel that more housing is neither wanted nor needed. I am entirely satisfied that it is needed. Provision for business and commercial purposes is important, and is dealt with in an earlier Chapter of this report. 6.4.3. As already mentioned, the council has calculated likely densities on the basis of advice in PPG3. That approach is reasonable. 6.4.4. Referring to the question of access, etc, a very similar point was raised in relation to Policy EMP2, and my conclusion is the same. It is not necessary for the reasoned justification to set out the ‘highway and transport details’ for all allocations. Some of the material is in the relevant SPG. Recommendations: 6.4.5. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

6.5. HSG2[a]: Housing Proposal Sites: Council Depot, Kettlebrook Road

Objections: 27/62 Mr P.H. Wilson 104/413 Network Rail

6.5.1. Planning permission has been granted for this site and it is under construction. Recommendations: 6.5.2. I recommend that:

124 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

• No modification is made in response to these objections.

6.6. HSG2[b]: Housing Proposal Sites: Glascote Farm

Objections: 13/38 J.A. Crotty 27/61 Mr P.H. Wilson 33/76 Mr A Burnford 71/157 Mr G Withers 75/164 Maria Crotty

Key Issues: a) Would development here cause an increase in traffic on Leyland Road and added difficulty in obtaining access to Marlborough Way? b) Should the proposal be replaced by proposals to build houses in Stafford and central Staffordshire? c) Would it cause general environmental problems to local residents? Would it be better if the site were left as open space? d) Should there be fewer but better quality homes? e) Will the development destroy roosting and nesting sites for a variety of birds? Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.6.1. The council decided to refuse outline planning permission for residential development of this site on grounds of ‘prematurity’. However that does not affect the question of whether, in principle, the land should be allocated for development in this Plan. 6.6.2. It is within the urban area, but is a greenfield site, and is therefore inferior on general policy grounds to brownfield sites. (That is the reason it was assigned to Phase 2, under Policy HSG5A.) That matter apart, it has merits as a possible residential site. It is more or less surrounded by existing housing; is quite well-placed for local services and public transport; and is in proximity to a designated cycle route. Although much of the land is open and undeveloped, it also contains some structures and, taken as a whole, I do not consider that in its current state it makes such a contribution to local amenity that it should preserved simply for ‘amenity reasons’. 6.6.3. I can understand that local people may prefer it to be ‘undeveloped’ rather than ‘developed’. However, I am quite satisfied that a housing scheme could be devised for the land which avoided any material harm to the residential amenity of nearby occupiers. That scheme could well include landscaping measures, which would provide at least some ‘cover’ for birds and other wildlife.

125 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

6.6.4. Obviously, any extra houses cause an increase in traffic, but I am sceptical about whether the likely number of houses on this site (about 74) would cause unacceptable highway problems in the locality. 6.6.5. Some of the points made in objection to the allocation refer to matters that are more appropriately considered in the course of a planning application. Possibly they arise out of the contents of the relevant SPG, which is not a matter for comment in this report. I note however that provision of some affordable housing is an important element of housing policy, and I see no reason in principle why this site should be exempted from that requirement. 6.6.6. The site is intended to meet Tamworth’s housing needs. Provision in other parts of the county would not achieve that objective. 6.6.7. I conclude that the allocation can be retained. Recommendations: 6.6.8. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

6.7. HSG2[c]: Housing Proposal Sites: Land between Stonydelph & Glascote Heath

Objections: 6/23 Mr & Mrs Maher 8/27 Mr J Kivneen 27/65 Mr P.H. Wilson 28/67 Mrs M.B. Michalak 32/75 Mrs F Howlett 41/90 Mr J Davis 51/103 Stonydelph Action Residents’ Group 54/134 Mr Billington 55/133 EJM & RE Tregaskis 80/173 Mr & Mrs Chadwick 89/192 Mr R Lancaster 92/107 Stonydelph/Glascote Open Space Supporters 153/772 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

Inspector’s Reasoning:

126 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

6.7.1. This site was deleted in the Revised deposit draft. No further comment is needed. Recommendations: 6.7.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

6.8. HSG2[d]: Housing Proposal Sites: Belgrave Nurseries

Objections: 27/63 Mr P.H. Wilson

Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.8.1. Planning permission has been granted for development of this site and construction has commenced. No further comment is needed. Recommendations: 6.8.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to this objection.

6.9. HSG2[e]: Housing Proposal Sites: Land south of St Peter’s Close

Objections:

22/56 Mr & Mrs Kearney 27/64 Mr P.H. Wilson 104/414 Network Rail

Key Issues: a) Whether this site should be included as an allocation, if it is unlikely to be developed in the plan period. Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.9.1. At the inquiry, the owners of a part of the site, including a part of the access to the site, made it very clear that they did not wish to sell their land for

127 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

housing development. I have no reason to doubt their position on this point. 6.9.2. The council were asked about the possibility of development of the remainder of the site. The council’s view was that although access to the land could still be obtained, it might well be difficult to devise an acceptable housing scheme, because of the proximity of the commercial enterprises on the objectors’ land. It was thought that housing development on this site would have to be ‘all of the site, or nothing’. That seems a reasonable analysis. I conclude that this allocation should be deleted.25 Recommendations: 6.9.3. I recommend that: • The allocation HSG2e) (Land south of St Peter’s Close) should be deleted, with a corresponding modification of the Proposals Map.

6.10. HSG2[f]: Housing Proposal Sites: Metrocab

Objections: 12/36 D.R. Brown 27/66 Mr P.H. Wilson 39/85 Mr I Jeremiah 40/86 Mr K Brunt 84/181 Tamworth Early Years Centre 104/415 Network Rail 124/567 Basin Lane Investments Ltd 166/894 Environment Agency 69/155 P&P Pearce

Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.10.1. I understand that planning permission has been granted for development of the site, and construction has commenced. No further comment is required. Recommendations: 6.10.2. I recommend that:

25 It was pointed out to me that there is a small part of the allocated site, to the west of the objectors’ land, that could be developed separately, by means of a different access. As this piece of land is only 0.18 ha it need not be ‘allocated’. If it is developed, it could count as a ‘small windfall’.

128 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

• No modification is made in response to these objections.

6.11. HSG2[h]: Housing Proposal Sites: Tame Valley Alloys

Objections: 2/13 Surface Technik (Tamworth) Ltd. 3/3 J.A. Garner 4/17 N Followell 5/22 Mr K Stilgoe 7/25 Mr R.R. Baxter 44/96 Mr C Perry 66/150 STW Branch Labour Party 90/202 Mr K Forest 101/362 Staffordshire Wildlife Trust 115/483 Smith Brothers (Tamworth) Ltd. 130/580 Sam Phire Properties Ltd. 131/593 Mr & Mrs Butler 132/602 Mr D W Pyke 134/612 Cawbourn Ltd. 147/668 Persimmon Homes (West Midlands) 153/773 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 162/850 Mrs J.S. Clegg 164/853 Miss Lisa-Ann Rowe

Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.11.1. Planning permission has been granted and the site is being developed. No further comment is required. Recommendations: 6.11.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

129 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

6.12. HSG2[j]: Housing Proposal Sites: Land off Cottage Farm Road

Objections: 146/667 Mr N & Mrs R Whorton 153/759 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

Key Issues: a) Whether the site is likely to be developed in the plan period. Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.12.1. In essence, the objector’s case was that this site has been allocated for many years and no planning applications have been made. There were ‘ransom strip’ difficulties. To retain the site in the Plan was the ‘triumph of hope over experience’. 6.12.2. The council’s response was that one reason for the delay in this site coming forward for development was that the current local plan (policy h11) provides that the whole site should be used for affordable housing. That requirement is not repeated in the Revised deposit draft of this plan. Secondly, it was suggested that there was an alternative access to Watling Street. At the time of the inquiry the viability of this alternative had not been thoroughly examined by the Highway Authority, so I do not assume that it will necessarily be practical. 6.12.3. Although most of the site is ‘greenfield’ (and it is therefore ‘less preferable’ in policy terms than brownfield sites) it is entirely within the built-up area, and has quite good access to public transport. It has therefore some advantages as a potential residential site. 6.12.4. My conclusion is that there is clearly some doubt about the ‘developability’ of this site within the plan period. On balance however I consider that there is a reasonable prospect of development occurring, so the allocation can be retained. 6.12.5. On a separate matter, one objector queries the status of the SPG relating to the site. The contents of the SPG are not for review in this report. The status of the SPG is referred to in an introductory paragraph in that document. Properly produced SPG can be a material consideration to be taken into account when determining planning applications. Recommendations: 6.12.6. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

130 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

6.13. HSG2[k]: Housing Proposal Sites: Allotments adjacent to Deltic

Objections: 6/24 Mr & Mrs Maher 8/903 Mr J Kivneed 13/37 J.A. Crotty 51/104 Stonydelph Action Residents’ Group 55/132 EJM & RE Tregaskis 80/172 Mr & Mrs Chadwick 89/193 Mr R Lancaster 92/108 Stonydelph/Glascote Open Space Supporters 153/774 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.13.1. The site has been deleted from the Plan; no further comment is needed. Recommendations: 6.13.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

6.14. HSG2: Omission Sites

Objections: 66/151 STW Branch Labour Party 81/911 Car Paints (Tamworth) 90/201 Mr K Forest 99/330 Bloor Homes 115/484 Smith Brothers (Tamworth) Ltd. 117/492 Invotec Circuits 121/549 Mr J.E. Ball 121/550 Mr J.E. Ball 121/551 Mr J.E. Ball

131 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

129/578 Matthew Dugdale Estates 130/581 Sam Phire Properties Ltd. 131/592 Mr & Mrs Butler 132/604 Mr D.W. Pyke 134/611 Cawbourn Ltd. 145/112 Walton Homes Ltd. 145/113 Walton Homes Ltd. 145/114 Walton Homes Ltd. (planning permission granted; no further comment needed) 150/12 Alfred McAlpine Special Projects

Key Issues: a) Whether any of the omission sites should be allocated for housing purposes. Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.14.1. In connection with all these objections, reference should be made to the general discussion on housing matters under the heading of Policy HSG1. That material will not be repeated here. 6.14.2. Land to the south of Hedging Lane (Invotec Circuits 117/492) This is the site previously considered in the Employment Chapter of the report. It was concluded that it should be removed from the list of employment allocations. 6.14.3. As far as an allocation for residential purposes is concerned, the council accepted, correctly in my view, that the site is satisfactory from the point of view of location and accessibility to services. There would be site-specific issues to be dealt with, notably the ground conditions, but in principle that could be done. The council’s reservation about an allocation for housing purposes rested mainly on the question of ‘need’. It was suggested that the Anker Valley site had be of a certain ‘critical mass’ to be viable at all. If additional allocations elsewhere were made, that could result in the number of units required at Anker Valley dropping below the ‘critical threshold’. However that is not necessarily the appropriate approach. (a) As this is ‘previously-developed land’ there is no reason, from a policy perspective, to object to the site being re-used, anyway. (b) It is not clear whether a site of this relatively modest size would make much difference to the ‘viability’ of Anker Valley. (c) On my calculations (see above) there would not be a ‘surplus’ of housing if this site were allocated. I shall recommend accordingly. I assume the site would provide about 78 units, which is a fairly dense level of development. 6.14.4. Land at Brookside Way (Walton Homes 145/112) This is not ‘previously developed land’ according to the PPG3 definition, but the parties agreed that it falls into the category of ‘vacant land not previously developed’ in terms of ‘Tapping the Potential’ (CD99). There is no objection in principle, by the council, to its use for housing purposes, and a previous application for residential development was refused on grounds of

132 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

inadequate access. The evidence now is that an alternative access has become available, onto Brookside Way. Subject to the use of this means of access, I conclude that allocation for residential purposes would be appropriate, for about 25 units. 6.14.5. Land at Whitley Avenue (Walton Homes) This site has been discussed in the Environment Chapter of the report, to which reference should be made. As mentioned, this land was originally expected to be part of the open-space to be provided in connection with the adjacent residential estate (and was within the site for which outline planning permission was granted for that purpose). I do not regard it as ‘vacant land not previously developed’. It is more appropriately classed as a greenfield site, albeit one that is closely associated with existing urban development. If there were a clear-cut housing need, some of this site could reasonably be used to meet that need. On my analysis, there is no such need and the land should not therefore be allocated. In any event, on the information I have, some of the land will be required for the construction of the AVL, and its junction with Brindley Drive. That is another, separate reason for non-allocation. 6.14.6. Sites within the Green Belt at Dosthill A number of objectors proposed housing sites within the Green Belt at or near Dosthill, on the southern edge of Tamworth district. The main issues raised by these objections overlap to a considerable extent, so they will be dealt with together. PPG2 advises that existing Green Belt boundaries should not be changed unless exceptional circumstances exist which necessitate such revision. The SP (Policy H1) in allocating 5000 dwellings to Tamworth says that ‘release of Green Belt may be required in the Dosthill/Hockley area’ (emphasis added). I do not read the SP as stating that Green Belt land should necessarily be used, or that it is certainly needed. The SP opens the door to that possibility, if circumstances demand it. In contrast, I see the SP as being much more definite in its proposal to use Anker Valley, and that interpretation is supported by the Explanatory Memorandum paragraphs 7.33-34. In that situation, I conclude that if housing need (however that is defined) can be met adequately in Anker Valley, it should be met there in preference to meeting it by means of Green Belt revisions at Dosthill. 6.14.7. As noted above, I have concluded that the Anker Valley allocation should be retained. There is therefore no need to release Green Belt land at Dosthill. I add the following points arising from the SP, the RSS and other policy guidance. 6.14.8. First, if there is an objection to Anker Valley on the basis that it is a ‘peripheral expansion’ of an ‘other large settlement’, the same objection could be raised in respect of the Dosthill omission sites, whether considered individually or collectively. Second, I agree that some of these omission sites are well-placed in relation to the local facilities in and near Dosthill, and there are bus services along the A51 (which might be improved). Even so, from a general ‘sustainability viewpoint’, I regard expansion to the south of the town as very much second-best to Anker Valley, which offers the possibility of better access to the full range of town centre services and which is closer to the principal railway station. 6.14.9. Third, I can appreciate that an attraction of the idea of deleting Anker Valley and substituting southern expansion of Tamworth might be that it would be

133 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

easier to stop a southern expansion ‘in its tracks’ if there were a change of view about the amount of housing land needed. However, I must consider these objections on the basis of the current policy position and the available evidence. As can be seen from discussion earlier in this chapter of the report, if Anker Valley were completely deleted, it would be necessary to allocate a very substantial amount of alternative land (much of it greenfield, much of it greenbelt) to provide anything like the number of houses that would appear necessary. I would have grave reservations about recommending such a considerable amount of ‘peripheral expansion’ (composed of various sites, not one comprehensive scheme) that was not closely associated with the town centre. 6.14.10. I turn to other matters. A number of objectors supported Dosthill sites because they would provide funds for the Dosthill by-pass. (The main justification for the by-pass, as I understand it, is not the amount of traffic and congestion as such, but the number of HGVs using the High Street, and which cause adverse environmental effects.) I am firmly of the view that land should not be removed from the Green Belt (and allocated for housing purposes) principally with an eye to obtaining funds for the by- pass26. In any case, unless and until sufficient land actually received planning permission, so that there were enough accumulated funds to complete the project, the by-pass would still not get built. 6.14.11. Similarly, I do not consider that housing development (in the Dosthill area or elsewhere) should be permitted in order to obtain additional public open space, or additional public access to open land. Any such arrangement would have to comply with the relevant tests in Circular 05/2005. Whilst additional open space in Dosthill would perhaps be welcome, that is not a sufficient reason for making a housing allocation. 6.14.12. These sites include land that is (in whole or in part) either ‘reclaimed’ or ‘previously-developed’. That is a factor to be taken into account, but in no case does either the history or the present appearance of the site mean that it cannot contribute at all to Green Belt purposes. 6.14.13. The most thoroughly thought out scheme at Dosthill (that was submitted to the inquiry) was that related to land immediately to the west of the A51 (134/611). If, as suggested, housing were confined to the eastern slope of the site (facing the A51 and the development on the eastern side of that road) the adverse impact on overall ‘green belt purposes’ would be somewhat limited. I emphasise however that I do not find that ‘exceptional circumstances’ have been established. 6.14.14. A substantial site has been suggested to the south of Gorsy Bank Road. I agree with the council that Gorsy Bank does provide a clear and ‘defensible’ boundary for the Green Belt in this neighbourhood. What has been proposed would be a major extension of the urban area in a southerly direction, and would not be justified on my analysis of (a) the extent of housing need and (b) other opportunities for provision of housing elsewhere in the district.

26 Of course, if the allocations were justified for other reasons, a contribution towards the by- pass might be appropriate, subject to compliance with government guidance on planning obligations.

134 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

6.14.15. I conclude that none of these Greenbelt/Dosthill sites should be allocated for housing. 6.14.16. Land near Brook Avenue (121/550) This land is included in a recently designated Local Nature Reserve27. In addition, from what I saw, it forms part of a useful ‘green wedge’ that lies between areas of development. For either or both these reasons it would not be appropriate to allocate the site for housing. The possibility of nearby land being turned into public open space does not affect that conclusion. In coming to that view I have also noted the contents of a counsel’s opinion with which I was supplied. 6.14.17. Land at Freasley Lane (115/484) This is a narrow strip of mostly pony paddocks and rough pasture lying between the built-up edge of the town and a small ‘sunken lane’ that makes a pleasant walking route. Beyond the lane is open countryside. In the absence of pressing housing need I see no reason to allocate this peripheral greenfield site. 6.14.18. Pennine Way, Stonydelph (129/578) In the representations in support of this proposal it is emphasised that housing development here would not preclude the retention of some open land for ‘genuine public amenity and use’. I take that point into account. Nevertheless, to my mind this greenfield site is prominent when viewed from the well-used Pennine Way. In its existing state it provides a worthwhile public amenity, even though it is private land. Therefore it should not be developed unless there is over-riding need, which on my analysis there is not. Whilst I accept that, as a general proposition, when seeking housing land, sites within the urban area are to be preferred to those outside, it is still necessary to pay close attention to the quality of the urban environment. Some undeveloped urban sites should be retained as such, for that reason. I do not accept that the lack of opposition to the suggestion of development is a sufficient reason to alter my conclusion that there should be no allocation of this land. 6.14.19. Land around 40 Aldergate (81/911) The objector does not wish this area to remain part of a conservation area and considers that regeneration may well ‘be best achieved by converting to housing’. Conservation area boundaries are not a matter for this report. I note however in passing that inclusion of land in a conservation area would not as a matter of principle rule out redevelopment for housing, subject to compliance with relevant policies. Policy TCR5 does provide the possibility of some redevelopment schemes in the Town Centre that include a ‘residential element’. It is not necessary to allocate this area for housing. 6.14.20. Doulton Works This site has already been commented upon in the Employment Chapter of this report (and a recommendation made). There is little to add, except to repeat my view that it is highly desirable that

27 In SC38 the council has proposed an amendment to the Proposals Map to show the extent of the Kettle Brook Local Nature Reserve. As I understand, this SC does not arise out of any specific objection to the Plan and is not in response to evidence or representations submitted to the inquiry. I do not know if it has been brought to the attention of persons who may be interested in the matter. For that reason, I make no recommendation regarding the incorporation of SC38 in the Plan. However, on the assumption that the area concerned is indeed a ‘local nature reserve’ my conclusions in relation to the housing proposal are unaffected. In fact, on ‘green wedge’ grounds alone the same conclusion would have been reached.

135 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

the site is re-used. In principle, that re-use could include a significant proportion of housing. As already explained, the information that has been given to me, in support of the objections, is extremely limited, and insufficient to be a basis for making a recommendation for an allocation for a ‘mixed-use scheme’. However, I am given to understand that the council is minded to grant a planning permission in any event. Recommendations: 6.14.21. I recommend that: • The Plan is modified as follows: • in Policy HSG2 two additional sites should be allocated: ‘Land to the South of Hedging Lane - 78 dwellings’; ‘Land at Brookside Way – 25 dwellings’. • on the Proposals Map those two sites should be identified and shaded appropriately to show that they are for ‘Proposed Housing’. (The sites should be as indicated in the relevant objections, but in the case of Brookside Way the land to be used for access should also be marked.) • No other modifications should be made in response to the objections.

6.15. HSG2A: Housing Site Criteria

Objections: 97/1750 Government Office for the West Midlands 161/1206 The House Builders Federation

Key Issues: a) Does the Policy imply that greenfield sites can be acceptable as ‘windfalls’? b) Whether the first section of the policy should be in the reasoned justification and whether the criteria are unclear and/or could be unduly restrictive. Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.15.1. I agree that at first sight it seems inappropriate to have a ‘policy’ that sets out the criteria which were used to select the allocated housing sites. However, in reality the main purpose of the Policy is to give some guidance on what kind of sites would be acceptable as ‘windfalls’. The criteria are reasonably consistent with PPG3, and so the Policy can be retained. Recommendations: 6.15.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

136 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

6.16. Paragraph 6.9

Objections: 90/1411 Mr K Forest

Key Issues: a) Whether this Paragraph is out of date; and whether there is a risk of overprovision; b) Whether the words ‘at least’ should be omitted. Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.16.1. Reference should be made to the general discussion under the heading of HSG1. The figure quoted in this Paragraph was up-to-date at the time it was drafted. I agree that the words ‘at least’ might indicate an acceptance of a much larger figure, which would be inappropriate. The way forward is to omit both the words ‘at least’ and the particular figure. The figure for the Anker Valley allocation is included in Policy HSG3 in any case. Recommendations: 6.16.2. I recommend that: • The second sentence of Paragraph 6.9 should be modified so that it reads: ‘In order to meet this requirement a greenfield allocation is required.’

6.17. HSG3: Anker Valley - Strategic Housing Proposals

Objections: 11/34 Mr G Taylor 110/452 Sport England 15/45 Mr J Walton 113/1118 William Davis Ltd. 17/49 Mrs C Gardner & Mr M Doak 113/521 William Davis Ltd. 30/69 Mr K Dawes 113/609 Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd. 31/73 I.G. Thomas 119/540 West Midlands Regional RSL Planning Consortium 36/80 Mr D Cooke 109/510 English Heritage 46/98 Mr D.V. Vernon 132/601 Mr D.W. Pyke 57/128 Mr R Aldis 140/638 J.R. Gilman & Sons

137 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

58/126 H.E. & E. Sadler 148/685 Marley Properties Ltd. 60/140 Dorian Porter 151/1057 George Wimpey UK Ltd. 63/146 Mr J.M. Kelly 151/706 George Wimpey UK Ltd. 66/1145 STW Branch Labour Party 153/1020 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 76/165 Mr & Mrs Hollis 153/760 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 77/168 K.M. Millward 156/783 Mr J L D Stack 78/170 Mr R.A. Skett 158/908 Mark Hambly 80/175 Mr & Mrs Chadwick 163/851 Sylvia Marris-Mcdonald 85/182 Mrs D.E. Owen 181/1103 Mrs Southall 89/194 Mr R Lancaster 185/1698 Mr Jason Norbury 90/1412 Mr K Forest 190/1498 Mr M.G. Sansome 96/257 Staffordshire County Council 228/1560 Mr P.W. Rickwood 97/290 Government Office for the 233/568 Mr G.J. Arblaster West Midlands 99/331 Bloor Homes 257/1613 M H Crick 99/1146 Bloor Homes 295/1669 Mark Williams 103/386 Lichfield District Council 306/1105 Mrs P Priestley 103/1043 Lichfield District Council 308/1458 Mrs Frances Wolverstan 104/416 Network Rail 309/1453 Mr F. C. P. Wolverstan 105/390 Wiggington & Hopwas Parish 310/1324 Andrew Gilman Council 107/439 Campaign to Protect Rural 421/1196 R.G. Clarke England

Key Issues: a) Whether the number of houses to be built at Anker Valley should be more, or less, than is proposed in the Plan; b) Whether the density of housing development on this site should be increased, either to reduce land take, or to increase the number of houses that could be accommodated; c) Whether there are overriding ‘environmental objections’ to the project arising from concerns about noise and pollution from traffic, loss of floodplain, impact on views, or loss of countryside; Does the Policy need to offer additional protection to the nearby Amington Hall Conservation Area or Listed Building? d) Would the development cause unacceptable traffic problems in Tamworth? e) Are there other matters that need to be resolved or which need to be covered in the Policy, such as: provision of public open space and sports facilities; identification of

138 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

the local centre and application of shopping policy; planning obligations; SPG; phasing; bus services; hospital provision? Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.17.1. Many of the points raised by objectors in connection with Policy HSG3 have already been considered elsewhere in this report. Reference should be made to discussion under the following headings: (in Chapter 3) Policy ENV16 (Anker Valley Public Access Area), and Policy ENV19 (Development within or affecting Conservation Areas); (in Chapter 4) Policy TRA4A (Transport Assessments), Policy TRA8 (Transport Proposals), Policy TRA8 b (Amington Link Phase 2), Policy TRA8 c (Anker Valley Link), Paragraph 4.23 and Paragraph 4.24 (Amington Link Phase 2 and Anker Valley Link); and (in Chapter 5) EMP2 a and b (Anker Valley Employment Site). I also draw attention to the heading HSG1 (Provision of Housing) in Chapter 6. As far as possible, none of that material will be repeated here. 6.17.2. Number of Houses and Density I have found that the SP requirement of 5000 dwellings (1996-2011) in Tamworth is generally compatible with the RSS and with the approach of moving towards meeting ‘local housing needs’ only, outside the MUAs. I make no finding about whether that is also true of the ‘extra’ 1000 dwellings proposed in Lichfield (or indeed whether it is true of any of the other larger figures that were mentioned). On my assessment, only 1300 dwellings in Anker Valley are necessary to bring total provision adequately close to the requirement. That being so, I do not agree that the number of houses to be provided in Anker Valley should either (a) be restored to 1400 (as in the First Deposit draft) or (b) be increased to any of the other figures (greater than 1300) that were suggested by some objectors. 1300 is all that is required in the plan period. 6.17.3. Regrettably, the SPG for Anker Valley refers to an average net density of 30 dph. The council agrees that this is somewhat low. The evidence at the inquiry (which I see no reason to doubt) was that the actual intention and expectation is of an average net density of around 37 dph. That is comfortably within the range recommended by PPG3, and is probably reasonable for an ‘urban extension’ development of this kind. Be that as it may, it is not necessary to include a density requirement in this Policy. There is a general policy on density (see HSG8) that is applicable. 6.17.4. Size of Housing Allocation Site There is no dispute that the number of dwellings required (together with the necessary infrastructure, facilities, etc) can be fitted into the area identified for housing (in this plan period) on the Proposals Map. That being so, there is no case for extending the housing area to any of the parcels of additional land (numbered 1-6 in the promoters’ representations) that were suggested. In those circumstances there is no need to review their individual merits. I make however the general observation that if and in so far as housing were extended further east or north-east (than is currently proposed) there would be the possibility of two disadvantages arising: (a) the housing would be further from the principal railway station and the town centre; (b) it might come closer to the Conservation Area and Listed Building, which might at least put some constraints on the nature of the development. 6.17.5. Other objectors wanted to reduce the size of the Anker Valley housing allocation. The most persuasive argument in favour of that position was the

139 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

evidence that (a) housing sites have tended to be more productive (in terms of numbers of dwellings) than originally expected by the council and (b) to date, windfalls have been running ahead of the ‘allowance’. I accept that if both those trends continued unabated, the 5000 figure could be reached without the need for all the Anker Valley Site. My conclusions however are: (a) as there are relatively few, other, already-identified sites yet to come forward, the scope for ‘over-production’ of housing units is limited; (b) that it would be unwise to rely too much on windfalls to meet housing need. The size of the allocation should remain as it is in the Revised deposit draft. 6.17.6. I do not accept the claim that there are sufficient ‘empty buildings’ in Tamworth to accommodate the need proposed to be met at Anker Valley. Whilst it was asserted that there were brownfield housing sites outside Tamworth that could also meet Tamworth’s needs, these sites were not identified or described. 6.17.7. Environmental Issues There is very little to add to what has been said elsewhere in this report. I fully understand that those who appreciate the openness of Anker Valley in its present state will regret any development here. On the other hand, there was no strong evidence that the overall environmental impact of the development (including the impact on residential amenity) would be unacceptable. (That of course is subject to compliance with all appropriate planning conditions and obligations.) Built development would not come close enough to the boundary of the Conservation Area (or to the Listed Building) to make it likely that there would be any insuperable design problems. In that regard, no addition to Policy HSG3 is needed, bearing in mind the other Policies in the Plan dealing with Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings. 6.17.8. Traffic Impact This has been sufficiently discussed in Chapter 4. Some roads, for example Brindley Drive, will experience a very noticeable increase in traffic, and it can be understood why local residents would oppose any such increase. However, the professional evidence available to the inquiry was that the overall traffic impact of the development would not be so serious that the allocation should be abandoned for that reason. 6.17.9. Other Matters Raised As mentioned elsewhere, the detailed requirements for public open space and sports fields in connection with the development (see criterion e) in the Policy) may be adjusted in the light of the recently completed open space audit (see CD125). No further comment is required. 6.17.10. In SC28 the council proposes an additional criterion referring to ‘the provision of a local centre’. Paragraph 6.11 already refers to the need to accommodate ‘educational, local retail and community provision at a focal point’. So the SC can be regarded as non-controversial. It is not sensible for the Policy to define the exact location of the local centre. PPS6 defines the role of a local centre in the shopping hierarchy. 6.17.11. The extent of any financial contribution by developers to infrastructure to be constructed outside the site would have to be guided generally by the terms of Circular 5/05. The suggestion that contributions should be made

140 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

towards the cost of roads in Lichfield District has to be seen in that light28. No reference to this matter should be made in the Policy. 6.17.12. Whilst SPG (properly prepared and adopted) is a material consideration, when considering planning applications, I consider that the council is correct to refer to it in the ‘reasoned justification’ rather than in the Policy itself. 6.17.13. In the Revised Deposit Draft (Policy HSG5A) the ‘Anker Valley (Strategic Housing Proposal)’ is appropriately placed in Phase 2 (2006-2011) as it is a greenfield site. 6.17.14. This site does offer an opportunity for promotion of ‘green travel’, but there is no need for an additional policy criterion referring to bus services to the town centre. 6.17.15. The responsible health authorities have not objected to the allocation on the grounds of pressure on hospital services. 6.17.16. I have already indicated that my main reservation about the allocation is whether it is ‘deliverable’; but my eventual conclusions on that matter are as stated under HSG1. Recommendations: 6.17.17. I recommend that: • Policy HSG3 is modified in accordance with SC28. • No other modification is made in response to these objections.

6.18. Paragraph 6.12a

Objections: 90/1414 Mr K Forest 238/1583 David John Garratt 105/1139 Wiggington & Hopwas Parish 241/1589 Mrs Suzanne Storr Council 113/1119 William Davis Limited 248/1593 Mr Peter Thurgood 153/1033 Redrow Homes & Bellway 250/1598 A.C. Cope Estates 156/1491 Mr J L D Stack 251/1599 Mr Michael Kirk 188/1486 Mr J.W. Joiner 252/1602 Mrs Ursula Dick 189/1494 Ms Jane North 253/1603 Mrs Ursula Dick 191/1480 Tamworth Northern Alliance 255/1607 Mr Michael Stevens

28 However, as already commented on, the infrastructure at Anker Valley should be so designed and laid out that it would not prejudice future development (if any) to the north, in Lichfield District.

141 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

192/1499 Mr C Cooper 259/1617 Mrs Enid P Ashmore 193/1500 R.A. Evans 260/1619 Mrs Josephine Small 195/1478 Mr Maurice E Price 262/1623 Ms Karen Williams 198/1507 Mr Peter Wilkie 263/1625 Mr James McKeefry 199/1509 M L Pegg 264/1626 Mrs Tina McKeefry 200/1511 Mrs D Pegg 265/1627 Mr Fergus McKeefry 202/1514 A J Walker 272/1633 K Lakin 204/1517 Robin Dutton 278/1641 Mr J P Watterson 205/1520 Mr Tony Rowley 279/1643 Mr & Mrs Emery 206/1525 Ms Penny Rowley 280/1647 Mr Roy Hughes 208/1575 Mr John Downes 282/1649 Mr & Mrs Hall 209/1527 R A Morris 283/1650 Patricia & Craig Rayson 210/1530 Ms Lynn Cheneler 284/1653 Mr Gregory Allan Hughes 211/1532 Mr & Mrs Harber 285/1655 F L Atkins 212/1535 Mr & Mrs Walker 286/1659 Mr J Edwards 215/1539 C M Pointer 288/1661 Mrs Christine Price 217/1543 R V Smith 290/1665 Norman Price 218/1544 Mr Graham Bates 292/1667 Mr W A Leedham 220/1547 Mr Michael Powell 296/1673 M G Parsonage 221/1550 C F Ellis 297/1675 Mr & Mrs Tipping 224/1554 Mrs E Bell 298/1679 C M Parsonage 224/1557 Mrs E Bell 299/1681 Mr Victor J Warner 229/1562 Mr W A & A Flynn 303/1470 Mr Michael R Pickering 230/1564 WBA Eccelstone 305/1466 Bennion CC 236/1577 Mr & Mrs Williams 421/1201 R G Clarke 237/1580 A D Levell 424/1745 Russell & Gillian Morris

Key Issues: a) Whether the land referred to in this Paragraph should be restored to the HSG3 housing allocation; b) Whether the land should be indicated as having potential for development after 2011. Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.18.1. This Paragraph was introduced at the Revised Deposit stage of the Plan. In summary, the council reduced the number of houses proposed in Anker Valley by 100. As a consequence of that reduction, the area of land set aside for housing at Anker Valley was also reduced, but the parcel of land

142 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

that was removed from the allocation was indicated as having potential for housing development after 2011; (see Map 29 in the Revised Deposit Plan). 6.18.2. There were numerous objections to this Paragraph, although many of them ranged beyond the issues directly raised by the change made at Revised Deposit stage. 6.18.3. Many of these objectors wanted more houses in Anker Valley (within Tamworth District) in order to reduce the pressure to use land in Lichfield District. This, they said, could be done either by using more ‘Tamworth land’ (including the land referred to in Paragraph 6.12a) or by building at higher densities in Anker Valley (or by both these means). 6.18.4. My conclusions on housing land supply are set out under Policy HSG1. There is no necessity to provide more housing, for this plan period, in Anker Valley (in Tamworth District) than is stated in the Revised Deposit draft. The council is therefore quite correct to reduce the area of allocated greenfield land. 6.18.5. Furthermore, as already stated, this there is no point in this Plan attempting to ‘provide’ land for the period post-2011. It is highly likely that by that time the revision of the RSS will have been completed, and the question of housing allocations, as between districts, will have been re-assessed. Paragraph 6.12a does not actually ‘allocate’ land for post 2011 (as the wording of the Paragraph makes clear) but it does, at least to some extent, indicate a likely area for such housing. As there has not been a full assessment of all the possibilities (for post 2011) I consider it unwise to ‘pick-out’ one possible site in this way. The Paragraph should be deleted and the Proposals Map modified so there is no indication that this area can be used for housing pre or post 2011. Recommendations: 6.18.6. I recommend that: • Paragraph 6.12a is deleted; • The Proposals Map (see Map 29 in Revised Deposit draft) is modified so that no area of land is shown as having ‘potential’ for housing development beyond 2011; • The HSG3 housing allocation site is retained at its reduced size as provided for in the Revised Deposit draft.

6.19. HSG4: Residential Development within the Urban Area

Objections: 107/440 Campaign to Protect Rural England 150/14 Alfred McAlpine Special Projects 153/761 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

143 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

161/839 The House Builders Federation

Key Issues: a) Whether the criteria would inhibit desirable increases in housing density; b) Whether the criteria need amendment, for example by inserting the word ‘adversely’ before ‘harm’ in the fourth criterion, or ‘seriously’ before ‘damage’ in the last criterion; c) Whether the Policy allows for the possibility that in some circumstances uses other than housing may be more appropriate on sites in urban areas; d) Should these general development criteria be included in SPG, or could reliance be placed on other Policies in the Plan? Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.19.1. There is nothing in the criteria that would prevent high-density development, if that was appropriate in the circumstances of a particular site. The last sentence of Paragraph 6.13 is relevant here. 6.19.2. PPG1, referred to in the objections, has now been replaced by PPS1. The suggested amendments to the criteria are not necessary. Whether an anticipated adverse effect from a proposed development is ‘serious’ would itself be a matter of judgement. Whether the adverse effect is serious enough to warrant refusal (when balanced against the advantages of the project) will also often be a matter of judgement. All relevant Policies would have to be taken into account, not just HSG4. Adding the suggested words to these general development control criteria would not be of great assistance. 6.19.3. This Policy deals with housing. It does not rule out other kinds of development in urban areas. 6.19.4. General development criteria should be in the Plan, not in SPG. Recommendations: 6.19.5. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

6.20. HSG5: New Housing Development

Objections: 96/256 Staffordshire County Council 153/762 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.20.1. This Policy has been deleted. No further comment is needed.

144 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

Recommendations: 6.20.2. I recommend that: • No further modification is made in response to these objections.

6.21. HSG5A: Phasing of Housing Proposal Sites

Objections: 99/151 Bloor Homes 113/1120 William Davis Limited 119/1080 West Midlands Regional RSL Planning Consortium 151/104529 George Wimpey UK Ltd 151/1058 George Wimpey UK Ltd 153/1023 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 161/1207 The House Builders Federation

Key Issues: a) Whether a planning application for Anker Valley could be submitted before March 2006; b) Should Anker Valley be moved to the first phase or exempted from the phasing policy (bearing in mind its strategic importance)? c) Does the Policy need extra flexibility? d) Should there be a new Policy dealing with housing provision 2011-16? Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.21.1. The Policy divided the housing allocations into two phases: 2001-2006 and 2006-2011. As this report will not be completed before the second half of 2005, and it is unlikely that the Plan could be adopted until 2006, the objections to phasing (Policies HSG5A and B) have been rendered largely ‘academic’, simply through the elapse of time. They can therefore be dealt with very briefly. 6.21.2. Anker Valley was, correctly in my view, assigned to the second phase. At the inquiry the council accepted that it ‘would consider favourably a planning application for a satisfactory development proposal for the Anker Valley prior to 31st March 2006, although the completion of housing

29 There was some confusion about the ‘origin’ of representation 1045. The council and objector 151 evidently considered it was submitted by objector 151. That is how it is still listed in the final, agreed list of ‘live objections’ which I have followed. However, as I mentioned at the inquiry, the only copy of a representation numbered 1045 which I received (and which is also in respect of Policy HSG5A) was apparently submitted by objector 103. This is not a critical point, because I have dealt with the objection in any event.

145 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

development would be restricted to phase 2 of the Plan’. That statement is compatible with the Policy wording, and no modification of the Policy is needed. 6.21.3. As already stated, I am firmly of the view that no allocations should be made in this Plan for housing (in Anker Valley or elsewhere) for any period after 2011. No ‘extra flexibility’ is needed. Recommendations: 6.21.4. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

6.22. HSG5B: Amending the Order of Release

Objections: 90/1418 Mr K Forest 99/1152 Bloor Homes 113/1121 William Davis Limited 119/1081 West Midlands Regional RSL Planning Consortium 153/1024 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 161/1208 The House Builders Federation

Key Issues: a) Should the Policy be deleted, as it is now unnecessary, and replaced by a Policy dealing with the period post 2011? Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.22.1. Little need be added to what has been said in relation to Policy HSG5A (see above). 6.22.2. There is some merit in the argument that this Policy (and HSG5A) could now be dispensed with. On balance I consider that they can be retained. 6.22.3. The question of the need for the Anker Valley allocation (housing land supply) has been considered elsewhere in the report. Recommendations: 6.22.4. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

146 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

6.23. HSG6: Recycling Target

Objections: 97/291 Government Office for the West Midlands 99/332 Bloor Homes 100/349 David Wilson Homes 102/383 English Nature 119/541 West Midlands Regional RSL Planning Consortium 131/594 Mr & Mrs Butler 146/670 Mr N & Mrs R Whorton 153/763 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 161/841 The House Builders Federation

Key Issues: a) Is the indicative target for use of previously developed land appropriate? b) Should the Policy justification say that some brownfield sites may not be suitable because of nature conservation interest? Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.23.1. All these objections are to the First Deposit draft. The issue of phasing is now dealt with by Policies HSG5A and B, and relevant matters are reviewed briefly under those headings. 6.23.2. The ‘indicative target’ for use of brownfield land (45%) mentioned in the Policy is derived from the SP. It is appropriate to ‘re-visit’ the question of use of brownfield land in the light of the RSS. The SP Tamworth figure of 45% is part of an overall Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent figure of 55%. That overall SP figure includes figures for several local authorities (including Stoke on Trent, Newcastle under Lyme and Stafford) that are higher than the figure for Tamworth. It is not entirely straightforward to make a direct comparison with the RSS. The RSS does not give a figure for Tamworth. Furthermore it separates Stoke on Trent from Staffordshire. The figure for Staffordshire is 66%. That would indicate that a greater use of brownfield land is to be aimed for (than is stated in the SP), but whether that should be exactly 66%, for Tamworth, is not absolutely clear. The figures for use of brownfield land in Tamworth contained in CD86 show that the council expected at that time that about 62% of completions during the SP period would be on brownfield land. Clearly, (a) that is not the same period as that covered in Table 3 of the RSS and (b) the figure in CD86 will have changed anyway during subsequent months. Nevertheless, it indicates to me that in practice the number of housing completions in Tamworth on brownfield land will be broadly compatible with the RSS. Meanwhile, there is little point in altering the ‘indicative target’ in HSG6, bearing in mind that it is not obvious what the exact, district level figure should be on a RSS basis.

147 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

6.23.3. The question of nature conservation is adequately covered in Chapter 3 of the Plan. Nothing further need be added here. Recommendations: 6.23.4. I recommend that: • No further modification is made in response to these objections.

6.24. Paragraph 6.16

Objections: 90/1419 Mr K Forest

Key Issues: a) Whether the figures are out of date and whether the ‘targets and indicators’ on page 99 of the Plan are being complied with. Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.24.1. It is impractical for the Plan to be absolutely up-to-date in relation to figures such as these. I shall simply recommend that they are brought up to date to at least 31 March 2004 (see CD18 and CD86). It may well be possible for the council to use more recent figures. 6.24.2. The monitoring regime proposed on page 99 of the Plan is quite ambitious; (a report every 4 months). I entirely accept that the council is doing all it reasonably can to comply with it. No further comment is needed. Recommendations: 6.24.3. I recommend that: • The figures in Paragraph 6.16 are brought up to date, to at least 31 March 2004.

6.25. Paragraph 6.17

Objections: 90/1710 Mr K Forest (see under Paragraph 6.16, above) 161/842 The House Builders Federation (see under HSG1, above)

Inspector’s Reasoning:

148 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

6.25.1. The figures in this Paragraph should be brought up to date, on a similar basis to those in Paragraph 6.16. Recommendations: 6.25.2. I recommend that: • The figures in Paragraph 6.17 are brought up to date, to at least 31 March 2004.

6.26. HSG7: Dwelling Type and Size

Objections: 97/292 Government Office for the West Midlands (R2ndDep NRC) 100/350 David Wilson Homes 119/542 West Midlands Regional RSL Planning Consortium 150/16 Alfred McAlpine Special Projects 153/764 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 153/1026 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

Key Issues: a) Whether the Policy should be deleted because it attempts to control, by ‘limitations’, the type and size of all new housing; b) Whether the Policy is overly onerous and prescriptive; whether the question of the appropriate mix of housing on a site is better dealt with through the development control process; Should all references to ‘affordability’ be removed? Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.26.1. Most of the objections were to the First Deposit draft, and in most cases were adequately dealt with by changes made in the Revised Deposit draft. I note here that the wording used in the Revised Deposit draft appears designed to reflect PPG3, paragraph 11. 6.26.2. As the Policy now stands it does not state that the council will attempt to control the type and size of all new housing by means of ‘limitations’. 6.26.3. This is a very general Policy, and I see no objection to the inclusion of ‘affordability’. This Policy does not materially alter the impact of the main ‘affordable housing policy’ which is HSG10. I agree that what is the appropriate mix of housing has to be determined to some extent on a site by site basis. However, as a general approach, and bearing in mind PPG3, I conclude that the Policy can remain. 6.26.4. Some of the objections referred to the reasoned justification. I discuss that below. Recommendations:

149 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

6.26.5. I recommend that: • No modification to Policy HSG7 is made in response to these objections.

6.27. Paragraph 6.18 and 6.19

Objections: 150/18 Alfred McAlpine Special Projects

Key Issues: a) Whether there is necessarily a shortage of smaller homes in Tamworth; b) Whether there is justification for the description of the nature of housing need set out in the reasoned justification. Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.27.1. As explained above, the general Policy HSG7 can be retained. The reasoned justification specifically refers to the need for more ‘smaller dwellings’. It then identifies the particular types of dwelling needed, and gives a figure for the extent of the shortfall for 4 different types of dwelling. The basis for this exact description of the ‘shortfall’ is the 2001 Housing Needs Survey. I comment further on the HNS under HSG10 and Paragraph 6.26, in the context of ‘affordable housing’. For present purposes it is sufficient to say that I have doubts about whether the HNS is up-to-date enough or reliable enough to justify the detailed description of the shortfall in these Paragraphs. I shall recommend the deletion of these Paragraphs and their replacement with a brief, general comment about the desirability of meeting any identified shortfalls in particular types of housing, including any identified need for smaller dwellings.30 Recommendations: 6.27.2. I recommend that: • Paragraphs 6.18-19 are deleted. They should be replaced by a brief new Paragraph 6.18, reading: ‘In determining the appropriate mix of dwelling size, type and affordability, developers will be encouraged to provide dwellings to meet any shortfalls in identified types of dwelling, with particular emphasis on the question of providing a sufficient number of smaller dwellings.’

30 I emphasise here that I am, nevertheless, quite convinced of the need for sufficient ‘affordable housing’ as described in Policy HSG10 and the following Paragraphs and to which, rightly in my view, considerable importance is attached.

150 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

6.28. HSG8: Dwelling Density

Objections: 97/293 Government Office for the West Midlands (R2ndDep NFC) 104/417 Network Rail (R2ndDep NFC) 153/765 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates (R2ndDep NFC)

Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.28.1. The substance of all these objections was dealt with by changes at Revised Deposit stage. Recommendations: 6.28.2. I recommend that: • No further modification is made in response to these objections.

6.29. HSG9: Planning Obligations

Objections: 99/334 Bloor Homes (R2ndDep NFC) 119/543 West Midlands Regional RSL Planning Consortium 130/586 Sam Phire Properties Ltd 130/591 Sam Phire Properties Ltd 146/671 Mr N & Mrs R Whorton 153/766 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

Key Issues: a) Whether affordable housing should be regarded as a ‘planning gain’ in itself and whether RSLs should be obliged to expend funds intended for housing on other facilities and services; b) Whether more information should be provided about the ‘criteria and mechanisms’ to be used; whether the third paragraph of the policy should be deleted; c) Whether the Policy will prevent small sites coming forward; d) Is the Policy superfluous anyway, as it merely replicates Government Advice? Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.29.1. ‘Affordable housing’ may, depending on the circumstances, be regarded as a type of ‘planning gain’. However if a RSL is developing a site, and the

151 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

consequence of that development is that some ‘facility’ is required, for sound planning reasons, to enable the development properly to proceed, there is no reason why that site should be ‘exempted’ from the provisions of this Policy. The alternative could be that the development would not be able to proceed at all. 6.29.2. The third paragraph of the policy is acceptable, since it states that the council will ‘seek… the provision of or an appropriate contribution towards the provision of... facilities… required in relation to the development’. I do not see that phraseology as incompatible with government advice. It is true that the method of calculating the extent of the expected contribution towards various ‘facilities’ is not specified in the Policy. That is a possibly a disadvantage, but I do not regard it as essential that such detail should be included. 6.29.3. I see no reason why the Policy should prevent small sites coming forward. Small sites will give rise to correspondingly small ‘needs’ for facilities. In some cases no ‘contributions’ would be justified at all. 6.29.4. I agree that the Policy does not take things much further than government advice. Nevertheless, in the light of the potential importance of the matter to those proposing to develop housing sites, the Policy should remain in the Plan. Recommendations: 6.29.5. I recommend that: • The reference to Circular 1/97 in the reasoned justification should be replaced by a reference to Circular 05/2005. • No other modification is made in response to these objections.

6.30. HSG10: Affordable Housing

Objections: 97/294 Government Office for the West Midlands 100/351 David Wilson Homes 100/352 David Wilson Homes 111/460 Birmingham City Council 119/544 West Midlands Regional RSL Planning Consortium 119/1073 West Midlands Regional RSL Planning Consortium 131/595 Mr & Mrs Butler 145/118 Walton Homes Ltd 145/116 Walton Homes Ltd 145/1180 Walton Homes Ltd

152 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

146/672 Mr N & Mrs R Whorton 146/1173 Mr N & Mrs R Whorton 150/19 Alfred McAlpine Special Projects 150/20 Alfred McAlpine Special Projects 150/1156 Alfred McAlpine Special Projects 153/767 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 161/845 The House Builders Federation 416/1083 Fordham Research 119/565 West Midlands Regional RSL Planning Consortium (R2ndDep NFC)

Key Issues: a) Is there a need for affordable homes to be provided on housing sites in Tamworth? If there is not any identified need should the Policy be deleted? b) Should there be a numerical target for the whole district? Is the 30% target for housing sites too high? c) Should the needs of migrants to Tamworth be addressed? d) Is it adequately clear that ‘affordable dwellings’ includes low-cost as well as subsidised units? Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.30.1. Most of the points in representations made by objectors in relation to the First Deposit draft were met by changes in the Revised Deposit draft, either to the Policy or to the reasoned justification. (The definition of affordable housing has also been amended in the Glossary.) In particular, I note (a) that the word ‘subsidised’ has been deleted from the Policy; (b) there is a reference in the Policy to achieving a target through negotiations with developers; (c) there is a definition of affordable housing in Paragraph 6.27 (that (i) is compatible with the RSS and (ii) indicates with sufficient clarity that both subsidised and low-cost units are included); (d) the size of sites where provision of affordable housing will be sought is explained; (e) the question of using planning conditions, to control permitted development rights for extensions to affordable houses, has been addressed. 6.30.2. Housing Needs Survey One objector suggested that the HNS (2001 CD21) was out of date. Another said that in the absence of ‘identified need’ the Policy should be deleted. Those objectors apart, only one objector attempted to criticise the methodology and conclusions of the HNS. Before looking, very briefly, at those criticisms, it is appropriate to mention an important point. No representations (relating to this policy and supporting text) were submitted by objector 416 to the First Deposit draft. The objections (to Policy HSG10 and Paragraph 6.26) were to the Revised Deposit draft only. The objector did not submit a duly-made objection to the principle of Policy HSG10, as it now stands. (Indeed it is not clear that this objector makes any criticism of the actual wording of HSG10.) It follows that the possibility of deleting the affordable housing policy altogether (for the reasons advocated by this objector) does not arise.

153 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

6.30.3. In summary, the main criticisms of the HNS related to: (a) use of the housing register as a measure of need (i.e. both ‘backlog need’ and as an element of newly arising need); (b) inadequate or potentially misleading methods of identifying ‘concealed households’; (c) the definition of ‘affordability’. Without going through the arguments in detail, my opinion is that there is some force in these criticisms. As a result, the HNS is not as ‘robust’ as would be desirable. In coming to that view I have had regard to ‘Local Housing Needs Assessment: a Guide to Good Practice’ DETR 2000. 6.30.4. However, I do not therefore conclude that there is no need for affordable homes in Tamworth. There was other evidence, admittedly sometimes indirect or anecdotal, of a need for affordable homes. Where such evidence comes from local people or local organisations, I consider it should be given some weight. (I note here in passing that the West Midlands Regional RSL Planning Consortium evidently do not doubt the principle of a need for affordable homes in Tamworth.) The criticisms of the HNS do not, to my mind, establish positively that there is definitely ‘no need’ for affordable homes31. Rather, they tend to show that the HNS does not demonstrate properly the extent of that need. The council informed me that they hope to proceed soon to carry out a new HNS, or at least a review of the HNS. That is very welcome, but I make it clear that I do not think that adoption of the Plan should be delayed solely in order to incorporate the results of the new or reviewed HNS (although if the results can be incorporated, so much the better). 6.30.5. The Policy does not contain a target for the total number of affordable houses to be provided in the plan period. That is a weakness, but in view of the comments, above, on the HNS, it is an unavoidable one at the present time. Instead, the Policy provides a percentage target for all housing sites. In my experience and judgement a 30% affordable homes target (i.e. including both low cost and subsidised units) is not at all unusual or unreasonable. It is not likely to lead to over-provision. It can be retained. I conclude that there is a need and that on the basis of such information as is available the 30% target is reasonable. 6.30.6. There is no advantage in dealing separately with the question of migrants to Tamworth (presumably these are primarily migrants from elsewhere in the Region). Recommendations: 6.30.7. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

31 I am aware that there is a section in the objector’s evidence that suggest that a proper interpretation of the HNS data might show that there is actually a ‘surplus’ not a ‘net need’. In my judgement, taking account of comments made by other parties, that is unlikely to be the case.

154 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

6.31. Paragraphs 6.26-6.30

Objections: 119/555 West Midlands Regional RSL Planning Consortium 119/1076 West Midlands Regional RSL Planning Consortium 416/1084 Fordham Research

Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.31.1. The issues raised by these objections have either (a) been adequately addressed by changes at Revised Deposit stage or (b) have already been discussed under the heading of Policy HSG10 (above). In view of the criticisms of the 2001 HNS, I shall recommend a slight modification of Paragraph 6.26, to reduce the emphasis placed on that document. Recommendations: 6.31.2. I recommend that: • Paragraph 6.26 is modified as follows: • delete the second sentence of the Paragraph (beginning: ‘The figures given…’. • reword the third sentence so that it reads: ‘From the information available to the council (including the Housing Needs Survey), the annual level of need for affordable housing is likely to be in excess of what could be realistically achieved from new housing development.’ • No other modification is made in response to these objections.

6.32. HSG11: Specialist Housing

Objections: 99/396 Bloor Homes 119/556 West Midlands Regional RSL Planning Consortium 153/768 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 161/846 The House Builders Federation

Key Issues: a) Should the ‘element’ of specialist housing need be defined more fully? b) Is the Policy superfluous? Could it be incorporated in Policy HSG10?

155 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

c) Is it too vague? What are appropriate sites? Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.32.1. Those with ‘special housing needs’ should be catered for. So it is reasonable to have a Policy that draws attention to these types of housing. I agree that the Policy is somewhat vague, but on the information available to me it is not easy to see how either the nature of the need or the type of site could be satisfactorily clarified. The Policy does not ‘require’ any specific provision. It states that the council will seek provision on appropriate sites. The Policy can remain. This aspect of the HNS was not criticised, so Paragraph 6.31 can also remain. Recommendations: 6.32.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

6.33. HSG12: Low Cost Market Housing

Objections: 97/295 Government Office for the West Midlands 100/353 David Wilson Homes 119/557 West Midlands Regional RSL Planning Consortium 145/115 Walton Homes Ltd 145/117 Walton Homes Ltd 146/673 Mr N & Mrs R Whorton 153/769 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.33.1. This Policy has been deleted. Low cost market housing has been included in affordable housing; see HSG10. No further comment is required. Recommendations: 6.33.2. I recommend that: • No further modification is made in response to these objections.

156 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

6.34. Paragraph 6.33

Objections: 119/558 West Midlands Regional RSL Planning Consortium

Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.34.1. This Paragraph has been deleted. Recommendations: 6.34.2. I recommend that: • No further modification is made in response to this objection.

6.35. HSG13: Lifetime Homes

Objections: 100/354 David Wilson Homes 119/559 West Midlands Regional RSL Planning Consortium 151/713 George Wimpey UK Ltd 153/770 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

Key Issues: a) Should the Policy be linked to HSG11? b) Whether the Policy should be deleted because it goes beyond Building Regulations (see Part M) and there is no justification for imposing a more rigorous standard in Tamworth; c) Whether this Policy would increase costs and be contrary to the interests of persons seeking affordable housing. Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.35.1. I have referred to CD57 and CD73. In my view there is a great deal to be said in favour of constructing houses to the ‘Lifetime Standards’. However, from examination of the standards, it appears that many of the provisions are of the kind which are normally and properly dealt with by Building Regulations, rather than by development plan policies. In many instances they appear to deal with a level of ‘internal design detail’ that goes beyond that indicated (in the planning context) by PPS1. With some reluctance, I conclude that the Policy and supporting text should be deleted. Recommendations:

157 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

6.35.2. I recommend that: • The Plan is modified by the deletion of Policy HSG13, and the supporting Paragraphs (6.35-37).

6.36. HSG16: Houses in Multiple Occupation

Objections: 119/560 West Midlands Regional RSL Planning Consortium

Key Issues: a) Where Houses in Multiple Occupation are developed by RSLs, should the requirements for car parking be relaxed? Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.36.1. Car parking standards are now ‘maximum standards’, so there is scope for a RSL to negotiate the ‘appropriate’ level of car-parking, for a particular property, at the planning application stage. The Policy need not be amended. Recommendations: 6.36.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to this objection.

6.37. HSG17: Provision of Accommodation for Gypsies/Travellers

Objections: 30/71 Mr K Dawes 115/485 Smith Brothers (Tamworth) Ltd

Key Issues: a) Should there be any provision for gypsies? What would ensure that gypsies would actually use the site? How would any rubbish be disposed of? Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.37.1. The Policy is broadly in line with government guidance and should be retained.

158 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

Recommendations: 6.37.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

6.38. Omissions to Housing Chapter

Objections: 15/43 Mr J Walton 25/59 Mr J Starkey 30/72 Mr K Dawes 38/84 Mrs S Cattell 43/92 Mrs J Tennant 43/95 Mrs J Tennant 47/99 Ms M Harris 98/312 British Waterways 119/562 West Midlands Regional RSL Planning Consortium

Key Issues: a) Should a site be allocated for a hospital? b) Should a Policy on ‘residential moorings’ be included? c) Whether insufficient reference is made in the Plan to re-use of empty properties (for housing); d) Whether there is a possibility of development in the Riverside residential area; e) Whether Jasmin Road should be ‘opened up’. Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.38.1. None of the official bodies or organisations concerned with health care have objected to the Plan on the basis that a hospital site is required. There is no reason therefore to allocate such a site. 6.38.2. It is not clear from the relevant representation what exactly is suggested as a ‘residential moorings’ policy. On the limited information available, it does not appear necessary. 6.38.3. PPG3 asks local planning authorities to adopt positive policies to identify and bring into housing use empty housing, vacant commercial buildings and upper floors above shops, in conjunction with the local authority’s housing programme and empty property strategy. Policy HSG1 refers to providing new dwellings by, among other means, ‘the conversion of buildings to residential use’. HSG4 deals with ‘…conversion, the use of

159 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

derelict or under used land or redevelopment of premises’ (for residential purposes). Paragraph 6.42b refers to encouraging owners to bring properties back into use. Policy TR5 deals with housing in the town centre including a focus on: ‘conversion of the upper floors above shops.. the conversion of outbuildings… conversion or redevelopment of commercial premises….’. These references do not entirely deal with the objector’s point. Nevertheless it is adequately clear from the Plan that the council has clearly in mind the relevant government guidance. No additional Policy is needed. 6.38.4. The Plan does not promote any particular development in the Riverside area. Whether Jasmin Road should be ‘opened up’ is not a matter that can usefully be dealt with in the Plan. Recommendations: 6.38.5. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

6.39. Urban Capacity Study

Objections: 92/109 Stonydelph/Glascote Open Space Supporters 153/777 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 161/838 The House Builders Federation 145/1178 Walton Homes Ltd 145/1179 Walton Homes Ltd

Key Issues: a) Whether certain sites (mentioned in the UCS) should be deleted; whether there should be ‘phasing’ of site development; whether the UCS includes sites that already have planning permission or are being developed. Inspector’s Reasoning: 6.39.1. The UCS is not part of the Plan. It is relevant to the Plan as it affects the consideration of the housing land supply position. All relevant matters have already been taken into account under the headings of HSG1 and HSG2. In some cases the objections have been overtaken by events. Recommendations: 6.39.2. I recommend that: • No further modification to the Plan is made in response to these objections.

160 Chapter 6: Housing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

Chapter 7: Town Centre and Retailing

7.1. TCR2 and Omission Site: Shopping Proposals

Objections: 13/39 J.A. Crotty 65/149 Mr & Mrs R.J. Walker 83/180 B.W. Gould 115/486 Smith Brothers (Tamworth) Ltd 133/607 Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd 135/613 Redbourn Group PLC 144/669 The Trustees of the Estate of Mr J Aucott 150/6 Alfred McAlpine Special Projects 144/655 The Trustees of the Estate of Mr J Aucott

Key Issues: a) Gungate (Policy TCR2). Is there any need for more shops in Tamworth? Would it be better to use the space for additional car parking? b) Should the reference to ‘bulky goods’ be deleted? c) In the absence of evidence of need or of capacity should the reference to provision of a food store also be deleted? d) Would disabled persons be disadvantaged? Would a multi-storey car park cause overlooking of the Almshouses or be out of place in this location? e) Land adjacent to the Tamworth Herald, Ventura Park Road (‘Aucott Site’). Should this site be allocated for development for retail purposes? Inspector’s Reasoning: 7.1.1. Preliminary Issues relevant to this Chapter of the Plan were examined in detail during the part of the local plan inquiry that was held jointly with an inquiry into appeals under Section 78 of the Act against refusals of permission for two separate proposals for out of centre retail development Those appeals were: (a) an appeal by Redbourn Group plc in respect of a site at Cardinal Point, at the junction of Ventura Park Road, Tamworth (APP/Z3445/A/04/1150000) and (b) an appeal by Aucott Holdings Ltd in respect of a site on land adjacent to the Tamworth Herald, at Ventura Park Road, Tamworth (APP/Z3445/A/04/1153751). I confirm that I am content with both the conclusions and the reasoning of the Inspector who reported to the First Secretary of State on the Section 78 appeals. I see my recommendations in respect of the relevant objections to

161 Chapter 7: Town Centre & Retailing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

the Local Plan as being consistent with the recommendations made to the First Secretary of State on the Section 78 appeals. 7.1.2. Gungate Precinct I agree with the comment in the reasoned justification to this Policy that the precinct is currently an underused resource with substantial potential for enhancement. 7.1.3. There was detailed, and largely agreed, evidence at the inquiry that there is a considerable need for additional comparison goods floorspace in Tamworth district. As far as the town centre itself is concerned, one of its features is the absence of a foodstore of any great size in a primary location. 7.1.4. I appreciate that some of the town’s car parks are very well used. I do not think that the vitality or viability of the town centre would be assisted by using the whole of the Gungate site for car parking, without any addition to the facilities and services that might attract visitors and custom. 7.1.5. In all these circumstances, it is appropriate for the Plan to promote the redevelopment of Gungate, in order to contribute to meeting the identified need for either convenience or comparison goods retail provision, or both. 7.1.6. The Policy as now worded refers to ‘non-bulky comparable [sic] goods shopping and a bulky goods and/or food store shop’. Whilst I would not absolutely rule out the possibility of bulky goods retailing at Gungate, the evidence was that a large, bulky-goods store is highly unlikely to materialise. On the other hand, the evidence was that a successful redevelopment of Gungate may well be dependent on attracting a suitable convenience store ‘anchor’. It seems to me that it would be reasonable for this town centre site to be re-developed for any practicable combination of comparison and convenience shopping floorspace. The Policy need not be more specific than that. 7.1.7. At the inquiry there was discussion about (a) the origin and meaning of the reference in the draft Policy to ‘a minimum of 4000 sq. metres’ (of retail floorspace) and (b) the achievability of a large amount of extra retail floorspace on the site. I consider that the most natural reading of the words in the Policy would tend to the interpretation that the result of the ‘redevelopment’ is expected to be a minimum of 4000 sq m of retail floorspace altogether; i.e. not the addition of 4000 sq m to the amount of floorspace that is already there. Whether that is correct or not, there were no objections relevant to that particular aspect of the Policy so it can remain as it is. 7.1.8. The needs of disabled persons would certainly have to be taken into account when designing any redevelopment scheme. There is no reason why that could not be done. 7.1.9. The proximity of the Almshouses and other listed buildings is another important point that would have to be taken into account at the design stage. I am not convinced that these ‘constraints’ mean that the allocation is in principle unacceptable. Similarly, the effect on residential amenity should, and in my judgement could, be properly addressed. 7.1.10. The other aspect of the available evidence that is directly relevant to this Policy is the question of the timescale within which any redevelopment is likely to occur. There are factors that could well slow the project down,

162 Chapter 7: Town Centre & Retailing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

including matters of land ownership, and possible archaeological remains. On balance however I conclude that there is a reasonable prospect that redevelopment could take place by the end of the plan period. There is no reason to delete the Policy on the basis that it is a totally unrealistic allocation. 7.1.11. The supporting text refers to the Town Centre and Retailing Study undertaken in 2000. It is acknowledged that this document is out of date. These references can be deleted. 7.1.12. Aucott Site The original objection was in respect of ‘a retail allocation’. The evidence to the inquiry was put forward on the basis that the actual use would be for ‘a DIY/bulky goods store’, so I have considered the matter on that basis. 7.1.13. I have already dealt with the ‘employment land allocation’ of this site, and recommended that the site is no longer ‘reserved’ for that purpose. In making that recommendation I have had regard to RSS Policy 6, especially PA6 C and D. 7.1.14. As also mentioned, all the parties agreed that there is a large quantitative need for additional comparison retail floorspace in Tamworth district. There is also a qualitative need, in particular for an ‘up-grading’ of the DIY ‘offer’ in the Tamworth area. 7.1.15. Retail development of the Aucott site (even if it were combined with retail development on part of the Cardinal Point site, as proposed in that Section 78 appeal) would have very little impact on the vitality and viability of Tamworth town centre. Again, all relevant professional witnesses were in broad agreement on that point. 7.1.16. The extent of the need is such that it could not be accommodated on the Gungate site. Furthermore it is unlikely that a Gungate redevelopment would accommodate the kind of DIY/bulky goods store envisaged for the Aucott site. 7.1.17. The Aucott site is out of centre, so the sequential test is applicable. No alternative town centre or edge of centre sites have been identified, which could meet the need in the foreseeable future. I regard the Aucott site as superior to the ‘Doulton Works site’ because (a) it would be closely associated with existing retail development at Ventura Park/Jolly Sailor; (b) the SP mentions Ventura Park as a possible location to accommodate ‘the continuing pressure for retail expansion’32. 7.1.18. Appropriate measures, such as those discussed at the inquiry could safeguard the free flow of traffic on the adjacent A5. There is an opportunity to further enhance the accessibility of the site from the town centre by foot, by cycle and by bus. 7.1.19. I conclude that there should be an allocation of the objection site for a ‘DIY/bulky goods store’. 7.1.20. At the inquiry, the council made use of a draft 2005 Shopping Study update. When that document has been finalised and studied it may be that the council would wish to consider reviewing any opportunities there may be to meet the large retail need that seems to have been identified.

32 That is my view, even though the SP rather confusingly calls Ventura Park ‘edge-of-centre’.

163 Chapter 7: Town Centre & Retailing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

However, I am strongly of the view that this process should not delay the progressing of the Local Plan. It may be more appropriate to deal with the matter in a DPD in due course. Recommendations: 7.1.21. I recommend that: • Policy TCR2 is modified so that the first sentence reads as follows: ‘It is proposed that there is a redevelopment of Gungate Precinct and associated car park for retail development consisting of a minimum of 4000 sq m of convenience and/or comparison retail floorspace.’ • In the reasoned justification (Paragraph 7.9) the first sentence (which refers to the 2000 Town Centre and Retailing study) should be deleted. • Policy TCR2 should be headed ‘Shopping Proposals’. It should be divided into two sections: A and B. ‘A’ should relate to Gungate. ‘B’ should relate to ‘Land adjacent to the Tamworth Herald, Ventura Park Road’. The policy text following this heading should read: ‘It is proposed that there is retail development (for a DIY/bulky goods store) on land adjacent to the Tamworth Herald, at Ventura Park Road, as shown on the Proposals Map.’ • The Proposals Map should identify the site, (i.e. as broadly indicated in objection 144/655).

7.2. TCR3: New Retail and Other Town Centre Related Development

Objections: 97/296 Government Office for the West Midlands 106/401 Royal London Asset Management 133/608 Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd 135/614 Redbourn Group PLC 135/615 Redbourn Group PLC 135/1133 Redbourn Group PLC 136/621 WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC 136/1158 WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC 139/635 Marks & Spencer PLC 144/656 The Trustees of the Estate of Mr J Aucott 144/1161 The Trustees of the Estate of Mr J Aucott 149/690 RPS Plc

164 Chapter 7: Town Centre & Retailing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

150/10 Alfred McAlpine Special Projects 150/1157 Alfred McAlpine Special Projects 153/1027 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

Key Issues: a) Whether the Policy is consistent with current government guidance. Inspector’s Reasoning: 7.2.1. At the Plan’s Revised Deposit stage many of the aspects of the Policy to which objection had been raised were removed or modified. Some objectors considered that the text still failed adequately to reflect relevant parts of PPG6. Subsequently, PPG6 was replaced by PPS6. At the inquiry the council accepted that further modification would be appropriate to take account of PPS6. A suggested wording was provided in SC30. That new wording is acceptable as far as it goes. I shall recommend it, subject to one very minor addition, to refer to sites which are or will be ‘well served by a choice of means of transport’. 7.2.2. I also consider that the opening lines of the text of the Policy could be slightly modified to reflect more closely PPS6 paragraph 1.8. 7.2.3. The SC deals satisfactorily with a point raised about the ‘local centre’ which the Plan states should be included in the Anker Valley development. 7.2.4. It is not appropriate for this Policy (which is relevant in principle to a range of applications) to pick out Ventura Park as a preferred location for retail development. 7.2.5. It was pointed out that Paragraph 7.4 (as now drafted) would conflict with TCR3 (either as it is in the Revised Deposit draft or as it would be if further adjusted in the light of PPS6). I have already mentioned that the 2000 Town Centre and Retailing Study is out of date. The evidence at the inquiry (including that from the council) demonstrated that some of the conclusions of the 2000 study can no longer be considered reliable. I shall therefore recommend that this Paragraph is deleted. The council might wish to consider a replacement Paragraph, when it has had an opportunity to study the final version of the up-dated retailing study, but I cannot make any recommendation about the wording at this stage. 7.2.6. For consistency, references to PPG6 in the reasoned justification for Policy TCR3 should be replaced by the appropriate references to PPS6. The references to the ‘Caborn Statement’ can also be removed. Recommendations: 7.2.7. I recommend that: • Policy TCR3 is modified so that (in place of the first sentence of the text beginning: ‘Proposals for key town centre uses… ‘) there is a sentence reading: ‘Proposals for main town centre uses that attract a large number of people and are intended to serve a wide catchment (such as retailing, leisure, entertainment and the more intensive

165 Chapter 7: Town Centre & Retailing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

sport and recreation uses, offices, arts, culture and tourism) will be subject to the sequential test.’ • Additionally, Policy TCR3 should be modified in accordance with the changes proposed in SC30. That is subject to an addition to the wording of the first sub-paragraph iii) (i.e. the one which is part of the description of the ‘sequential test’) so that it reads in part: ‘out-of-centre sites, with preference given to sites that are, or will be well served by a choice of means of transport,….’. • Paragraph 7.4 is deleted. • In Paragraphs 7.10-10a references to PPG6 should be replaced as appropriate by references to PPS6. The references to the ‘Caborn Statement’ should be removed.

7.3. TCR4: Shopping Frontages

Objections: 89/197 Mr R Lancaster

Key Issues: a) Whether these controls should be relaxed in order to allow more scope for businesses. Inspector’s Reasoning: 7.3.1. I consider that in the primary shopping frontages it is sensible to maintain the ‘primacy’ of retail uses. That will assist in supporting the vitality and viability of the town centre. There is more scope for other, non-retail but appropriate, businesses in the secondary shopping streets. That is a reasonable balance. The Policy does not need modification. Recommendations: 7.3.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to this objection.

7.4. TCR5: Housing in the Town Centre

Objections: 100/355 David Wilson Homes 115/488 Smith Brothers (Tamworth) Ltd

166 Chapter 7: Town Centre & Retailing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

119/563 West Midlands Regional RSL Planning Consortium

Key Issues: a) Should the maximum car parking provision be raised to 1.5 spaces? b) Should there be ‘adequate minimum car parking standards applied to all Town Centre residential development to avoid parking problems’? c) Should ‘lower parking standards be adopted for affordable housing, especially when developed by RSLs’? Inspector’s Reasoning: 7.4.1. Car parking standards should not be expressed as minimum standards; (see PPG3). Government advice is that parking standards should be revised to allow for significantly lower levels of off-street parking, particularly for developments in locations such as town centres where services are readily accessible by walking, cycling or public transport. Bearing that in mind, I consider that the maximum of 1 space per unit in the town centre is justified. As the standard is a maximum it is unnecessary to make special provision for RSLs, in the manner suggested. Recommendations: 7.4.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

7.5. TCR10: Cultural & Leisure Uses

Objections: 97/285 Government Office for the West Midlands 144/657 The Trustees of the Estate of Mr J Aucott 144/1162 The Trustees of the Estate of Mr J Aucott

Key Issues: a) Whether the Policy is too negative (for example in saying that these uses ‘should’ be in the town centre); b) Should the reference to the Tamworth catchment area be deleted? Inspector’s Reasoning: 7.5.1. It seems to me that many of the proposals at which this Policy is really directed would consist of ‘main town centre uses’ that are already covered in Policy TCR3. It might cause confusion to have two slightly differently worded ‘tests’ being applied to the same project. I shall recommend therefore that the first paragraph of the Policy is retained, but that proposals

167 Chapter 7: Town Centre & Retailing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

for development outside the town centre are considered under TCR3. In the light of the potentially disturbing nature of some of these uses however, I shall also recommend that a criterion, applicable to all cases, is retained which covers the question of residential amenity. 7.5.2. In the light of government policy on town centres, I do not find the use of the word ‘should’ unacceptable in this Policy. In this context it conveys a clear preference, not a complete bar on such development taking place elsewhere. 7.5.3. SC31 does not need to be commented on. Recommendations: 7.5.4. I recommend that Policy TCR10 is modified as follows: • All of the wording after the end of the first paragraph (which ends ‘… environment of the town.’) should be deleted. • Two additional sentences should be added (forming a new paragraph) reading: ‘Proposals for these uses outside the town centre will be considered under Policy TCR3. In all cases (whether within or outside the town centre) the proposal must not cause unacceptable harm to residential amenity.’

7.6. TCR10A: Hotels

Objections: 144/658 Trustees of the Estate of Mr J Aucott 144/1163 Trustees of the Estate of Mr J Aucott 144/664 Trustees of the Estate of Mr J Aucott

Key Issues: a) Whether there should be a site allocated for a hotel to the south of the A5 (as shown in the objection); b) Whether this criteria-based Policy is adequate. Inspector’s Reasoning: 7.6.1. One difficulty with this proposal (for an allocation of a hotel site) is that there is little argument and evidence of the kind that one would generally expect to justify a substantial hotel site in an out of centre location. (I appreciate that applications for development for this purpose were refused on design and amenity grounds, rather than on grounds of principle.) In these circumstances, it is not possible to recommend the allocation. The criteria-based Policy seems a reasonable approach to hotel provision. I note here that the third criterion does not absolutely rule-out the use of land

168 Chapter 7: Town Centre & Retailing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

allocated for other purposes. It is a question of showing that the supply of land is not prejudiced. Recommendations: 7.6.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

7.7. TCR11: Parking

Objections: 161/849 The House Builders Federation

Key Issues: a) Whether residential development should be excluded from the scope of this Policy. Inspector’s Reasoning: 7.7.1. This Policy is evidently intended to link with Policy TCR5. There is no reason why residential development should automatically be excluded from the provisions of TCR11. No doubt if it could be shown that a particular proposal would not generate any additional car journeys, that could be taken into account when negotiating any planning obligations. Recommendations: 7.7.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to this objection.

7.8. TCR13: Tame Valley

Objections: 144/659 The Trustees of the Estate of Mr J Aucott 126/571 Morston Group (see also under EMP5) Key Issues: a) Whether the justification to this Policy should be removed or amended. Inspector’s Reasoning: 7.8.1. I have made comments earlier in this Chapter about the 2000 Town Centre and Retailing Study. Paragraph 7.35 is out of date and should be deleted. I add this. Even though there may be a greater need for additional comparison goods retail floorspace in Tamworth district than the 2000

169 Chapter 7: Town Centre & Retailing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

study identified, it does not follow that the need should be met at Tame Valley. All applications for additional retail development will be subject to TCR3, other development plan policies and PPS6. Recommendations: 7.8.2. I recommend that: • Paragraph 7.35 should be deleted.

7.9. Proposals Map & Miscellaneous Objections to Shopping Chapter Objections: 133/606 Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd 40/88 Mr K Brunt

Key Issues: a) Whether the Proposals Map should be amended to show the Ventura Retail Park (and to include an existing Sainsbury’s store); b) Should the council provide assistance to small traders in their start-up years to help them get established? c) Should there be a wider range of quality shops? Inspector’s Reasoning: 7.9.1. Ventura Park is an established retail area. However, it is clearly distinguishable from the Town Centre. The Town Centre is identified on the Proposals Map and is where the focus of ‘main town centre uses’ should be. Any applications for retail development outside the designated town centre have to be considered in the light of relevant development plan polices (such as TCR3) and PPS6. From the point of view of a correct assessment of the merits of any application for out of centre retail development, I see no great advantage in a ‘designation’ of the Ventura Retail Park on the Proposals Map. 7.9.2. One of the objectives of the Plan is to support the vitality and viability of the Town Centre. However this particular suggestion (of assistance to small traders) is not one that can be catered for in the Plan. Similarly, whilst the result of the Policies might be the attraction or retention of ‘quality shops’ in the town centre, they cannot be directly provided by means of this document. Recommendations: 7.9.3. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

170 Chapter 7: Town Centre & Retailing

Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report

Chapter 8: Implementation & Monitoring

8.1. IMP1&2: Monitoring & Review

Objections:

153/771 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates (R2ndDep NFC) 153/743 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates

Key Issues: a) Does there need to be a provision for triggering action following monitoring and review (IMP2)?

Inspector’s Reasoning: 8.1.1. The possibility of consequential action is ‘signposted’ in the reasoned justification to the Policy. Recommendations: 8.1.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections.

171 Chapter 8: Implementation & Monitoring

INDEX TO SELECTED SITES, PLACES AND LOCATIONS

Amington, 34, 35, 43, 53, 54, 55, 56, Doulton Works, 77, 78, 135, 163 57, 59, 67, 69, 71, 80, 82, 91, Dunstall Lane, 26, 27, 28, 84, 92, 138, 139 94, 95 Amington Hall, 34, 35, 54, 55, 80, Fountains Junction, 59, 65, 66, 67 82, 138 Gillway, 59 Amington Link Phase 2, 53, 54, 57, Glascote Farm, 121, 125 59, 60, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 Green Belt, 8, 9, 28, 29, 98, 133, Anker Valley, 6, 29, 30, 34, 35, 50, 134 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 65, Gungate, 161, 162, 163, 164 66, 67, 68, 69, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, Hedging Lane, 9, 74, 96, 97, 121, 82, 83, 86, 112, 114, 115, 117, 132, 136 118, 120, 121, 132, 133, 137, Lichfield, 63, 66, 68, 69, 84, 85, 86, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 92, 113, 116, 122, 123, 138, 139, 145, 146, 165 141, 143 Anker Valley Link, 53, 54, 55, 57, Mercian Way, 59, 60 59, 60, 61, 66, 67, 69, 70, 133 Parkfield House, 121 Ashby Road, 55, 59, 60, 66, 80 Pennine Way, 59, 60, 135 Averill Brickworks, 13 Riverside, 159, 160 Bitterscote North, 95, 96, 97, 98 Sandy Way, 91 Bonehill Road, 82, 93, 94, 111 Shuttington Road, 53, 54 Brindley Drive, 57, 59, 60, 66, 67, St Peter’s Close, 127, 128 68, 80, 133, 140 Station Fields, 66, 68 Brookside Way, 121, 132, 136 Stonydelph, 96, 126, 131, 135, 160 Browns Lane, 59 Tame Valley, 101, 102, 129, 169, Cardinal Point, 97, 161, 163 170 Castle Pleasure Grounds, 7 Tamworth Herald, 161, 164 Coton Lane, 74, 84, 85, 86, 87, 90 Ventura Park, 71, 72, 161, 163, 164, Cottage Farm Road, 121, 130 165, 170 Dosthill, 28, 29, 43, 44, 53, 54, 55, Warwickshire Moor, 12, 13, 80 56, 61, 96, 97, 133, 134, 135 Whitley Avenue, 19, 21, 133 Dosthill bypass, 53, 54, 55, 97 Wilnecote, 62, 98

172