Contents of Report

Report to the First Secretary The Planning Inspectorate Temple Quay House of State 2 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN  GTN 1371 8000

by Philip Wilson Dip Arch DipTP RIBA MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the First Secretary of State Date:

12 May 2004

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) ACT 1990

WALSALL METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL

APPEALS

BOVIS HOMES LTD

Inquiry opened on 23 March 2004

St Margaret's Hospital, Queslett Road, Great Barr, Walsall

File References: APP/V4630/A/03/1121480 APP/V4630/E/03/1121666 APP/V4630/E/03/1121665 APP/P4605/A/03/1121922 Report: APP/V4630/A/03/1121480 APP/V4630/E/03/1121666 APP/V4630/E/03/1121665 APP/P4605/A/03/1121922

File Ref: APP/V4630/A/03/1121480 St Margaret's Hospital, Queslett Road, Great Barr, Walsall  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for outline planning permission.  The appeal is made by Bovis Homes Ltd against Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application (Ref.02/2417/OL/E2) is dated 23 December 2002.  The development proposed is to redevelop the former St Margaret's Hospital for residential development, alterations to existing access at Queslett Road including repositioning of 20th century gate posts - and associated development. Application accompanied by an Environmental Statement and Master Plan (providing up to a maximum of 445 dwellings) and a Design Statement. Summary of Recommendation: That the appeal be allowed and outline planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.

File Ref: APP/V4630/E/03/1121666 St Margaret's Hospital, Queslett Road, Great Barr, Walsall  The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for listed building consent.  The appeal is made by Bovis Homes Ltd against Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application (Ref.02/2416/LB/E2) is dated 23 December 2002.  The proposal is to reposition 20th century gate piers on entrance drive from Queslett Road. Summary of Recommendation: That the appeal be allowed and listed building consent be granted, subject to conditions.

File Ref: APP/V4630/E/03/1121665 St Margaret's Hospital, Queslett Road, Great Barr, Walsall  The appeal is made under sections 20 and 74 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for conservation area consent.  The appeal is made by Bovis Homes Ltd against Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application (Ref.03/0057/CA/E2) is dated 9 January 2003.  The proposal is to demolish former female homes, former male homes and concrete pedestrian bridge. Summary of Recommendation: That the appeal be allowed and conservation area consent be granted, subject to conditions.

File Ref: APP/P4605/A/03/1121922 St Margaret's Hospital, Queslett Road, Great Barr, Walsall  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for planning permission.  The appeal is made by Bovis Homes Ltd against Birmingham City Council.  The application (Ref.N/00589/03/FUL) is dated 29 January 2003.  The development proposed is engineering works to alter access arrangements to St Margaret's Hospital at Queslett Road. Summary of Recommendation: That the appeal be allowed and planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.

1 Report APP/V4630/A/03/1121480 APP/V4630/E/03/1121666 APP/V4630/E/03/1121665 APP/P4605/A/03/1121922

CONTENTS OF REPORT

PAGE TITLE PARAGRAPHS

2 Details of Appeals

3 Procedural Matters 1 - 5

3 The Appeals Site and Surroundings 6 - 12

5 Planning Policy Context 13 - 34

8 Historical Background 35 - 40

9 Planning History 41 - 44

9 The Appeal Proposals 45 - 60

12 The Case for Bovis Homes Ltd 61 - 109

21 The Case for Walsall MBC, Birmingham CC and Sandwell MBC 110 - 144

26 The Case for the Great Barr Hall Action Committee (GBHAC) 145 - 161

28 The Case for the Beacon Action Group 162 - 171

30 The Case for Interested Persons 172 - 201

34 Written Representations 202 - 230

39 Conditions 231 - 253

43 Planning Obligations 254 - 262

45 Conclusions 263 - 315

54 Summary of Conclusions 316 - 325

55 Recommendations 326 - 329

57 Appearances

58 Documents/Plans/Photographs

61 Schedule of Planning Conditions

69 Environmental Statement: Schedule of Contents

Report APP/V4630/A/03/1121480 APP/V4630/E/03/1121666 APP/V4630/E/03/1121665 APP/P4605/A/03/1121922

Procedural Matters

1. It is agreed by the main parties that the appeals are to be determined on the basis that they are inextricably linked. Appeal APP/V4630/A/03/1121480, seeking outline planning permission for residential development of up to 445 dwellings, relies on listed building consent being granted for works to gate piers at the entrance to the site to improve access. It also depends on conservation area consent being granted for the demolition of former hospital buildings and on planning permission being granted for improvements to the present vehicular access from Queslett Road. These alterations would affect highway land that is partly within the City of Birmingham. The boundary between Walsall and Birmingham runs along the centre of Queslett Road. [Plans A, B, C, D]

2. A Pre-Inquiry Meeting (PIM) was held on 5 January 2004. That meeting was the third PIM relating to proposals for the St Margaret's Hospital site. Previous PIMs were held in December 2002 and March 2003. The Appellant confirmed at the 5 January 2004 PIM that nine appeals, arising from previous proposals, had been formally withdrawn. Details of those appeals are contained in the Statement of Common Ground (SCG). The effect is to leave only the appeals whose details are recorded at the front of this report to be determined. [Doc 6]

3. The Inquiry opened on 23 March 2004 and continued, with adjournments, until 31 March 2004. I undertook an accompanied inspection of the appeal site and its surroundings before the Inquiry, on 22 March 2004, and a formal inspection of the appeal site and its surroundings on 30 March 2004. That inspection included a tour of the local highway system, visits to residential areas surrounding the appeals site and observations of traffic movement along Queslett Road and at junctions to the south, east and west of the appeals site entrance. [Plan D]

4. The applications made to Walsall MBC and Birmingham CC were accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) prepared by the Appellant under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2000. They include a non-technical summary. [Doc 5]

5. A revised Transport Assessment was submitted to Walsall MBC in December 2003. This required revision of the ES. Procedural requirements arising from this revision were completed before the Inquiry opened. No representations were made at the PIM on 5 January 2004 concerning the status or content of the ES. I satisfied myself before the Inquiry as to the adequacy of the ES in terms of the scope of the information it provides. Although some aspects of the ES were criticised by third parties at the Inquiry, I find nothing to cause me to modify that view. [Doc 5] The Appeals Site and Surroundings

6. The appeals site is situated in the Green Belt to the south of Walsall and to the north of Birmingham. It lies close to Junction 7 of the M6 motorway and to the east of the motorway itself. To the east and south are the mainly residential areas of Pheasey and Queslett. Queslett is within the administrative area of Birmingham. To the west is Great Barr, an area of predominantly residential character in the Metropolitan Borough of Sandwell. Great Barr straddles the A34 Birmingham Road. [Doc 6, Plan G]

7. The A34 crosses Queslett Road at a road junction known as the Scott Arms, situated about half a mile to the west of the appeal site. About a quarter of a mile to the east of the Queslett Road entrance to the appeal site is a traffic roundabout which has, as its southern arm, Aldridge Road and as its northern arm the B4145 Beacon Road. This junction is

referred to as the Aldridge Road roundabout. Nearby is a local shopping centre, which includes an Asda supermarket. Roughly a quarter of a mile to the north, on Beacon Road, is Barr Beacon Comprehensive School. Chapel Lane passes to the north of the appeals site. With Beacon Way and Old Hall Lane, it forms a link between Beacon Road and the A34. [Doc 5 - Fig 1]

8. The appeals site comprises the eastern part of Great Barr Park, parkland laid out mainly in the 18th century to provide a setting for Great Barr Hall. Great Barr Hall and its immediate grounds, lie outside the appeals site. Great Barr Hall is a Grade II* listed building. Great Barr Park is included in Grade II of English Heritage's Register of Historic Parks and Gardens. The park and the house are key features of the Great Barr Conservation Area, first designated by Walsall MBC in 1986 and extended in 1996. The conservation area includes mainly open land to the north of Chapel Lane and to the east and west of Beacon Road. The conservation area also contains a number of listed buildings, of which Great Barr Hall is probably the most significant. [Doc 5/4, Plan F]

9. The Green Belt in this part of Walsall includes land in the southern and eastern parts of Borough. Agriculture and recreation are the predominant land uses. The appeals site also lies with the Beacon Regional Park whose boundaries correspond, within the administrative area of Walsall MBC, with the Green Belt boundary. The highest part of the appeals site extends along its eastern boundary. From here, the site slopes down to towards Holbrook and the lakes in the southern part of Great Barr Park. [Doc 5 Fig 2, Doc 28 Proposals Map]

10. The application made to Walsall MBC for outline planning permission records the appeals site as being 65 hectares in area. The site presently contains buildings that, until 1997, were used in connection with St Margaret's Hospital, an institution for the mentally ill. Details of the history of the hospital are given later in this report. The hospital buildings comprise two distinct groups. The main group is at the head of the main driveway that connects, at its southern end, with Queslett Road. This part of the former hospital complex group is known as the Female Homes. Here, buildings are arranged in a semi-circular layout, centred on an assembly hall. There are also various outbuildings, to the north and east. Heights of buildings range from single storey to the equivalent of three domestic storeys. [Doc 5/2 App 6, Doc 23 Fig 4.1, Plan C]

11. The second group comprises the Male Homes. These are some fourteen in number and mostly two storeys in height. They are set away from the Female Homes in the northern part of the site. Access to them is from a private driveway that passes to the north of the Female Homes. The remainder of the site is either open land, formerly used by staff and patients for recreation, or small areas of woodland. Some wooded areas date from a period no earlier than the hospital development, but there is evidence of much earlier planting that will almost certainly have formed part of the original parkland setting of Great Barr Hall. Trees of public amenity value are protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). [Doc 5/2 Apps 4 and 5 , Plan C]

12. The Queslett Road entrance is the sole means of vehicular access to the appeals site. A footpath connects the appeals site with Crail Grove and the residential area to the east. This footpath is controlled by a gate that was, at the time of the Inquiry, secured to prevent trespass. Until the hospital use ceased, access to the appeals site could also be obtained from Chapel Lane by way of Sutton's Drive. This access also serves Great Barr Hall. It is carried across a stream, known as the Holbrook, by a Gothic style bridge. The Gothic Bridge, a 19th century structure has, alongside it, a modern concrete footbridge. The Sutton's Drive access is presently gated and secured to prevent unauthorised use. [Doc 5/2 App 6, Doc 14.1 App 8, Plan A]

Planning Policy Context

13. The relevant development plan for the greater part of the appeal site is the adopted Walsall Unitary Development Plan 1995 (WUDP). The development plan for that part of Queslett Road which is the subject of the planning application made to Birmingham CC is the adopted Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 1993. [Doc 6 App, Doc 27]

14. The Walsall UDP is undergoing review and objections to it were heard at an Inquiry that took place in the summer of 2003. The Inspector's report is expected in July 2004 and formal adoption towards the end of 2004. Draft alterations to the Birmingham UDP, to allow it to be rolled forward to 2011, were approved in January 2000. Objections to alterations were considered at an Inquiry that closed in February 2003. The Inspector's report was issued in August 2003. [Doc 6 App, Doc 28]  Walsall Unitary Development Plan 1995

15. The SCG lists those WUDP Part II policies that the main parties agree are relevant to a determination of the appeals. They are policies ENV2, ENV4, ENV9 and ENV13. The SCG also identifies various Part I strategic policies agreed as being relevant to the proposals. Walsall MBC gave formal consideration to the applications for outline planning permission, listed building consent and conservation area consent after the appeals were lodged. The Council's formal objections to the proposals are set out later in this report. In policy terms, they refer to conflict only with Part I policies 3.18, 3.19, 3.20, 7.2 and 7.4, and with Part II policy ENV4. [Docs 6, 27]

16. Part I Environment and Amenity policies 3.1 to 3.7 set out principles to be applied to proposals affecting Green Belt and other open land in the Borough. They include measures for protecting and improving the environment. Policies 3.18 to 3.20 set out the Council's intention to protect and enhance the Borough's heritage, including listed buildings and conservation areas. Policy 3.23 aims to protect and promote nature conservation interests. Policy 3.24 list categories of sites to be protected. Development proposals are expected to take account of opportunities for safeguarding and enhancing nature conservation interest. [Docs 6, 27]

17. Part I Housing policies 6.5, 6.6, 6.8, 6.9 and 6.10 set out the basis upon which proposals for new housing development will be considered. They comprise need, housing types, re-use of existing developed sites, density, layout, scale, design and location in relation to public transport services. [Docs 6, 27]

18. Part I Transport policy 7.2 promotes safety in all transport planning with special emphasis on the needs of cyclists and pedestrians. Policy 7.4 sets out the Council's intention to promote movement by public transport. The policy advises that major development sites are to be designed with public transport in mind. Policy 7.12 reinforces that advice with special reference to bus services. Policy 7.19 requires a traffic impact study to be carried out where new development would generate significant levels of traffic. It advises that developers may be expected to fund off-site improvements. Policy 7.23 refers to parking standards. Policy 7.25 encourages provision to be made for cyclists and pedestrians. [Docs 6, 27]

19. Part I Leisure, Recreation, Education and Community Services policy 8.1 aims to safeguard and enhance existing leisure and recreation opportunities and, specifically, to realise the leisure potential of the Green Belt. Policy 8.4 requires new development to provide open space to meet its own needs. Policy 8.10 advises that the Council will support the protection, enhancement, promotion and management of the Beacon Regional Park,

encouraging outdoor recreational facilities, subject to Green Belt and landscape policies. [Docs 6, 27]

20. WUDP Proposal T4 sets out the approach to be adopted by the Council towards the particular use of roads that comprise the highway network. Figure 7.14 shows Queslett Road as part of the Strategic Highway Network and Beacon Road as a District Distributor. [Docs 6, 27]

21. WUDP policy ENV2 lists matters to be taken into account when assessing development proposals in the Green Belt, in circumstances where there is no objection in principle to the development. They include layout, siting, design, grouping, height and scale of buildings, use of redundant buildings, landscape quality, buildings of historic or architectural interest and the implications of the proposals for public services and infrastructure. [Docs 6, 27]

22. WUDP policy ENV4 refers specifically to Great Barr Hall and its estate. The policy advises that, in considering development proposals, the Council will take into account their contribution towards comprehensive restoration of the Hall and its historic landscape. That is in addition to Green Belt policies and Government guidance on listed buildings, conservation areas and redundant hospitals.

23. The emphasis of policy ENV4 is on re-use of existing buildings or their replacement in environmentally acceptable locations to a height not exceeding that of existing buildings. The policy requires proposals to preserve or enhance historic buildings, the conservation area, the landscape and sites of significant nature conservation interest. The policy encourages removal of features that detract from the character of the estate and provision of controlled public access. In the explanatory text to policy ENV4, the Council acknowledges the need for major investment and the need to introduce new and viable uses compatible with the character of the Hall and its estate. [Docs 6, 27]

24. WUDP policy ENV9 requires that, wherever possible, development should retain existing features of nature conservation interest. Where loss is unavoidable, the Council will seek replacement or compensatory provision. [Docs 6, 27]

25. WUDP policy ENV13 requires landscape considerations to be taken into account early in the development process, on the basis that existing landscape features of value are to be retained and provision made for the maintenance of landscaped areas. [Docs 6, 27]  Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 1993

26. The SCG identifies four paragraphs of the UDP considered relevant to the development proposed. They are paragraphs referred to in the City Council's resolution on the application for planning permission. That resolution is set out later in this report. The paragraphs referred to are 6.38, 6.43, 6.45 and 6.48. [Doc 6 App 4, Doc 29]

27. Paragraph 6.38 states that the City Council will protect capacity and target investment to increase accessibility along selected elements of the strategic highway network while ensuring primacy of environmental improvements and road safety. Paragraph 6.43 commits the City Council to promoting safe cycling and the greater use of bicycles. Paragraph 6.45 refers to opportunities to improve the pedestrian environment, reflecting the City Council's commitment to meeting the needs of pedestrians. Paragraph 6.48 sets out the City Council's priorities for traffic management and minor highway schemes. They include improving traffic flow and safety, and ensuring the efficient operation and attractiveness of public transport services. [Doc 6 App 4]

 Walsall Review UDP

28. The Walsall Review UDP has reached an advanced stage in it progress towards adoption. To the extent that it better reflects current national and regional planning guidance than the plan it is intended to replace, it may be accorded significant weight. The SCG lists those draft policies agreed by the main parties as being relevant to the appeal proposals. I summarise their provisions below. Policies that remain the subject of objection are identified in the SCG by the suffix `OBJ`. [Docs 6, 28]

29. Chapter 2 of the Review UDP sets out principles to be applied to all types of development. Policy GP1 advises that development proposals should be guided by principles of sustainability with an emphasis on accessibility and minimising the need to travel, particularly by the private car. Policy GP2 opens with a statement that all development should make a positive contribution to environmental quality and the principles of sustainable development. There follows a list of detailed considerations that include design, accessibility, effect on Green Belt, effect on listed buildings and effect on landscape that may be of historic or amenity value. Policy GP3 explains the circumstances in which developers will be invited to contribute to facilities of services by means of planning obligations. Policy GP7 advises that development proposals will be expected to have regard to the objectives of `designing out crime`. The policy suggests measures that might meet those objectives. [Docs 6, 28]

30. Review UDP policy ENV2 sets out constraints on development in the Green Belt. It lists exceptions, which include redevelopment of major developed sites. Policy ENV3 sets out factors to be taken into account when assessing proposals affecting Green Belt land, where these are acceptable in principle. Policy ENV4 sets out criteria to be applied to proposals for the infilling or redevelopment of major developed sites in the Green Belt. The policy applies only to those sites listed in the policy. St Margaret's Hospital and the Great Barr Hall estate are listed as a single item with a cross reference to Review UDP policy ENV9. [Docs 6, 28]

31. Policy ENV9 sets out matters to be taken into account in considering proposals affecting the Great Barr Hall site. They include the contribution made to achieving the restoration of Great Barr Hall the and the re-use or redevelopment of the former hospital. Reference is made to Green Belt policies and guidance on the protection of listed buildings and conservation areas. The policy states that redevelopment will be limited to replacement of the footprint of existing buildings in environmentally appropriate locations with a requirement that there be no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The remainder of the policy takes the form of an outline planning brief to guide development proposals. [Docs 6, 28]

32. Review UDP policies ENV20, ENV22, ENV23 and ENV24 address matters relating to wildlife habitat protection and nature conservation while policy ENV27 sets out measure for safeguarding the archaeological interest sites and monuments in the Borough. Policy ENV29 lists matters to be taken into account in relation to proposals affecting listed buildings. Policies ENV30 and ENV32 adopt a similar approach in relation to conservation areas and registered parks and gardens. Policy ENV34 emphasises the importance of good design and mentions, in particular, development in conservation areas and development close to listed buildings and registered parks and gardens. [Docs 6, 28]

33. Review UDP policy H4 sets out the Council's requirement for affordable homes over the plan period. It defines affordable housing and sets out criteria for determining the requirement for affordable housing in relation to particular kinds of development. It also

explains the means by which it will be secured. Policy H10 sets out broad principles for determining the layout of residential development, its design and dwelling mix. Policy T4 defines the hierarchy of roads in the Borough and explains their purpose. The policy concludes with a requirement that development proposals should be accompanied by a Transport Assessment dealing with accessibility by all modes of transport and impact on the surrounding road network. [Docs 6, 28]  Birmingham Review UDP

34. Draft alterations to the adopted UDP were approved for public consultation in January 2000. An Inquiry into objections to proposed alterations closed in February 2003 and the Inspector's report was issued in August 2003. Some alteration has been made to the wording of the paragraphs of the adopted UDP, referred to above, but their purpose remains substantially the same. The intention of those paragraphs is supported by supplementary planning guidance (Places for Living 2001) which, among other things, advises that ` ..good public transport links and easy access for pedestrians and cyclists should be inherent in developments.`. [Doc 6 App 4] Historical Background

35. Details of the history of the land of which the appeal site is part - agreed by the main parties - are contained in the SCG. They are supplemented by information provided by the ES and by material produced by the Great Barr Hall Action Committee. [Docs 5, 6, 21.2]

36. Between 1641 and 1660 the Scott family established a farm on land owned by the Earl of Warwick. Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries the original farmhouse was transformed into Great Barr Hall. Its parkland was laid out at various times by William Shenstone, Humphry Repton and John Nash. [Doc 5/1, Doc 21.2]

37. In the 18th century, Great Barr Hall was leased to Samuel Galton, a Quaker industrialist who was host to some of the nation's foremost scientist and thinkers. Meetings of the Lunar Society, an association of scientists, inventors and natural philosophers, were held at Great Barr Hall in the second half of the 18th century. Members included Josiah Wedgwood, James Watt, Joseph Priestly and local industrialist, Matthew Boulton. [Doc 5/1, Docs 21.2, 20.2A]

38. In 1912, the estate was acquired for the development of the Great Barr Colony and Hospital, a facility for the mentally impaired. Buildings, designed by a local architect Gerald McMichael, were constructed in phases. The semi-circular element of the St Margaret's layout - the Female Homes - was complete by 1930 and the Male Homes - to the north - by 1937. Construction of the M6 motorway has severed the original Great Barr Hall estate, with the bulk of the estate remaining to the north. [Doc 5/1, Docs 21.2, 20.2A]

39. Changes in the treatment of mental illness caused St Margaret's Hospital to fall into disuse in the 1980s and 1990s. Great Barr Hall itself, once part of the hospital, was sold off with its associated parkland and lakes. The new owner subsequently went into receivership. In 2003 the property was acquired by the present owners, the Manor Building Preservation Trust [Docs 5/1, 21.2]

40. At the time of the Inquiry, Great Barr Hall was unoccupied and in poor structural condition. All St Margaret's Hospital buildings were vacated by 1997 and have remained empty since. The Primary Care Trust for the area in which the appeal site is situated retains an interest in small parcels of land and buildings within the appeal site and on adjacent land. These do not form part of the proposals that are the subject of the current appeals. [Plan A]

Planning History

41. The relevant planning history of the appeal site is contained in Section 2 of the SCG. Between 1975 and 2001 numerous applications were made for planning permission and listed building consent. Some were connected with the former hospital use, others related to sport, leisure or residential use. Most were either withdrawn or not determined. Significant among them, in terms of scale, were applications for planning permission and listed building consent for restoration and extension of Great Barr Hall, an office/leisure development and visitors centre, and a 10 hole golf course. These applications (LPA Ref: BC34624P/C and BC34625P/C) were withdrawn in November 1995. [Doc 6]

42. In addition, applications were made to Walsall MBC in 2000 for planning permission and listed building consent for a football training ground and alterations and extension to Great Barr Hall to provide residential accommodation, classrooms and offices, restoration of lakes and grounds, and the erection of 412 houses to the south of Sutton Drive. The applications (LPA Ref: BC59707B/C and BC59709B/C) were subsequently withdrawn. [Doc 6]

43. There followed a series of applications, submitted by the Appellant and referred to in various documents as applications A, B, C, D and E, and H, J, K and L. The first set of applications (A to E) relates to land owned, at the time, by the receivers and by the National Health Service (NHS). They include works to Great Barr Hall and sought planning permission for up to 650 dwellings. All were withdrawn. An application for a change of use of Great Barr Hall to 11 apartments was approved by Walsall MBC in May 2002. That permission, which relates to land and buildings now owned by the MBPT, remains extant. I noted building activity in the vicinity of Great Barr Hall at the time of the Inquiry, but the permission for a change of use does not appear to have been pursued with any vigour. [Doc 6]

44. At the Inquiry, my attention was drawn to a proposal to form a pedestrian, cyclist and emergency vehicles access to the appeals site in the position of 42 Park Farm Road - a residential road running roughly parallel with the eastern boundary of the appeals site. A conditional planning permission was granted for that access by a Walsall MBC decision dated 24 February 2004. One of the conditions is that the development shall not be implemented unless and until the outline planning permission sought under the Council's reference 02/2417/OL/E2 is granted. [Doc 14.1 App 13] The Appeal Proposals

45. The development and works that form the basis of the scheme considered at the Inquiry are amended versions of proposals originally contained in applications H, J, K and L (Walsall MBC Refs: 02/2417/OL/E2, 02/2416/LB/E2, 03/0057/CA/E2. Birmingham CC Ref: N/00589/03/FUL). To avoid confusion with superseded proposals, I dispense with lettered references in this report.  Outline Planning Application - LPA Ref: 02/2417/OL/E2

46. The outline planning application made to Walsall MBC, proposing 445 dwellings, is accompanied by a set of site survey drawings and a master plan (MARG/02/MAST -REVC). The master plan defines the boundary of the appeals site and indicates a vehicular access from Queslett Road, at its southern end, and pedestrian and cycle access from Sutton's Grove, towards the appeals site's north-western corner. The conditionally approved pedestrian/cyclist/emergency access in the position of 42 Park Farm Road is not shown. [Doc 14.1 App 13, Plans A, E]

47. The boundary of the appeals site includes that part of Queslett Road that it is proposed should be modified to accommodate the proposed new access arrangement that form the subject of the planning application made to Birmingham CC. It excludes land and buildings now under the control of the Manor Building Preservation Trust, together with pockets of land close to the site's northern boundary unrelated to the former hospital use. [Plans A, D]

48. The appeals site includes four buildings located towards the south-eastern corner of the appeals site. These would be demolished as part of the scheme of development proposed. Two further buildings forming part of the same general group are excluded from the application site. The future of these buildings has yet to be determined and they do not form part of the appeal proposals. A community healthcare facility, the Queslett Centre, lies just outside the eastern boundary of the site. The Centre is presently accessible only from the existing Queslett Road entrance to the appeals site. It is intended that this arrangement should continue. [Plan A]

49. The master plan indicates existing wooded areas and open spaces. A note identifies the position of the Gothic Bridge, referred to in the application for listed building consent, and the concrete footbridge proposed for demolition. A further note indicates an intention to restore a presently culverted section of the Holbrook, which feeds lakes to the west of the appeal site, and to restore the former contours of the northern part of the site. [Plan A]

50. A schedule of accommodation on the master plan sets out the types of dwellings proposed. It lists 168 one and two bedroom apartments, 184 town houses and 93 four and five bedroom detached houses - a total of 445 dwellings. The heights of the dwelling types are indicated, respectively, as 4, 3 and 2 - or 2½ - storeys. [Plan A]  Listed Building Application - LPA Ref: 02/2416/LB/E2

51. This application for listed building consent is made to Walsall MBC. It proposes the dismantling and re-erection of stone-built gate piers positioned close to the Queslett Road entrance to the appeal site to allow the access road into the appeal site to be widened to accommodate traffic generated by the development proposed. The gap between the main piers would be increased from its present 3.89 metres to 8.30 metres. [Plan B]

52. Application drawing 3970-S26B includes an outline specification for repair and reinstatement of the piers. Drawing STM/02/113 shows the extent of the appeals site. Drawing 3970-27B indicates the position of the piers in relation to the proposed carriageway and drawing 3970-S24A shows the piers, as existing. [Plan B]

53. The piers are of 20th century construction. They are not listed in their own right but the main parties agree that listed building consent is required for the works proposed because of the situation of the piers within the curtilage of the Grade II* listed Great Barr Hall. [Plan B]  Conservation Area Application - LPA Ref: 03/0057/CA/E2

54. The application is made to Walsall MBC and seeks consent for the demolition of all existing buildings within the appeal site that previously comprised the main St Margaret's Hospital accommodation. Drawing STM/02/113, forming part of the application, shows the extent of the appeals site to a scale of about 1:5,000. A second drawing, numbered STM/02/118 and drawn to a larger scale, identifies those buildings proposed for demolition. [Plan C]

55. The proposals amount to the demolition of all structures of any significance within the appeal site with the notable exception of a lodge building and a separate dwelling close to the Queslett Road entrance to the site. They also exclude a walled garden, probably of early

19th century origin, situated a short distance to the north-east of Great Barr Hall. It is proposed that structures within the walled garden, of later construction than the garden itself, would be removed. [Plans C, E]  Planning Application - LPA Ref: N/00589/03/FUL

56. The application is made to Birmingham CC and seeks planning permission for alterations to Queslett Road, where it falls within the administrative area of that authority, at the position of the access to the appeals site. The 1:500 scale drawing that forms part of the application, numbered 6280.5A, illustrates the manner in which it is intend that the existing access to the St Margaret's Hospital site would be modified and indicates the extent of alterations proposed to the east and west-bound carriageways of Queslett Road. The proposals envisage a signal controlled junction with a right-turn filter lane giving access to the appeals site from the west-bound carriageway. [Plan D]  Resolutions of the Local Planning Authorities

57. The applications for planning permission, listed building consent and conservation area consent, made to Walsall MBC, were reported to the relevant committee of that Council on 3 July 2003. It was resolved that, had the planning application been determined, permission would have been refused for the following reasons:

The application has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Highways Agency and local highways authority that traffic generated by the development would not have an adverse impact on the operation of the surrounding highway network by reason of additional delays and congestion. Furthermore, the application has failed to prove that the proposed new access junction to the site from Queslett Road would provide a safe and satisfactory means of access to the development. Under these circumstances, approval of this application could therefore be detrimental to highway and pedestrian safety, and would be contrary to the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan, in particular policies ENV4(e)(v), 7.2 and 7.4, and policies GP2(a)VII, ENV9(e)V and T4 in the Unitary Development Plan Review Revised Deposit Draft.

58. With regard to the application for listed building consent, Walsall MBC resolved that listed building consent would have been refused because:

The application is premature in the absence of an acceptable design for the Queslett Road junction and acceptable proposals for the redevelopment of St Margaret's Hospital. Approval of this application would therefore be contrary to Government advice in PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment), adopted Unitary Development Plan policies ENV4, 3.18, 3.19 and 3.20, and emerging policies 3.14, 3.15, ENV9, ENV29 and ENV31 of the Unitary Development Plan Revised Deposit Draft.

59. Walsall MBC further resolved, in relation to the application for Conservation Area Consent, that:

The application is premature in the absence of acceptable proposals for the redevelopment of St Margaret's Hospital. Approval of this application would therefore be contrary to Government advice in PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment), adopted Unitary Development Plan policies ENV4, 3.18, 3.19 and 3.20, and emerging policies 3.14, 3.15, ENV9, ENV29 and ENV31 of the Unitary Development Plan Revised Deposit Draft.

60. With regard to the application made to Birmingham CC in relation to highway engineering works at the Queslett Road junction, the Council's Development Control Committee resolved on 4 September 2003 that, had the application been determined, planning permission would have refused because:

The proposed works have failed to demonstrate adequate details of means of access to the St Margaret's Hospital site and make inadequate provision for highway users. The proposal as

submitted would be likely to be prejudicial to the safety and free flow of highway users in the adjoining road network. This would be contrary to paragraphs 6.38, 6.43, 6.45 and 6.48 of the Transport Chapter of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan and of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan 2001; to Part 2 of Places for Living adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance by the Local Planning Authority; and to guidance contained in PPG13: Transport. The Case for Bovis Homes Ltd The main points are:  Introduction

61. There is no disagreement concerning the four main issues that were identified at the PIM. The four appeals relate to what is an entire set of proposals. They are therefore inextricably linked but need to be considered against the background of statutory duties arising from sections 16(2) and 72(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and in the context of section 54A of the same Act with regard to the development plan.

62. It was not necessary to explore in detail at the Inquiry any legal issues surrounding the questions of preservation or enhancement but it is important to bear in mind that preserving the character or appearance of the conservation area can be achieved not only by making a positive contribution but also by leaving the character of appearance of the area unharmed.

63. In reaching a judgement with regard to the acceptability of the proposals in the context of relevant statutory duties it is necessary to view the proposals and their effects as a whole. It would be inappropriate to consider the proposals as a series of discreet elements whose acceptability is capable of being judged on an individual basis.

64. The approach taken by the Appellant, addressing the Female Homes and Male Homes part of the site as a whole, is entirely consistent with the identified major developed site notation in the Green Belt in the Review UDP. The Appellant’s approach complies with the guidance in PPG 2 Annex C paragraph C7 in that the major developed site is considered as a whole. [Doc 14.1 App 2/5C, Doc 28 Proposals Map]

65. In this context, criticism of the Appellant’s approach as being inappropriate because it does not address the wider area of Great Barr Park is unfounded. It is significant, and accepted at the Inquiry by all those involved, that the Appellant’s disposal of their interest in that part of the parkland now in the control of Manor Building Preservation Trust was at the express behest of Walsall MBC, Bruce George MP and the GBHAC. It is therefore wrong to complain that the Appellant does not have control of the remaining area of the parkland when disposal was a direct consequence of a course so actively promoted.

 Effect on Openness of Green Belt - Major Developed Site

66. There is agreement between the Appellant, Walsall MBC and Birmingham CC that reinstatement of the area of open parkland currently occupied by the Male Homes and the confinement of new development to the Female Homes part of the site would result in less impact on the Green Belt than the existing hospital development. That is because, at least in part, the Males Homes are prominently situated and conspicuous from the surrounding area. [Doc 6/4.3]

67. In addition, it is self-evident that the Female Homes part of the site is visually discreet, making the impact of new development in this area insignificant. No-one has sought to dispute that, notwithstanding the removal of the Male Homes footprint of some 6,353 square metres, the addition to the footprint on the Females Homes part of the site would be

no more than about 6.4%. The existing Female Homes footprint is 20,890 square metres. The master plan footprint indicates a coverage of 22,221 square metres. That is a difference of 1,331 square metres. On that basis, PPG2 Annex C paragraph C4 criterion (a), of having no greater impact on openness and - where possible - having less, is clearly met. [Doc 14.1 App 11, Plan A]

68. The requirement in paragraph C4(b), to contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land in Green Belts, requires consideration of matters set out at paragraph 1.6 of PPG2. The proposals fully meet the objectives set out in paragraph 1.6 in that:

(i) They would provide opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population by way of the permissive footpaths access proposed as part of the management plan; [Doc 25, Plan A]

(ii) For the same reason, they would provide opportunities for outdoor recreation near urban areas, the area has nature conservation and historic landscape and building interest; [Doc 25, Plan A]

(iii) The proposals, on the admission of all parties involved in the Inquiry, would not only retain areas of landscape which are attractive but also substantially enhance the landscape by the removal of the Males Homes and re-contouring of the area they presently occupy to replicate the historic contours in what has been identified by English Heritage as part of the historic core of the park; [Doc 6, Plan A]

(iv) The proposals would directly and materially improve damaged and derelict land around towns by the removal of the Male Homes and restoration of the landscape and redevelopment of the Female Homes part of the site, including the walled garden, whilst at the same time removing the incongruous concrete pedestrian bridge adjacent to the Gothic bridge and restoring the Gothic bridge and opening up the culverted stream between The Duckery and the northern lake. In addition, the proposals would indirectly assist in this particular objective as a consequence of enhancing the prospect of restoration of Great Barr Hall and Great Barr Park. That is agreed and is referred to in para 4.3.29 of the SCG. [Doc 6, Plans A, C]

(v) It is self evidently the case that the land which is presently damaged and to some extent derelict would be improved for the reasons already described;

(vi) Nature conservation interests would be secured as a consequence of the implementation of management and ecological plans which are a part of the Appellant’s proposals; [Doc 25]

(vii) The retention of land in agricultural, forestry and related uses would be achieved, not only to the extent that land which has that use will be preserved in it, but also enhanced inasmuch as land that is currently derelict would be returned to agricultural, forestry and related uses as a part of the implementation of the proposed management plan. [Doc 25]

69. In respect of criterion C4(c), not to exceed the height of existing buildings, reference to other criteria, notably C4(b) makes it clear that this concern relates to the impact of built development on visual amenity. Whether or not the proposed 4-storey element of the appeal proposals would affect visual amenity is tested in the ES. There has been no challenge from any party that figure 13 of the ES Chapter 5 demonstrates that the increase

in height over the existing Female Homes buildings would cause no harm to visual amenity. [Doc 5/1 Fig 13]

70. In addition, as paragraph 4.3.34 of the SCG points out, an increase in height of buildings is acceptable in that the resultant urban form would provide a desirable visual focus around the horseshoe of open land. Raising the height of the buildings would also allow a housing mix with a greater proportion of apartments, thereby avoiding the provision of individual gardens and separate accesses dwellings, and providing an opportunity for buildings whose proportions would resemble the existing built character of the hospital. Finally it would provide a larger proportion of smaller homes than otherwise might be achieved than a more conventional housing layout. The 4-storey elements proposed would have none of the consequences identified in PPG2 as being undesirable. On the contrary, the scheme would have desirable consequences in terms of both urban form and housing provision. [Doc 5/1 Fig 13, Plan A]

71. As to the final requirement of paragraph C4(d), with regard to the area of site occupied by redevelopment, the floor area set out in the SCG is 24,750 square metres. The proposals would have a foot print of 22,221 square metres. Omission of the two mental health units, which are in the application area but which are not proposed for demolition, produces a relevant existing floor area of 23,365 square metres - still in excess of the proposed floor area. It is therefore beyond dispute that the proposals would not occupy a larger area of the site than the existing buildings. [Doc 14.2 App 11]

72. The remaining matter to be considered in the light of the advice in paragraph C6 is the character and dispersal of the development proposed. The proposals, taken as a whole, would satisfy that guidance because the location proposed for the new buildings has had regard to the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it, as well as the objectives for the use of land in Green Belts, the main features of the existing landscape and the need to integrate the new development with its surroundings. [Plan A]

73. The matter is summarised in paragraph 4.3.14 of the SCG. No evidence was produced at the Inquiry to demonstrate that, having regard to PPG2 Annex C paragraph C6, the character and dispersal of the proposed development should be regarded as unacceptable. The proposals are, in fact, positively advantageous in Green Belt and conservation area terms, and in relation to the setting of the principal listed building.

 Capacity of Site and Neighbourhood - Social Infrastructure - Access - Traffic and Travel

74. It is evident from the master plan that the Green Belt, conservation and relevant design objectives are met by a form of development that has earned the support of both the local planning authority and English Heritage. There is no evidence to demonstrate that what is proposed amounts to overdevelopment, having regard to the capacity of the site, when both national policy - as in PPG3 - and local policies of the Review UDP, in particular H3, encourage making the best use of previously developed land. [Doc 28, Plan A]

75. With regard to social infrastructure, contact has been made with the relevant service providers and it has been established either that there is no need for additional provision or that provision is capable of being made, by means of the section 299A Agreement, for additional capacity to be provided. The two areas where additional provision would be required are with regard to secondary school education and the facilities available at the Collingwood Centre, where additional provision would be made through a contribution of £50,000 to ensure adequate capacity to deal with the demand that would be generated. [Docs 8, 33]

76. No evidence has been produced of any lack of capacity in any other facility, notwithstanding the specific enquiries the Appellants have made. That includes dental services. The development would make its own provision for local play areas and would provide ground floor accommodation of not less than 2,000 square feet for a Class D1 use as part of the section 299A Agreement. That is agreed and anticipated in paragraph 4.3.19 of the SCG. [Docs 8, 33]

77. With regard to access, policy ENV9 of the Review UDP requires that vehicular access to the site shall be from Queslett Road. That is what the appeal scheme proposes. It was established during the course of the Inquiry that the Appellant, Walsall MBC, Birmingham CC and Sandwell MBC all agree that the access arrangements proposed by the Appellant and detailed in evidence given at the Inquiry are satisfactory and achievable. No evidence has been advanced by any party to demonstrate that the access proposed would be unsatisfactory in highway engineering terms or in safety terms. In the circumstances, and even taking into account written representations handed in on the last day of the Inquiry by Birmingham CC, there is no basis upon which the access arrangements might be rejected. [Docs 9, 26, 28, Plan D]

78. With regard to traffic generation, the Transport Assessment prepared by David Tucker Associates adopts an approach entirely consistent with Government guidance set out in PPG13 and PPG3. That approach is accepted by each of the authorities concerned as one which shows that traffic actually generated by the development could be accommodated on the surrounding road network. Objectors to the proposals on traffic or highways grounds do so on the basis of asserting their right to continue to use their motor cars for any and every journey, rather than using public transport. The appeal proposals are expressly orientated towards discouraging use of the private car and encouraging the use of walking and cycling, or public transport. [Doc 5/3, Doc 26]

79. Both the Highways Agency’s written submissions are answered comprehensively in the Appellant's responses to them. However, it is important to note that a part of the Agency's submission made is that traffic generation should be addressed on the basis of either the use of the TRICS or GENERATE databases. The Appellant's evidence demonstrates the inappropriateness of transportation planning using information included in either TRICS or West Midlands databases. To plan on that basis would be to plan on a basis inconsistent with PPG13 guidance. The Agency has either misunderstood or ignored evidence put before the Inquiry. [Docs 3, 31]

80. The Highways Agency raises issues with regard to a possible impact on junction 7 of the M6 motorway. The Agency's approach is wrong and irrational. It is significant that the Highways Agency did not attend the Inquiry to advance its case or allow itself to be cross- examined. [Docs 3, 31]

81. With regard to opportunities for walking and cycling, it is material that planning permission has been granted for a link with the area to the east of the appeals site in the position of 42 Park Farm Road. With that link in place, the development would have safe and convenient access to facilities at nearby local centres. Those centres contain a wide range of services, all of which are within a 2km isochrone, regarded as relevant for walking, and well within the 5km isochrone relevant for cycling purposes. [Doc 4 Figs 6 and 7, Doc 5/4 and 5/5, Doc 14.1 App 13]

82. The accessibility by public transport combines the use of a shuttle bus service fully supported for a period of 5 years irrespective of any fare revenue. There is an expectation that at the end of the period the service will be self sustaining. Centro, the public transport

co-ordinator for the West Midlands area, does not dispute that conclusion and there is no reason to doubt that expectation, having regard to the way the service would connect with existing bus services in the area and with Hamstead Station. [Doc 16.2 Fig 4]

83. With the Showcase Route 33 in place and a Showcase Route 51 proposed, as well as a range of other services, the site is outstanding in terms of public transport accessibility. The shuttle bus would also provide links with the three local centres and with the Scott Arms District Centre. It would also serve the Asda superstore in Queslett, at the Aldridge Road roundabout. The appeals site and its location relative to local facilities and public transport, demonstrate the wisdom of promoting redevelopment where existing services and facilities are concentrated. The benefits, in transportation terms, go beyond simply making provision for the appeal site's requirements. They would be of wider benefit and of more than marginal importance. [Doc 5/4 Fig 3, Doc 16.2 Fig 3]

84. The principle of a pedestrian and cycle access through 42 Park Farm Road is not now open to question because planning permission has been granted. The proposed footpath and cycleway would be overlooked directly from dwellings in Park Farm Road at its eastern end and by dwellings on the appeal site at its western end. The path itself would be 3.7m wide. It would be lit and orientated to make it safe and convenient. There is no reason to suppose that, simply as a consequence of redevelopment of the St Margaret's Hospital site, this path would be misused. [Doc 14.1 App 13]

85. The Beacon Action Group produced, as part of its evidence, guidance relating to link paths taken from work of the Isle of Wight Crime and Disorder Partnership. The link proposed in this case satisfies each of the criteria identified as being relevant to the creation of a safe environmental path - including that relating to consultations. No-one’s environment would, in this case, be disturbed for a `remote purpose`, without their consent. The purpose of the appeal proposals and the accessway are related to the extent that the scheme involves the redevelopment of land which is presently an environmental eyesore and an attractor of anti- social behaviour. With the appeal site redeveloped and occupied and the path well used, there is no basis for the kind of fears that arose when the Crail Grove footpath was the subject of misuse. [Doc 22.2]

 Heritage - Setting of Great Barr Hall - Parkland - Viability of Restoration - Justification for Demolition - Archaeology

86. This issue requires an holistic view of the appeal proposals. The proposals have been subject to rigorous examination by the Appellant, by the Appellant's advisors, by Walsall MBC and - notably - by English Heritage. Pages 20 to 23 of the SCG are of particular relevance. They record agreement that the proposals would substantially enhance the character and appearance of the Great Barr Conservation Area, the setting of Great Barr Hall as a Grade II* listing building and the character and appearance of Great Barr Park as a Grade II Registered Park. That amounts to a comprehensive and positive endorsement of the appeal proposals in relation to statutory duties referred to earlier. [Doc 5/1, Doc 6, Doc 14.2 App 8]

87. Objectors to the proposals appear to recognise the benefits to be derived from removal of at least most of the Males Homes and restoration of the parkland. The only issues are the wish of GBHAC to retain a representative element of the Male Homes, the extent of the demolition of the Female Homes and the impact of the proposals on the conservation area and the listed park. [Doc 21.2]

88. The case against demolition on the Female Homes part of the site is made principally by the GBHAC and is substantially based on repeated references to, and misapplication of, views expressed in a report prepared by Dr Rutherford for English Heritage. [Doc 20.2, Doc 20.2 App C]

89. The fact is that Dr Rutherford’s comments were confined to whether or not the Registered Historic Park should be upgraded to Grade II*. Persistent misquoting of Dr Rutherford’s conclusions in relation to buildings at St Margaret's Hospital, rather than the site, is unjustified. Dr Rutherford did, however, confirm that because of the early date of the colony, its survival almost intact and its increasing rarity as a type it was, indeed, to be regarded as being of national importance in its own right. Its position within the registered site was merited as it fulfilled the relevant supplementary criteria. That said, Dr Rutherford also concluded that, in the context of known proposals for redevelopment, the scheme should take into account the historic interest of the horseshoe element of the colony and its axial approach. [Doc 20.2 App C]

90. English Heritage, who commissioned the Rutherford report, confirmed at the Inquiry that the recommendations of Dr Rutherford were fully reflected in the Appellant's master plan for the site. Paragraph 4.3.23 of the SCG confirms the view of English Heritage that the existing St. Margaret’s Hospital buildings do not form part of the justification for designating the conservation area. Paragraph 4.3.24 further confirms the unsuitability of the existing buildings for re-use for housing or any other purposes appropriate to the appeal site's location, having regard to their institutional past, scale and state of dereliction, the likely cost of restoration and uncertainty as to the achievement of new uses. [Doc 6, Doc 20.2 Apps A, B, C]

91. Even if it was decided that there was some disbenefit in the demolition in the Female Homes, that disbenefit would need to be weighed against the substantial conservation benefits, the benefit to the setting of the Grade II* listed building and significant improvements to the historic core of the parkland area. The conclusion set out in paragraph 4.3.22 of the SCG, as to the substantial enhancement arising from the proposals, is fully justified and is not outweighed by any other consideration. [Doc 6, Plans A, I]

92. The Appellant has been criticised by some third parties for transferring to others control of Great Barr Hall and the remaining areas of parkland. Responses from GBHAC's representative at the Inquiry confirm that the criticism is wholly unwarranted. In the light of the admitted compliance of the proposals with policy ENV9 of the emerging Review UDP there can be no basis for regarding the proposals as inadequate in any material respect. [Doc 20.2, Doc 28, Doc 29]

93. With regard to the impact of the proposals on the viability and restoration of Great Barr Hall, and its future marketability, the position is as set out in paragraph 4.3.29 of the SCG. It is agreed by all objectors who presented evidence at the Inquiry that the proposals enhance prospects for the restoration of Great Barr Hall and Great Barr Park.

94. As to impact on archaeology, subject to an appropriate condition - which is not contentious - there is no evidence that any archaeological interest would be prejudiced by the appeal proposals. [Doc 6, Doc 14.2 App 5]  Housing Quality - Housing Type - Housing Mix- Affordability - Use of Brownfield Land

95. Advice given at paragraph 4.18 of the PPG15 is not mandatory with regard to all proposals in conservation areas. The appeal proposals relate to a substantial site and to substantial redevelopment. They have been prepared in circumstances where the principle of

redevelopment remains at issue with some parties, even after four years of effort. It would therefore be unreasonable to expect the Appellant to produce fully detailed designs, having regard to the substantial costs that would, necessarily, be incurred. The master plan, which forms part of the outline planning application, illustrates a high quality and appropriately urban form of development whose quality, in terms of detail, could be secured by way of planning conditions and reserved matters submissions. [Doc 7, Doc 24 Plan A]

96. A requirement that the proposals should conform not only with the master plan but also with the Appellant's design statement and a design brief - whose preparation would be required by an agreed planning condition - provides the fullest possible assurance regarding the quality of the development. By these means the objective of the Secretary of State’s advice with regard to development proposals in conservation areas would be met. [Doc 7, Doc 24 Plan A]

97. Paragraph 4.3.32 of the SCG records agreement that the site comprises previously developed land within the meaning of Annex C of PPG2. Some objectors dispute that, but no rational argument has been advanced in support of that contention. Apart from the matter of the height of some buildings, it is also accepted that the proposals accord with the approved site specific WUDP policy ENV4 and with site specific policy ENV9 of the Review UDP. Both policies take into account other and more general development plan requirements with regard to housing, conservation and highways. [Docs 6, 27, 28]

98. It follows that, unless the WUDP and Review UDP are to be read in a way that makes them internally inconsistent, satisfying site specific policies would satisfy all relevant WUDP and Review UDP matters. It is relevant that Review UDP policy ENV9 has been prepared in the light of revised PPG3 guidance. Its application in the Walsall context and compliance with site specific policy ENV9 should be taken to indicate compliance with PPG3 in the Walsall context. [Docs 27, 28]

99. No objection to the proposals has been raised on the grounds of housing type or mix, although it was suggested by some that there is no need for the development, having regard to Review UDP policies on housing provision. That approach is wrong. The Review UDP, at page 120 and table 6.1, makes it clear that the housing land supply required to meet the RPG11 target includes a future windfalls estimate of 1,350 dwellings on previously developed sites. Those windfall sites are not identified in the plan. [Docs 27, 28]

100. Even though a note to table 6.1 at paragraph 6.20 0f the Review UDP indicates that an amount of additional housing may also come forward on the St. Margaret’s Hospital site (not taken into account in Table 6.1) there is no reason why the appeals site should not contribute to the windfall provision relied upon. In addition, policy H3 of the Review UDP sets out the policy position with regard to windfall sites and conversion of existing buildings. It indicates encouragement for additional housing through the re-use of previously developed windfall sites, provided that certain criteria are met. The appeal proposals meet those criteria in that: [Doc 28]

(i) A satisfactory residential environment can be achieved; (ii) There is no overriding need for the land or buildings to be retained for employment or any other use; (iii) The proposal would have good accessibility by a choice of means of transport and be well related to other facilities; (iv) Residential development would not unacceptably constrain the development of any adjacent site;

(v) The proposal is acceptable in terms of other policies of the plan.

101. In the circumstances, redevelopment of the site for housing purposes would materially contribute to allowing the Council to fulfil its housing aspirations, not only in achieving a significant percentage of development on brownfield sites, but also meeting the objectives of the now well advanced review of RPG11. [Doc 14.2 App 6]

102. Draft RPG11 places a high priority on providing an attractive choice of home to encourage economically active and independent households to stay in existing urban areas (paragraphs 6.4, 6.11 and 6.20). The emphasis given to redevelopment and use of brownfield land is familiar but, in the case of the appeal proposals, has added potency in the brownfield site is immediately adjacent to a major urban area, is well related to its facilities and would create a high quality living environment of the kind which will prove attractive to those that draft RPG11 guidance aims to discourage from moving away. The approach of the emerging RPG with regard to the level and distribution of housing development, set out in paragraph 6.11, and the need to increase overall densities is fully reflected in the appeal proposals. [Doc 14.2 App 6]

103. Draft RPG11 policies are, in large measure, directed at sites within metropolitan urban areas but, given that the appeals site is a major developed site in the Green Belt immediately adjacent to the metropolitan urban area, and given also that PPG2 Annex C criteria are satisfied, there is no reason why the underlying policy thrust of the draft RPG should not apply. Draft RPG11 policy CF4 sets out an approach to the re-use of land that is consistent with PPG3 and entirely appropriate for this site and in this highly accessible location. [Doc 14.2 App 6]

104. Affordable housing is provided for in the section 299A Agreement. It reflects the location of the appeals site and the view of Walsall MBC as to what is appropriate on this particular site and in this particular location. The need for affordable housing is set out in the Review UDP and an opportunity to meet a significant element of that need should be regarded as a material benefit. The proposals accord with the Council’s housing strategy, prepared in accordance with Review UDP policies, and the emerging RPG. [Docs 8, 28]

 Third Party Representations

105. Issues and objections raised by the third parties have, to a large extent, been addressed. Assurances concerning the quality of the development proposed can be secured by planning conditions and concern about the effect of development permitted at the Scott Arms junction, but yet to be implemented, does not appear to be shared by Walsall MBC or Birmingham CC. With regard to delays that might be experienced by buses passing through that junction, signalling arrangements could reduce these to a minimum. The possibility that some buildings on or adjacent to the appeals site might revert to health care use is no more than speculation. There remain the following matters:

(i) The provision of a Social Impact Assessment. It is unclear how the absence of such an assessment could, in this case, lead to a refusal of outline planning permission. The impact of the proposals on facilities in the area and their ability to cope with the additional people has been considered in a way which has not been challenged, other than by assertion. [Doc 3]

(ii) The absence of a management plan. The provision of a management plan is a commitment of the section 299A Agreement. The Agreement sets out in detail

what is anticipated and gives confidence that the Appellant will do what is needed and in a way that would produce the identified benefits. There is no basis for criticism of the Appellant's inability to prepare a management plan for that part of the estate owned by the Manor Building Preservation Trust. In any event, Walsall MBC would have control of any application for planning permission relating to that adjacent land and would be able to co-ordinate management plans. There is no reason to anticipate any inconsistency. [Docs 3, 8]

(iii) Fear of crime. While fear of crime is capable of being a material consideration in the determination of a planning application, the weight to be given to it must depend upon the circumstances of the particular case and the extent to which the fears have any objective basis. For reasons already given, there is no basis for thinking that such fears would be likely to be realised in a way that would produce the results some objectors have suggested. [Docs 3, 28]

 Planning Conditions and Section 299A Agreement

106. These matters are, in large measure, agreed. No further amplification is required. [Docs 7, 8]  Conclusions

107. The position with regard to these applications and prospects for the re-use and redevelopment of the St. Margaret’s Hospital site are unique. They are unique because, for the first time since institutional use of the site ceased, there is a series of related applications which have the support of Walsall MBC, Birmingham City Council and English Heritage on conservation aspects of the proposals and, in respect of highway matters, Sandwell MBC. In addition, the proposals come forward with the support of a responsible house builder able to implement them. They are also put forward in a context - noted by English Heritage - of time running out for Great Barr Hall.

108. Objectors to the proposals have advanced no alternative scheme, beyond something which is an idealised wish list unrelated to financial and ownership constraints. There is no real alternative in terms of a different form of redevelopment that would satisfy all the demands that objectors suggest should be satisfied. Objectors do not want additional traffic, they find parks and open areas attract undesirable activities but at the same time want the area to become a public park.

109. The only consequences of the dismissal of these appeals would be ongoing dereliction, the yet further deterioration of Great Barr Hall and its parkland setting, and a continued wastage of a substantial asset capable of contributing to not only housing need but also a range of conservation objectives. The circumstances of this case demand urgent attention. The Case for Walsall MBC, Birmingham CC and Sandwell MBC The main points are:  Introduction

110. The outline planning application to redevelop St Margaret’s Hospital was reported to the Planning Services Committee of Walsall MBC on the 3rd of July 2003. The recommendation was to refuse the application on the grounds of inadequate information on transportation and highways.

111. The report noted that St Margaret’s Hospital grounds, along with Great Barr Hall and its estate, provided a unique development opportunity. It remained, however, one of the most sensitive sites within the Borough. Despite that, it was felt that the heritage and conservation issues could be overcome and that redevelopment could take place in a manner consistent with the objectives of Walsall's UDP policies and those of the Review UDP. Even so, the transportation and highways issues were such as to lead to a conclusion that applications could not be supported until those issues were addressed. [Doc 27, 28]

112. Since July 2003 the Appellant has, with other highways consultants, produced a revised Transport Assessment and has entered into further discussions and negotiations with the local planning and highway authorities concerned. As a result of those discussions and negotiations, highways consultants appointed to advise Walsall MBC, Birmingham CC and Sandwell MBC have concluded that, subject to appropriate conditions and agreements, their concerns regarding transportation and highways issues are overcome. [Doc 5/4, Docs 7, 8, 9]

113. The current outline planning application for redevelopment of the St Margaret's site, made to Walsall MBC, is the product of a long process of applications and negotiation. Previous applications sought planning permission for redevelopment of the St Margaret’s Hospital site and Great Barr Park. They would, however, have involved the construction of new housing on the site of the Male Homes and a scale of development that both Walsall MBC and English Heritage concluded would be harmful. [Doc 6, Plan A]

114. The current application severs the Great Barr Hall and its immediate parkland setting from the hospital site. That enables applications for restoration and enabling development to be pursued separately by the present owners of the Hall, the Manor Building Preservation Trust. One such application is currently before Walsall MBC for determination. [Plan A]

115. The revised master plan restricts redevelopment to land occupied by the former Female Homes and various outbuildings, transferring to this part of the site most of the footprint of the Male Homes. At present, the Male Homes are exposed to views from the west. The appeal scheme retains the horseshoe pattern of development and its linear access. The proposals also provide for restoration of the historic character of Great Barr Park. [Plan A]  Green Belt

116. Structures on the existing hospital site, proposed for demolition, have a footprint of some 23,365 square metres. These structures would be replaced by development with a footprint of some 22,221 square metres. Demolition of the Male Homes would remove the only former hospital buildings visible from the surrounding area. That part of the valley that they presently occupy would, as part of the proposals, be reshaped to re-instate its natural contours. The culverted course of the Holbrook, between The Duckery and the northern lake of Great Barr Park would be re-instated as an open watercourse. The concrete pedestrian bridge adjacent to the Gothic Bridge would be demolished. The Gothic Bridge and walled garden would be restored. There would, therefore, be a consequential improvement to visual amenity. [Doc 14.2 App 11, Plan A]

117. The development proposed would inevitably result in an increase in the density of development in the Female Homes part of the appeals site. In addition, the apartments proposed would be slightly higher than the existing buildings. Even so, the form and layout of the development would retain the essential character of the existing site. The arrangement of the proposed buildings in a horseshoe shape is an approach to urban design that would, to advantage, preserve the established pattern of development. The proposed apartment buildings would maintain the scale of built development and provide a visual

focus for it. Retention of the long, linear access drive would add to the scheme's visual amenity. [Plan A]

118. The overall concept produces an efficient solution to the re-use of previously developed land. The buildings could be designed, and their quality assured, through a design brief - the subject of an agreed draft planning condition. Such a brief could also ensure that new development did not encroach unacceptably upon the setting of Great Barr Hall. [Doc 5/2 App 6, Doc 20.2]

119. Notwithstanding an increase in the intensity of development in the Female Homes area, there would be an overall increase in openness of the Green Belt. As a result of utilising a smaller area of site than the existing buildings, the development proposed would contribute towards achieving an important objective for the use of land in Green Belts. The requirements of paragraph C4 of Annex C to PPG2 are therefore met. [Doc 14.2 App 11, Plan A]

120. In addition, and with regard to meeting other Green Belt objectives, agreed planning conditions relating to landscape management and provision of public access would result in an increase in public access to the site, enhancement of the landscape - particularly on the Male Homes part of the site - and the reinstatement of damaged and derelict land. Planning conditions would also safeguard or enhance nature conservation interests through the management of the woodland and re-instatement of the open course of the Holbrook. Land could be retained in agricultural use by pastoral land management of remaining open areas. [Doc 17.2 App 1, Doc 25, Plan A]

121. The site is identified in policy ENV4 of the Walsall UDP as land in the Green Belt appropriate for redevelopment. The proposals thereby comply with that part of the Development Plan. The appeal proposals also meet the relevant requirements of policy ENV9 of the Review UDP. [Docs 27, 28]

122. Some objectors argue that the appeals site should be restored as a public park. That is an option explored, and to some extent promoted, in the GBHAC's Mary Scott Blueprint document. However, the GBHAC acknowledges that the document is a wish list, unrelated to financial constraints. It was intended to be an informative document for others with the means to carry it forward to do so. [Doc 21.2]

123. The GBHAC also accepted at the Inquiry that, although it originally invited rejection of the appeal proposals and support for the Mary Scott Blueprint, all parties had moved on. No direct reference was made in evidence given at the Inquiry by GBHAC to the Mary Scott document and no reference to the document appears in recent GBHAC publications. It was accepted that the blueprint does not apply to the current outline application or, specifically, to the Female Homes part of the estate. The GBHAC accepts that the blueprint is idealistic and is only a notion of how the estate might be used. No developer has been identified to take forward the scheme outlined in the blueprint. The reality is that, in its 16 year existence, the achievements of the GBHAC have been limited. [Doc 21.2]

124. The GBHAC confirmed at the Inquiry that it did not object in principle to redevelopment of the site, merely to the scale of the proposals. The GBHAC accepted that there is no other scheme available that could achieve the beneficial impacts of the appeal scheme or enhance the prospects for restoration of Great Barr Hall. It was acknowledged that the current position is unique in the history of the site in that the application is backed by a nationally known developer, without opposition from Walsall MBC, Birmingham CC or Sandwell MBC, and is not objected to by English Heritage.

125. There is thus agreement between the main parties that the proposals shown in the master plan would enhance the openness of the Green Belt, the visual amenities of the Green Belt and the objectives for use of land within the Green Belt without harm to Green Belt purposes. [Plan A]  Transportation

126. Inadequacy of transportation information was the basis of the outline application made to Walsall MBC being refused. The revised Transport Assessment was reviewed by consultants Faber Maunsell, acting for the three local authorities, in January 2004. Proofs of evidence submitted in connection with the Inquiry indicate that no agreement was reached, although it was made clear that discussions were continuing. [Docs 5/4.5]

127. The revised Transport Assessment focuses on measures to maximise access by public and non-motorised modes of transport so as to reduce the need to travel by private car. That approach was welcomed, and is supported, by the three local authorities concerned. It maximises the attractiveness of means of travel other than the car and is consistent with what has been sought by the authorities. Those authorities have concluded that it would be impractical to prohibit traffic generating development on the basis that Queslett Road/Aldridge Road and Scott Arms junctions were operating above their designed capacity at peak periods. That, combined with the fact of traffic generation from the previous use of the hospital, is a material consideration which has influenced the stance of the authorities concerned. [Docs 5, 9]

128. The proposed dedicated shuttle bus would run from the outset of development to connect with other bus services at 15 minute intervals in the peak hours and 20 minutes off peak. That is considered appropriate for the development proposed. The service would be funded for 5 years by the developers, secured under clause 7 to the section 299A Agreement. The Agreement also provides that, by the time the first 200 dwellings are occupied, the bus would pass along the entire length of the spine road. The proposal also meets with the approval of the West Midlands Passenger Transport Authority and is consistent with Walsall's Review UDP policy T12. [Docs 8, 28]

129. The potential for pedestrian and cycle links is enhanced by the proposed link through 42 Park Farm Road, for which planning permission has been granted. The link could also be used as an emergency access. That permission has not been the subject of legal challenge and was not before the Inquiry. A sum of £10,000 is provided in the section 299A Agreement which might be used to improve the Crail Grove footpath, or to secure its closure in the event of the link through 42 Park Farm Road being provided. Pedestrian and cycle access to the north would be by way of Sutton's Drive, which connects to Chapel Lane. [Doc 8, Doc 14.2 App13, Plan A]

130. With regard to trip generation and consequential traffic impact, at the time proofs were submitted an issue remained between the parties as to the materiality of any impact and the consequences of any increased delay at the Scott Arms junction and the Queslett Road/Aldridge Road junction. At a meeting on the 1 March 2004 the Appellants agreed to contribute towards the cost of improving the Scott Arms junction. The authorities have given due consideration to whether the sum offered reasonable in scale, in relation to the impact of the development, and the appropriateness of measures that might be undertaken. [Docs 8, 9]

131. The design of the proposed site access has also been the subject of discussion and it has been agreed that this is a matter that could be satisfactorily determined within the agreed

Heads of Terms of a section 278 Agreement. That determination would include considerations of forward visibility on the eastbound approach to the proposed traffic signals, a matter of particular road safety concern. [Docs 7, 8]

132. The overall result of discussion that have been taking place up to and during the Inquiry is that agreement on all outstanding issues was reached between representatives of the main parties on 23 March 2004. An agreed statement confirming this was submitted at the Inquiry. [Doc 9]

133. The evidence of respective transport and highways witnesses was the only technical highways evidence before the Inquiry. Late written submissions contained in a letter from Birmingham City Council set out the concerns and reservations of members of the Council's Development Control Committee, but no evidence is submitted on their behalf in support of those concerns. [Doc 35]

134. The Highways Agency also submitted a late statement of objection to the Inquiry. In that statement, the author fails to recognise that the site is in a high accessibility public transport corridor. He also fails to acknowledge the proximity of local facilities and has not considered relevant policies of both the adopted and emerging UDPs. The highways authorities' evidence on this issue comes through their appointed witness at the Inquiry. He is at one with the Appellant's transportation and highways witness. [Doc 31]

135. With regard to other infrastructure issues, education is addressed by way of a staged financial contribution calculated in accordance with an agreed formula, as set out in the section 299A Agreement. Affordable housing is dealt with under clause 9 of the Agreement, with some 20% of the total number of dwellings being affordable housing units. Primary care and community facilities are also dealt with under the section 299A Agreement, at clause 10, by the provision of premises and a financial contribution of some £50,000. [Doc 8]  Heritage

136. English Heritage are concerned that time is running out for Great Barr Hall and its park. They believe that the historic place now needs new life, which the current proposals can provide. English Heritage have been involved in discussions on proposals affecting the site for more than 10 years. During that time buildings have deteriorated further. Demolition of the former hospital buildings is regarded by English Heritage as justifiable, having regard to the appeal scheme’s overall benefits. These include improvements to the setting of Great Barr Hall. The views of English Heritage are shared by Walsall MBC. [Doc 20.2, Plan C]

137. The parkland has been assessed by Dr Rutherford, for English Heritage, to determine whether it warrants upgrading to Grade II*. Dr Rutherford did not make that recommendation, but she commented that any development plans should take into account the historic interest of the horseshoe element of the colony and the axial approach. The current proposals do that. [Doc 20.2]

138. English Heritage consider the current proposals beneficial to the park and, indirectly, beneficial to Great Barr Hall. The restoration of land occupied by the Male Homes and the presence of viable development would improve the perception of the Hall by the public and by the development market - thereby enhancing the prospects of restoration.

139. The safeguards that English Heritage and the local planning authority seek in relation to the park would be achieved through an approved landscape management plan that would tie in the development to principles established by the master plan and by an approved design

brief. That combination provides security against the proposals being merely an outline application. Works to the parkland and the residential development have, together, the potential to enhance the conservation area of which the appeals site is part. The archaeological interest of the appeals site can be secured by an agreed planning condition. [Docs 7, 25, Plan A]  PPG3 - Housing

140. The site is not part of a major urban area, but it is a previously developed site. As brownfield land it is at the top of a sequential assessment. Redevelopment would meet the aims of emerging RPG11 by encouraging the retention of people within the urban area through promoting high density, high quality development. The proposals therefore comply not only with local development plan policy but also with regional policy. [Doc 6, Doc 14.2]

141. The housing mix shown on the master plan is capable of providing a range of housing types and tenures consistent with advice in PPG3. Walsall MBC accepts that the site meets the criteria set out in paragraph 31 of PPG3 in that it is available, is locationally accessible and is capable of being accommodated by the local infrastructure. It has the potential to sustain a local community and development could be undertaken within environmental constraints imposed by the site and its location. [Plan A]

142. By tying the development, through planning conditions, to principles illustrated by the master plan and to a Design Brief that would need to be the subject of prior approval by the local planning authority, the development would be capable of meeting national planning guidance on the design of development set out in PPG3 and in the Government's publication By Design. [Doc 7]  Conclusions

143. The outline proposal for 445 dwellings complies with national and local policy for the redevelopment of major developed sites in the Green Belt. As a housing site it has good sustainability credentials and optimises the use of brownfield land. Development can be delivered to an appropriate design quality and has the potential to deliver significant community benefits.

144. The First Secretary of State is therefore advised that the local authorities concerned now consider that sufficient information is available to consider the application and its transportation and highways implications. The Case for Great Barr Hall Action Committee (GBHAC) The main points are:

145. The GBHAC was founded in 1987 to resist insensitive development of the Great Barr Hall estate, which includes St Margaret's Hospital, and to share its unique knowledge of the estate and its history. Its membership includes local action and residents' groups, the Walsall Local History Society and the Barr and Aston Local History Society. The GBHAC wishes to see Great Barr Hall and its associated parkland become a vibrant, community orientated, self-sustaining, multi-faceted heritage asset with and assured future.

146. The GBHAC objects to the appeal proposals on the grounds that the Appellant's assessment of the effect on the local road network of traffic generated by the development does not reflect the amount of congestion that actually occurs on or near the Queslett Road entrance to the appeals site. Nor does it sufficiently address safety considerations at that junction. [Doc 21.2]

147. The GBHAC also objects to the sprawling nature of the proposed and to the social burden that it would impose on the existing local community development and its resources. In addition, despite repeated requests to do so, the Appellant has declined to undertake a social impact assessment in order to identify and quantify the social impact of the proposals on the local community. While there may be merit in some aspects of the appeal scheme, the Appellant has failed to engage with the local community in formulating its proposals. [Doc 21.2]

148. It is a popular view that the proposals would be more acceptable if they were to be scaled down. In the form proposed, they would compromise the openness of the Green Belt, contrary to PPG2 objectives, and would seriously detract from the spaciousness of the horseshoe arrangement of buildings that comprise the Female Homes. This arrangement is of considerable value, in urban design terms. Development on the scale proposed would result in a congested form of development dominating the central area of grassland. [Doc 21.2, Plan A]

149. The concept of a social impact assessment is well established in other countries. An assessment of this kind assists in identifying the positive as well as the negative aspects of a proposal. An attempt to deal with social consequences of the appeal scheme by means of a section 299A Agreement is unlikely to solve problems associated with additional educational and health care needs in the community. It represents an incomplete solution which, at best, would do no more than mitigate the impact of the development. [Doc 8, Doc 21.2]

150. A particular concern of local residents is fear of anti-social behaviour resulting from the proposed link between the appeals site and Park Farm Road. Evidence that such behaviour is likely to occur is to be found in the past mis-use of the Crail Grove footpath. The appeal scheme does not adequately address the concerns of local residents on this point. The scale of local response to the appeal proposals should be taken as an indication of the anxiety felt by the local community concerning the effects of the appeal proposals. Insufficient account of this was taken by Walsall MBC in assessing the merit of the appeal proposals. The Appellant approach has been entirely one-sided. The effect, contrary to emerging Review UDP objectives (paragraph 2.24), would be to impose on one section of the community an intolerable burden. [Doc 14.2 App 11, Doc 28]

151. Traffic congestion remains a matters of real concern. Time-lapse photography demonstrates the true extent of congestion in Queslett Road. For considerable periods during the morning peak, there is little or no capacity on the westbound carriageway. Congestion of this kind has the potential to create a road safety hazard. The type of junction the Appellant has in mind would lead to motorists being stranded on the outside lane of the eastbound carriageway as traffic lights change. The access arrangements proposed would exacerbate problems elsewhere on the local road network, to the disadvantage of the local community. [Doc 21.2]

152. There has been a developing awareness in recent years of the historical and ecological significance of Great Barr Hall and its estate. In 1985 a report was undertaken by the De Bois Landscape Survey Group on behalf of several local authorities. One of the outcomes of this survey was the inclusion of Great Barr Park on English Heritage's Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest. [Doc 21.2]

153. A more recent report, prepared for the Appellants by Rodney Melville and Partners as a contribution to the Environmental Impact assessment (EIA), concludes that the principle historic interest of the site is the urban design concept for the `colony` of separate buildings

in a non-linear anti-institutional arrangement. The report, which was commissioned to `.. inform and guide redevelopment proposals ..` is devoid of any reference to the true historical importance of St Margaret's Hospital as a former mental colony. Nothing hints at the place of St Margaret's in the history of mental deficiency. The buildings that comprise the hospital area, in fact, of national importance. That is borne out by the conclusions of Dr Rutherford who prepared a report on the possible upgrading of the registered parkland from Grade II to Grade II*. [Doc 5/2 App 6F, Doc 20.2]

154. Dr Rutherford concluded that the early date of the colony, its survival almost intact and its increasing rarity as a site type mean that it is of national importance in its own right. On that basis, English Heritage urged on the Appellants that any future plans for development take into account the historic interest of the colony. If proper note had been taken of that request, retention of the colony buildings in some form or another would have been assured. Indeed, the emerging Review UDP, at policy ENV9(c), positively encourages the re-use of existing buildings which are of architectural or historic importance. [Doc 20.2, Doc 28]

155. Great Barr Hall was, at one time, an integral part of development proposals affecting the St Margaret's Hospital site but the Appellant company divested itself of its interest in the hall to the Manor Building Preservation Trust in September 2003. Nevertheless, a significant amount of the historic parkland remains their responsibility. The fact that the two parts of the estate are now in different ownership raises real concern regarding future restoration and maintenance. [Doc 5/2 App 6]

156. Great Barr Hall is a building of international importance but is one that has received little recognition as a meeting place for the Lunar Society. A description of the activities of the Lunar Society is to be found in an 1858 autobiography of the owner of Barr Hall Samuel Galton's daughter, Mary Anne Schimmelpenninck. That, in turn, inspired the preparation of the Mary Anne Blueprint by the GBHAC, a document that contains, among other things, proposals for regeneration of the estate. [Doc 21.2]

157. Great Barr Hall sits in an historic landscape. A Shenstone and Repton landscape is probably unique but it is one that has been debased over the last century and needs time to recover. A radical re-appraisal of the site's values and strengths is needed so that it can be nurtured back to life. [Doc5/2 App 4]

158. An archaeological assessment of the site, undertaken on behalf of the Appellant in connection with the EIA has overlooked four significant finds. Further research is being undertaken to determine the exact location of these finds. This leads to a conclusion that the archaeological value of the site has been underestimated by the Appellant. [Doc 5/2 App 7]

159. Transfer of Great Barr Hall to the Manor Building Preservation Trust has been widely condemned. The Trust is not an organisation with charitable status. It has been operating for some four years in a way that does not compare with other historic buildings trusts and there remains a climate of uncertainty surrounding the activities of the trust. The Appellant's decision to dispose of its interest in Great Barr Hall has led to the fragmentation of the historic core of the estate.

160. Recent changes in responsibility for health care cast doubt upon the future of the Mental Health Units (MHU) that lie within or adjacent to the appeals site. It seems clear that development of the St Margaret's site is far from concluded and that further development is inevitable. Issues surrounding the future of the MHUs should have been taken into account in deciding the future of the St Margaret's Hospital site. When traffic and other issues have

barely been resolved, this added burden on the local infrastructure may well have tipped the balance. [Plan A]

161. The GBHAC is anxious that Great Barr Hall and its associated parkland should become a heritage asset for the benefit of future generations. The development and works proposed would not achieve this. For this reason, and because of its social consequences and effect on traffic, the GBHAC remains opposed to the appeal scheme. The Case for Beacon Action Group The main points are:

162. The Beacon Action Group was formed in 1983 by local residents concerned about proposals affecting St Margaret's Hospital. People in the area are passionate about this Green Belt site and have watched with despair as the Regional Health Authority consistently undervalued the importance of Great Barr Hall and its historic parkland. Planning professionals and other interested organisations have consistently stated that the parkland needs to be dealt with in an holistic way if restoration is to be achieved. These proposals fail to deliver that vision and responsibility for Great Barr Hall has been offloaded by the Appellant onto others. [Doc 22.1]

163. Green Belt policy supports the need for some redevelopment of the former hospital but, despite the amount of evidence put to the Inquiry, the Beacon Action Group continues to have doubts about the appropriateness and acceptability of the appeal proposals. It is a far from satisfactory scheme and one that would seriously reduce the openness of the Green Belt. [Doc 22.1, Plan A]

164. Concern remains about the size, scale and density of development proposed on the site of the former Female Homes. There is, in addition, a lack of information on any detailed arrangements to provide for the co-ordinated and comprehensive management of the parkland area, most of which is now in the ownership of the Manor Building Preservation Trust. There remains concern about the social consequences of the proposed cycle and pedestrian routes, particularly fear of crime. There is also concern that the redevelopment of other redundant health service buildings would result in undesirable sprawl. [Plan A]

165. The Appellant, who is likely to undertake the development, has been unable to point to other schemes of development with which a comparison might be made. That is especially significant in circumstances where outline planning permission is being sought for development in a conservation area. A full planning application would have been more appropriate. Information provided by the Appellant's Design Statement does not suggest high-quality/low-maintenance design. These are qualities that might be looked for in buildings in a conservation area. If planning permission is granted, English Heritage or some other appropriate body should be commissioned to audit the Design Brief that it is intended should be sought by means of a planning condition. [Doc 24]

166. The Action Group agrees with the principle of removing permitted development rights by condition but has little confidence in the ability of the local planning authority to monitor events on the ground. [Doc 7]

167. Notwithstanding information provided to the Inquiry, it is still unclear how improvements at the Scott Arms road junction would resolve the traffic congestion that already exists and which would be bound to increase. A proposed supermarket development in the adjoining Borough of Sandwell, is likely to take up the last bit of junction capacity. Other planning permission have been granted for development in the area. Any further changes would be

to the disadvantage of pedestrians and would be likely to lead to motorists finding routes for `rat-running` as well as slower traffic and longer queues, with consequential effects on the efficiency of public transport. Evidence of the effects of rat-running is to be found along the Chapel Lane/Pinfold Lane route that passes to the north of the appeals site. Illegal manoeuvres take place that are a source of danger to other road users and pedestrians. [Doc 22.2]

168. In addition, the proposed access to the appeals site from Queslett Road would become a focus for congestion, increasing the propensity of drivers to look for alternative routes. Motorcyclists, particularly trial bikers, might attempt to pass through the appeal site to Sutton's Drive or - with the new access proposed - to Park Farm Road. [Doc 22.2]

169. With regard to the proposed Park Farm Road access, research carried out by the Isle of Wight Crime and Disorder Partnership has identified undesirable characteristics associated with link paths. They include routing pedestrian flows that are too high along unsuitable routes and creating paths for environmental rather than practical reasons. The Partnership also warns against a failure to assess the likely use pattern or `encounter` rate along the path at the planning stage and a failure to integrate pedestrian routes with traffic routes or to deter motor vehicle access on segregated routes. [Doc 14.2 App 11, Doc 20.2]

170. Walsall MBC is currently attempting to resolve safety problems associated with traffic movement along country lanes near the appeals site where average speeds of over 40 mph have been recorded. In some instances cars are being driven at 70 mph. Traffic calming measures are being installed in Chapel Lane, but these are unlikely to reduce the quantity of traffic using this route. [Doc 20.2]

171. Had the Appellant company concentrated its efforts over the last three years on producing a high quality application, a much better scheme - more modest in size, fully detailed and more respectful of Great Barr Hall and its historic parkland - would have been the result. Any recommendation made to the First Secretary of State should reflect and attempt to resolve concerns expressed on behalf of so many local people. The Case for Interested Persons

172. Third party representations were heard as opportunities occurred during the Inquiry. An evening session at a venue close to the appeals site was attended by roughly 180 people. In addition to representations made by local residents, I heard representations on the proposals from local Councillors, from the Rt Hon Bruce George MP for Walsall South and from Khalid Mahmood MP for Birmingham Perry Barr. The main points are:

173. Bruce George MP is familiar with circumstances surrounding the closure of St Margaret's Hospital and is a founder member of the GBHAC. Great Barr Hall and its estate are of great beauty. The structure of the estate's landscape design remains largely intact, although sadly neglected. The historic horseshoe arrangement of buildings, designed by George McMichael, is a particularly attractive feature. It has much in common with the layout and design of buildings of the garden city and garden suburb movement. It also sits within an attractive and much valued area of Green Belt. [Doc 26]

174. The significance of Great Barr Hall and its estate has been recognised in Parliamentary debates. A former Minister of the Crown, Sir Paul Beresford, said in a 1995 Adjournment Debate `It is no exaggeration to say that Walsall is not over endowed with properties and parklands of great historical interest. That adds, of course, to the importance of Great Barr

Hall, its chapel and surrounding and adjacent parklands`. During a 1997 debate, he said `We must accept the idea that this site is an oasis - an area that needs to be kept and looked after. It is certainly not being looked after at present.` [Doc 26]

175. The Appellant's aspirations for the St Margaret's Hospital site are now significantly less than they once were. The appeal proposals are not wholly objectionable but their deficiencies are such as to cast doubt on their conformity with Government policy. It is regrettable that the estate has been subdivided. If it had remained intact, all the complex and inter-related problems associated with Great Barr Hall and its estate could have been looked at together. It may be that the true merit of the Appellant's proposals will be capable of being judged only when proposals for that part of the estate under the control of the Manor Building Preservation Trust come forward. [Doc 26]

176. The Walsall Review UDP assesses the existing housing stock and land supply. An examination of demand and supply, by reference to RPG11 requirements, leads to the conclusion that housing needs up to 2011 can be met without recourse to building on the Green Belt. An Urban Capacity Study, undertaken by Walsall MBC in 2003, demonstrates that Green Belt land does not need to be used for housing. The Study identifies a considerable potential for utilising brownfield sites, an approach entirely consistent with Government policy. [Docs 26, 28]

177. Green Belt policies are well known, but they are capable of interpretation. It is important to note that PPG2, in paragraph 1.7, states that `The purposes of including land in Green Belts are of paramount importance to their continued protection and should take precedence over the land use objectives.` PPG2 also stresses the permanence of Green Belts and warns against alteration to it, other than in exceptional circumstances. [Doc 26]

178. Annex C to PPG2 sets out criteria for determining the future of major developed sites in Green Belts. The proposals do not satisfy these criteria in that they would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt through a concentration of development on the Female Homes part of the site. In addition, some new buildings would exceed the height of existing buildings. The overall impact on the Green Belt would be considerable and, in this connection, it is disingenuous of the Appellant to distinguish between their proposals and proposals on land controlled by the Manor Building Preservation Trust. [Doc 26]

179. As Sandwell MBC points out in its written representations, the proposals compromise the chief objective and purpose of the Green Belt. The residential development proposed is not appropriate to a Green Belt situation and the appeal proposals would conflict with the purpose of restricting the sprawl of large urban areas and would effectively unite Walsall, Birmingham and Sandwell. The development proposed would have the feel of a gated community and, although public access might be permitted, it is unlikely that new residents would welcome others wandering about the site. Despite the Appellant's willingness to contribute to additional social infrastructure costs, it is doubtful whether the demand for additional school places and doctors could be properly met. That is something that might have been determined by a Social Impact Assessment. [Docs 3, 8]

180. The most obvious deficiency of the appeal scheme is the transport element. Assessments carried out by respected consultants demonstrated the inadequacies of the proposals and the scheme was rejected by both Walsall MBC and Birmingham CC on these grounds. It is difficult to see how late changes to the proposals could have convinced the authorities concerned that they are now acceptable. First hand experience of local road conditions confirms the painfully slow progress of traffic along Queslett Road in the rush hour. Such are the weakness of the Appellant's later studies that they are obliged to advance the

alternatives of walking or cycling and the shuttle bus service proposed is unlikely to provide a solution unless it is given some priority. A recent report of the House of Commons Transport Committee stated that public transport will only be attractive if it meets people's real needs and points to a need for adequate road capacity at peak periods. [Doc 5/3, Doc 23]

181. Traffic in the area is unlikely to get much lighter. The number of licensed vehicles nationally has risen from 21 million in 1985 to 30.6 million in 2002. For the same period, the number of private cars has risen from 16.5 million to 24.6 million. Cars and taxis continue to represent the vast majority of all road traffic and there is good evidence that the use of the cycle has declined in recent years. People who have invested in a home on the St Margaret's Hospital site are unlikely to walk or cycle to shops or other facilities. Given problems of accessibility, there may well be pressure to consider other accesses to the site. [Doc 26]

182. These considerations lead to a conclusion that, despite any benefits the proposals might bring, planning permission should not be granted for the development proposed.

183. Khalid Mahmood MP supports the majority of points made by Bruce George MP. His constituency adjoins that of Bruce George. While Government guidelines might support redevelopment of the kind proposed, this site should be treated as an exception. A particular concern is the excessive volume of traffic passing through the Scott Arms junction. The addition of more than 400 new homes would exacerbate problems that already exist and lead to others. [Doc 26]

184. Other forms of transport, including a proposed tramway system, are unlikely to relieve pressure on local roads. In any case, the proposed tramway may well be the subject of objections. As designed, it would result in a significant reduction in road space which would, in turn, reduce the flow of traffic. The need to travel to local schools, plus a proposed 50% increase in the floorspace of the Asda store at the Aldridge Road junction would bring the local road system into gridlock. This is a matter of real concern and a valid planning objection to the proposals. [Doc 26]

185. There is currently a shortfall of housing in the Birmingham Perry Barr area but sites other than the St Margaret's Hospital site are available to make good that deficiency. With that in mind, there should be a greater emphasis on maintaining the environmental quality of the area in which the appeals site is situated. The appeals site is regarded locally as a haven by people who are not among the wealthiest of the West Midlands community. They would appreciate becoming involved in groundwork schemes which would, importantly, encourage young people to explore and value their surroundings. [Doc 26]

186. A further concern of the local community is the extent to which additional development in the area would result in an increase in air pollution along the route of the M6 motorway. On balance, it would be better if the appeals site were to be dedicated to public use. Given its deficiencies, the appeal scheme should be rejected and planning permission refused. [Doc 26]

187. Councillor Keith Linnecor (Birmingham CC) is opposed to the development and considers that environmental issues arising from the appeal proposals have not been properly considered. In assessing the effect of the appeal scheme have not had regard to a proposal to extend the nearby Asda supermarket with a doubling of the amount of car parking. Traffic congestion which already occurs in the area will be considerably worse, if the appeal scheme is permitted.

188. Councillor Martin Harrower (Walsall MBC) is concerned that the appeal proposals would have a detrimental effect on the residential character of Pheasey and the Park Farm estate. Existing schools and medical facilities would not be able to accommodate development on the scale proposed. Existing roads are operating near capacity and there can be no certainty that traffic measures proposed by the Appellant would work. Conditions in Park Farm Road are such that the access proposed in the position of number 42 would cause obstruction to pedestrians. There are also fears within the community that this access to the appeal site would attract anti-social behaviour. The proposed shuttle bus would be no more than a stop gap and its operation could cease after the Appellant's subsidy expired. Proposals to restore the openness of a part of the appeal site are welcome, but a concentration of floorspace in one part of the site would detract from the openness of the Green Belt. The site is unique and needs protection from inappropriate development. It should not be covered by sprawl.

189. Councillor Adrian Andrew (Walsall MBC) is not satisfied that the appeal site is to be regarded as brownfield land. The development proposed would have considerable impact on the fabric of the local community and would seriously impair the quality of life of local residents. It would generate some 900 more cars using local roads, including attractive country lanes, and would lead to highway gridlock. The issue of impact on the Green Belt is not just the amount of floorspace. The effect of extensive hard surfaced area should also be taken into account. If permission is granted, it will inevitably provide a precedent for similar developments in the Green Belt.

190. Councillor Chris Towe (Walsall MBC) is concerned that traffic generated by the development proposed, along with that associated with an approved scheme for 53 dwellings in Chapel Lane would create intolerable traffic conditions in Queslett Road and other local roads. The Scott Arms junction is already a traffic hazard and traffic, generally, is seen as a big issue by local residents. The proposed addition of 30,000 square feet, with an associated increase in car parking at the Asda supermarket will, together with the appeal scheme, add to local congestion.

191. Councillor John Cotton (Birmingham CC) is of the view that Green Belt should not be lost to development. The part of the Green Belt in which the appeals site is located is the lungs of Birmingham. Traffic is an important issue for those living in Birmingham as well as Walsall. Local conditions are likely to be made worse by proposals affecting the Asda store and by other residential development already permitted in the area.

192. Mr B Newman, a former Walsall MBC Councillor, is concerned that a grant of planning permission would open up the Barr Beacon area to further development. Heavy use is already being made of Queslett Road, which provides a link to the M6 motorway. The proposed access at 42 Park Farm Road would be likely to open up the appeal site to further development.

193. Peter Ruston is a local resident and a member of the GBHAC. The appeal site forms and important part of the Green Belt and is part of a strategic Green Wedge in this part of the West Midlands. It is also part of a Regional Park. Great Barr Hall has strong historical connections. Walsall MBC was asked, in 1986, to serve a repairs notice on the owners of Hall but they took no action. They, and English Heritage, have effectively abandoned it. Although it has passed through the hands of the Official Receiver, the building retains its listed status. Other buildings on the St Margaret's Hospital site have been recognised by Dr Rutherford, in a report prepared for English Heritage, as being of national importance. They are within the Great Barr Conservation Area but, like Great Barr Hall, have suffered wilful neglect. Traffic congestion is a problem in the area and will continue to be so.

People are unlikely to be attracted to public transport alternatives. The reality is greater car use.

194. David Busby is an amateur photographer with a particular interest in wildlife. He referred to a series of photographs taken within the St Margaret's Hospital site to illustrate his concerns about harm that he believes would be caused by the development proposed. [Photo 1]

195. Mr R Adams lives close to the appeals site and has experienced difficulty getting his children into local schools. The appeal scheme has no support from within the local community. If approved, it will lead to more pressure for development on open land. The Great Barr Hall estate provides an opportunity for the three local authorities concerned to get together to create something for the local community. Lottery monies could be sought to this end. The Appellant's statistical basis for assessing the effect on traffic is difficult to comprehend. Experience suggests that the appeal scheme would put an addition 500-800 cars onto an already congested road system. That congestion is made worse when problems on the M6 motorway encourage traffic onto local roads. Primary health care facilities in the area are already overloaded and the contribution offered by the Appellant will not overcome its deficiencies.

196. Steven Grey represents the Queslett Lodge and Gates Preservation Society. He takes the view that heavy traffic congestion will be the main consequence of the development proposed and the proposed closure of Booth Lane, to the south of Queslett Road, shows no consideration for the present users of this and other roads in the area. Community services are already over-stretched and there are genuine fears that linkage with Park Farm Road would generate anti-social behaviour. The appeal proposals would require the demolition of Gerald McMichael's hospital buildings and would result in the loss of trees and wildlife habitats. More housing is not needed in Walsall. There are many empty properties in the north of the Borough.

197. Hilda Foley has concerns about anti-social behaviour arising from the proposed Park Farm Road, which she believes are not exaggerated, and urges the Appellant to make a contribution towards improving local community services. Martin Egan is familiar with the history of the appeals site and suggests that there are legal constraints on its development. He also suggests that the site is unsuitable for development because of poor sub-soil conditions. [Doc 26] Darren Porter is spokesperson for the Park Farm Residents' Association. He shares the concern of others regarding traffic generation, anti-social behaviour in and around Park Farm Road and the lack of community facilities.

198. Philip Hare appeared as representative of the Crail Grove Association. He points out local fear about crime in relation to public access from the direction of Park Farm Road and questions whether the footpath connecting the appeals site with Crail Grove is a public right of way.

199. Sam Price has lived in Park Farm Road since 1957 and has seen the surrounding area become more developed. He is opposed to the development on the grounds of further overcrowding. Brenda Etchells is a Governor of a local school and draws attention to problems of admission. She also draws attention to problems associated with traffic, and mentioned rat-running as a symptom of traffic congestion. She is opposed to the appeal proposals which she believes would not allow residents of the Park Farm estate to enjoy a decent quality of life. Lesley Robinson points out the threat of traffic to pedestrians, especially schoolchildren. She refers, in particular, to conditions in the vicinity of Barr Beacon School. Mark Woloszyniuk lives in Park Farm Road. He is concerned that the Park

Farm Road link to the appeals site is too long and should not have been given planning permission. He shares the concern of others regarding traffic on Queslett Road and the deteriorating condition of Great Barr Hall.

200. Kenneth Stevens draws attention to the deteriorating condition of Great Barr Hall and to unauthorised access taking place, by children and motorcyclists. Crime is prevalent in the area and security has not been effective. The proposed access at 42 Park Farm Road would encourage more criminal activity and the proposals will generate a lot more traffic. Stephen Kane is a long time resident of the area and considers it a good place to live. Criminal activity is a real problem, however, and one that has led to the closure of Barr Beacon - a local open space - during the evening. Opening up the Great Barr Hall estate will encourage the same type of anti-social behaviour. The Health Authority was wrong to allow Great Barr Hall to deteriorate. The development will generate more traffic and a demand for more services. There is great pressure on local health services.

201. Anne Palmer is concerned about the effects of an increase in traffic and the stress, pollution and ill health that she considers would result. Mark Watts lives near 42 Park Farm Road and believes that youths are likely to target the proposed access. He is concerned that the access will be used by trial bike riders, as well as cyclists. Eunice Stevens also lives in Park Farm Road. She asks what the alternative to the Appellant's proposals might be. If it were made into a public park, which appears to be the only alternative, who would pay for its upkeep? Written Representations

202. This section of the report summarises written representations made to the local planning authority at the applications stage and in response to notification of the appeals. Some representations refer to earlier planning applications schemes for a greater number of dwellings that were subsequently withdrawn. However, as most representations concern the principle of development and its possible implications, I have not sought to distinguish between them. That would, in any case, be impossible without reference back to the author. [Doc 3]

203. Although content to have its position on transportation and highways matters represented jointly at the Inquiry with Walsall MBC and Birmingham CC, Sandwell MBC asks that its written representations on other aspects of the proposals be taken into account. Similarly, Friends of the Earth were to be represented at the Inquiry and produced a proof of evidence. They did not, however, appear. Accordingly, I have treated their proof as a written statement. On the penultimate day of the Inquiry, a letter signed by the Chief Planning Officer of Birmingham CC and dated 31 March 2004 was handed in. I summarise its content towards the end of this section of the report. I also summarise written representation submitted by Atkins Transport Planning on behalf of the Highways Agency on the third day of the Inquiry. [Docs 3, 31, 35]  Representations at Applications Stage

204. A total of 1175 letters or e-mails were received by Walsall MBC, mainly from residents of the area immediately surrounding the appeals site. Most are users of local services, including health care facilities and schools. Many regard the site as a leisure or recreational facility. A number of representations come from addresses further afield, in Pheasey to the east and Queslett to the south. Representations to Birmingham CC at the application stage amounted to 9 individual letters of objection and two petitions signed by 45 and 89 objectors respectively. [Docs 4.1, 4.2]

205. The majority of representations express objection of some kind to the appeal proposals. The main concerns are increases in traffic and congestion that it is believed would result from redevelopment of the site. There is a strong belief that traffic impact studies underestimate, in their predictions, the number of additional cars that would need to be accommodated on local roads. There is a consensus that roads in the vicinity of the appeals site are already over-used. Many representations draw attention to congestion that occurs in Queslett Road, at the Scott Arms junction, at Junction 7 of the M6 motorway and on the roundabout at the Aldridge Road/Queslett Road junction. Objectors are concerned that redevelopment of the site would add to the number of cars on local roads at peak times and increase the likelihood of accidents. There is also concern about increases in noise and air pollution. [Docs 4.1, 4.2]

206. Several objectors comment on the proposed closure of the Chapel Lane exit from the appeals site. There is concern that the means by which closure would be achieved would not be adequate for the purpose and would be ineffective in preventing unauthorised access to the site. There is also concern is that the closure might be removed in the future, opening up a rat run between Chapel Lane and Queslett Road. [Docs 4.1, 4.2]

207. A large number of representations record concern about the perceived loss of Green Belt. Many emphasise the importance of retaining green spaces. Some suggest that the appeals site should be designated as public open space. The St Margaret's Hospital site is regarded by many as greenfield land, which should not be developed, and object to the Appellant promoting the scheme on the basis that it is a brownfield site. Attention is drawn to the fact that the appeals site is within the Great Barr Conservation Area and within the Beacon Regional Park. Attention is also drawn to protected trees, areas of ancient woodland and sites of nature conservation importance. [Docs 4.1, 4.2]

208. A significant number of representations object to uncontrolled public access to the lakes and their environs. It is argued that there is an overriding need to safeguard environmentally sensitive parts of the Great Barr Hall estate. There is concern that native tree species and wildlife would be endangered if the development was allowed to proceed. [Docs 4.1, 4.2]

209. A considerable number of objections to the appeal proposals draw are based on what is considered to be an excessive number of dwellings and the effect of an increase in local population on existing services and facilities. Some objectors refer to the absence of a Social Impact Assessment and the likelihood that the local medical centre and local schools do not have the capacity to cope with the extra demands that would be placed upon them. Local schools, it is suggested, are already oversubscribed. [Docs 4.1, 4.2]

210. Some objectors register their concern about the use of the Crail Grove pedestrian and cycle route as an access to the appeals site. This is considered to be an arrangement that would be unacceptable to residents on the western side of the Park Farm estate because of noise and disturbance it is feared would result. There is also concern that crime and vandalism would increase as a result of the use of this access. [Docs 4.1, 4.2]

211. The ‘footprint' method of assessing the impact of new development, described in Annex C4 and C5 of PPG2, is considered by many not to have been used correctly. As a result, it is suggested, the total area of new build proposed would be greater than that already on the site. Attention is drawn to the effect on calculations of temporary structures within the historic walled garden of Great Barr Hall. The proposed layout of the development is also objected to, particularly infilling of the horseshoe arrangement at the end of the main drive. [Docs 4.1, 4.2]

212. Objections are also raised to the siting of houses close to electricity pylons. These are said to be hazardous to children. Several objectors point to medical research linking higher incidences of leukaemia in children living close to pylons. While not all objectors are opposed to the principle of redevelopment, there is concern about the use of the site for new housing. It is suggested that the site could be developed more sensitively, adapting and reusing existing buildings said to be of historical significance. Several objectors are concerned about development taking place within the walled garden, having regard to its historical and cultural importance. [Docs 4.1, 4.2]

213. One written representation expressed support for the development on the grounds that, without it, the site and Great Barr Hall would deteriorate beyond recovery. [Docs 4.1, 4.2]  Representations at Appeals Stage

214. A total of 71 letters were received in response to notification of the appeals and the Inquiry, or in response to other communications from Walsall MBC and the Appellant. Two letters include petitions signed by 26 and 157 persons respectively. Most addresses, where given in the petitions, are near to the appeals site. Some representations are from persons who also spoke at the Inquiry, either on their own behalf or on behalf of a local body or organisation. Of the 71 letters, 70 contain objections in some form to the proposals. One letter expresses support. [Doc 3]

215. Matters referred to in representations made at the appeals stage are similar to those raised at the applications stage, as summarised above. More than half the objections relate to local traffic conditions with a particular emphasis on congestion in Queslett Road and at road junctions. A similar proportion express concern at the effect of the development proposed on the Green Belt. Some take the view that it would result in the loss of Green Belt land; other regard residential development as inappropriate to a Green Belt situation. Several objectors are concerned that, to permit the development proposed would create a compelling precedent for development on other parts of the Green Belt. It is clear that open land within the Green Belt is regarded as a valuable local amenity. [Doc 3]

216. Another major concern of objectors is the effect of additional housing on community services. A lack of school places and pressure on health care facilities is a recurring theme. Other matters raised include concern about the effects of creating a pedestrian/cycle access from Park Farm Road and the form of the proposed access from Queslett Road. There are fears that the access/exit point on Chapel Lane might, at some time in the future, be opened up to traffic. A number of representations draw attention to the wildlife interest of the appeal site and the architectural and historical significance of Great Barr Hall and its estate. Other representations suggest that the appeal site provides an opportunity to create a local park. [Doc 3]

217. The one written representation in support of the proposals, from a local address, refers to the fact that the appeals site already contains built development and that there is a need for more homes in the area, for purchase and rent. With regard to traffic, the writer refers to vehicle movements that would otherwise be generated by the hospital, if it were still in use. [Doc 3]

218. Sandwell MBC objects to the proposals on the grounds that they do not comply with Green Belt policy, as set out in PPG2. The Council considers that the proposals would have a harmful effect on the character and openness of the Green Belt and would be an urban extension into the Green Belt. There are no special circumstances which would outweigh the harm that would be caused. RPG11 was issued in 1995 and makes clear that maximum

use should be made of sites within the urban fabric for development. The West Midlands Regional Planning Guidance Review has reached an advanced stage. Its stance on the Green Belt is that there will be no need to release Green Belt land for housing. [Doc 3]

219. With regard to PPG3 guidance, Sandwell MBC takes the view that the appeal site does not fall into the category of an urban extension that may, exceptionally, be preferable to development of a greenfield site. With regard to PPG2, Walsall MBC's adopted and emerging Green Belt policies are in general accord with national planning guidance. One of the purposes of the Green Belt is to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas. Sandwell MBC takes the view that development in the southern part of the site would be an extension to the urban area, effectively redefining the boundary of the Green Belt in this location. There are no exceptional circumstances to justify this and Walsall MBC's Review UDP does not indicate a pressing need for more housing - certainly not on a scale that would justify releasing Green Belt land. The development proposed would result in a loss of openness, one of the most important attributes of the Green Belt. [Doc 3]

220. Sandwell MBC does not dispute that the site is a major developed site and is one that would benefit from environmental improvement. However, the development proposed in this case is considered to be inappropriate and of a kind that would cause harm through loss of openness and loss of containment of the urban area. While it might satisfy the PPG2 Annex C requirement of not occupying a greater footprint than already exists, its character would be incompatible with a need to preserve the openness of the Green Belt. Retention of the horseshoe layout would represent no more than an echo of the present layout, given the increased intensity of development. Even when balanced against improvements in the northern part of the site, the appeal proposals fail the policy test of paragraph C4(a) of PPG2. [Doc 3]

221. Sandwell MBC is also concerned that, although not part of the appeal proposals, there would be pressure for development on land associated with Great Barr Hall which has at least the potential to further erode the openness of the Green Belt and harm its character. Whatever the benefits, in terms of public access and limited restoration of the historic parkland, the appeal proposals do not justify the effective loss of a significant part of the Green Belt. For all these reasons, and having regard also to possible adverse effects on local education resources, the appeals should be dismissed. [Doc 3]

222. Friends of the Earth recognise that the current scheme is an improvement on earlier proposals and welcome the more compact nature of the development, the landscaping measures proposed and the emphasis placed on pedestrian links. However, the proposal no longer address issues relating to Great Barr Hall. The approach is a fragmented one that could lead to pressure for further development and more intrusion into the Green Belt. The proposals therefore fail the test of Walsall MBC Review UDP policy ENV9 which requires development to contribute to the aim of achieving a comprehensive approach to the restoration of Great Barr Hall. [Doc 3]

223. Walsall's housing capacity study advises that there is more than adequate capacity for housing without utilising greenfield land. The study did not include the appeals site. Proposed RPG modifications weigh against the use of the site for housing by advising that locations for housing that extend the boundaries of metropolitan urban areas will be unacceptable. While the proposals might not have the same impact as earlier proposals, they would still be seen as intrusive. Because of fragmentation of the estate, there can be no certainty about the effects of the proposals on biodiversity. Increased compaction of development would be beneficial in terms of movement and transport but the site is poorly located in relation to bus services and reducing the need to travel. The proposed shuttle bus

would improve accessibility, for as long as the service lasts, but should not be seen as a replacement for good links to major centres. [Doc 3]

224. Although less environmentally damaging than previous proposals, the proposals are objectionable because they do not resolve historic buildings issues, they do not provide an overall approach to diversity, the site is not well served by public transport and the proposals are not justified on housing grounds. [Doc 3]

225. Birmingham CC submitted supplementary, written representations after all evidence on transportation and highways matters had been heard. The representations record that the proposed access from Queslett Road had been discussed by Council Members at a Development Control Committee meeting on 25 March 2004. The City Council had, with Walsall MBC and Sandwell MBC, instructed Counsel and appointed an expert witness to give evidence on transportation and highways matters at the Inquiry. That resulted in an agreed statement being prepared, to which the City Council was party. However, the City Council records concern that the revised Transport Assessment, prepared by the Appellant - which ultimately formed the basis of the agreed statement - did not take account of matters relating to the Asda supermarket at the junction of Queslett Road and Aldridge Road. [Doc 35]

226. The City Council has issued a Certificate of Lawfulness in respect of Asda store in November 2003, the effect of which would be to permit the store's retail floorspace to be increased from 4,664 square metres to 9,244 square metres. A planning application (N/07710/03/FUL) has been submitted proposing a deck over the existing car park and the formation of a rear access onto the highway. That application had not been determined at the time of the Inquiry. The City Council does not believe that the impact of a mezzanine floor has been adequately taken into account in assessing the effects of the development proposed on the St Margaret's Hospital site. [Doc 35]

227. Representations are made concerning traffic congestion, particularly in relation to the capacity of the Aldridge Road roundabout and the adequacy of measures proposed for improving traffic flow at the Scott Arms junction. Representations are also made concerning the possible impact of junction improvements on Booths Lane, preventing use by local residents, and the adequacy of measures that might be proposed to address problems that might arise. In addition, the City Council invites consideration of an extension of hours of operation of the proposed shuttle bus so that it would run between 07.00 hrs and 21.00 hrs, on the basis that cessation of the service at 18.50 hrs would act as a deterrent on use of the service. [Doc 35]

228. Furthermore, the City Council requests that the availability of free bus passes be extended to a 5 year period in order to minimise the possible effects of the development on the highway network. Representations conclude with a request that the planning appeal not be determined until matters set out in the representations are resolved. Inspector's Note: I sought the view of Counsel for the three local planning authorities on whether the City Council's concluding comment amounted to a request for the Inquiry to be adjourned. I was informed that no instruction to that effect had been given and no request was being made.

229. The Highways Agency, through Atkins Transport Planning, initially raised concerns about walking distances from the appeals site to local shops, bus services and other facilities. In addition, the Agency expressed concern about the lack of public transport facilities and the amount of traffic that would be generated by the development proposed. The information

provided with the application was considered insufficient to determine whether there would be an impact of Junction 7 of the M6 motorway. [Doc 3]

230. In later representations, made in writing during the course of the Inquiry, the Highways Agency raises issues concerning the means by which a shuttle bus service and pedestrian and cycle access to the site would be secured. Doubts are also raised about the extent to which the Appellant's revised Transport Assessment takes account of a proposals for residential development in Chapel Lane and the apparent failure to demonstrate that there would be no adverse impact on Junction 7 of the M6 motorway. [Doc 31] Conditions

231. Discussion took place between the main parties during the course of the Inquiry concerning conditions the First Secretary of State might with to attach to any permission of consent granted by him. The Great Barr Hall Action Committee and the Beacon Action Group were advised of progress and had an opportunity to comment on conditions and suggest others that might be considered. My comments on conditions, set out below, are based on the final draft lists of conditions submitted on the last day of the Inquiry. For ease of reference I include, in square brackets, the number of the condition used in the Schedule attached to this report. [Doc 7]

232. I have considered the need for conditions, and their wording, in the light of guidance set out in Circular 11/95. I have also taken into consideration representations made by the bodies referred to above..  Application for Outline Planning Permission - Walsall MBC - 02/2417/OL/E2

233. Condition 1 [1] requires details of reserved matters, relating to siting, design, external appearance and landscaping to accord with information provided by the master plan that forms part of the outline planning application. While other conditions require details to be submitted to the local planning authority for approval, it will be important, if outline planning permission is to be granted, to identify a basis for preparing details. That basis would be provided by application drawing MARG/02/MAST - REV C.

234. Condition 2 [2] requires the preparation and approval by the local planning authority of a Design Brief that would define, in some detail, the principles underlying the design of individual buildings. Although the application was accompanied by a Design Statement, a Design Brief would provide greater clarity concerning the developer's intentions and provide a yardstick against which the local planning authority would be able to judge the quality of subsequent detailed submissions under Reserved Matters.

235. Condition 3 [3] requires a phasing statement to be approved by the local planning authority before development commences. The statement would assist in securing an orderly progression of development and is essential, in my opinion, give the sensitivity of the site and its relationship to the residential area to the east.

236. Condition 4 [4] is similar to Circular 11/95 model condition for approval of Reserved Matters. It is, however, worded to reflect the intended phasing of the development. The reference to access as a reserved matter may be omitted as access is included as a matter to be considered at outline stage. Condition 5 [5] imposes a time limit of 5 years on applications for approval of reserved matters. This is a reasonable period, give the scale of the development proposed. Condition 6 [6] is the standard time limit on commencement of the development.

237. Condition 7 [7] specifies details to be included in details of the design and appearance of buildings. Although similar to an informative, the condition gives clear direction on what the local planning authority would expect to be submitted. Condition 8 [8] lists details that do not obviously fall under the heading of Reserved Matters. Their approval would, nevertheless, be required for the development to proceed in a satisfactory manner. Condition 8(a) [9] requires details of existing and proposed site and building levels to be approved by the local planning authority. This information is not provided as part of the outline application..

238. Conditions 9 [10], 10 [11] and 11 [12] are concerned with limiting noise nuisance during the construction phase and on completion of the development. Reference is made to plans in order to locate the position and extent of works proposed. The conditions are agreed by the local planning authority and I consider them necessary for a grant of outline planning permission.

239. Condition 12 [13] requires the provision of open space as part of a particular phase of the development within 12 months of its completion. Condition 13 [14] requires the preparation and approval of a landscape management plan whose content is expected to include various matters listed in the condition. This condition would be vital to the successful future use and management of those parts of the site that would remain undeveloped or from which buildings would be removed. Condition 14 [15] extends and clarifies the requirements of Condition 4 in relation to landscape matters. Condition 15 [16] specifies a time during which landscaping works shall have been completed. Condition 16 [17] requires an ecological management plan to be prepared and approved by the local planning authority for the site, to ensure that its ecological interest is safeguarded.

240. Condition 17 [18] requires details of the proposed access at 42 Park Farm Road to be approved before any works commence on site. The access has already been approved but the permission reserves, for future consideration, matters relating to its detailed design and alignment. The condition provides certainty that the access would be formed in a way that the local planning authority considered acceptable, having regard to the interests of the occupiers of nearby properties. Condition 18 [19] links the provision of the access to a specific stage of the development.

241. Conditions 19 [20], 20 [21], 21 [22] and 21(a) [23] address matters concerned with the formation and use of the modified access to the site from Queslett Road. Condition 19 specifically limits access to the site to the Queslett Road entrance, apart from emergency access. Condition 21(a) would ensure that parking is available for the occupiers of the proposed dwellings. Conditions 22 [24] and 23 [25] set out the local planning authorities requirement with regard to details of drainage. This information is not included in the outline planning application. Condition 24 [26] makes provision for observing and recording archaeological evidence.

242. Conditions 25 [27] , 25(a) [28], 26 [29] and 26(a) [30] address matters concerned with the recording, protection and retention of tree within the site. Each is necessary, in my view, for a grant of outline planning permission, having regard to the contribution made by trees to the site's character. Condition 27 [31] requires details of demolition to be approved in advance of any development. Its purpose is broad but, among other things, it affords an opportunity to examine the potential for recycling materials.

243. Condition 28 [32] is designed to ensure that the gate piers that form the subject of a separate application, for listed building consent, are repositioned at an appropriate stage of the development. Condition 29 [33] requires the submission of details relating to restoration of

the Gothic Bridge, removal of the concrete bridge, restoration of the Walled Garden, re- contouring of the site of the Male Homes and other proposed works of which details are not been provided as part of the planning application.

244. Condition 30 [34] has the effect of withdrawing permitted development rights in respect of dwelling houses that would form part of the development proposed. Having regard to the fact that the development would form part of a conservation area, the urban design implications of that and the extent to which development would be concentrated in one particular part of the site, I consider the condition necessary for a grant of outline planning permission. For similar reasons, and having regard to the ecological interest of particular parts of the appeals site, I consider that Condition 31 [35], relating to the routing of services, necessary for the grant of an outline planning permission. The wording of the condition requires amendment to define the precise areas of ecological interest with which the local planning authority is concerned.  Application for Listed Building Consent - Walsall MBC - 02/2416/LB/E2

245. Three conditions are proposed. To those would need to be added a time limit on commencement of works. I recommend five years from the date of any consent granted. In the absence of such information as part of the application, Condition 1 [2] requires details of new foundations to be approved by the local planning authority in advance of any works. Condition 2 [3] requires a photographic record of the gate piers to be undertaken, in accordance with an approved brief, before works commence. This would ensure reconstruction and reinstatement in an appropriate manner. Condition 3 [4] address matters of detail in relation to reconstruction. All the above conditions are necessary, in my opinion, for a grant of listed building consent.  Application for Conservation Area Consent - Walsall MBC - 03/0057/CA/E2

246. Three conditions are proposed. To those would need to be added a time limit on commencement of development. For consistency, I recommend a period of five years from the date of any consent granted. Condition 1 [2] provides for a demolition strategy to be approved by the local planning before works commence. The wording of the proposed condition is identical to planning application Condition 27 [31]. Although the applications are clearly intended to be linked, it would be necessary, in my opinion, to reproduce the condition in relation to any conservation area consent that may be granted to ensure linkage and orderly phasing of the development and works proposed.

247. Condition 3 [4] requires an historic appraisal of St Margaret's Hospital to be undertaken before demolition. Although not listed, the hospital buildings provide evidence of developments in mental health care. Much of the material that might be needed for an appraisal has already been assembled for the purposes of preparing an Environmental Statement, or could be obtained from local sources. A document drawing this information together would be a valuable reference in relation to any future proposals affecting the Great Barr Hall estate.  Application for Full Planning Permission - Birmingham CC - N/00589/03/FUL

248. Two conditions are proposed. To these would need to be added a time limit on commencement. A period of five years would be appropriate. On the basis that the three authorities involved agree highways matters previously in dispute, including the principle of access from Queslett Road, Condition 1 [2] requires details of proposed improvements to the road junction at this point. The wording of the condition links details to a drawing

illustrating the junction arrangement and to an agreement that would be necessary under highways legislation. Condition 2 [3] has the effect of preventing construction works commencing before the junction has been improved in accordance with the requirements of Condition 1 [2].  Third Party Representations on Conditions

249. At the Inquiry the GBHAC requested that consideration be given to further planning conditions, additional to those agreed by the main parties. With regard to the outline planning application, the GBHAC suggests a condition requiring active engagement with the adjacent landowner to bring registered parkland into single ownership. The condition is not supported by the Appellant or by Walsall MBC. While it might well be desirable, as an objective, a condition of this kind would impose - if only implicitly - an obligation on the owners of land not under the Appellant's control. It is not, therefore, a condition that would meet the tests set out in Circular 11/95. [Doc 34]

250. The GBHAC also suggests a condition requiring a palisade fence to be erected between the development proposed and the historic core of the Great Barr Hall estate. The GBHAC suggest that this would allow the historic core a measure of privacy and seclusion and prevent unrestricted use of the route between Chapel Lane and Queslett Road by pedestrians and cyclists. Such a fence would, in my opinion, and regardless of its design, be an incongruous feature in the landscape. So far as control of access is concerned, this is a matter best dealt with under agreed Condition 13 [14]. [Doc 34, Plan I]

251. In relation to the application for outline planning permission, the GBHAC requests a condition that would set out the `enduring responsibilities' of the developer to maintain car and motorcycle proof barriers at Chapel Lane and the link pathway to the Park Farm Estate. These are matters that could, in my view, also be addressed either under the terms of Condition 13 [14] of any outline planning permission granted or enforced under Condition 8 of planning permission 04/0098/FL/H1 - the permission for an access to be formed at 42 Park Farm Road. [Doc 14.2 App 13, Doc 34]

252. With regard to the application for conservation area consent, the GBHAC requests a condition that would require, as part of an overall regeneration strategy, the retention of two examples of the Male Homes buildings. A requirement of this kind would, in my opinion, alter the nature of the development to an extent that would make it inappropriate to impose a condition of the kind sought. The Male Homes buildings have little intrinsic architectural merit and their retention would perpetuate an intrusion into open land that it is intended should be restored. I do not consider the condition desirable or necessary. [Doc 34]

253. Finally, the GBHAC requests a condition requiring the retention and re-use of two single- storey buildings from the first phase of St Margaret's, forming part of the horseshoe layout, which are among the more attractive hospital buildings. While I see no reason why they should not be retained, their presence might cause difficulties in transferring the Males Homes floorspace to the Female Homes part of the site. The master plan does not envisage the retention of these two buildings. It would, in my view, impose an unreasonable burden on the developer to require the retention of these buildings as part of the scheme. I do not, therefore recommend in favour of this condition. [Doc 34]

Planning Obligations

254. A completed agreement, prepared under the provisions of section 299A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, was handed in on the last day of the Inquiry. Parties to the agreement, dated 31 March 2004, are the Secretary of State for Health, representing the Government Department in whose ownership the land is vested, and Walsall MBC. The agreement follows a conventional format. Its key provisions are set out in clauses 6 to 12. [Doc 8]

255. Clause 6 provides for the making of phased payments towards the cost of improving educational facilities in the area. The contributions are intended to meet the needs of the additional school age population that would result from the development. Details of the amounts and trigger points for payment are set out in the document. [Doc 8]

256. Clause 7 provides for a shuttle bus service to be established along a route indicated on a plan attached to the agreement and connecting with other public transport services. It also provides for not less than two bus passes for each household to permit the occupiers of new dwellings to travel free of charge for a period of 12 months from the date of occupation. Within the terms of the agreement, an internet website would be set up to facilitate vehicle sharing by residents. [Doc 8]

257. Clause 8 makes provision for a contribution of a total of £50,000 towards the cost of highway improvements and integrated transport measures. [Doc 8]

258. Clause 9 makes provision for 20% of all new dwellings to be a mix of affordable housing, through a Registered Social Landlord (RSL), and low cost market housing. Arrangements for phasing of the provision are set out in the agreement. [Doc 8]

259. Clause 10 provides for premises with a floorspace of 186 square metres (2,000 square feet) to be made available as part of the development, such premises to be used for a purpose falling within Use Class D1 (Non-residential Institutions) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. It further provides for the payment of £50,000 to the Council for improving local primary health care services. [Doc 8]

260. Clause 11 makes provision for the preparation and implementation of a scheme of landscaping works in accordance with principles that shall have been agree previously with the Council. It further provides for the transfer of responsibility for landscape maintenance to an appropriate organisation. The responsibilities of that organisation would include the maintenance of land designated as Public Open Space in accordance with a scheme agreed with the Council. A copy of a letter appended to the agreement, dated 3 November 2003, records discussions with English Heritage on the basis of a management regime for that part of the site currently occupied by the Male Homes. [Doc 8]

261. Clause 12 makes provision for the repair and restoration, within a specified timescale, of The Lodge, a fire-damaged dwelling sited close to the entrance to the site from Queslett Road. [Doc 8]

262. Attached to the agreement are schedules recording the terms in which the applications and subsequent appeals were made and terms under which shared ownership housing and low cost housing - elements of the affordable housing provision - would be occupied. [Doc 8]

Conclusions NB: Italicised numbers in square brackets refer to paragraphs in preceding section of this report

263. My reasoning and conclusions are set out below. Paragraph references indicate the source of material relied upon. Some references have been included to show that a particular point has been considered, although it may not be addressed in detail. I have, in preparing my report, taken into account all written representations and evidence drawn from site inspections.  Main Considerations

264. These were identified at the third PIM, held on 5 January 2004. [2] They are agreed by the main parties. They take into account the linked nature of the proposals. I set them out below.

1. The effect of the proposals on the openness of the Green Belt, having particular regard to adopted and emerging development plan policies and Government advice contained principally in Planning Policy Guidance note 2 Green Belts (PPG2).

2. The ability of the site and its surroundings to accommodate the development proposed, having particular regard to its accessibility, means of access, traffic generation and social infrastructure.

3. The effect of the proposals on heritage aspects of the appeal site, including the park and the setting of Great Barr Hall, viability considerations relating to the restoration of Great Barr Hall, the effect of the demolition works proposed and the impact of the proposals on the archaeology of the appeal site.

4. The compatibility of the development proposed with the objectives of adopted and emerging development plan policies and with Government advice set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 3 Housing (PPG3) having particular regard to the housing types and mix, provision for affordable housing, the re-use of brownfield land and the design quality of the development proposed - so far as this is capable of being determined at outline stage.

 First Main Consideration - Green Belt

265. The appeal site is within the Green Belt where adopted and emerging planning policies of the Walsall UDP presume against development that would undermine the purposes of including land within Green Belts. These policies, all of which are agreed by the main parties as being relevant to a determination of the appeals, are consistent with advice set out in PPG2. The main parties agree that the appeals site is, for planning control purposes, a major developed site in the Green Belt. [6, 9, 16, 30, 66, 121]

266. Agreement that the site falls within the ambit of Annex C to PPG2 follows from the historic use of the site and the presence of nearly all the buildings that once comprised St Margaret's Hospital. Paragraph C1 of Annex C to PPG2 includes hospitals among examples of major developed sites in Green Belts. Paragraph C14, refers to previous Government guidance on redundant hospital in Green Belts, but makes clear that hospitals are now covered by PPG2 Annex C guidance. [10, 22, 30, 31]

267. Walsall MBC does not intend to modify the boundary of the Green Belt in this part of the Borough. Indeed, emerging Review UDP policies and proposals, principally ENV4 and ENV9, confirm the status of the appeals site as Green Belt. Paragraph C2 of Annex C to PPG2 notes that major developed sites remain subject to development control policies for Green Belts. Third party assertions that the appeal proposals would result in the `loss` of Green Belt are not well founded in either local policy or national planning guidance. [30, 31, 68, 121, 178, 207]

268. It is clear from documentation and from evidence given at the Inquiry that the Appellant's proposals have been formulated against the background of criteria set out in paragraph C4 of Annex C to PPG2. That is acknowledged by the local planning authority. The site is identified in the Walsall UDP as a Green Belt site subject to particular development control policies and in the Review UDP as a major developed site, to which Government guidelines set out in PPG2 will apply. Review UDP policy ENV9 sets out matters of which account is to be taken when considering proposals for development. They are very similar to those set out in Annex C of PPG2. [64, 68, 69, 71, 118, 121]

269. Paragraph C4(a) of Annex C advises that redevelopment of a major developed site should have no greater impact on openness, and the purposes of including land in the Green Belt than existing development. In addition paragraph C4(d) advises that redevelopment should not occupy a larger area of the site than existing buildings. The Appellant's calculations, not seriously challenged, indicate that the footprint of the built development proposed would be less than the footprint of buildings for which the Appellant seeks consent for demolition. [71, 116, 119]

270. Comparisons between footprints offer some assistance in comparing the visual impact of existing and proposed development, but there are other factors to consider in assessing the effect of development on visual amenity and openness. The Male Homes occupy an exposed and elevated position to the north of the main hospital group and can be seen from public viewpoints beyond the appeals site boundary. In comparison, the Female Homes and its outbuildings are located in a position where they are not open to public view and where their visual impact, seen from within the site, is largely contained by trees and other planting. [68(iv), 71, 116, 117, 147, 148, 163, 178, 207, 209]

271. Although it would concentrate built development on one particular part of the appeals site, a transfer of the footprint of the Male Homes to the area presently occupied by the Female Homes and ancillary hospital buildings would not increase the visual impact by an equivalent amount. If account is taken of the restored openness of the Male Homes part of the site, which would follow from the removal of buildings and re-contouring proposed, there would, in my opinion, be an appreciable increase in the openness of this part of the Green Belt. [66, 68, 117, 163, 178, 207, 209]

272. Paragraph C4(c) of Annex C to PPG2 advises that redevelopment of a major developed site should not exceed the height of the existing buildings. In this case, the Appellant proposes that some dwellings, amounting to 38% of the total, should take the form of 4-storey apartments. The remaining 62% would be 2 and 3-storey dwellings. The master plan shows apartments sited in a position presently occupied by some of the taller hospital buildings, but where the impact of built development is tempered by trees and by the site's topography. [67, 70, 117]

273. Although tall buildings are likely to influence perceptions of openness, any adverse impact in this case would, in my opinion, be outweighed by an increase in openness that would result from removal of the Male Homes. In forming this view, I have taken into

consideration that residential use and more intensive development would almost certainly require more extensive hard-surfaced areas than exists at present. I have also taken into consideration that there would be differences of scale between the present institutional buildings and buildings of largely domestic form and character. [67, 70, 87, 119, 148]

274. With regard to other factors referred to in Annex C of PPG2, bearing in mind the effect of agreed planning conditions and provisions of the section 299A Agreement, I am of the opinion that the development proposed would increase opportunities for access to the countryside and for outdoor recreation while safeguarding attractive landscapes and improving damaged and derelict land. Taken as a whole, the appeal proposals do sufficient, in my opinion, to ensure that the nature conservation interest of the site, is protected. The appeal proposals also offer opportunities to restore presently developed land to agricultural use or to some other use appropriate to a Green Belt situation. [68, 119, 120, 163, 164, 178, 179, 191, 211, 218, 219, 220]

275. I therefore conclude that the development and works proposed would preserve the openness of the Green Belt. In this respect, they meet the requirements of adopted and emerging UDP policies, referred to earlier, that aim to safeguard the openness and other characteristics of Green Belts. Those policies are entirely consistent with national planning guidance on Green Belts. [16, 21, 22, 30, 31]  Second Main Consideration - Site Suitability, Access, Traffic and Social Infrastructure

276. There is, within the local community, a sense of attachment to St Margaret's Hospital and, among some, a genuine appreciation of its architectural qualities. There is concern that the present buildings might be replaced by buildings of poorer quality. It is, however, an inescapable fact that the former hospital buildings have deteriorated to a point where restoration or re-use would be either impossible or prohibitively expensive. The hospital site is large and accessible from neighbouring land and roads. While the owners have attempted to secure and supervise the site, evidence suggests that it has become a magnet for anti-social activity. [8, 10, 90, 124, 136, 154, 173, 185, 193]

277. In assessing the visual amenity benefits of the appeal scheme, it would be wrong, in my opinion, to take too much account of the neglected appearance of the site and its buildings. However, it has to be acknowledged that the appeal scheme has the potential to secure improvements that there would otherwise be little prospect of achieving. There are currently no proposals for re-use of the site for health care purposes, or for any other alternative and appropriate use. Without a beneficial use, the condition of the appeal site and its buildings is likely to continue to deteriorate. [68, 73, 120, 125, 148, 157, 171, 179, 193]

278. Walsall MBC, as local planning authority, has not identified any conflict with its adopted or emerging planning policies that might call into question the suitability of the site for residential development, within limits established by those policies and national planning guidance. I see no sound reason why the appeals site should not, within the general parameters of local policies and planning guidance, be used for residential purposes to the extent indicated by the master plan that forms part of the application for outline planning permission. [111, 118]

279. On the matter of accessibility, assuming that an access is formed in the position of 42 Park Farm Road, as has now been permitted and as the Appellant intends, and regardless of whether the Crail Grove footpath remained in use, the dwellings proposed would be within convenient walking and cycling distance of local centres and services. The development

proposed would also be within convenient travelling distance of town and city centres providing employment opportunities. The principal means of pedestrian and vehicular access would be from Queslett Road, but the appeals site would also be accessible to pedestrians and cyclists from Chapel Lane. [78, 81, 84, 85, 129, 167, 169, 200, 206, 208]

280. There are differences of perception with regard to the accessibility of the appeals site. Having heard the evidence and toured the area, I consider the appeals site to be well located in relation to public transport services and within convenient walking and cycling distance of local shops and other facilities. In addition to bus routes, people living in Great Barr, Pheasey and Queslett are linked by rail to other parts of the West Midlands through Hamstead Station, a little under 2 miles to the south. The shuttle bus service proposed under the terms of the section 299A Agreement has the potential to provide the occupiers of the proposed dwellings with access to local centres and other public transport routes. [77, 81, 82, 83, 128, 129, 180, 188, 195, 198, 199, 205, 210, 222, 227]

281. Means of access is indicated in the outline planning application as a matter to be considered at the outline stage. There is already an access to the appeals site from Queslett Road but the application for full planning permission made to Birmingham CC allows comprehensive consideration of the suitability of that access to serve the development proposed. Both Walsall MBC and Birmingham CC had reservations concerning the suitability of the access, citing lack of information as a basis for their concern. Discussion between the main parties and the Appellant, both before and during the course of the Inquiry, resulted in a joint statement on transportation and highways issues being prepared on behalf of the Appellant, Walsall MBC, Birmingham CC and Sandwell MBC. [12, 46, 56, 77, 78, 83, 127, 128, 132, 151]

282. The joint statement, submitted at the Inquiry, records an agreed position in respect of pedestrian and cyclist access, public transport matters and contributions to transport improvements. These matters are addressed in detail, either as the subject of a planning condition or in the section 299A Agreement. Importantly, there is agreement that the Queslett Road entrance to the site could be improved in a way that would satisfy the requirements of the highways authorities concerned. The statement leaves matters of technical detail to be dealt with by agreement under the provisions of section 278 of the Highways Act 1980. Appended to the joint statement are draft and agreed Heads of Terms for a section 278 Agreement. [77, 127-132]

283. Late representations by Birmingham CC record continuing concern about transport matters, but the City Council has not withdrawn from the joint statement on transportation and highways matters. The main concern of that authority, regarding a proposal to extend the car park of the Asda store in Aldridge Road, is a matter that is entirely within the hands of that authority. A decision on the application, if taken before decisions are issued on these proposals, would need to have regard to the City Council's own planning policies, the underlying objectives of those policies and the materiality of circumstances prevailing at the time. The grant of a Certificate of Lawfulness regarding alterations to the interior of the Asda store does not bind the local planning authority in dealing with issues relating to parking or access. [80, 131, 187, 203, 225-228]

284. The content of the Highways Agency's late written objection takes limited account of evidence underlying the agreement reached by the main parties on transportation and highways issues. The Agency's concern does not, in my opinion, provide a sound basis for rejecting the appeal proposals. With regard to third party representations on traffic and congestion, there is evidence that congestion occurs in Queslett Road at peak hours, caused mostly, it seems, by commuter traffic. The scheme of development proposed would not,

and does not, seek to eliminate this congestion. To attempt that, in relation to the development proposed, would place an unreasonable burden on the developer and would be unlikely to resolve problems that appear to me to arise largely from a reluctance to forego the use of private transport. [229-230]

285. The main parties to the appeals are satisfied that the Queslett Road access to the appeals site could be improved in a way that, while it might not reduce existing congestion, would not interfere unduly with the flow of traffic in Queslett Road during peak hours. I concur with that view and in doing so, have borne in mind that resumption of some form of health care use, which it might be argued remains the lawful use of the appeal site, would generate traffic. In addition to improvements to the hospital site access, there are opportunities to improve conditions at the Scott Arms junction - if only by modernising traffic control systems - and to carry out works at the Aldridge Road roundabout, with the aim of reducing the potential for congestion. While it is possible to appreciate the Highways Agency's concern regarding Junction 7 of the M6 motorway, I have no reason to doubt evidence that the effect of the development proposed on this junction would be marginal and well within the capacity of that junction. [77-81, 130, 131, 134, 151, 167, 190, 192, 205, 215, 225, 227]

286. Written and oral representations by third parties indicate strong local feeling that traffic congestion should be addressed by increasing the capacity of the highway network. There is scepticism surrounding the role of public transport and efforts being made to introduce additional services or improve those that already exist. Those views run counter to the objectives of adopted and emerging planning policies for the area. I draw attention, in particular, to Part I policies of the adopted Walsall UDP and policy GP1 of the Review UDP. I also draw attention to statements contained in the City of Birmingham UDP and its draft replacement. It is also clear that the views of third parties do not reflect national policy guidance on planning and transport, set out principally in Planning Policy Guidance note 13 Transport (PPG13). [180, 181, 184, 188, 193, 205, 227]

287. PPG13 places considerable emphasis on promoting sustainable transport choices. It also recommends that new housing be directed to existing urban areas. Support is given for an increase in the intensity of development at locations accessible by public transport, and for walking and cycling. The appeals site cannot, by reason of its Green Belt status, be said to form part of an existing urban area; but it is close to well-established residential areas and local centres. It is also accessible. Its accessibility would be improved by measures proposed as part of the overall scheme of development. There may be sites in other parts of Walsall or Birmingham that enjoy greater accessibility but I am satisfied that the appeals site can be regarded as being in a sustainable location. [78, 82, 83, 127, 180]

288. On the matter of social infrastructure, the Appellant has established with the agencies concerned the need to make good any shortfall that might arise in relation to education or health care provision. The outcome is a financial contribution towards improvement of those facilities secured by the section 299A Agreement. There is anecdotal evidence, from third parties, of a shortage of school places and health care facilities but little real evidence that social and community facilities in the area would be unable to cope with the development proposed. Walsall MBC does not object to the proposals on social infrastructure grounds. I find, in this respect, no conflict with those policies agreed by the main parties as being relevant to the appeal proposals, or with any other policy contained in the WUDP or Review UDP. I refer, in particular, to Review UDP policy GP7. [75, 76, 105, 135, 147, 149, 179, 196, 199]

289. Many third parties referred, at the Inquiry, to problems arising from anti-social behaviour within the vicinity of the appeals site. There is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the

concerns expressed but I do not consider that the development proposed would add to problems of criminal activity and anti-social behaviour. Indeed, I consider that beneficial use of the former hospital site and the reinstatement of a community within it would reduce the potential for activity of this kind. Insofar as there may be a general problem of criminal activity in the area, this is a matter for law enforcement agencies. [105, 198, 200, 201]

290. Residents of Park Farm Road raise concerns about the effect of the proposed link with the appeal site at the position of 42 Park Farm Road. As before, I do not doubt the genuineness of those concerns but I do not consider them to be well founded. The planning permission granted for the Park Farm Road access includes safeguards and requirements whose effect, in my opinion, would be to limit opportunities for mis-use. Benefits arising from the proposed access, in terms of accessibility, would far outweigh any possible objection to the appeal proposals on the grounds of fear of crime. [197, 200, 201, 216]  Third Main Consideration - Heritage

291. In addressing heritage issues, I have borne in mind the duties imposed by sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. I have also had regard to advice on listed buildings, conservation areas and historic parks and gardens set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 15 Planning and the Historic Environment (PPG15).

292. The appeals site forms part of a Grade II Registered Park associated with Great Barr Hall. Little landscape maintenance appears to have been carried out while the site was in hospital use. The use of the site for health care purposes has, in places, had a harmful effect on the parkland character of the estate. Demolition of the Male Homes, as proposed, and a scheme which would concentrate built development in a particular part of the site would be a sound basis for recovery of at least some of the estate's former parkland character. The mechanism for achieving this, through implementation of the appeal proposals, is provided by planning conditions and by measures set out in the section 299A Agreement. The benefits to the Registered Park would be significant. That view is shared by English Heritage, who have a particular responsibility in relation to parks and gardens of special interest. [8, 22, 66, 68, 86, 87, 116, 117, 124, 138, 139]

293. There is general agreement that the wider setting of Great Barr Hall, a Grade II* listed building, includes the appeals site. As with the registered parkland, the quality of that setting has been adversely affected by development associated with the hospital use. The immediate setting of Great Barr Hall is defined and contained by trees and mature shrubs, many of which are likely to have formed part of the Hall's 18th and 19th century landscaped setting. There are few positions from which distant views of the Hall can be obtained. [86, 136, 159, 193, 208, 222]

294. Application drawings illustrate the Appellant's intention to confine most new development to the position of the Female Homes. That, coupled with removal of the Male Homes complex, would significantly enhance the wider setting of the Hall. Further enhancement would follow from restoration of the former contours of the Male Homes part of the site and the implementation of an approved scheme of landscaping in accordance with planning conditions and the section 299A Agreement. [64, 73, 86, 91, 136, 159, 208, 222]

295. Although the development would include some 4-storey buildings, the extent to which Great Barr Hall is visually separated from the land that would be occupied by those buildings - by changes in ground level and woodland - leads me to conclude that the Hall would not be seen in association with any of the larger elements of the development

proposed. I am therefore satisfied that the immediate setting of Great Barr Hall would be at least preserved by the development proposed and that its wider setting would be significantly enhanced. While I do not consider that the development and works proposed would achieve every objective of Review UDP policy ENV9, they would go a considerable way towards meeting the underlying aim of that policy. [64, 86, 91, 92, 118, 138, 157]

296. In strict terms, the viability of restoring Great Barr Hall falls outside the scope of the appeal proposals in that the appeals site has been separated from land more immediately associated with Great Barr Hall. The Hall is in separate ownership and it is not intended that there should be a link between plans for its restoration by the Manor Building Preservation Trust and proposals that form the subject of these appeals. That the Hall has suffered severe deterioration is accepted by both the local planning authority and English Heritage. Its present condition is also a matter of concern to local interest groups and many individual third parties. Circumstances surrounding ownership of the Hall are set out earlier in this report. [86, 92, 93, 114, 136, 138, 155, 159, 162, 174, 193, 200, 222]

297. I agree with the Appellant that uncertainty surrounding use and development of the appeals site is likely to have discouraged restoration of Great Barr Hall. I also agree that implementation of the proposals that form the subject of these appeals would create a climate more conducive to restoration of the Hall. The merit of any development or works proposed in connection with Great Barr Hall itself would be a matter for the local planning authority to determine, in the first instance. [86, 92, 93, 114, 136, 138, 155, 159, 162, 174, 193, 200, 222]

298. The Great Barr Conservation Area is extensive and its character and appearance are determined more by the quality of its open spaces than by built development. The former St Margaret's Hospital buildings are part of the conservation area's established character but, apart from the Male Homes, they are largely concealed from public view. With the exception of Hall itself, I consider that the landscape quality of the Great Barr Hall parkland, notwithstanding the effects of neglect, contributes more to the character and appearance of the conservation area than any individual building. [8, 62, 86]

299. The application for planning permission made to Walsall MBC is in outline only and contains no design details. PPG15 advises that local planning authorities may need to request detailed drawings before considering a planning application. That has not be done in this case. It is argued by the Appellant, reasonably in my view, that the scale of the development and the planning history of the site require the principle of development to be established before detailed design work is undertaken. [46, 50, 95]

300. I see no reason why, as agreed by the main parties, the architectural quality of the development proposed should not be established through the medium of a Design Brief. The Appellant accepts the desirability of preparing such a brief, which would be subject to the approval of the local planning authority. A condition giving effect to this arrangement is agreed by the main parties. Subject to this, and to other conditions relevant to an outline planning permission, I see no reason why planning permission should not be granted in outline - even though the appeals site is within a conservation area. [95, 142]

301. With regard to the works of demolition proposed, I am not convinced that there is a case for retaining any buildings or structures proposed for demolition. It is sufficient, in my view, that the pattern of the former hospital layout is reflected in the arrangement of new buildings. That would, in my view, provide a sufficient record of the hospital site layout, insofar as it is desirable that evidence of this should be preserved. [54, 55, 87, 88, 91, 116, 148, 154]

302. Works proposed to the entrance gate piers to St Margaret's Hospital were initially objected to by Walsall MBC on the grounds that the four applications were linked and that insufficient information was available on transportation and highways matters to allow the permissions and consents sought to be granted. English Heritage do not object to the works proposed. Listed building consent is required only because the piers lie within the curtilage of Great Barr Hall. They are of limited architectural or historic interest in themselves but they form an imposing entrance to the estate that should, in my view, be retained. The works proposed are necessary to allow widening of the carriageway giving access to the site. Subject to the works being carried out sensitively, I see no reason why listed building consent should not be granted. [51-53]

303. Taking all the above considerations together, I find the appeal proposals consistent with the aims of WUDP Part I policies and compatible with WUDP policies ENV4 and ENV13. I also find them consistent with Review UDP policies ENV29, ENV30, ENV32 and ENV34. [10, 11, 38, 70, 89, 115]

304. There is potential for noise disturbance during the demolition process, particularly in relation to houses in the residential area to the east of the appeal site. For the period that disturbance might occur, the agreed planning condition set out measures for alleviating possible nuisance. Other conditions have the effect of controlling the manner and phasing of demolition.

305. There is no strong evidence that the appeals site is of particular archaeological significance, although it has been used in connection with the occupation Great Barr Hall. Accordingly, the main parties are agreed on the need for a planning condition that would allow for observation and preservation or recording of archaeological evidence as works proceed. Having regard to advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance note 16 Archaeology and Planning (PPG16), I consider that a sufficient response to the appeals site's archaeological potential and one that meets the requirements of Review UDP policy ENV27. [93, 139, 158]  Fourth Main Consideration - Housing

306. The need for additional housing in Walsall is examined in the adopted WUDP and, perhaps more importantly, in the Review UDP. There is unquestionably a need for more housing during the intended life of the Review UDP and Part I policies of the emerging plan reflect the conclusions and recommendation of regional planning guidance, as set out in RPG11. The annual average requirement for the period 1991 to 2011 is estimated to be 505 dwellings, given a total requirement of 10,100 dwellings. Paragraph 6.3 of the Review UDP indicates that, in identifying opportunities for new housing, the emphasis will be on a sequential approach that maximises the re-use of previously developed land and buildings within the urban area before the use of greenfield land. [97-104, 140, 141, 183]

307. The appeals site is within the Green Belt but it satisfies the criteria of Annex C to PPG2 for major developed sites. A potential for re-use follows from that definition. It also satisfies other requirements of the Review UDP in that it has good accessibility and is well related to local facilities. Walsall MBC's analysis of housing land supply to meet the requirement for 10,100 dwellings, undertaken in 2001, allocates 1,350 dwellings to windfall sites. The St Margaret's Hospital site is not included in the calculations but a note to Table 6.1, which sets out details of housing and housing land supply, indicates that additional housing might come forward on this site. [97-104, 140, 141, 219, 220]

308. Were the appeal scheme to proceed, and assuming completion before 2011, the 445 dwellings proposed would account for about one third of all windfall assumptions. Review UDP policy H3 gives positive encouragement to the redevelopment of previously developed windfall sites. The conditions for permitting redevelopment of previously developed windfall sites, set out in policy H3 are, in my opinion, met by the appeal proposals. [99, 100, 101, 141, 148, 176]

309. The Review UDP also provides details of commitments to the development of greenfield sites, either as a result of the UDP review or in recognition of past commitments. The plan does not anticipate further pressure on greenfield land. However, if there should be a need to increase housing targets before 2011, as the result of a reconsideration of national or regional housing policy, the development proposed would, if permitted, account for part of that additional requirement. [98-101, 141, 148, 176]

310. The appeal proposals sit well alongside revised draft regional planning guidance for the West Midlands (September 2003) which points to the benefits of providing choice and high quality living environments as a means of preventing migration away from existing built up areas. To that extent, and in other material respects, the appeal proposals are consistent with Government guidance set out in PPG3. [101-103, 140]

311. The local planning authority does not object to the proposals on the grounds of housing oversupply, inappropriate location or an inability of the local infrastructure to cope with the additional number of households that would result. To the extent that additional demands would be placed on the local infrastructure, these are addressed by planning conditions and by the section 299A Agreement. No obvious conflict arises with current or emerging regional planning guidance. I find no serious conflict, either, with the underlying purpose of housing policies of the adopted WUDP or the Review UDP. [140, 141]

312. The local planning authority is content with the housing types and mix proposed. The Appellant's master plan shows a high proportion of smaller units, for which there is likely to be demand in an area consisting mostly of semi-detached houses. Against the background of Review UDP policy H4, there is agreement between Walsall MBC and the Appellant concerning the amount and type of affordable housing that would be provided, and the means by which it would be secured. With guidance set out in PPG3 in mind, I am satisfied that the appeal proposals are capable of delivering, as an integral part of the scheme of redevelopment, a significant amount of affordable housing - amounting to 20% of the total number of units proposed. Of that 20%, the section 299A Agreement stipulates that 15% would be shared ownership housing and 5% low cost market dwellings. With open market housing consisting of houses and apartments, the appeal scheme would provide access to a wide range of housing opportunities. Matters relating to the design of new residential development may be considered in the light of comments concerning the effect of development on the Great Barr Conservation Area. [33, 104, 140, 141, 176, 258]  Other Material Considerations

313. Among matters raised by third parties at the Inquiry was the failure of the Appellant to prepare a Social Impact Assessment. There is a belief that this would support objections to the proposals on the grounds of inadequate social infrastructure. There is presently no statutory requirement for an applicant for planning permission to prepare a social impact assessment and the local planning authority has not asked for an assessment of this kind to be undertaken. It is clear that the Appellant has made enquires of the relevant agencies concerning education and health care provision and has taken into account the information obtained in preparing a section 299A Agreement. [105, 147, 149]

314. The importance of the appeals site's wildlife interest was raised by a number of third parties during the Inquiry. The Environmental Statement contains information on wildlife. With that in mind and having regard to a planning condition that would require an ecological management plan to be prepared, I am satisfied that sufficient consideration has been given to the wildlife and ecological interest of the appeals site. Similarly, I am satisfied that agreed planning conditions sufficiently address matters relating to the recording, protection and retention of trees growing within the site, whether or not protected by a Tree Preservation Order. [194, 207, 222]

315. I deal with the provisions of the section 299A Agreement and matters arising from it earlier in this report. I am satisfied that the agreement accords with principles set out in Circular 1/97. I am also satisfied that the tests of the Circular are met in that the provisions of the agreement are necessary, relevant to planning, directly related to the development or works proposed, are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposals and are reasonable in all other respects. Summary of Conclusions

316. In summary, therefore, I consider that the proposals are to be looked at against the background of guidance set out in Annex C to PPG2, that is redevelopment of a major developed site in the Green Belt, and in the context of adopted and emerging UDP policies that give general support to redevelopment of the St Margaret's Hospital site.

317. Having regard to the nature and extent of development that has previously taken place on the appeals site and the Appellant's intentions, as conveyed by the master plan that forms part of the outline planning application, I am of the opinion that the development proposed would, other than in relation to the height of certain buildings, satisfy criteria set out in paragraph C4 of Annex C to PPG2. Bearing in mind the topography of the appeals site, the net reduction in footprint proposed and the intended siting of the development, I do not consider that the element of 4-storey development proposed would detract from the openness or visual amenity of the Green Belt, or undermine the purposes of including land within it. Nor do I consider that they would adversely affect the setting of Great Barr Hall.

318. Although the applications were not determined before appeals were lodged, the local planning authorities concerned made clear, by resolution, their objections to the proposals. These centred on issues of access, traffic and congestion. The resolutions reflect considerable third party objection to the proposals at application and appeal stage. Matters relating to transportation and highways issues were, however, the subject of discussion between the main parties before and during the course of the Inquiry. The result was agreement between the Appellant, Walsall MBC, Birmingham CC and Sandwell MBC on transport and highways issues, in the form of a joint statement submitted at the Inquiry.

319. Planning conditions, agreed by the main parties, and a section 299A Agreement would give effect to measures designed to resolve issues relating to access, traffic and congestion. While the appeals site may not be in a highly sustainable location, the development proposed can, taking into account all of its aspects, be considered sustainable.

320. I have no reason to doubt that the measures agreed, and provided for, would be effective in relation to access needs and activity associated with the development proposed. I am also satisfied that the Appellant has had sufficient regard to demands that the development proposed would make on the social infrastructure of the area.

321. Heritage aspects of the proposals have been taken into account in formulating the appeal proposals and consultation has taken place with English Heritage, who do not object to the

principle of the development proposed or, so far as it can be determined by an outline planning application, its detail. They take no issue regarding the works of demolition or proposals to reposition the gate piers.

322. There is good reason to believe that a management scheme, for which planning conditions and a section 299A Agreement provide, would improve the character of the Grade II registered park of which the appeal site is part and the wider setting of the Grade II* listed Great Barr Hall.

323. Great Barr Hall and land associated with it are not in the Appellant's ownership. The listed building is clearly in need of repair but that responsibility lies elsewhere. There are historic links between Great Barr Hall and land that comprises the appeals site but there is, in my opinion, no planning mechanism that could properly require restoration and re-use of Great Barr Hall as a condition of granting outline planning permission. However, certainty regarding the future use and development of the former hospital site would provide a better climate than exists at present for action that could secure the future of Great Barr Hall.

324. While there is evidence of local attachment to and appreciation of the buildings that make up the former hospital complex, none is of sufficient quality to be listed and their contribution to the character and appearance of the Great Barr Conservation Area is not sufficient to justify their retention. The development proposed would at least preserve the special interest of the conservation area and, if the incidental benefits of the development are taken into account - particularly in relation to landscaping, it may be concluded that the character and appearance of the conservation area would be enhanced.

325. There is currently no pressing need for additional housing in the Walsall area, beyond that planned for in the adopted and emerging UDPs. However, the appeals site can be regarded as a windfall site capable of contributing to current targets established by regional planning guidance. The local planning authority is satisfied with finds the type and mix of housing proposed and the scheme would provide a significant amount of affordable housing in keeping with PPG3 guidance and the objectives of Review UDP policy H4. The appeals site may properly be regarded as brownfield land, at least to the extent that it is already developed. Its use for housing might well reduce future pressure for the development of greenfield sites. Planning conditions could secure buildings of appropriate design quality. Recommendations  Application for Outline Planning Permission - Walsall MBC - 02/2417/OL/E2

326. I recommend that outline planning permission be granted, subject to conditions set out in the Schedule attached to this report.  Application for Listed Building Consent - Walsall MBC - 02/2416/LB/E2

327. I recommend that listed building consent be granted, subject to conditions set out in the Schedule attached to this report.  Application for Conservation Area Consent - Walsall MBC - 03/0057/CA/E2

328. I recommend that conservation area consent be granted, subject to conditions set out in the Schedule attached to this report.  Application for Full Planning Permission - Birmingham CC - N/00589/03/FUL

329. I recommend that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions set out in the Schedule attached to this report.

INSPECTOR

APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES:

Frances Patterson QC Queen's Counsel - Instructed by R F Williams, Head of Democratic Services, Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council, Walsall Civic Centre, Walsall WS1 1TP (Also instructed by Birmingham CC and Sandwell MBC) She called:

Neville Ball BA(Hons) MRTPI AMInstLM Walsall MBC

Daniel Roberts BA(Hons) BPl PGDipDBE PGDipCon MRTPI Walsall MBC

Ian Braddock ONC HNC CEng - Regional Director - Faber Maunsell

John Yates BA(Hons) IHBC - Inspector of Historic Buildings - English Heritage

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Martin Kingston QC Queen's Counsel - Instructed by P J Frampton of Wood Frampton, Aylesford House, 70-72 Clarendon Street, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire CV32 4PE He called:

Peter Frampton BSc(Hons)TP MRTPI MRICS Director - Wood Frampton Ltd

Malcolm Payne DipArch RIBA MCSD Principal - Malcolm Payne Design Group

David Tucker MSc CEng MICE MIHT Principal - David Tucker Associates

FOR GREAT BARR HALL ACTION COMMITTEE:

Peter Allen 144 Curbar Road, Birmingham, B42 2AX

FOR BEACON ACTION GROUP:

Robert Winkle 165 Coronation Road, Great Barr, Birmingham B43 7AU

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Rt Hon Bruce George MP Member for Walsall South House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA Khalid Mahmood MP Member for Birmingham - Perry Barr House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA Cllr Keith Linnecor The Council House, Victoria Square, Birmingham B1 1BB Cllr Martin Harrower Walsall Civic Centre, Walsall WS1 1TP

Cllr Adrian Andrew Walsall Civic Centre, Walsall WS1 1TP Cllr Chris Towe Walsall Civic Centre, Walsall WS1 1TP Cllr John Cotton The Council House, Victoria Square, Birmingham B1 1BB Mr B Newman 15 Farrier Road, Walsall B43 7NH Peter Ruston 68 Taylor House, Oxford Street, Walsall WS2 9HX David Busby Flat 2 - 67 Rivington Crescent, Birmingham B44 0PL Mr R Adams 6 Launceston Road, Walsall WS5 3EB Steven Grey 1 Pinley Grove, Pheasey Park Farm, Birmingham B43 7RB Hilda Foley 66 Park Farm Road, Walsall B43 7QJ Martin Egan 111 Weston Street, Walsall WS1 4DF Darren Porter 12 Selvey Avenue, Walsall B43 7RE Philip Hare 17 Crail Grove, Walsall B43 7QG Sam Price 115 Park Farm Road, Walsall B437QT Brenda Etchells 1 Sargeant Close, Walsall B43 7TT Lesley Robinson 87A Robert Court, Hillingford Avenue, Walsall B43 7LE Mark Woloszyniuk 114 Park Farm Road, Walsall B43 7QH Kenneth Stephens 39 Park Farm Road, Walsall B43 7QQ Stephen Kain 60 Park Farm Road, Walsall B43 7QH Anne Palmer 16 Woodside Close, Walsall WS5 3LU Mark Watts 19 Park Farm Road, Walsall B43 7QQ Eunice Stevens 30 Park Farm Road, Walsall B43 7QQ

DOCUMENTS

Document 1 List of person present at the Inquiry each day. Document 2 Letters of notification of the appeals and the Inquiry. Document 3 Replies received in response to 2 above. Document 4.1 Consultation responses received at application stage by Walsall MBC. 4.2 Consultation responses received at application stage by Birmingham CC. Document 5 Environmental Statement - Contents listed in Schedule to this Report. Document 6 Statement of Common Ground. Document 7 List of agreed planning conditions. Document 8 Completed Section 299A Agreement. Document 9 Joint Statement on Transportation and Highways matters. Document 10 Appellant's Closing Submissions Document 11 Local Planning Authorities' Closing Submissions Document 12 GBHAC Closing Submissions Document 13 Beacon Action Group Closing Submissions

Appellant's Documents Document 14.1 Peter Frampton's Proof of Evidence 14.2 Appendices 14.3 Rebuttal Proof Document 15.1 Malcolm Payne's Proof of Evidence 15.2 Appendices Document 16.1 David Tucker's Proof of Evidence 16.2 Appendices 16.3 Statement in response to Highways Agency Written Statement.

LPA Documents Document 17.1 Neville Ball's Proof of Evidence 17.2 Appendices Document 18.1 Daniel Roberts' Proof of Evidence 18.2 Appendices Document 19.1 Ian Braddock's Proof of evidence 19.2 Appendices Document 20.1 John Yates' Proof of evidence 20.2 Appendices

Third Party Documents Document 21.1 Peter Allen's Proof of Evidence 21.2 Appendices Document 22.1 Robert Winkle's Proof of Evidence 22.2 Appendices

Other Documents Document 23 Planning Statement submitted in support of applications Document 24 Design Statement submitted in support of applications Document 25 Management Plan submitted in support of applications Document 26 Texts/notes of third party oral representations - where provided Document 27 Walsall Unitary Development Plan 1995 (UDP) Document 28 Walsall UDP Revised Deposit Draft March 2002 Document 29 Birmingham CC report on Application N/00589/03/FUL Document 30 Walsall MBC report on extension to Great Barr Conservation Area Document 31 Highways Agency supplementary representations dated 19 March 2004 Document 32 Appellant's written response to Document 31 Document 33 Copy letter from Walsall NHS Primary Care Trust dated 24 February 2004 confirming adequacy of section 299A Agreement contribution Document 34 GBHAC comments on planning conditions Document 35 Letter from Birmingham CC - 31 March 2004 - and supporting documents

Application for Outline Planning Permission - Walsall MBC - 02/2417/OL/E2 Plan A A1 - Master Plan MARG/02/MAST - REVC A2 - Site Plan STM/02/113 Application for Listed Building Consent - Walsall MBC - 02/2416/LB/E2 Plan B B1 - Site Plan STM/02/113 B2 - Gate Piers as Existing 3970/S.24/A B3 - Road Layout as Proposed 3970/27/B B4 - Gate Piers as Proposed 3970/26/B Application for Conservation Area Consent- Walsall MBC - 03/0057/CA/E2 Plan C C1 - Site Plan STM/02/113 C2 - Buildings to be Demolished STM/02/118

Application for Full Planning Permission - Birmingham CC - N/00589/03/FUL Plan D D1 - Location Plan for Access off Queslett Road Plan E Set of 8 Site Survey Drawing STM/1101 to 1108

Plan F Plan of Great Barr Conservation Area Plan G Appeals site in relation to Borough and City boundaries Plan H Proposed Site Access from Queslett Road - 5009/01 Rev C Plan I Historic Core of park and GBHAC suggested position for palisade fence.

PHOTOGRAPHS

Inspector's Note: Where photographs form part of appendices, they have not been removed. That includes digital photographs submitted by GBHAC in CD form. (Peter Allen's appendices).

Photo 1 Set of landscape and wildlife photographs submitted by David Busby.

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING CONDITIONS Outline Planning Permission - Walsall MBC - 02/2417/OL/E2

General Conditions

1. The submission of details referred to in Condition 4 shall accord with the design principles for the urban form of the development as shown on master plan drawing number MARG/02/MAST - REV C and identified in the Design Statement accompanying the planning application.

2. No development, other than the works of demolition, shall be undertaken prior to the submission of a Design Brief for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The Design Brief shall provide for at least the following information:

 A clear statement of why the brief has been prepared and what it seeks to achieve by way of implementation of the master plan MARG/02/MAST - REV C.

 Show in words; diagrams; photographs and drawings how the design principles will be applied to the design of the buildings; the use of external materials including type and colour; circulation routes; the relationship of the building layout and built form to the street scenes; open areas; landscaping and means of enclosure within the site.

All Reserved Matter submissions shall accord with the approved Design Brief.

3. No development shall commence until the areas of the proposed phases of development have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

4. Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the buildings and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called the ‘reserved matters’) for each phase of the development shall be obtained from the local planning authority in writing before any development in that phase of the development is commenced.

5. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

6. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

Details at Reserved Matters Stage

7. Details of the design and the external appearance of buildings shall include drawings at 1.10 scale to show external detailing; including windows, eaves and verges.

8. No development shall commence on any phase of development until the following details for that phase of development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority:

(i) Hard surfacing including roads and footpaths; (ii) Street and other lighting proposals;

(ii) Details of construction programming; compound requirements and locations and temporary construction lighting requirements; (iii) Details of public open space to be provided on that phase of development, including children’s play area (iv) Details of the locations of underground services.

9. No development shall commence until full details of existing and proposed levels of the site, access ways and floor levels have been approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall include full details of any retaining structures required to ensure the stability of the site or adjoining land.

Noise Protection

10. A 2.0m high temporary noise barrier shall be erected in the position shown on the plan attached as Appendix Fig A13 in Appendix 10 of the Environmental Statement Volume 2 – Appendices dated November 2002.

11. The noise barrier referred to in Condition 9 shall be erected prior to the commencement of any works of demolition or construction in the area hatched black on the Plan 6280/11 and shall thereafter be maintained until such works within the area hatched have been completed.

12. A 1.8m close-boarded fence shall be erected between the points A-B-C-D on Plan 6280/10 in accordance with a phasing scheme to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

Amenity Areas

13. The areas of open space including areas of Public Open Space as shown on the master plan within each phase of the development shall be laid out within 12 months of completion of development in that phase of development in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Open Areas

14. Other than works related to the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of the access to the site from Queslett Road, no development shall commence until a landscape management plan including details of:

(i) long term design objectives, (ii) management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all the undeveloped areas of the site including the open amenity areas within the housing development; the woodlands and the open land formally comprising The Male Homes part of the site, (ii) arrangements for the provision of public access to the open land including provision for walking and cycling between Queslett Road and Chapel Lane using Sutton's Drive. (iii) arrangement to control access by motor vehicles on Sutton's Drive

have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

15. The details of landscaping referred to in Condition 4 required for each phase of the development shall include full details of both hard and soft landscaping; proposed contours; means of enclosure; pedestrian access and circulation areas. Soft landscape works shall include planting plans; identification of existing trees to be retained and existing trees and shrubs proposed to be removed.

16. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out for each phase of the development within 12 months of the completion of the last dwelling in that phase of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Ecological Management

17. Other than demolition works and the construction of the access from the Queslett Road, no development shall commence until an Ecological Management Plan has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The Ecological Management Plan shall include long term design objectives, including phasing of works to limit public access to the woodlands within and adjoining the site; the identification of significant ecological interests and measures to protect these ecological interests in the woodlands within the site; and its relationship to with the Landscape Management Plan required by Condition 14. The Ecological Management Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the phasing and timing of works contained therein.

Cycle and Pedestrian Access

18. Other than demolition works and the construction of the access from Queslett Road no development shall commence until details of the pedestrian and cycle route between the site and 42 Park Farm Road shall have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The details to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority shall include:

(i) The alignment of the pedestrian and cycle route and its boundary treatment; (ii) A survey of trees affected by the construction of the access route; (iii) A method statement for removing the ground flora affected by the construction of the access via 42 Park Farm Road and transplanting to areas within the site where woodland ground flora habitat creation would be appropriate.

19. The pedestrian and cycle route referred to in Condition 18 shall be laid out and made available for use by the public prior to the occupation of the 100th dwelling.

Highway Access

20. No access to the development site for motor vehicles except emergency service vehicles, shall be made to the site other than from the improved access onto Queslett Road.

21. No development shall commence before a scheme for the improvement of the Queslett Road/site access junction, in accordance with the DTA drawing No 5009/01 Rev C, and incorporating the additional features identified in the Heads of Terms for the Queslett Road/access junction S278 Agreement has been submitted to and approved by the relevant local planning authorities in writing.

22. No construction works other than the works that may previously have been approved in writing by the local planning authority shall commence until the scheme defined in Condition 21 has been completed.

23. No dwelling shall be occupied until the parking area for that dwelling, and vehicle and pedestrian access to the dwelling from the public highway, has been hard surfaced in tarmacadam or such other material as may be agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Drainage

24. Other than the demolition and works for construction of the access with Queslett Road, no development shall commence until a drainage strategy for the disposal of foul and surface water from the site has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

25. Details of the scheme for foul and surface drainage for each phase of the development shall be submitted and approved by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of built development on that phase of development. The details of drainage shall, unless otherwise agreed with the local planning authority, accord with the approved drainage strategy referred to in Condition 24. The drainage works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Archaeology

26. Other than for the works for the construction of the site access excluding the repositioning of the gate piers, no development shall commence until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological observation and recording during the development in accordance with a brief prepared by the local planning authority and the written scheme of investigation prepared pursuant to the brief has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

27. Other than the construction of the access onto Queslett Road no development shall commence until the details of fencing to protect retained trees on the land or adjoining the boundary of the phase have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The tree protection measures shall be implemented in accordance with the details submitted.

28. No underground service shall be sited within the crown spread of any tree to be retained except in compliance with details of existing and proposed levels required under Condition 9 of this permission.

29. No storage of plant, machinery or materials, the driving of vehicles or lighting of fires shall take place under the canopy of any retained tree throughout the construction period.

30. No development shall commence on any phase of the development until a detailed arboricultural survey showing the trees affected by that phase of the development has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The survey shall identify; the location, species, dimensions, condition and proposed works. No tree works

shall take place until the survey has been approved in writing by the local planning authority. Any tree surgery or felling works shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard BS3998: (Tree Works). No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars without the written approval of the local planning authority.

Demolition

31. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the demolition strategy shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The strategy shall set out the phasing and timing of demolition works, and the considerations given to the opportunity to recycle materials and re-use architectural features within the development. The demolition works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved strategy.

Implementation

32. The entrance gate piers off Queslett Road shall be re-positioned in accordance with the details shown on Drawing 3970/26B prior to the occupation of the 50th dwelling.

33. Other than the works of demolition, no development shall commence until a scheme has been submitted to, and approved by the local planning authority relating to:

a) The specification of the works for the restoration of the Gothic Bridge including a full repairs schedule and arrangements for the commencement and completion of works.

b) The timing of and arrangement for the removal of the concrete pedestrian bridge situated alongside the Gothic Bridge.

c) The specification of the works for the restoration of the Walled Garden including details of the existing and proposed ground levels; tree clearance; the repairs to the walls; the landscaping of the Walled Garden and the timing for completion of these works.

d) A scheme for the restoration of natural ground topography of the Male Homes part of the site following the demolition of the existing buildings and the removal of all materials from this part of the site. The scheme shall include details for the reinstatement of the open water course between The Duckery and the Gothic Bridge; the removal of ornamental trees planted in association with the hospital development and the landscaping of this part of the site, including the provision of new tree and hedge planting and the removal of the bunding on the north side of Sutton's Drive.

e) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved timetable and terms.

Restriction on Permitted Development Rights

34. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995, or succeeding order or enactment, no development of the type specified below and within the following classes in Schedule 2 to the Order shall take place without prior approval of the local planning authority.

Part 1 – Development within the curtilage of a dwelling house

Class A: the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwelling house Class B: the enlargement of a dwelling house consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof. Class F: the provision within the curtilage of a dwelling house of a hard surface for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such where such hard surface would be closer to a highway or other public area than the nearest part of the original dwelling facing that highway or area.

Part 2 – Minor Operations

Class A: the erection; construction; improvement or alteration of any gate; fence; wall or other means of enclosure that is visible from a highway or other public area. Class B: the formation, laying out and construction of a means of access to a highway.

Routing of Services

35. Save with the written approval of the local planning authority, all pipes; meter boxes; fibres; wires and cables required by statutory undertakers and all other appropriate bodies including cable TV operators or service providers of telecommunications shall be placed underground or in concealed locations, where this would not damage areas of ecological importance. Prior to any works referred to in this condition being carried out, areas of ecological importance shall have been previously defined on a plan submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Listed Building Consent - Walsall MBC - 02/2416/LB/E2

1. The works for which consent is hereby granted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this consent.

2. No works shall be undertaken until details of the proposed foundations have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

3. No works shall be undertaken until a photographic record of the existing gate piers has been undertaken. The photographic record shall be undertaken in accordance with a brief to be submitted to the local planning authority in duplicate prior to the commencement of works.

4. The colour, type, texture, profile, gauge of the mortar composition and jointing of the gate piers shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of works. The reconstruction shall match the existing gate piers unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Conservation Area Consent - Walsall MBC - 03/0057/CA/E2

1. The works of demolition for which consent is hereby granted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this consent.

2. Prior to the commencement of redevelopment, details of the demolition strategy shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The strategy shall set out the phasing and timing of the demolition works.

3. Prior to the commencement of demolition, a photographic record of all the existing buildings shall be undertaken in accordance with an approved brief for a photographic survey. The scope of the photographic survey shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The photographic record shall be provided to the local planning authority in duplicate prior to the commencement of any demolition on the site.

4. Prior to the commencement of development, a historical appraisal of the former hospital shall be undertaken in accordance with a scope of study that has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in triplicate prior to the commencement of demolition.

Full Planning Permission - Birmingham CC - N/00589/03/FUL

1. The development for which permission is hereby granted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

2. No development shall commence unless and until a scheme for the improvement of Queslett Road/site access junction, in accordance with David Tucker Associates' drawing No 5009/01 Rev C, and incorporating the additional features identified in the Heads of Terms for the Queslett Road/Access Junction section 278 Agreement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authorities concerned. The Heads of Terms are attached to this Schedule as Appendix 1.

3. No construction other than the works approved in writing by the local planning authority shall commence until the improvement scheme defined in Condition 2 of this permission has been completed.

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING CONDITIONS - Appendix 1

Heads of Terms for the Queslett Road/Access Junction 278 Agreement

Scope of issues to be addressed in the 278 Agreement not otherwise detailed on David Tucker Associates' drawing 5009/01 Rev C.

1. A scheme will be developed to deal with the transfer of traffic along Booths Lane arising from the proposed traffic signal junction. This could include improvements to the junction of Booths Lane with Queslett Road (such as signalisation, if required, depending on the volume of traffic transferring to the junction) and also measures to deter rat running along Booths Lane.

2. A signing scheme and a scheme to reduce the speed of eastbound traffic approaching the proposed traffic signals will be developed to address the requirements for forward visibility on the eastbound approach to the proposed traffic signals. The scheme may incorporate variable message signs on the eastbound approach to the traffic signals to inform motorists of the presence of queuing vehicles within the visibility splay. In addition, the scheme could incorporate, in association with point 1 above, signalisation of the junction with Booths Lane with Queslett Road.

3. A scheme to increase the width of the central reserve on the eastern side of the proposed traffic signals will be developed to improve facilities for pedestrians at the junction.

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT - SCHEDULE OF CONTENTS

1. VOLUME 1

1.0 Introduction 2.0 The Proposals 3.0 Planning Policy Context 4.0 Historic Landscape Review 5.0 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 6.0 Cultural Heritage 7.0 Archaeology 8.0 Ecology and Nature Conservation 9.0 Transport Assessment 10.0 Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 11.0 Hydrology 12.0 Cumulative Impact

2. VOLUME 2

(No Appendices 1, 2 or 3) Appendix 4 Landscape Chronology Appendix 5 Tree Preservation Orders Appendix 6 Assessment of Historical and Architectural Value of Buildings at Great Barr Park A Plan of Great Barr Hall B Environmental Site Sensitivity Data C Notes on Architect - Gerald McMichael D Historical Assessment Plan E Schedule of St Margaret's Hospital Buildings F Rodney Melville Report on Buildings at Great Barr Park G Plan and Construction Dates of St Margaret's Hospital Buildings Appendix 7 Walsall Sites and Monuments Records Appendix 8 Habitat Features Appendix 9 Results of Traffic Survey Appendix 10 Noise Data Appendix 11 Hydrology Source References

3. TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT November 2002- Scott Wilson (Superseded)

4. REVISED TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT December 2004- David Tucker Associates

5. TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT - Further Information January 2004

6. ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT: NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY November 2002