Brinsford Lodge (Site Ref: 168) Additional Information by Berrywood Estates Ltd

SAD Ref: 168 Brinsford Lodge, Featherstone: Additional information provided by Berrywood Estates

Firstplan Ref: 0560/MW/cj

Date: 20th November 2017

Contents

Section 1 Additional Information ...... 4

Documents

Document 1 Secretary of State’s Decision (including Inspector’s Report) for Planning Appeal at Cat

and Kittens Lane, Featherstone

Document 2 Appeal Site Plan

Document 3 South Staffordshire Council’s Summary Proof

Document 4 Photographs of Brinsford Lodge

Brinsford Lodge (Site Ref: 168) | Firstplan 3

Section 1 Additional Information

1.1 This additional information has been provided by Firstplan on behalf of Berrywood Estates Ltd, in response to a request made by the Inspector (Mr Stephen J Pratt) via the Programme Officer by email dated 10 November 2017, regarding the examination of South Staffordshire Council’s Site Allocations Document (“SAD”).

1.2 The request for further information relates to a planning appeal by Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd and BAE Systems at Cat and Kittens Lane, Featherstone (Application refs: 05/00677/OUT, 06/00048/OUT and 07/00244/out). The appeal was determined by the Secretary of State on 16th June 2008.

1.3 The appeal decision was previously referenced within our Hearing Statement (dated 2nd November

st 2017) and the legal Opinion (dated 31 March 2015) written by Leading Counsel (Martin Kingston QC). The 2008 appeal decision has been brought to the Inspector’s attention because Brinsford Lodge was as the time defined as Previously Developed Land (“PDL”) in the decision.

1.4 At the request of the Inspector, this document therefore provides the following:

• Decision by Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (including Report to the Secretary of State) • Development Area Plan which formed part of the appeal documentation • South Staffordshire Council’s Summary Proof • Recent Photographs of Brinsford Lodge

a) Report to the Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government (8th November 2007)

1.5 The Inspector reporting to the Secretary of State (by S J Emerson BSc DipTP MRTPI) provided a report (dated 8th November 2007) which is attached at Document 1.

Document 1

1.6 Attention is drawn to Paragraphs 2.4, 5.1 and 13.36, and the Table at page 19 of the report, as follows:

4 | Firstplan Brinsford Lodge (Site Ref: 168)

Paragraph Relevant Excerpt No. 2.4 “The site of the former Brinsford Lodge adjoins Featherstone to the east of the former ROF. The facility provided accommodation for workers at the ROF, but the main structures have now been demolished and the site is largely cleared. However, the site retains extensive hard surfaced areas from the former roads/paths and foundations and there are a few low, above-ground structures.”

5.1 “There are a number of important procedural, policy and background facts agreed between the appellants and the SSDC and some matters also agreed between the appellants and Wolverhampton City Council (WCC) and Persimmon Homes (PH). Most of these are covered by the various Statements of Common Ground (SCG 1-7), but not all such matters. Whilst the 3 main SCGs (SCG1-3) were finally agreed during the Inquiry, much of their content was drafted well before the Inquiry and does not reflect all the matters on which agreement was accepted at the Inquiry.”

5.4 “In applying relevant development plan policies and national advice it is useful to summarise the extent of the Green Belt and of previously development land (PDL) making up the appeal sites. Various areas agreed between the appellants and SSDC are set out in a table in the SCG61 which is reproduced below. The extent of the areas for each of the applications is shown on plans TW16A, B and C which are also agreed. No party at the Inquiry disputed these figures.”

5.5 “… one third is Green Belt which is also PDL (30.2 ha) …” Table Page 19 (as referenced at 5.4)

13.36 “There would also be a substantial loss of openness in both TW2 and TW3 from the housing proposed at Brinsford Lodge. Although this is PDL with extensive hard surfaced areas, most of the site is open with only a few small upstanding structures.”

Table 1. Excerpts from Report to the Secretary of State

1.7 It is notable that the Inspector’s Report to the Secretary of State (at Paragraph 5.4) sets out that the extent of the PDL was agreed between the Appellants and South Staffordshire District Council (SSDC) within a Statement of Common Ground (SCG).

Brinsford Lodge (Site Ref: 168) | Firstplan 5

1.8 A copy of a corresponding Development Area Plan setting out those areas agreed to be PDL is attached at Document 2. It is clear that Brinsford Lodge (Site 168) (marked in brown) is identified as Brownfield Land (PDL). An extract of the plan is provided below. Document 2

Figure 1. Extract of Appeal Plan

1.9 In the context of Paragraph 5.4 and the above plan, it is relevant to note that RPS, on behalf of Persimmon Homes, were a signatory to the SCG and a contributor to the Inquiry. With regard to the areas identified to comprise PDL, the Report to the Secretary of State sets out at Paragraph 5.4 that: “no party at the Inquiry disputed these figures”.

b) Decision by Secretary of State (16th June 2008)

1.10 In addition to the above, Secretary of State’s decision letter confirms the following:

Paragraph Relevant Excerpt No. 3 “The Inspector, whose report is enclosed with this letter, recommended that all three appeals be dismissed and outline planning permission refused for each scheme. For

6 | Firstplan Brinsford Lodge (Site Ref: 168)

the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions, except where stated, and with his recommendations. All paragraph references, unless otherwise stated, refer to the Inspector’s Report (IR).”

Table 2. Excerpts from Secretary of State Decision

1.11 This confirmed that the Secretary of State agreed with the findings set out in the Report, except where stated. The Secretary of State did not contest the PDL status of Brinsford Lodge.

c) South Staffordshire Council Summary Proof (7th August 2007)

1.12 South Staffordshire Council’s Summary Proof (by Andrew Keith Johnson) further confirmed at Paragraph 1.3 that the Council at 2007 also considered Brinsford Lodge to comprise PDL. This is attached at Document 3.

Paragraph Relevant Excerpt No. 1.3 “… the Council considers that 50.9ha of pdl would be reused as a result of the appeal proposals. This will include 5 hectares of land situated immediately to the west of the village of Featherstone”

Table 3. Excerpts from LPA Summary Proof

d) Brinsford Lodge Photographs

1.13 To further assist the Inspector with regard to Brinsford Lodge, enclosed at Document 4 are a series of photographs of the site, taken by Berrywood Estates in March 2015. These are the photographs provided to Martin Kingston QC, upon which his legal opinion is based.

1.14 These photographs provide an accurate record the status of the site and provide a mixture of both ground level and aerial photographs of the site. It is, however, expected that the site will now be visited as part of the SAD Examination process.

e) Conclusions

1.15 We trust that the above and the enclosed documentation will further assist the Inspector in understanding the status of Brinsford Lodge as PDL. This has been accepted by the Secretary of State as recently as 2008.

1.16 Should the inspector require any further detailed information or clarification on any of the relevant issues raised in this document, we will be pleased to provide it.

Brinsford Lodge (Site Ref: 168) | Firstplan 7

Document 1

with an area of 1.2ha including a building up to 1,310m2; first phase bus-based park and ride with an area of 3.1ha including up to 500 parking spaces and a shelter building of 140m2; principal access from the A449 (Stafford Road); secondary accesses from East Road, Oaks Drive and Brookhouse Lane; roads, cycleways and footpaths; sports facilities (4ha) including sports pitches and non- pitch sports; a pavilion of up to 520m2; informal open space and landscape measures with an area of 37 ha; safeguarded land (for possible future prison use) 13.1 ha; and works required for the remediation of the areas within the site where concentrations of identified contaminants exceed adopted thresholds, in accordance with application number 06/00048/OUT dated 13 January 2006. • Appeal C (TW3): against the decision of South Staffordshire Council to refuse outline planning permission for development including: residential development (Class C3): up to 870 dwellings in total on some 18.7 ha including 12 flats within the local centre; employment development: classes B1 - B8 on 9.3 ha; local centre of 1 ha comprising a mix of uses including: foodstore (class A1) up to 1,500m2, GP’s practice (Class D1) up to 750m2, additional retail (Classes A1-A5) up to 200m2, public house (Class A4) up to 700m2, residential (Class C3) 12 flats; primary school (Class D1) within an area of 1.2ha including a building up to 1,600m2; first phase bus-based park and ride with an area of 3.1ha including up to 500 parking spaces and a shelter building of 140m2; principal access from the A449 (Stafford Road); secondary accesses from East Road, Oaks Drive and Brookhouse Lane; roads, cycleways and footpaths; sports facilities (4ha) including sports pitches and non-pitch sports with a pavilion of up to 520m2; informal open space and landscape measures with an area of 38.8 ha; safeguarded land (for possible future prison use) 13.1 ha; and works required for the remediation of the areas of contaminated land in the site, in accordance with application number 07/00244/OUT dated 28 February 2007. 2. On 6 February 2007, Appeals A and B were recovered and, on 14 June 2007, Appeal C was recovered for the Secretary of State’s determination, in pursuance of section 79 of and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The appeals were recovered for determination by the Secretary of State as they relate to proposals for significant development within the Green Belt. Appeals B and C were also recovered because they raise policy issues relating to residential development of 150 or more dwellings which would significantly impact on the Government’s objective to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply and create high quality, sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector, whose report is enclosed with this letter, recommended that all three appeals be dismissed and outline planning permission refused for each scheme. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions, except where stated, and with his recommendations. All paragraph references, unless otherwise stated, refer to the Inspector’s Report (IR). Procedural matters 4. Like the Inspector, the Secretary of State refers to the Appeal A proposal as TW1 or the ‘park and ride (P&R)’ proposal, and to Appeals B and C as TW2 and TW3 respectively. The Secretary of State also refers to those elements of TW2 and TW3 which are not part of TW1 as the ‘major development area (MDA)’ proposal (IR1.3).

5. The Secretary of State notes that since the appeals were lodged, Taylor Woodrow has merged with Wimpey to form Taylor Wimpey Developments Ltd (IR1.4). 6. The Secretary of State also notes that all three appeals have been submitted in outline. In TW1, siting and access are for consideration at this stage, with design, external appearance and landscaping as reserved matters. In TW2, only access is for consideration at this stage, with siting, design, external appearance and landscaping as reserved matters. In TW3, only access is for consideration at this stage with layout, scale, appearance and landscaping as reserved matters (IR1.5). In determining the appeals, the Secretary of State has had regard to the combined Design and Access Statement submitted at the Inquiry for all three appeals (IR1.6). 7. The Secretary of State notes that prior to the appeal being lodged on TW1, an amended plan and an additional plan both dated August 2006 were submitted to the Council, and prior to the Inquiry, the appellants submitted an amended plan for TW2 (IR1.7). The Secretary of State is satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by the consideration of the amended plans and she has therefore determined the appeals with regard to the plans listed at Annex 2 to the Inspector’s Report. 8. The Secretary of State agrees with the parties and the Inspector that, although each application requires a separate formal decision, the proposals should be considered on a comprehensive basis with TW1 being linked to TW2 and/or TW3 by a condition and these pairings should stand or fall together (IR5.2-5.3 and IR13.2). The Secretary of State has therefore determined the appeals on this basis. Matters arising after the close of the inquiry 9. Following the close of the inquiry, the Secretary of State requested an up-date on the land ownership of the site. This was received on 18th September 2008 and copies may be obtained on written request from this office.

10. Following the closure of the inquiry, the Secretary of State received a number of representations in relation to these appeals and appeals APP/C3430/A/06/2019854 (Campions Wood Quarry) and APP/C3430/A/06/2029093 (Land South of Featherstone Village). The representations received and considered by the Secretary of State, her replies to these representations and her letters varying the timetable for this appeal and the other appeals referred to in this paragraph are listed at Annex A. The Secretary of State is satisfied that these representations did not raise any new material considerations about which it was necessary for her to refer back to parties, other than in respect of those matters set out in paragraphs 14 and 15 below.

11. On 10 October 2007, the Secretary of State wrote to the agent for the Land South of Featherstone Village appeal, copying her letter to the main parties in these appeals and in the Campions Wood Quarry appeal. In that letter, the Secretary of State explained that, before determining the Land South of Featherstone Village appeal, she wished to consider the Inspectors’ reports on these appeals and the Campions Wood Quarry appeal, so that she was fully informed before proceeding to determine the Land South of Featherstone appeal. The Secretary of State received no objections from the main parties about this approach. 12. On 16 June 2008, the Secretary of State referred back to inquiry parties on the basis that she was not yet in a position to determine these appeals. Similar letters were sent to the main parties in the Land South of Featherstone Village appeal and the

Campions Wood Quarry appeal and the Secretary of State’s letters made clear that replies would be copied to the parties in all three cases. Annex B lists the letters the Secretary of State issued and the responses she received relating to all three cases. In reaching her decision, the Secretary of State has taken full account of all the representations made relating to matters on which she referred back to parties. 13. Copies of this correspondence referred to at paragraphs 10 to12 above are not attached to this letter but may be obtained on written request to this office. 14. The Secretary of State’s reasons for referring back to parties on 16 June 2008 were twofold. The first reason was that she wanted further information from parties on South Staffordshire District housing targets, in the light of the judgement in the case of Roberts & Others v SSCLG [2008] relating to the Secretary of State’s decision dated 7th September 2007 not to make a direction under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 that the transitional period set out in sub-paragraph (2)(a) of that paragraph should not apply to policies H1, IM1 and IM2 of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan. This judgement upheld the Secretary of State’s decision not to save SP policy H1. It also stated that the Secretary of State was reasonably entitled to conclude, as a matter of planning judgment, that applying the policies in PPS3 and the RSS, including the RSS Phase 2 Revision - Spatial Options Document as part of the emerging RSS, would be sufficient to ensure delivery of appropriate sites for housing. 15. The second reason for referring back to parties was that the Secretary of State wanted further information on the current position on housing delivery and housing land supply in South Staffordshire District. In order for her to consider such information on a consistent basis across the three cases, she requested that this information be presented on the basis of 3 different lapse/discount rates applied to sites with planning permission where development has not yet started. 16. The Secretary of State notes that, in their response to these issues, all main parties in all three cases agree that, in respect of the period 2006-2026, the housing proposals in the RSS Phase 2 Revision – Preferred Option of December 2007 should carry more weight than the RSS Phase 2 Revision - Spatial Options Document of January 2007. Given this, and the fact that the Preferred Option paper reflects the more advanced stage of the RSS revision process, the Secretary of State agrees with this view. She also notes that there is now no dispute amongst parties that there is at least a five year supply of housing land available. However, she recognises that there is some difference of opinion between parties about the basis upon which this should be calculated and that estimated supply ranges from 5.88 years to 9.63 years. Notwithstanding this variance, the Secretary of State does not consider that she needs to favour one method of calculation over another, as she is satisfied that on the basis of any of the calculations put forward (including the most pessimistic) there is a five year supply. She is therefore satisfied that housing land availability in South Staffordshire District is adequate and possibly more than adequate. 17. The Secretary of State has also taken into account as a material consideration the letter dated 7 January 2008 from Baroness Andrews commenting on the West Midlands RSS Phase 2 Revision. However, she gives the letter limited weight, as it is not yet clear whether the work commissioned in that letter (including the Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners’ report Development of Options for the West Midlands RSS in Response to the NHPAU, which was published in October 2008) will lead to

changes to the RSS Phase 2 Revision or whether any changes will impact on South Staffordshire in a way which is material to this appeal.

Environmental statements 18. In determining the appeals, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statements which were submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. For the reasons given at IR1.8-1.11, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the Environmental Statements comply with the above regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for her to assess the environmental impact of the three appeals. Policy considerations 19. In deciding the appeals, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the development plan comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands (RSS11), published in June 2004 and amended in January 2008; the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996-2011, adopted in May 2001 (SP); and the South Staffordshire Local Plan 1996 (LP), adopted in 1996. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the RSS is the most up-to-date of the development plan documents and is therefore pre- eminent (IR3.3). She considers that the development plan policies most relevant to the appeals are those set out by the Inspector at IR3.4-3.12. The exception to this is those policies which have not been “saved” under Schedule 8 of the 2004 Act by 27 September 2007 to which the Secretary of State affords no weight. 20. The emerging RSS is also a material consideration. For the reasons given at paragraphs 14 and 16 above, the Secretary of State accords significant weight to the housing proposals in the RSS Phase 2 Revision - Preferred Option paper, which followed and was informed by the consultation on the RSS Phase 2 Revision - Spatial Options. She gives some weight to the other aspects of the Preferred Option paper. As for the Phase 3 Revision to the RSS, she affords it very little weight given its early stage. 21. The Secretary of State notes (IR3.19) that South Staffordshire Council are working towards producing a new Core Strategy as part of the Local Development Framework process, but given that this work is at a very early stage she affords it limited weight. The Secretary of State also notes that in 2003 the Council published the deposit version of the South Staffordshire Local Plan but that this was abandoned following the publication of the current RSS (IR3.20-3.21). She therefore affords it no weight. 22. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1); Planning Policy Guidance note 2: Green Belts (PPG2); Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3); Planning Policy Guidance note 4: Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms; Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS7); Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (PPS9); Planning Policy Guidance note 13, Transport (PPG13); Planning Policy Statement 23: Development on Land Affected by Contamination; Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk; Circular

11/95: Use of Conditions in Planning Permission; Circular 05/2005: Planning Obligations; and Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geographical Conservation - Statutory Obligations and Their Impact Within the Planning System. 23. The Secretary of State has also taken into account “Planning and Climate Change”, the supplement to PPS1, published on 17 December 2007. She does not consider that this raises any new issues relevant to this application that either affect her decision, or require her to refer back to the parties for further representations before reaching her decision. The Secretary of State has also taken into account draft PPS4: Planning for Economic Development which was published for consultation on 17 December 2007. As this document is still in draft and may be subject to change, she affords it little weight. 24. In determining the appeals, the Secretary of State has also had regard to the other documents and relevant studies listed at IR3.14, IR3.22-3.23. 25. The Secretary of State has noted those matters of agreement in the various Statements of Common Ground and other agreed matters, as set out by the Inspector at IR5.1-5.18. On housing supply and targets (which are considered in IR5.18 and IR13.44-13.65), the Secretary of State has set out in paragraph 14 above how she has dealt with this matter in the light of developments following the inquiry. Main issues 26. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main considerations in determining the proposals are those set out at IR13.4. Whether the developments would support or undermine the overall strategy of the RSS 27. The Secretary of State agrees with the main parties that the RSS is the most up to date and important part of the development plan for these appeals (IR13.8). She has had regard to the site’s location within an Urban Regeneration Zone (URZ) as defined in the RSS, and she notes that the site is unique in policy terms as it is the only area designated as an URZ outside the Major Urban Areas (MUAs) (IR13.8). The Secretary of State has also had regard to the site’s location within a High Technology Corridor (HTC) and that Brinsford is a specified location for a major transport improvement in the form of a strategic park and ride facility (IR13.9). She has also had regard to the over-arching strategy of the RSS to bring about a fundamental improvement in the environment of MUAs so as to make them more attractive places in which to live, work and invest, thus reversing the past pattern of out-migration and improving their economic viability (IR13.10). 28. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on whether the development is in accordance with the aims of the RSS, as set out in IR13.8-13.31. For the reasons given in IR13.23-13.30, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the appeal proposals would be consistent with specific RSS policies for transport and employment development, in accordance with the RSS objective to improve significantly the region’s transport systems and to support the diversification and modernisation of the region’s economy (IR13.31). However, she also agrees (IR13.31), for the reasons given in IR13.10-13.22, that the proposed development would conflict with the housing strategy of the RSS and would be more likely to undermine than support the objective to make MUAs increasingly attractive places to live, work and invest. She shares the Inspector’s view that the designation of the appeal location as an URZ does not resolve or override this conflict so as to

favour the appeal proposals (IR13.12 and IR13.31). The Secretary of State therefore agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion in IR13.31 that, because of the scale and significance of the housing element of the proposals, as a package they would, overall, result in harmful conflict with the strategy of the RSS. Given the scale and location of these proposals, the Secretary of State considers that this conflict is a matter of considerable weight. The effect on the openness of the Green Belt, its purposes and objectives 29. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector and the main parties that, taken as a comprehensive package, the proposals involve inappropriate development in the Green Belt which PPG2 indicates is harmful. In line with the guidance set out in PPG2, the Secretary of State attaches substantial weight to the harm from inappropriate development. However, she also agrees with the Inspector that whilst the appeal proposals should be considered on a comprehensive basis, in order to fairly assess Green Belt issues, some disaggregation is necessary (IR13.32). For the reasons given in IR13.33, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, in relation to TW1, the tests set out in paragraph 3.17 of PPG2 and Annex E to PPG13 are met and the proposed station, park and ride facility and new access road should not be regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt. 30. However, the Secretary of State considers that part of the development proposed in both TW2 and TW3 would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful. For the reasons given in IR13.34-13.35, she agrees with the Inspector that although much of the built development in TW2 and TW3 would be located outside the Green Belt, a considerable loss of Green Belt openness would arise from TW2 and a lesser, but still significant, loss of Green Belt openness would arise from TW3. She agrees with the Inspector that further losses of openness would arise as set out at IR13.36. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s analysis at IR13.37-13.38 and shares his view that TW2 and TW3 would be contrary to the long term aim of preventing coalescence to a small but material degree, and that they would not assist in urban regeneration. 31. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that TW2 and TW3 would meet 4 of the 6 objectives for the use of land in the Green Belt set out in PPG2 (IR13.39). Like the Inspector, she considers that, although the proposals would not directly provide opportunities for access to the open countryside, neither would they preclude the existing opportunities for such access, although she also agrees that the parkland proposed alongside the Featherstone Brook should not be regarded as open countryside (IR13.39). She shares the Inspector’s view that both TW2 and TW3 include the use of some agricultural land, but in TW3 the MDA elements would involve the permanent loss of little such land (only for the local centre) (IR13.39). 32. For the reasons given in IR13.40-13.41, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that TW3 would not, overall, have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the Green Belt but that TW2 would have a localised adverse impact on visual amenity. She also agrees, for the reasons given in IR13.42, that any harm caused by the proposed new link road and bridge, as well as the extensive car park for the park and ride should not be weighed against the proposals. 33. Having identified that the proposals would be harmful to the Green Belt, the Secretary of State has gone on to consider whether there are other considerations which might outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm.

Whether there is a shortfall of housing supply 34. The Secretary of State notes the Inspector’s assessment of housing supply and demand matters as set out in IR13.44-13.66. However, she has set out in paragraph 16 above her understanding of the current housing supply position and the reasoning behind this. She therefore considers that housing need is not a consideration which weighs in favour of these appeals. Whether the proposals make appropriate provision for affordable housing 35. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the appellants’ proposal to provide 30% affordable housing in TW2 and TW3 would accord with the Council’s Interim Advice Note (IR13.68). The Secretary of State has had regard to the Council’s argument that 40% provision of affordable housing should be made as a result of the findings and recommendations of the South Staffordshire Housing Market Assessment (SSHMA). However, for the reasons given in IR13.68 and IR13.70-13.71, she agrees with the Inspector that the proposed level of affordable housing is fair and reasonable in this particular case (IR13.72). 36. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector’s analysis at IR13.73-13.76 about whether these proposals would conflict with promoting locational choice amongst those in need of affordable housing. However, whilst the Secretary of State recognises that it might be preferable to provide affordable housing on sites across the District, given the very considerable need for such housing, she considers that the affordable housing element of the appeal proposals is a significant benefit weighing in favour of the proposals. Other matters Sustainability/accessibility and compliance with PPG13 37. For the reasons given in IR13.79-13.82, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposals, as a comprehensive package, would represent a sustainable form of development with good accessibility by non car modes. She shares the Inspector’s view that the benefits highlighted are sufficient to outweigh the poor physical integration with the existing settlement of Featherstone (see paragraph 45 below) and the likely absence of some of the facilities proposed. 38. Whilst all the applications are in outline and detailed proposals relating to parking within the MDA are not set out, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons he gives, that the appellants’ intended approach is consistent with the advice on parking in PPG13 and with the aim of creating quality residential areas in PPS3 (IR13.83). 39. The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector that the overall package of proposals is consistent with the sustainability aims of PPG13 (IR13.84). Contamination and compliance with PPS23 40. The Secretary of State notes that the former Royal Ordnance Factory site is a derelict and contaminated site because of its past use. However, for the reasons given in IR13.85, she agrees with the Inspector that subject to conditions, the proposals would satisfactorily remediate the contamination and make the land suitable for the new uses proposed.

41. The Secretary of State has had regard to the concerns of many local residents about increased pollution mainly from increased traffic and she has had regard to the existence of the designated Air Quality Management Area at New Road, Featherstone. However, for the reasons given in IR13.86, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is no creditable basis for any concern in relation to pollution. The Secretary of State therefore agrees with the Inspector that the proposals are consistent with the advice in PPS23 (IR13.87). Protected species 42. The Secretary of State notes that recent survey work by the appellants has found a small population of Great Crested Newts at two water bodies immediately to the north of the embankment of the bridge over the West Coast Mainline and, whilst the proposals would not directly affect these water bodies, the habitat to the south would be lost. However, for the reasons given in IR13.88-13.89, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposed mitigation measures represent a benefit to Great Crested Newts rather than harm and that there is no conflict with national or development plan policies for the protection of biodiversity. Highways 43. For the reasons given in IR13.90, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that despite concerns raised by many local residents about increased traffic congestion, in the absence of any technical evidence to the contrary, there is no highway objection to the proposal. She also agrees, for the reasons given in IR13.91, that the proposals would not make the use of the lay-by on the A449 materially worse. Health care 44. The Secretary of State notes that the appellants’ commitment to the proposed GP’s practice/health centre is solely to offer the Primary Care Trust a free site for such a facility if they want to establish one. She agrees with the Inspector that the issue of funding any additional GP(s) is very much a matter for the PCT and not something that can reasonably be expected to be funded by the appellants. She therefore agrees with the Inspector that this issue does not amount to harm to weigh against the appeal proposals (IR13.92). Design and layout 45. For the reasons given in IR13.93, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there would be a poor geographic relationship with Featherstone. However, for the reasons given by the Inspector in that paragraph, the Secretary of State shares his view that the poor physical relationship with Featherstone should not be regarded as material harm weighing against the proposals. The park and ride proposals 46. The Secretary of State considers that realising the longstanding proposal for a strategic park and ride development at Brinsford, and achieving it sooner rather than later is an important material consideration in her determination of this appeal. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the appellants have already made an important contribution to advancing the proposal and that their contribution to realising the scheme if the appeals were to be allowed would be considerable (IR13.96-13.98). Like the Inspector, the Secretary of State considers that the

appellants’ proposals represent the speediest mechanism for delivering the project, even though it might well take longer than they suggest (IR13.99). 47. For the reasons given in IR13.100, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that little weight should be afforded to the Council’s and Persimmon Homes’ suggestion that the combination of the commercial case and benefit to cost ratio is shown to be so favourable that the project would be delivered by Network Rail, supported as necessary by public funds, without enabling development. 48. For the reasons given in IR13.101-13.102, the Secretary of State shares the Inspector’s view that the appellants’ submission of TW3 (870 houses) demonstrates that the 1,000 houses proposed by TW2 is not the minimum needed to achieve the park and ride proposals. In view of this, whilst the Secretary of State affords considerable weight to the benefit of the park and ride proposals to the TW3 appeal scheme, the weight she attaches to this benefit in relation to the TW2 scheme is reduced. Playing Fields 49. For the reasons given in IR13.103, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that whilst the proposed development would provide an additional playing field so as to meet an existing deficit in Featherstone, this benefit should be afforded only very limited weight in the context of the more major planning policy and other issues already addressed. Conditions and obligations 50. The Secretary of State has considered the terms of the obligations submitted under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 along with the Inspector’s comments at IR12.1-12.6. Like the Inspector, she considers that these obligations will deliver what is intended and meet the tests of Circular 05/2005, but they do not overcome her reasons for dismissing these appeals. 51. The Secretary of State has considered the proposed conditions and the Inspector’s comments and modifications at IR12.7-12.16 and Annex 1 to the Inspector’s Report, as well as national policy set out in Circular 11/95. She considers that the proposed conditions are reasonable and necessary and meet the tests of Circular 11/95, but they do not overcome her reasons for dismissing these appeals. Overall conclusions 52. The Secretary of State considers that the proposals as a package would involve inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and would also cause further harm to the Green Belt as a result of loss of openness, failure to assist in urban regeneration and, to a limited extent, conflict with the long term aim of preventing coalescence. The Secretary of State has attached substantial weight to the harm arising as a result of inappropriate development and some further weight to the other Green Belt harm she has identified. 53. The proposals would also cause harm as a result of conflict with the overall urban renaissance strategy of the RSS, and with its housing policies. Given the scale of the proposals, the Secretary of State considers that the conflict with these aspects of the RSS is a consideration of considerable weight.

54. The Secretary of State has therefore considered whether, in line with PPG2 and the development plan, this harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations which, either individually or cumulatively, amount to very special circumstances. 55. Weighing in favour of the appeal proposals, the Secretary of State considers that the proposals would provide 9.3ha of well located and accessible employment land, would remediate contamination, and would bring back into use a large derelict site. The proposals would provide affordable housing for which there is a substantial need and the Secretary of State attaches significant weight to this benefit. They would also bring good prospects of eventually delivering a major improvement to the region’s transport infrastructure. The Secretary of State attaches considerable weight to this benefit in relation to the TW3 appeal and some weight to it in relation to the TW2 appeal. 56. Having balanced the benefits of the proposal against the harm to the Green Belt and other harm, the Secretary of State concludes that, in this particular case, the considerations weighing in favour of the appeal proposals do not, either individually or cumulatively, clearly outweigh the harm which the proposals would cause and do not amount to very special circumstances. 57. Overall, the Secretary of State considers that the proposals conflict with the development plan, and that there are no other material considerations which require her to determine these appeals other than in accordance with the development plan. Formal decision 58. For the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendations. She hereby dismisses the appeals and refuses outline planning permission for: • a bus and rail-based park and ride including: principal access from the A449 (Stafford Road) as shown in drawing 12577/PA/003; secondary access from Paradise Lane, Coven as shown in drawings 12577/PA/004 & 005; replacement access to former Royal Ordnance Factory; interchange building accommodating passenger facilities, ticket office and ancillary uses including retail kiosk; 1,620 metres of railway track and associated embankment, platforms and passenger shelters to effect partial realignment of WCML; vehicle parking areas (up to 1,500 car parking spaces and associated vehicle manoeuvring areas); highway works including realignment of Cat and Kittens Lane and closure of Brinsford Lane; landscape works; earthworks, involving the winning of material from within the former Royal Ordnance Factory to form necessary embankments; and other associated engineering works, in accordance with application number 05/00677/OUT dated 8 June 2005. • development including: residential development (Class C3): up to 1,000 dwellings in total on 24.1 ha; employment development: classes B1, B2 and B8 on 9.3 ha; local centre of 1 ha comprising a mix of uses including: foodstore (class A1) up to 1,500m2, GP’s practice (Class D1) up to 750m2, additional retail (Classes A1-A5) up to 200m2, public house (Class A4) up to 700m2, residential (Class C3) 12 flats; primary school (Class D1) with an area of 1.2ha including a building up to 1,310m2; first phase bus-based park and ride with an area of 3.1ha including up to 500 parking spaces and a shelter building of 140m2; principal access from the A449 (Stafford Road); secondary accesses from East Road, Oaks Drive and Brookhouse Lane; roads, cycleways and footpaths; sports facilities (4ha) including sports pitches and non-pitch sports; a

pavilion of up to 520m2; informal open space and landscape measures with an area of 37 ha; safeguarded land (for possible future prison use) 13.1 ha; and works required for the remediation of the areas within the site where concentrations of identified contaminants exceed adopted thresholds, in accordance with application number 06/00048/OUT dated 13 January 2006. • development including: residential development (Class C3): up to 870 dwellings in total on some 18.7 ha including 12 flats within the local centre; employment development: classes B1 - B8 on 9.3 ha; local centre of 1 ha comprising a mix of uses including: foodstore (class A1) up to 1,500m2, GP’s practice (Class D1) up to 750m2, additional retail (Classes A1-A5) up to 200m2, public house (Class A4) up to 700m2, residential (Class C3) 12 flats; primary school (Class D1) within an area of 1.2ha including a building up to 1,600m2; first phase bus-based park and ride with an area of 3.1ha including up to 500 parking spaces and a shelter building of 140m2; principal access from the A449 (Stafford Road); secondary accesses from East Road, Oaks Drive and Brookhouse Lane; roads, cycleways and footpaths; sports facilities (4ha) including sports pitches and non-pitch sports with a pavilion of up to 520m2; informal open space and landscape measures with an area of 38.8 ha; safeguarded land (for possible future prison use) 13.1 ha; and works required for the remediation of the areas of contaminated land in the site, in accordance with application number 07/00244/OUT dated 28 February 2007. Right to challenge the decision 59. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the Secretary of State's decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court within six weeks from the date of this letter. 60. A copy of this letter has been sent to South Staffordshire District Council and to other parties who appeared at the inquiry.

Yours faithfully,

Christine Symes Authorised by the Secretary of State to sign in that behalf

Annex A

Post-Inquiry Correspondence Date Document 16 Jul 2007 South Staffordshire Council 06 Aug 2007 South Staffordshire Council 22 Aug 2007 South Staffordshire Council 23 Aug 2007 CLG to South Staffordshire Council 24 Aug 2007 South Staffordshire Council 14 Sep 2007 CLG to South Staffordshire Council 10 Oct 2007 CLG to RPS 6 Nov 2007 Hammonds Solicitors for Persimmon Homes (West Midlands) Limited 4 Dec 2007 Hammonds Solicitors for Persimmon Homes (West Midlands) Limited 11 Dec 2007 CLG to Hammonds Solicitors 14 Dec 2007 Hammonds Solicitors for Persimmon Homes (West Midlands) Limited 19 Dec 2007 Hammonds Solicitors for Persimmon Homes (West Midlands) Limited and Dr Nigel Roberts 15 Jan 2008 CLG to RPS and CLG to Savills 28 Apr 2008 CLG to RPS and CLG to Savills 30 Apr 2008 A&M Price and Son 4 May 2008 CLG to A&M Price and Son 30 Jun 2008 A&M Price and Son 25 Jul 2008 CLG to A&M Price and Son

Annex B

Post Inquiry Correspondence In Response to the Secretary of State’s Letter of 16 June 2008 Date Document 16 Jun 2008 Letters from Secretary of State to main parties in all 3 cases. Replies received from: RPS Planning for Persimmon Homes West Midlands Limited dated 7 July RPS Planning for Dr Nigel Roberts dated 7 July Savills for Taylor Wimpey Developments Ltd and BAE Systems dated 7 July 10 Jul 2008 Letters from Secretary of State to main parties in all 3 cases. Replies received from: South Staffordshire Council dated 30 July Gough Planning Services dated 28 July RPS Planning also submitted two representations for Persimmon Homes West Midlands Limited and Dr Nigel Roberts, both dated 30 July which were received after the deadline for such representations. These were not circulated to parties. 1 Aug 2008 Letters from Secretary of State to main parties in all 3 cases. Replies received from: RPS Planning for Persimmon Homes West Midlands Limited dated 12 August RPS Planning for Dr Nigel Roberts dated 12 August Savills for Taylor Wimpey Developments Ltd and BAE Systems dated 14 August

The Planning Inspectorate Report to the Secretary of Temple Quay House 2 The Square Temple Quay State for Communities and Bristol BS1 6PN Local Government GTN 1371 8000

by S J Emerson BSc DipTP MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of Date 8 November 2007 State for Communities and Local Government

Town and Country Planning Act 1990

South Staffordshire Council

Appeals by Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd (now Taylor Wimpey Developments Ltd) and BAE Systems

Inquiry opened on 7 August 2007

Cat and Kittens Lane, Featherstone, Staffordshire WV10 7PR.

File Refs: APP/C3430/A/06/2027165, APP/C3430/A/06/2027177 and APP/C3430/A/07/2046907

Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Table of Contents

1. Procedural Matters ...... 5

2. The Site and Surroundings ...... 9

3. Planning Policy ...... 11

4. The Proposals...... 16

5. Agreed Facts ...... 18

6. The Case for South Staffordshire Council...... 22

7. The Case for Wolverhampton City Council (WCC)...... 33

8. The Case for Persimmon Homes (West Midlands) Ltd ...... 43

9. The Case for Taylor Wimpey Developments and BAE Systems ...... 52

10. The Cases for Other Parties ...... 73

11. Written Representations...... 76

12. Conditions and Obligations ...... 77

13. Conclusions...... 82

14. Recommendations...... 102

Annex 1: Recommended Conditions ...... 103

Annex 2: Applications Drawings Schedule...... 116

Annex 3: Appearances and Documents ...... 118

Annex 4: Site Visits...... 127

Page 2 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Abbreviations used in this Report AWM Advantage West Midlands AQMA Air Quality Management Area BCR Benefit to Cost Ratio CLG (Department of) Communities and Local Government CPO Compulsory Purchase Order DCA David Couttie Associates EIP Examination in Public ES Environmental Statement dph dwellings per hectare GCN Great Crested Newts GOWM Government Office for the West Midlands GVTS Goods Vehicle Testing Station HTC High Technology Corridor LDF Local Development Framework LDS Local Development Scheme LP Local Plan LPA Local Planning Authority LTP Local Transport Plans MUA Major Urban Areas NOMS National Offender Management Service MUGA multi-use games area PCT Primary Care Trust PH Persimmon Homes (West Midlands) Ltd PPS Planning Policy Statement PPG Planning Policy Guidance PDL previously developed land RES Regional Economic Strategy RPB Regional Planning Board RSS Regional Spatial Strategy ROF Royal Ordnance Factory SoS Secretary of State SCC Staffordshire County Council SCG Statement of Common Ground SP Structure Plan URZ Urban Regeneration Zone UHC Urban Housing Capacity WCML West Coast Main Line WCC Wolverhampton City Council WMRA West Midlands Regional Assembly

Page 3 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Appeal A (TW1) File Ref: APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 Cat and Kittens Lane, Featherstone, Staffordshire WV10 7PR. • 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 Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd and BAE Systems Ltd against South Staffordshire Council. • The application Ref 05/00677/OUT is dated 8 June 2005. • The development proposed is a bus and rail-based park and ride including: Principal access from the A449 (Stafford Road) as shown in drawing 12577/PA/003. Secondary access from Paradise Lane, Coven as shown in drawings 12577/PA/004 & 005. Replacement access to former Royal Ordnance Factory. Interchange building accommodating passenger facilities, ticket office and ancillary uses including retail kiosk. 1,620 metres of railway track and associated embankment, platforms and passenger shelters to effect partial realignment of WCML. Vehicle parking areas (up to 1,500 car parking spaces and associated vehicle manoeuvring areas). Highway works including realignment of Cat and Kittens Lane and closure of Brinsford Lane. Landscape works. Earthworks, involving the winning of material from within the former Royal Ordnance Factory to form necessary embankments. Other associated engineering works.

Summary of Recommendation: The appeal be dismissed.

Appeal B (TW2) File Ref: APP/C3430/A/06/2027177 Cat and Kittens Lane, Featherstone, Staffordshire WV10 7PR. • 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 Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd and BAE Systems Ltd against South Staffordshire Council. • The application Ref 06/00048/OUT is dated 13 January 2006. • The development proposed is: Residential development (Class C3) up to 1,000 dwellings in total on 24.1 ha. Employment development: classes B1, B2 and B8 on 9.3 ha. Local Centre of 1 ha comprising a mix of uses including: - Foodstore (class A1) up to 1,500m2 - GP’s practice (Class D1) up to 750m2 - Additional retail (Classes A1-A5) up to 200m2 - Public House (Class A4) up to 700m2 - Residential (Class C3) 12 flats Primary school (Class D1) with an area of 1.2ha including a building up to 1,310m2. First phase bus-based park and ride with an area of 3.1ha including up to 500 parking spaces and a shelter building of 140m2. Principal access from the A449 (Stafford Road). Secondary accesses from East Road, Oaks Drive and Brookhouse Lane. Roads, cycleways and footpaths. Sports facilities (4ha) including sports pitches and non-pitch sports; a pavilion of up to 520m2. Informal Open Space and landscape measures with an area of 37 ha. Safeguarded land (for possible future prison use) 13.1 ha.

Page 4 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Works required for the remediation of the areas within the site where concentrations of identified contaminants exceed adopted thresholds.

Summary of Recommendation: The appeal be dismissed.

Appeal C (TW3) File Ref: APP/C3430/A/07/2046907 Cat and Kittens Lane, Featherstone, Staffordshire WV10 7PR. • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd and BAE Systems Ltd against the decision of South Staffordshire Council. • The application Ref 07/00244/OUT, dated 28 February 2007, was refused by notice dated 24 May 2007. • The development proposed is: Residential development (Class C3) up to 870 dwellings in total on some 18.7 ha including 12 flats within the Local Centre. Employment development: classes B1 - B8 on 9.3 ha. Local Centre of 1 ha comprising a mix of uses including: - Foodstore (class A1) up to 1,500m2 - GP’s practice (Class D1) up to 750m2 - Additional retail (Classes A1-A5) up to 200m2 - Public House (Class A4) up to 700m2 - Residential (Class C3) 12 flats Primary school (Class D1) within an area of 1.2ha including a building up to 1,600m2. First phase bus-based park and ride with an area of 3.1ha including up to 500 parking spaces and a shelter building of 140m2. Principal access from the A449 (Stafford Road). Secondary accesses from East Road, Oaks Drive and Brookhouse Lane. Roads, cycleways and footpaths. Sports facilities (4ha) including sports pitches and non-pitch sports with a pavilion of up to 520m2. Informal Open Space and Landscape Measures with an area of 38.8 ha. Safeguarded Land (for possible future prison use) 13.1 ha. Works required for the remediation of the areas of contaminated land in the site.

Summary of Recommendation: The appeal be dismissed.

1. Procedural Matters

1.1 The Inquiry sat for 10 days on 7-9, 14-17 and 21-23 August 2007. I made an accompanied visit to the appeal sites on 22 August 2007 and an accompanied visit to the alternative proposed housing site at Brookhurst Lane, Featherstone on the same day. I made unaccompanied visits to the surrounding area before and during the Inquiry. I also made unaccompanied visits to many of the other settlements within South Staffordshire; the details are set out in the list in Annex 4.

1.2 A Pre-Inquiry Meeting was held on 10 May 2007. This was conducted by another Inspector whose involvement with these appeals ceased after the circulation of the Pre- Inquiry Meeting Note1. Immediately before the Inquiry, I circulated to the main parties a note raising a number of preliminary matters and during the course of the Inquiry I also circulated 3 notes to seek clarification of various matters.2 Lists of appearances at the Inquiry and documents are in Annex 3.

1 INQ2 2 INQ3 (1-4)

Page 5 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

1.3 The appellants referred to the 3 applications as TW1, TW2 and TW3, as indicated in the headings above. These titles were increasingly used during the course of the Inquiry and occur on much of the documentation. For ease of reference I have used them in this report. In some documents and in closing submissions, TW1 is referred to as the Park and Ride (or P&R) proposal and TW2 and TW3 are referred to, both individually and together as the MDA (major development area) proposal. In this report references to the Park and Ride (or P&R) proposal include all the elements encompassed within TW1. I use the MDA abbreviation to refer to all the elements in TW2 and TW3 (housing, employment, local centre open space and so on) which are not part of TW1.

1.4 Since the appeals were lodged, Talyor Woodrow has merged with Wimpey to form a new company: Taylor Wimpey Developments Ltd. This name thus appears as the name of one of the appellants in some of the Inquiry documentation, including the Section 106 obligations (see below) and I have used it in this report.

The Planning Applications

1.5 All 3 applications were submitted in outline. TW1 and TW2 were submitted prior to the 10 August 2006 when amendments to Articles 1 and 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order came into effect.3 The statutory description of reserved matters was changed and a requirement introduced for the submission of design and access statements. In application TW1, siting and access are for consideration at this stage, with design, external appearance and landscaping as reserved matters. In application TW2, only access is for consideration at this stage, with siting, design, external appearance and landscaping as reserved matters. In application TW3 only access is for consideration at this stage with, under the new terminology, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping as reserved matters. Whether this procedural difference between TW1/TW2 and TW3 should be reflected in the wording of the normal conditions imposed on outline permission if the appeals were to be allowed is addressed in section 12.

1.6 A Design and Access Statement (February 2007) was submitted with TW3. For completeness and to assist the Secretary of State (SoS), the appellants produced at the Inquiry a combined Design and Access Statement for all 3 applications 4.

1.7 The plans of each application on which the proposals were considered at the Inquiry are set out in the schedule agreed between the Council and the appellants and reproduced as Annex 2 of this report. Prior to the appeal being lodged on TW1, an amended plan (12577-PA-003 Rev D) and an additional plan (12577/MDA/SK51) both dated August 2006 were submitted to the Council which provide further details (40mph speed limits and warning signs) in relation to the junction of the new link road with the A449. No amended plans were submitted in relation to TW2 or TW3 whilst these were before the Council. Prior to the Inquiry, the appellants submitted 12577/MDA/PA/005 Rev B dated June 2007, as an amendment to TW2 which includes the information on speed limits and warning signs along the A449 already included with TW1 and TW3. No party objected to the amendment of TW2 in this way and I consider that no party would be prejudiced by the consideration of TW2 with this additional information, since it is detail provided in response to the Highways Agency and has already been the subject of consultation via TW3. It makes the details of the new access with the A449 the same for all 3 applications.

Environmental Statements

1.8 Each application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) prepared in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, including appendices and a Non-Technical

3 Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) (England) Order 2006 4 TW12, August 2007

Page 6 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Summary.5 In relation to the ES for TW1, the South Staffordshire Council (SSDC) requested by letter dated 27 April 2006 further information on the environmental implications of the highway improvements that had been agreed with the Highway Authority6. This and other information were incorporated into an updated ES dated May 2006 replacing the original.

1.9 SSDC requested further information on TW1 and TW2 under Regulation 19 by letter dated 22nd June 2007. But as by this time the planning applications were not in the jurisdiction of the Council, the Planning Inspectorate confirmed the scope of the Regulation 19 request by letter dated 4th July 2007 (on case file). For each application, an Environmental Statement Addendum and Environmental Statement: flood risk assessment addendum, all dated July 2007 were submitted7. The availability of this additional environmental information was advertised, requiring any representations to be sent to the Planning Inspectorate by 14 August 2007 (Public Notice on case file). The only representation received was from the Environment Agency8.

1.10 At my request, the appellants provided at the Inquiry schedules listing all the mitigation measures contained within the ESs and how each proposed measure was intended to be delivered9. Each mitigation measure is ascribed to: one of the proposed conditions (from the agreed lists at SCG8 and 9), a provision in one of the submitted S106 obligations (OB1-6) or, in a few instances where neither such provisions are relevant there is a footnote (TW24D) which explains how the mitigation will otherwise be achieved. In these schedules the 7th column - Legal instrument - is the measure (planning condition or S106/s278 agreement) which the ES had identified as the means to secure implementation. In many cases, however, conditions rather than legal agreements are now proposed to achieve the specified mitigation.

1.11 I am satisfied that the statutory requirements for the provision of environmental information have been satisfied. In this report, I have taken account of the ES documents, the responses from consultees and all the other environmental information available to me as a result of the Inquiry.

Reasons for Refusal

1.12 If it had been in a position to do so, the Council would have refused applications TW1 and TW210. In summary, the reasons are.

In respect of TW1:

a) The development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and is thus harmful to the Green Belt; it would be an unnecessary visual intrusion; would be prejudicial to the openness, character and amenity of the Green Belt and thus contrary to national policy and development plan policies to protect the Green Belt. The reasons advanced in favour of the development do not constitute the necessary very special circumstances.

b) The scheme would allow a bus based park and ride facility without securing the provision of a strategic rail based facility and provision of a new station would be uncertain. Without the provision of a rail based strategic park and ride there would be no development plan support and the proposal would conflict with a range of development plan policies.

In respect of TW2:

5 CD39, 40 and 41. 6 CD39 Vol 3, part 1 App A. 7 CD75, 76, 77. 8 INQ8 9 TW24A, B, & C. 10 The Council’s reasons are set out in SCG1 pp12-14 and in the Rule 6 Statements on the case file.

Page 7 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

b) The scale and location of the proposed housing would seriously undermine the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) by attracting people and investment out of the Major Urban Areas. The scale of housing goes significantly beyond meeting local housing needs.

c) Part of the application site is allocated for employment purposes in the local plan and is within an Urban Regeneration Zone (URZ) and High Technology Corridor (HTC) identified in the RSS. The scale of housing proposed would conflict with the aim of providing employment opportunities in this area.

d) The proposals would seriously prejudice the emerging Core Strategy which will set out the Council’s policies for implementing the objectives of the RSS.

e) The proposal does not follow the sequential approach and is thus contrary to the advice in PPG3.

f) Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the strategic highway network can continue to function in a safe and efficient manner.

1.13 Application TW3 was refused planning permission by the Council11. The first 6 reasons are the same as those for TW2 summarised above. There is one further reason; in summary, this is: insufficient information has been provided on flood risk in relation to the watercourse and foul drainage so as to ensure that there would be no adverse effects.

Matters identified by the Secretary of State

1.14 By letter dated 17 January 2007 the Secretary of State identified the matters about which she wished to be informed in relation to TW2. These are:

a) the extent to which the proposed development would be in accordance with the development plan for the area;

b) the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with Government policies in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts with particular regard to:

i) whether the proposed development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt by reference to the guidance in PPG2 and any relevant development plan policies and, if it is inappropriate, whether very special circumstances exist which clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt caused by reason of its inappropriateness, and any other harm; ii) whether the proposed development would conflict with the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; iii) the extent to which the scheme would be consistent with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt; iv) whether the proposed development would harm the visual amenities of the Green Belt by reason of its siting, materials or design; v) the extent to which the proposed development might contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land in Green Belts as set out in paragraph 1.6 of PPG2;

11 The decision notice is on the TW3 case file.

Page 8 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

c) whether the proposed development is consistent with Government policy in Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing, particularly in respect of the advice on the provision of affordable housing. She also wishes to be informed about the sequential approach to residential development; whether the site is in a sustainable location; proposed housing density; whether the dwellings will help meet an identified local need and the amount of car parking proposed;

d) whether the proposed development is in accordance with policies in PPG4 Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms on encouraging new investment and enterprise, particularly those on encouraging developments in locations accessible by a range of modes of transport and which minimise the length and number of trips, especially by motor vehicle;

e) the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport, in particular on the need to locate development in a way which helps to promote more sustainable transport choices; promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling; reduce the need to travel, especially by car and whether the proposal complies with local car parking standards and the advice in paragraphs 52 to 56 of PPG13;

f) the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with advice in Planning Policy Statement 23 - Planning and Pollution Control, with particular regard to the existence or otherwise of contamination – the nature and risks which may be posed and whether such risks can be reduced to an acceptable level through remediation and mitigation;

g) whether any permission should be subject to any conditions and, if so, the form these should take;

h) whether any permission granted should be accompanied by any planning obligations under section 106 of the 1990 Act and, if so, whether the proposed terms of such obligations are acceptable; and

i) any other matters that the Inspector considers relevant.

1.15 No separate statement of matters was issued in relation to TW1 and TW3, but at the Inquiry and for the purposes of this report, the above were taken as the basis of the SoS’s interest in these other applications, so far as the points are relevant and applicable.

2. The Site and Surroundings

2.1 A description of the appeal sites and surrounding area is given in SCG1 pp6-8. In each ES (CD39, 40, 41), the Volume 2 (Figures) provides the most accessible information to set the scene on the character of the site and the surroundings. The references below are to the respective Volume 2 information. The applications site boundaries are superimposed on an aerial photograph (TW1 – Fig 1.3; TW2/3 - Figs 1.2). The main land uses within and adjoining the sites are shown on Fig 2.3 (TW1) and Figs 3.1 (TW2/3). There are photographs of the site at Fig 3.2 (TW2/3). The surrounding roads are named on Fig 7.5 (TW1) and Figs 9.4 (TW2/3). The following description applies generally to the sites of TW2 and TW3. The particular differences between these 2 applications, including the differences in extent, are explained in section 4.

2.2 The appeal sites lie broadly between the built up edge of Featherstone in the east and the A449 dual carriageway to the west. To the south is Brookhouse Lane, beyond which is the M54. To the north and north east are HM Prison Featherstone, HM Young Offenders Institute Brinsford and an enclave of housing either side of East Road. The prison and institute are enclosed by high fences.

Page 9 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

2.3 Both TW2 and TW3 are centred on the BAE Systems site, which is part of a former Royal Ordnance Factory (ROF). This site became non operational in 2004. The former ROF land retains many of it original structures and buildings, internal roads and blast protection mounds. In the western half of the BAE Systems site, the buildings are predominantly single storey, but in the eastern part many buildings are the equivalent of 2 storeys in height or more. Many of the buildings have a derelict appearance. The former ROF extended to the east of the BAE Systems site. In this area, there are further substantial buildings as well as extensive open land. Two parts of the former ROF are not within the application sites. These are occupied by the Sandvik factory and the Goods Vehicle Testing Station (GVTS), both of which contain substantial commercial/industrial buildings. The buildings, structures and roads shown on the OS base used in all the Volume 2 plans referred to above are a reasonable indication of the extent of built development on the former ROF site.

2.4 The site of the former Brinsford Lodge adjoins Featherstone to the east of the former ROF. The facility provided accommodation for workers at the ROF, but the main structures have now been demolished and the site is largely cleared. However, the site retains extensive hard surfaced areas from the former roads/paths and foundations and there are a few low, above-ground structures. To the south of Brinsford Lodge and immediately west of Brinsford Lane is agricultural land used for grazing and crops.

2.5 The western extent of the former ROF is generally defined by Cat and Kittens Lane and Paradise Lane. To the west of these is a narrow band of agricultural land alongside part of the West Coast Main Line (WCML) railway. This land is divided by hedgerows with some groups of mature trees. This section of the WCML is twin-tracked and runs on a north-south alignment on a low embankment. Between the WCML and Paradise Lane/Cat and Kittens Lane there is a high voltage electricity line with tall pylons.

2.6 Between the WCML and the A449 is further agricultural land, with field boundaries marked by hedgerows, including some mature trees. The agricultural land is used for grazing. There are a few dwellings and other buildings along Brinsford Lane. There are several groups of buildings along the A449. Directly opposite the proposed junction/new access road is a terrace of houses known as New Buildings. These front a footway alongside a lay-by (which is not separated from the running carriageway). On the eastern side of the A449, closer to the M54 there is a ribbon of residential development.

2.7 The application site for TW1 excludes the eastern third of the area of TW2/3. It includes the BAE Systems’ site because the application includes the remediation of this land and the use of material from the earth bunds for new earthworks.

2.8 Featherstone is primarily a residential settlement, but contains some local facilities and services. Whitgreave County Primary School is located on The Avenue. Other facilities are also concentrated on The Avenue and around its junction with the A460, including a general store, post office, take-away food shop, off-licence, pharmacy, hair salon and Methodist Church. A community hall is located on Banebury Drive (the Inquiry venue) with a multi-use games area (MUGA) and junior football pitch alongside. In the north east corner of the settlement, alongside the A460, is a petrol station, public house, restaurant and some small-scale businesses.

2.9 To the south of the M54 there is some open agricultural land before the built-up edge of Wolverhampton, but there is development close to the motorway junctions. To the south west of junction 1 is the Hilton Cross Business Park which has buildings under construction. On the opposite side of the A460 is the site of the former Hilton Main colliery, which currently provides roadside services for good vehicles. To the south east of junction 2 is the Wolverhampton Business Park which has buildings both occupied and under construction. On the opposite side of the A449 is an established employment area. To the west of this area, lying between Wobaston Road and the M54 is a large future employment site known as i54.

Page 10 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

3. Planning Policy

3.1 A summary of the relevant development plan policies is set out in the Statement of Common Ground (SCG) between the appellants and the District Council (SCG1).

The Development Plan

3.2 The development plan comprises:

a) West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (formerly RPG11), June 200412;

b) Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan (SP), February 2002 (saved to September 2007)13; and

c) South Staffordshire Local Plan (LP), December 1996 (saved to September 2007)14.

3.3 The Regional Planning Guidance for the West Midlands (RPG11) was published in June 2004 and covers the period 2001-2021. It became the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) in September 2004. It is the most up-to-date of the development plan documents and is therefore pre-eminent. The Structure Plan predates the existing RSS and was prepared in the context of the former RPG11, which was published in April 1998. The SP provides policy for the period 1996-2011. The LP was prepared in the context of the earlier Structure Plan, which provided policy for the period 1986 to 2001 and is superseded by the present Structure Plan.

3.4 The RSS identifies 4 major challenges facing the region15: urban renaissance, rural renaissance, diversifying and modernising the Region’s economy and modernising the transport infrastructure of the West Midlands. It makes clear that these need to be addressed simultaneously and as different aspects of the same issues. Ten objectives for the spatial strategy are listed16. The first 8 are relevant to the present appeals. These are:

a) to make the Major Urban Areas (MUA) increasingly attractive places where people want to live, work and invest;

b) to secure the regeneration of the rural areas;

c) to create a joined-up multi-centred Regional Structure where all areas/centres have a role to play;

d) to retain the Green Belt, but to allow an adjustment of boundaries where this is necessary to support urban regeneration;

e) to support the cities and towns of the Region to meet their local and sub regional development needs;

f) to support the diversification and modernisation of the Region’s economy while ensuring that opportunities for growth are linked to meeting needs and reducing social exclusion;

g) to ensure the quality of the environment is conserved and enhanced;

h) to improve significantly the Region’s transport systems.

12 CD4 13 CD5 14 CD6 15 CD4 ¶ 3.4 16 CD4 ¶3.14

Page 11 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

3.5 RSS Policy CF3 and Table 117 sets out the annual average rate of housing provision for the strategic authorities in 3 phases: to 2007, 2007-2011 and 2011-2021. Outside the MUAs, such as in Staffordshire, the housing provision figures are to be applied as maxima whereas within the MUAs they are minima. Outside the MUAs, progressively lower levels of housing growth are proposed so that ultimately they meet only local needs and do not provide for continued out-migration from the MUAs. The RSS does not apportion housing provision to district level. In approving the RSS, the Minister indicated that local authorities should work on the basis of the current SP proportions (derived from SP policy H1)18. On this basis, the maximum level of housing to be provided in South Staffordshire District between 2001 and 2021 is 5,122 dwellings and the annualised rates are: to 2007 (342 dwellings per annum); 2007-2011 (295 dpa); 2011-2021 (189 dpa).19

3.6 The appeal sites are close to, but outside the identified MUA. Policy CF3C states that locations which extend the boundaries of the MUAs will not be acceptable as they would run counter to the approach taken throughout the RSS. Housing within the MUAs is subject to Policy CF1 and housing outside the MUAs is subject to policy CF2. Policy CF5 concerns the delivery of affordable housing and the creation of mixed communities. No specific proportion for the provision of affordable housing is identified.

3.7 The RSS Spatial Strategy Diagram20 shows the general location of the appeal sites as subject to 2 policy designations: URZ and part Green Belt. The application sites are within the North Black Country and South Staffordshire Regeneration Zone identified in Policy PA2. The RSS does not show on a plan the geographical extent of the High Technology Corridor HTC which is the subject of Policy PA3. The West Midlands Regional Assembly (WMRA) and Advantage West Midlands (AWM) confirm in consultation responses to the planning applications21 that the sites are within the Wolverhampton to Telford HTC.

3.8 Policy PA622 promotes the provision of a range and choice of readily available employment sites to meet the needs of the Regional economy. This portfolio is intended to include sites in a hierarchy including Regional Investment Sites (RIS), the subject of policy PA7; Major Investment Sites (MIS), PA8; and Regional Logistics Sites (RLS), PA9; as well as a range of other types of site. AWM is one of the agencies referred to in the policy as assisting in the purposes of site identification. Policy PA8 refers to the site at Wobaston Road, Wolverhampton (referred elsewhere in this report as the i54 site) as a MIS, which has already been identified in Development Plans

3.9 There is a suite of environmental policies in the RSS23. Policy QE1 seeks generally to conserve and enhance the environment. Policy QE2 concerns restoring degraded areas and the management and creation of high quality environments. Policy QE6 concerns the conservation enhancement and restoration of the Region’s landscape and QE7 the protection management and enhancement of the Region’s biodiversity and nature conservation resources. Brinsford is also the subject of location-specific policy in relation to the proposal for a Strategic Park and Ride (Policies T6 and T12).

3.10 SP Policy H124 sets out the housing allocations to the District and Boroughs for the period 1996-2011. The policy also specifies a maximum allocation of 1,000 dwellings between Great Wyrley/Cheslyn Hay and/or further possible development around the new railway station at Brinsford, including land at the former Featherstone Ordnance Depot, subject to a commitment to the provision of the railway station having first been secured.

17 CD4 pp36 & 37 18 Letter from Rt Hon Keith Hill 15 June 2004 – SSDC/AJ2 App3 p27 & TWD/RS/B/2 App 10 19 Based on the appellants’ figures at the beginning of TW13 (no material difference to the Council’s figures at the beginning of SSDC/AJ/4 App23). 20 CD4 p17 21 WMRA letters at SSDC/AJ/3 App15; AWM letters at TWD/RS/B/2 App 8 22 CD4 p51 23 CD4 Ch 8 24 CD5 pp61-62

Page 12 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

3.11 SP policy D5A25 indicates that local plans will maintain the general form and purposes of the Green Belt and that boundaries will be redefined only in exceptional circumstances. Policy NC2 concerns landscape protection and enhancement; policy NC5 concerns biodiversity; and policy NC8 development affecting the habitats of protected species26. Policy T8A27 supports and encourages improvements to the strategic and local rail network. Reference is made to the new rail station at Brinsford in Policy T8B and it is included as a priority scheme in T15B28.

3.12 The LP specifically addresses the ROF site29. As shown on Inset Plan 16, 38ha of land at the ROF are excluded from the Green Belt (this excluded area encompasses the Sandvik site and the GVTS). Policy E4 applies to this non Green Belt land and requires: 10ha of forest planting, new development not to exceed 14ha net (excluding Sandvik, the GVTS and the 6.5ha required by Royal Ordnance to consolidate their business). Policy E3 confirms that the ROF is one of 2 locations allocated for general employment development. The surrounding land, and thus all the remainder of the appeals sites are in the Green Belt and subject to Green Belt policies GB130. All of the appeals sites and wider area are within a Landscape Improvement Area subject to Policies LS9 and LS10. Policy H6 encourages the provision of affordable housing, but no specific numerical target or proportion of overall housing provision is indicated in the plan.

3.13 In accordance with the transitional arrangements in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 the SP and LP presently have the status of ‘saved’ documents. This status will expire on 28 September 2007, unless provision is made to save specific policies. The policies the County Council seeks to save from the SP are set out in a schedule of policies attached to a letter to the WMRA dated 12 February 200731. Policy H1 is not included in the list and SSDC and the WMRA agree that it should not be saved. But a developer has requested it be saved32. The SCG33 notes that policy H1 is unlikely to be saved. SSDC is proposing that a number of the policies from the LP should be saved; these are set out in a schedule attached to a letter to GOWM dated 20 March 200734. The outcome of this process was still awaited at the close of the Inquiry and I have not had regard to any announcements of saved policies in completing this report.

3.14 SSDC has published: Interim Advice to Landowners/Developers on Implementation of Affordable Housing Policy March 2006.35 This was intended to be interim advice pending the publication of a Supplementary Planning Document, but it remains the only policy advice on this topic published by the Council. The advice indicates that the Council will be seeking at least 30% provision on qualifying sites.36

Emerging Development Plan documents

3.15 The RSS is currently undergoing a series of partial revisions. The West Midlands Draft Phase One Revision is a partial revision of the existing RSS and is concerned solely with the strategy for the Black Country sub-region. RSS1 was the subject of an EiP in January 2007. The Panel Report was issued in March 2007 and is now with the SoS.

25 CD5 p40 26 CD5 pp99-105 27 CD5 p85 28 CD5 p91 29 CD6 ¶4.47-4.51 30 CD6 ¶2.5 31 SSDC/AJ/3 App 10 and TWD/RS/B/2 App5 32 Related correspondence with GOWM - SSDC/AJ/3 App 13 33 SCG1 ¶2.44 34 SSDC/AJ/5 App 28 35 CD20. 36 CD20 ¶8.2

Page 13 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

3.16 The RSS Phase 2 Revision Spatial Options37 was published in January 2007 for the first stage of public consultation. The published timetable for progression of this revision indicates a submission to the SoS in December 2007, an EIP in mid 2008 and adoption in early 2009. This review is considering housing, employment, transport and waste.

3.17 It sets out 3 spatial options for housing in the region to 202638. Option 1 rolls forward the housing levels in the current RSS; Option 2 increases housing provision by 25% over existing RSS levels and Option 3 by 51% and is the level required to meet the Government’s 2003-based household projections. Under each of the spatial options the level of housing provision for South Staffordshire is the same at 5000 dwellings for the period 2001-2026 (gross). This equates to an annual rate of provision of 200 dwellings, if distributed evenly over the plan period.

3.18 In relation to employment land provision, RRS2 suggests a minimum 5 year rolling reservoir approach of readily available land based on past trends. Table 339 sets out by district past completion information based on the annual Regional Employment Land Study (RELS), indicative readily available 5 year reservoir figures, indicative longer term requirements and 2005 total supply. For South Staffordshire, the indicative readily available 5 year supply is in the range 16-18ha; the indicative longer term requirement is 80-90ha and the 2005 total supply of employment land is 127ha. A note indicates that the analysis in the table excludes completions on regionally significant sites.

3.19 SSDC is at an early stage in the production of a Core Strategy. The Council’s current timetable is for Preferred Options to be published in October 2007, submission to the Secretary of State in July 2008, with adoption in September 2009. The Council is also intending to produce a site allocations DPD with preferred options published in November 2008, submission in August 2009 and adoption in October 201040. As a first step in the identification of its preferred options for the Core Strategy, the Council approved on 24 April 2007 a preferred spatial option, namely: the geographic spread of new housing development but within the context of a South Staffordshire Hierarchy of Settlements that determines the appropriate eve of new housing within existing villages.41

Abandoned Local Plan

3.20 In November 2003, SSDC published the deposit version of the South Staffordshire Local Plan42 which was intended to guide development to 2011 in the context of the then Structure Plan (subsequently superseded). Policy H1 (p49) sets out housing allocations. Among these is a mixed use development of 1,000 dwellings at Brinsford/Featherstone43. Inset Map 47 shows the whole of the former ROF as excluded from the Green Belt along with the two prisons and the small cluster of housing to the north east.

3.21 Following the publication of the current RSS, marking a significant change in direction for spatial planning in the region, and given the consequences of the 2004 Act, the Council decided to abandon this local plan in March 2005. No party at the Inquiry suggests that this abandoned deposit local plan should carry any policy weight, but as set out in reported cases, the appellants draw support from the background work underpinning this plan, which concluded that 1,000 houses should be built at the ROF site.

Other policy and background documents

3.22 In addition to the above planning policy documents, there are a number of other documents and studies of relevance to the appeal proposals, particularly relating to the

37 CD8 38 CD8 Table 1 p 24 39 CD8 p38 40 Timetable at SSDC7 which updates the timetable at SSDC/AJ/1 p19 and ¶5.15. 41 SSDC/AJ/2 App3 - Council minute pp5-6 and related report pp 10-25. 42 CD7 43 CD7 Described on p53 of the plan.

Page 14 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 proposed railway station and park and ride. A strategic park and ride site on this part of the WCML and specifically at Brinsford has been identified in a number of studies, reports and Local Transport Plans (LTP) over the past 10 years. In summary these are:

a) Motorway Park and Ride Scoping Study Centro September 199844. The study undertook a broad appraisal of 21 sites as potential park and ride locations. The sites were selected for their potential to serve strategic traffic movements, off the motorway and primary route network. These schemes ranged from existing train stations to new sites identified as potential ‘strategic’ schemes close to the motorway network. Brinsford was identified as one of the top five sites that were recommended for priority study and development in the short term with a view to implementation in 3 to 5 years.

b) The West Midlands Multi Modal Study GOWM October 200145. The purpose of the Study was to establish a 30 year framework that would provide an integrated transport system covering all modes. The proposed Modal Measures include the implementation of Strategic Park and Ride sites. Brinsford is included in a list of 11 such recommended sites. It is identified as achieving the second highest level of morning peak hour maximum passenger demand (up to 650 passengers). The Study states that the level of projected use provides an indication of the priority order for implementation. A parking requirement of some 1,500 spaces is suggested for the largest sites.

c) West Midlands Park & Ride Strategy Phase 2 Final Report September 200346. This Report followed the publication of a Phase 1 report in July 2002. The number of sites studied in the first report were reduced and studied in further detail in Phase 2. Brinsford is considered the best option in Sector 7 (North West) serving Wolverhampton and Birmingham. Overall, it was given a medium priority.

d) The Staffordshire Local Transport Plans. LTP 200047 identified the potential for a new railway station and park and ride facility at Brinsford as a medium term initiative. The current LTP, March 200648 identifies Brinsford Strategic Park and Ride as a major scheme. It envisages provision of a new station, 1,500 parking spaces, frequent bus services to the i54 business park, Wolverhampton City Centre and Featherstone, and new highway access. The cost is estimated at £40m. It was expected that a submission for funding would be made in 2006.

e) The West Midlands Local Transport Plans. LTP 200049 included Strategic Park and Ride at Brinsford in its list of major schemes and this project was continued in the LTP 2003. The current LTP, March 200650 continues to highlight the role of Strategic Park and Ride and expresses continued support for Staffordshire’s proposal to develop major park and ride facilities at Brinsford.

f) West Midlands Regional Transport Prioritisation Framework November 2005.51 The purpose of this study was to develop a framework to aid the prioritisation of proposed transport schemes within the Region. The results indicate that the Brinsford strategic P&R scheme: is of Regional and sub-regional significance; would make a significant contribution to economic and social objectives; would make a limited contribution to spatial planning, housing and environmental objectives; and would make a significant overall contribution to objectives.

44 CD42 see p64 45 CD45 see p73 46 CD55 see p5-62 and Table 4.5, p4-52. 47 CD44A, B, C, D; see 44B p64. 48 CD47A, B, C see pp 186 & 188. 49 CD43A see Table 8 p59. 50 CD43C & D see 43C pp35-36 & 152. 51 CD56

Page 15 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Within the 6 point banding adopted in the Study, Brinsford is provisionally within Band 3. Bands 1-3 are the highest bands, representing just under 50% of all the projects evaluated.52

3.23 The Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan indicates (policies AM1, AM3 and AM11)53 that strategic park and ride sites should be located near the main radial routes into Wolverhampton, allow easy access to the rail network and be located on the periphery of the urban area. It notes that Regional studies have identified Brinsford as a site that would meet these criteria.

National policy

3.24 At the Inquiry, most attention was given to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3 Housing and Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 2 Green Belts. PPG13 Transport is also particularly relevant because Annex E adds to the advice in PPG2 (new ¶3.17) to make clear that park and ride development is not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided that 5 criteria are met. A wide range of national policy guidance is relevant to these appeals, including: PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, PPS23 Annex 2 Development on Land Affected by Contamination, PPS25 Development and Flood Risk; PPG4 Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms, , ODPM Circular 06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System, DOE Circular 11/95 The use of Condition in Planning Permissions.

4. The Proposals

4.1 The application details in the respective descriptions of development at the beginning of this report set out the range and scale of the important elements of each application. A slightly fuller description is given in SCG1 pp8-11. Outline development plans for TW2 and TW3 showing the disposition of the main land uses are included in the application plans. They are also reproduced in the combined Design and Access statement54 which enables a ready comparison to be made. This section of the report is not intended as a full description of the proposals, but highlights matters which may not be readily apparent from the submitted planning application material and matters which will be referred to in the reporting of the cases.

4.2 All 3 applications propose the same main access, with a new road crossing the WCML on a bridge supported on embankments. This new road would have new signalled controlled junctions with the A449 and with the realigned section of Cat and kittens Lane (realigned to the east into part of the former ROF). The existing junction of Brinsford Lane with the A449 would be closed to vehicles, as would the bridge under the WCML. Access to the western section of Brinsford Lane would be via a spur from the main new access road. Along the eastern side of the MDA, TW2 and TW3 propose the closure to vehicles of a section of East Road and the reconfiguration of existing junctions along Brookhouse Lane/East Road to accommodate the new roads serving the development, the details of which are included on the application plans.

4.3 Both TW2 and TW3 include the layout of 500 parking spaces for a bus-based park and ride facility, but not the station or any works to the railway line. The layout for these 500 spaces is part of the overall 1,500 parking spaces proposed in TW1. The latter also includes the new station, platforms and the necessary new lengths of track. This section of the WCML has one line in each direction. To ensure that fast through trains would not be delayed by trains stopping at the new station, new parallel tracks are proposed in each direction with crossovers, enabling trains to manoeuvre between lines. The new platforms would be located centrally between the two inner slow lines.

52 CD56 Revised Summary and Scheme Banding p4. Reproduced at TWD/BB/2 App L. 53 No Core Document, but see WCC/BS/1 ¶5.3. 54 TW12

Page 16 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

4.4 The main land uses in TW2 and TW3 are located either side of a new east-west spine road which would link the realigned Cat and Kittens Lane with the edge of Featherstone at the Brookhouse Lane/East Road junction. The proposed employment area forms the southern part of the development, close to Brookhouse Lane (in TW3 there is also an employment site alongside Cat and Kittens Lane and the new spine road). The proposed district centre is towards the eastern side of the MDA, close to the edge of Featherstone. A wide band of informal park land and open space would be created either side of the Featherstone brook, which runs roughly east-west across the site. Permanent ponds, with additional flood storage capacity would be created adjoining Cat and Kittens Lane and on either side of the new Link Road.

4.5 The outline development plans for TW2 and TW3 show 2 areas annotated as safeguarded for future prison use. The applications do not propose any prison development, but the layouts seek to accommodate such a possibility. The redevelopment of this land for a prison would require a new access road to Sandvik from the realigned Cat and Kittens Lane. This is shown on the application masterplans. No formal proposals have been made for a new prison in this location, but at the Inquiry it was generally accepted by the parties that such a proposal is likely to be made by the relevant authorities. The largest safeguarded area is to the south of HMP Featherstone and extends to about 10.5 ha. This land was purchased by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) in March 2007. As part of the purchase arrangement, BAE Systems is required to remediate the land suitable for residential use55. The smaller area indicated for future prison use (to the east of HMP Featherstone) has been owned by the prison estate for some time.

4.6 TW3 differs from TW2 in the following respects:

a) the overall application site is reduced from 98.9ha to 95.3ha;

b) the area of residential development is reduced from 24.1ha to 18.7ha;

c) the number of dwellings is reduced from 1,000 dwellings to 870 dwellings with an increase in residential density from 41.5 dwellings per hectare (dph) to 46.5 dph;

d) agricultural land in the south east corner of TW2 alongside Brookhouse Lane is removed from the application site; as a consequence, the proposed playing fields are relocated to land adjoining the eastern boundary of HMP Featherstone;

e) the access to the proposed employment land from Brookhouse Lane is removed and this land is now to be served by a direct access from the main spine road;

f) the application boundary to the north of the proposed park and ride has been extended to include additional land for temporary soil storage; and

g) the proposed school is relocated and the size of the school building adjusted.

4.7 Both TW2 and TW3 propose a new primary school and a health centre. Both these facilities are included in the description of development and the location of the school building is shown on the masterplans. However, as a result of the negotiations between the appellants and Staffordshire Education Authority (see section 5 below), if the appeals were to be allowed, it is most likely that the existing primary school within Featherstone would be enlarged. The appellants would make the proposed school site available to the education authority; if not require for that purpose the land would become open space56. The proposed local centre would include land for a health centre which would be made available to the Primary Care Trust (PCT), but the health centre would be built only if the PCT wanted to pursue this option. Thus whilst the appeal applications encompass these facilities, they may not be required and they may not be built.

55 SSDC8 56 Mr Shaw, oral evidence.

Page 17 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

5. Agreed Facts

5.1 There are a number of important procedural, policy and background facts agreed between the appellants and the SSDC and some matters also agreed between the appellants and Wolverhampton City Council (WCC) and Persimmon Homes (PH). Most of these are covered by the various Statements of Common Ground (SCG 1-7), but not all such matters. Whilst the 3 main SCGs (SCG1-3) were finally agreed during the Inquiry, much of their content was drafted well before the Inquiry and does not reflect all the matters on which agreement was accepted at the Inquiry.

The need for a comprehensive approach to TW1 and TW2/TW3

5.2 Immediately prior to the Inquiry57, the appellants indicated that they would accept a condition to ensure that the MDA proposals (TW2 and TW3) could not commence unless there was a commitment in place to build the new railway station and P & R, thus ensuring that there was comprehensive delivery of all the proposals. This was reiterated at the opening of the Inquiry, with a possible Grampian type condition being put forward by the appellants58. SSDC endorsed this linking of the applications and considers that they should only be dealt with on a comprehensive basis, with the consequence that TW1 and TW2/3 should either all be approved or all be dismissed59 At the end of the Inquiry, WCC also endorsed the need for unified decisions on the applications60, because the mitigation measures negotiated as part of the S106 obligation are based on the operation of the combined development, not the constituent parts.

5.3 The wording and suitability of a possible condition to ensure a comprehensive approach is discussed in section 12 (including WCC’s and PH’s concerns at the effectiveness of the suggested wording). As a result of the agreement between the appellants and SSDC that the proposals should be dealt with only comprehensively, the evidence at Inquiry proceeded on this basis. Provided that the Grampian condition was effective, this comprehensive approach means that one element of the SSDC’s and WCC’s concerns with TW2 and TW3 - that the park and ride facility might be a bus only facility indefinitely - should not arise. The effectiveness, viability and policy compliance of a bus only park and ride were not explored at the Inquiry.

Land areas

5.4 In applying relevant development plan policies and national advice it is useful to summarise the extent of the Green Belt and of previously development land (PDL) making up the appeal sites. Various areas agreed between the appellants and SSDC are set out in a table in the SCG61 which is reproduced below. The extent of the areas for each of the applications is shown on plans TW16A, B and C which are also agreed. No party at the Inquiry disputed these figures.

5.5 In broad terms, about one third of the area of TW2 and TW3 is non Green Belt, and that land is also PDL (33.8ha); one third is Green Belt which is also PDL (30.2 ha) and one third is Green Belt which is also greenfield land (area varies between the 2 applications). TW3 encompasses about 3.5ha less Green Belt which is greenfield land than TW2 and slightly more of this is returned to agricultural after the development is complete. Thus the permanent utilisation of Green Belt which is greenfield (including for structural landscaping and water areas) amounts to about 31.3 ha in TW2, but 23.3ha in TW3.

57 see TWD/RS/B/1A ¶8.1 58 Document TW1 59 Council’s explanatory note at SSDC4. 60 WCC4 ¶2 61 SCG1 p8 Table 1

Page 18 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Area Description TW2 (ha) TW3 (ha)

Site Area 98.9 95.3 Previously Developed Land (PDL) 64.0 64.0 Non Green Belt 33.8 33.8 Green Belt 65.0 61.5 Green Belt that is PDL 30.2 30.2 Green Belt that is greenfield 34.8 31.3 Green Belt that is P&R 25.4 29.8 Green Belt/greenfield that is P&R 23.7 28.1 Green Belt that is not P&R 39.6 31.7

5.6 The appellants have also set out the extent of various land uses within the Green Belt.62 These figures are not disputed. Most of the proposed employment area and the majority of the proposed housing are on non Green Belt land. Apart from 12 flats within the proposed local centre, all the rest of the housing is on previously developed land (PDL) in the Green Belt. TW2 has a larger area of housing (13.5ha) on this Green Belt which is PDL than TW3 (9.2ha). In TW2 the main buildings proposed on Green Belt which is greenfield are the school, recreation pavilion and local centre and related facilities. In TW3 the school and recreation pavilion are relocated to Green Belt land which is PDL, leaving only the local centre on Green Belt greenfield land (using only about 1ha of such land).

The new station and park and ride facility

5.7 WCC considers that, in isolation, TW1 is acceptable in principle (but for the reason given above, should be considered only on a comprehensive basis with TW2/3). By the close of the Inquiry, part of the SSDC’s case was that there would be good prospects for the new station and P&R coming forward in the absence of the TW2/TW3 MDA proposals and no objection to the principle of such a proposal was identified by SSDC to such a proposition. SCG1 (p32) notes that, in the context of landscape, the location of the P&R facility is acceptable in principle. At the Inquiry, neither SSDC, WCC, nor PH suggested that there is any preferable/less harmful alternative to the general location, design, size, layout and access for the new station, related parking and access.

5.8 There is no explicit agreement between the appellants and the other main parties about the costs of implementing the proposed new station and park and Ride, but the extent of disagreement is limited and it is useful to set out the various costs and the appellants’ contribution in advance of the cases for the parties.

5.9 The cost of constructing the station/P&R, operating costs and funding arrangements are set out in the appellants’ Webtag and Commercial Business cases63. The total cost of the station, associated track, signalling and electrification is £23,170,188 and the provision of a 1,500 space car park is costed at £6,345,812, giving a total cost of £29,516,000. The land would be provided free by the appellants. For the business case, 10% is added for contingencies and for the Webtag case an optimism bias64 of 18% is applied to capital costs, giving a total cost under that assessment of £34,828,88065. In addition to these costs, is the cost of the new access from the A449 over the WCML to the realigned Cat and Kittens Lane (£11m), which would be funded by the appellants.

62 TWD/RS/B/1¶7.44 Table 12; TW17. 63 CD37 & CD38, Business case summary CD36. 64 Optimism bias is explained in the Appendix to SCG6. 65 CD38 ¶4.1 and CD 37 ¶3.1 and Table 3.

Page 19 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

5.10 The Webtag and Business cases also assess operating costs, revenues and thus, respectively, the resulting value for money (Webtag) and viability for Network Rail to raise the necessary capital in the market (commercial case). In summary, the appellants believe that the commercial case is sufficiently strong to enable Network Rail to borrow money to fund the development (taking into account the appellants’ contributions) or, if any element of public funding was subsequently found to be necessary, it would be small and fully justified because of the scheme’s high value for money and resulting Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR)66. The appellants’ discussions with Network Rail are reflected in a draft Heads of Terms67. The appellants’ financial contribution to the realisation of the new station and P&R totals £14m (excluding the value/cost of the free land) and includes: £1m for design work for the station; £11m for the bridge and link road; £1.2m for the construction of the first phase of the parking (500 spaces); and £0.8m balance on the completion of the station68.

5.11 At the Inquiry, neither SSDC nor WCC provided any different evidence on, or sought to challenge the appellants' assessment of, the costs set out above. The extent of the agreement/disagreement between the appellants and PH is set out in SCG between these parties. PH considers that an optimism bias of 50% should be applied compared with the appellants' use of 18%. The appellants and PH agree that the project is currently at GRIP Stage 2/3 (pre-feasibility/option selection) and that it is likely that GRIP stage 4 (single option selection) will need to be reached to provide sufficient certainty for the Development Agreement to be signed.69 PH consider that the earliest date for signing a development agreement to build the station would be late 2009, whereas the appellants consider that it can be signed by mid 200870. But it is agreed that the assessment of the scheme is complex and as a consequence forecasting the programme for delivering the development agreement cannot be precise.

Highways

5.12 SCG2 (for TW1) and SCG3 (for TW2 and 3) set out matters agreed between the appellants and Staffordshire County Council as Highway Authority and the Highways Agency. These statements were drafted prior to the agreement at the Inquiry that the applications should be considered on a comprehensive and unified basis. In short, there is no dispute between these 3 parties as to the basis for the assessment of traffic impacts and of the highway measures necessary to satisfactorily accommodate the developments. The necessary measures are addressed by way of obligations and conditions (see section 1 and 12 of this report). Subject to further consideration of the details, there is no objection from the Highways Agency to the design of the new junction with the A449 which would provide the primary access to the proposed developments.

5.13 The appellants have agreed with WCC to contribute £511,718 for traffic calming measures on suburban roads within the City close to the appeal sites (Northycote Lane and Bushbury Lane) which would be used by traffic from the developments. This is agreed to be sufficient for works to mitigate the effects of development traffic along these routes, subject to the rail based P&R being delivered in a timely manner71. This funding is secured by the Section 106 obligations in favour of the City Council72. The appellants and WCC have also agreed that the City Council should have a direct involvement in the Transport Steering group that the appellants intend to establish. This is important to the City Council, particularly to ensure a review of the transport strategy in the light of any unforeseen

66 The appellants’ position on funding is explained in TWD/DB/1 section 5 and TWD/DB/4 section 2. 67 TWD.DB/4 App 2. 68 TWD.DB/4 App 2 section 3. The construction of the Phase 1 car park and the contribution of £0.8m are specified in Schedule 2 of Planning Obligations OB2 and OB5. 69 SCG6 ¶3.3. GRIP is the Guide to Railway Investment Projects, summarised in the Annex to SCG6. 70 SCG6 ¶s 3.11 and 3.13 71 SCG4 ¶3.2 72 OB3/OB6

Page 20 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 circumstances, such as a delay in the provision of the rail based park and ride facility after the MDA has commenced73.

Provision for Education and Library services

5.14 There is agreement between Staffordshire County Council as the education authority and the appellants that £2,955,802 (TW2) and £2,571,548 (TW3) are the necessary and acceptable contributions for the provision of additional educational facilities to meet the needs arising from either of the MDA proposals74. This funding is provided for in the relevant S106 obligations75. The additional accommodation needed for the primary and secondary school pupils likely to arise and the reasons for preferring the enlargement of the existing primary school in Featherstone, rather than a separate new school on the appeal sites, are set out in the pre-Inquiry evidence of the parties76. The issue in dispute prior to the Inquiry (the adequacy of the recreational space available for the enlarged school) has been resolved.

5.15 The pre-Inquiry evidence of the County Council seeks £45,000 from the appellants as a necessary contribution to the establishment and delivery of travelling library provision and the purchase of additional book stock.77 Obligations OB2 and OB5 provide for this sum to be payable to the County Council towards the enhancement of library and information services for the development and the surrounding area. The County Council did not call any evidence at the Inquiry or make any submissions, other than in support of SCG7.

Other agreed matters

5.16 Subject to the imposition of conditions, SSDC raises no concerns in relation to ecology, air quality, noise, land contamination or flooding; the above matters are addressed in SCG1. This is consistent with the advice received from the relevant statutory consultees – Natural England and the Environment Agency. The latter’s letter of 2 July 2007 (INQ7) confirms the removal of its objection to TW3, subject to conditions. But concerns on some of these matters are raised by third parties (see section 10 of this report).

5.17 In relation to ecology and the considerations applicable to Great Crested Newts, a protected species, the SSDC did not pursue at the Inquiry the concern previously raised about the inadequate consideration of alternative sites and layouts78. In relation to air quality, the ESs refer to the declared Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) along Cannock Road (A460), Featherstone79. It is relevant to note the findings in the report published by SSDC for consultation in April 2007 Further Assessment of Air Quality.80 This report recommends that the AQMA at Featherstone be revoked and the site no longer be included in the Council’s Air Quality Action Plan because the monitored annual mean nitrogen dioxide levels are well below the objective level. At the close of the Inquiry, SSDC had not yet taken a decision on this recommendation.

5.18 Whether there is a 5 year land supply available in South Staffordshire is one of the main matters in dispute between the parties, however, some background figures are agreed between the appellants and SSDC.81 The relevant base date is 2001. The 5 year period for which the land supply needs to be calculated is April 2007 – March 2012. Gross completions 2001-2007 are 1,514. At 31 March 2007, there were 472 dwellings under construction and 380 dwellings not started, but on sites which have commenced. It is agreed that all these dwellings will be completed in the 5 year period. Of the 642 dwellings

73 SCG4 ¶3.11 74 SCG7 75 OB1 and OB4 76 SCC1 and TWD/SC/1-4 77 SCC/HJ/1 78 SCG1 p25 and SSDC/JB/7 ¶4.7 79 CD39 Main report, vol 1 ¶11.3.7 & CD41 Main report, vol 1 ¶10.2.7 80 SSDC 10 and see p30 ¶15.7.1. 81 SCG1 ¶2.56-2.65.

Page 21 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 on sites not started, the Council consider that a discount rate of 17% should be applied (giving a contribution from this source of 530 dwellings). This is based on the lapse rate in the district for the period 2001-2006.82 The appellants consider that the lapse should be 33% (giving a contribution of 430 dwellings). This is based on the lapse rate in the district over the past 10 years.83 This was the lapse rate preferred by the Inspector in reporting on an appeal decision at Landywood Lane, Cheslyn Hay in 2006.84

6. The Case for South Staffordshire Council

I give here the gist of the District Council’s case edited from the closing submissions (SSDC19) with additional material drawn from the evidence.

Overview – the applications

6.1 There are 3 separate applications and they require, as a matter of procedure, 3 separate decisions. However, all parties agree that the intellectual process underlying those decisions should, at all stages, regard the P&R and MDA proposals as a single entity. It is not appropriate to disaggregate the applications, or internal parts of either application, with a view to making different decisions on each. The Grampian condition85 links the 2 applications.

6.2 It is not therefore either necessary or appropriate to sub-divide the applications, or different parts of each application, when assessing the impact of the whole comprehensive package on the Green Belt or Regional Policy.

6.3 It is appropriate to sound a note of caution as to the appellants’ approach. Sometimes they are keen proponents of the unified approach, such as when linking the benefits of the P&R to their very special circumstances case. But sometimes they are keen to imply that the SoS should adopt a separate analysis for each application, such as when considering whether the P&R application is appropriate development in the Green Belt. In order for a decision to be rational, and therefore lawful, it must be logical and consistent in its approach. The P&R and MDA applications should be treated as a single entity for all purposes.

6.4 The two MDA applications are indistinguishable for decision making purposes. The decision will turn on whether a major non-conforming development in the Green Belt is permissible having regard to the range of factors relied upon by the appellants looked at in the context of RSS. Within this framework the two MDA applications are either acceptable or not acceptable. The fact that the site area of one is 95 hectares and the other is 98 hectares cannot justify separate decisions in this context.

Overview – very special circumstances

6.5 It is possible, as a matter of law, to present a very special circumstances case which relies on the accumulated force of a number of matters none of which, by itself, is capable of amounting to very special circumstances, but when looked at, in combination, do so qualify. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts86. The appellants assert that the housing need is so extreme as to amount very special circumstances by itself. With that exception, the balance of matters relied upon by the appellants fall within the Basildon principle. The approach of the decision maker in considering whether any candidate qualifies as a very special circumstance is set out by Sullivan J in Chelmsford87 and is not challenged by any party to the Inquiry.

82 SSDC/AJ/1 ¶8.69. 83 TWD/RS/B/1 ¶s6.25-6.28. 84 CD2B & SSDC/AJ/4 App 18: ¶s16.9-16.11. 85 SCG8 No 6 and SCG9 No 7. 86 Basildon DC .v. FSOS QB 2004 EWHC 2759 Admin - reproduced at TW9. 87 R (on the application of Chelmsford Borough Council) v First Secretary of State and Draper [2003] EWHC 2978 Admin –reproduced at SSDC1 App 6.

Page 22 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

6.6 There are 2 important limits to the appellant’s very special circumstances case as advanced at this Inquiry which must be taken into account. The first is the suggestion that the decontamination and clean up of the degraded parts of the site is a consideration which is entitled to be treated as an element of the accumulated very special circumstances. This is not so. PPG2 provides (¶1.7): The purposes of including land in the Green Belts are of paramount importance to their continued protection, and should take precedence over the land use objectives. One of the land use objectives (¶1.6) is: to improve damaged and derelict land around towns. To treat the clean up as a very special circumstance would be to reverse that order of priorities so that the objective took precedence over the purposes and the purposes were not treated as paramount. Such an approach would involve a misunderstanding and misapplication of national policy. As though that matter were not sufficiently clear ¶2.6 goes on to state that development should not be allowed …merely because the land has become derelict.

6.7 There is a second limit to the appellants’ very special circumstances case. There is an important distinction to be drawn between a benefit which arises wholly and exclusively as a consequence of the grant of consent and a benefit which will or may arise in any event. The former is capable of amounting to a very special circumstance whilst the latter is not88. The reasonable prospects test is to be applied in deciding whether a claimed benefit falls into the second category89. So, applying that approach, if the SoS decides there is a reasonable prospect that the new station and P&R would arise independently of the MDA, then it is not capable of forming a very special circumstances in support of the MDA.

6.8 The task for SoS is to identify all of the factors in support of the appellants’ case (if any) and then weigh them against the harm by reason of inappropriateness to which she will attach substantial weight (PPG2 ¶3.2) and any other harm. In this context it would be proper for SoS to consider any: 90

a) harm to RSS policy objectives;

b) harm to the Council’s geographical spread approach for future housing;

c) harm from the loss of employment land;

d) harm to health care provision91.

6.9 It is only if the accumulated benefits (if any) clearly outweigh the accumulated harm that it would be permissible to grant consent in the context of PPG2. This is the framework within which the issues identified by the SoS fall to be considered.

Development Plan

6.10 All the authorities indicate that a purposive approach must be applied towards the construction and application of Development Plan Policy92. The decision maker must have primary regard to, and give effect to, the objectives of the policies of the Development Plan relevant to the application under consideration at the time when the decision is made. Ouseley J in Cummins held that in a situation where policies pulled in different directions it may be necessary to decide which is the dominant policy.

6.11 At this Inquiry, the Development Plan includes the SP and RSS. The policies in the SP fall into two categories - those which will be saved beyond September 2007 and those which will not. Those which fall in the second category are not entitled to be treated with

88 Accepted by Mr Shaw in cross exam. 89 ibid 90 ibid 91 see SSDC/AJ/1 p89 92 City of Edinburgh v. SOS Scotland [1997] 1 WLR, R v LeoMinister DC Exp. Pothecary [1997] 3 PLR 91, R (Cummins) v. Camden LBC [2001] EWHC Admin 1116 – latter at TW23.

Page 23 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 any weight or relevance. With regard to Policy H1, the appellants suggest93 that it should still dictate the application of SP proportions to the distribution of housing figures, even if the policy is terminated. As the submissions on behalf of WCC highlight (see section 7), such an approach is illogical. It raises the rhetorical question, how could the SoS apply an approach which derived from a policy which was no longer in existence. It follows that if Policy H1 is not saved it has no role to play. The proposal would clearly conflict with the Green Belt protection policies of the SP and the proposal would therefore not be in accordance with that part of the Development Plan.

6.12 The other scenario is that Policy H1 is saved. In these circumstances the question of internal conflict within the Development Plan arises. The County Council have already expressed a view about this: The distribution of housing provision set out in this policy and the locational specificity it contains was a reflection of the previous RPG and as such is no longer considered appropriate in the context of the new RPG/RSS and the sea change in underlying strategy which it contains”.94 The appellants accept that H1 is in conflict with RSS policy so far as locational specificity is concerned95. It is axiomatic that where 2 parts of a Development Plan are in conflict the later in time prevails. The conflict is more starkly noticed and expressed by the County in that letter and by the District in its evidence to this Inquiry. Thus whether H1 is saved or not it will be an immaterial consideration.

6.13 RSS is the most up to date and important part of the Development Plan. Upon a superficial reading, the applications chime with certain parts of the economic and transport chapters. To decide the matter on that basis would be to make a decisive error of law. The most important step is to have regard to the objectives of RSS Policy. The problem which the RSS is seeking to address is summarised in ¶2.7 as …particularly the outward movement of people and jobs away from the MUAs.96 This gives rise to the 4 major challenges set out at ¶3.4.97 Paragraph 3.5 says: It will not be enough to tackle these challenges in isolation of each other. They must be addressed simultaneously and as different aspects of the same issues.

6.14 Thus the first question for the SoS is: will the grant of consent assist in advancing these multi-faced dimensions of the same problem? The obvious answer is no, they will not. It would be difficult to think of a type and location of development which was more harmful to the objectives of RSS. The grant of consent for the appeal proposals will divert investment away from the Black Country MUA.

6.15 The evidence of Messrs Couttie98 and Round99 show that it will encourage out- migration especially of the crucial socio economic groups A/B as it would perpetuate the pattern of past movements. From the postal survey undertaken as part of the background work for the South Staffordshire Housing Market Assessment (SSHMA)100 there is evidence on household migration. In-migration from outside the District over the past 3 years (2004-2007) at almost 60% of all moves is high and about 40% of all in-migrating households came from the Black Country, the West Midlands and Cannock101.

6.16 Nearly 90% of in-migrating households where employed in professional or managerial, or technical work and most of them work in the urban areas rather than locally in the district.102 The appellants accept that some A/B households may be drawn out from the Black Country and that if they are it would be a benefit in creating a more balanced community in Featherstone. If Featherstone is considered in isolation that is true, but it

93 Mr Shaw, cross exam 94 SSDC/AJ/3 p227. 95 Mr Shaw, cross exam. 96 CD4 p10. 97 CD4 p13 98 SSDC/DC1 & 2. 99 WCC/AR/1 & 2. 100 Draft Final Report 2007 - SSDC3. 101 SSDC/DC/1 ¶ 4.2.2-3 Table 4.4 102 Derived from Table 4.5 ¶4.2.8 SSDC/DC/1.

Page 24 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 would exacerbate the more severe imbalance which exists in the Black Country and its overall effect will be inimical to national housing policy objectives.

6.17 The grant of consent for the appeal site would also involve a major breach of Green Belt policy and frustrate the objectives of RR1C. The proposals are in conflict with the central aims and objectives of RSS.

6.18 All of this is to overlook the Housing Chapter. As Ouseley J said in Cummins it may be necessary to identify the primary policy in the event that different parts pull in different directions. The MDA applications involve 870/1000 houses. By reference to value, size or implications for national and regional policy, the housing element is by far the most significant element of the proposals. In so far as the URZ or HTC policies provide any support at all for the proposals they are to be applied subject to, and subordinate to, the Housing Chapter.

6.19 The appellants103 point to policy CF2D (Housing Beyond the Major Urban Areas)104 as the housing policy in the RSS which gives the best support for the proposals. Policy CF2 deliberately creates a hierarchy in which rural areas are given the lowest order of importance for accommodating new development. This is restricted to local needs which is defined in CF2E as needs arising from the local area excluding migration from elsewhere. The scale of housing on offer with either MDA application far exceeds the needs of Featherstone.

6.20 Local housing needs within South Staffordshire have been identified from the work done for the SSHMA. Most demand is for housing in the South, Central and North East sub areas. Within the North East sub area, most demand is for housing in Cheslyn Hay and Great Wyrley, with only 90 housholds expressing an interest in moving to or within Featherstone within the next 3 years.105 Policy RR1Ci (Rural Renaissance)106 gives particular importance to restricting the housing land supply in proximity to an MUA because of its implications for RSS policy, as well as sustainable development. The appellants’ response107 was to emphasise the adverb “generally” as though this bestowed some legitimacy on proposals which were otherwise in complete conflict with the policy. This is not an appropriate way to apply such a fundamentally important regional policy.

6.21 The appellants invoke support from Policy T6. But given their assertion that the proposals should be regarded as a whole, the policy provides no justification for any aspect of the MDA proposals and it cannot therefore be invoked in support of the overall package.

6.22 Overall, the SoS should have regard to the underlying objectives of RSS and to the Housing Chapter in particular as the policy of primary importance to the determination of the appeals. The Council suggests she should identify a clear and obvious conflict. In these circumstances the conclusion must be that the proposals are not in accordance with the Development Plan. It makes no difference whether smaller parts of the proposals are consistent with other second order policies. This view is also that of the WMRA which concluded that the MDA proposals would not be in general conformity with the RSS because they would fundamentally undermine the Urban Renaissance agenda.108

Issue 2 – Very special circumstances

6.23 The appellants’ very special circumstances case comes down to 2 propositions: housing need and the benefit of the P&R. Neither amount to very special circumstances

103 Mr Shaw, cross exam. 104 CD4 p35. 105 SSDC/DC/1 Tables 4.1 and 4.2. 106 CD4 p28 107 Mr Shaw in cross exam 108 Letters 20 March 2006 for TW2 and 11 April 2007 for TW3 at SSDC/AJ/3 App 15 pp332-341 and pp323/5-323/13 respectively).

Page 25 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 because there is no housing need and the P&R will come along in any event in the fullness of time. It fails the essential test of being causally linked to the MDA.

Housing need

6.24 The appellants’ housing need case is based on the following propositions109:

a) there is a major shortfall in housing land supply in South Staffordshire when considered against PPS3110;

b) the shortfall is so great as to amount to very special circumstances, and;

c) to meet the shortfall on the appeal site would not be inconsistent with the principles of the RSS, and

d) there is no preferable alternative strategy or site to address the need to such an extent that it no longer amounts to very special circumstances.

6.25 The appellants accept111 that the SoS adopted the correct approach at Landywood Lane appeal decision in casting the burden of proof firmly on the appellants112 and that any doubt about these matters should be resolved against the appellants. It follows as a matter of logic, that the appellants must succeed before SoS on all of the above propositions to make good their housing need case. To fail at any one stage would mean their need case in the context of very special circumstances also fails.

6.26 The housing need case falls at the first hurdle because on the basis of the Council’s approach to calculating the 5 year housing supply there is no shortfall. The Council’s approach uses the RSS Phase 2 Options housing figures113 of 5,000 units for South Staffordshire in the period 2001 to 2026. On this basis there is 7.39 years supply (if the annual build rate is taken to be the same throughout the period).114 These figures incorporate a discount of 17% for the non implementation of existing permissions on sites not yet started, but even if the appellants preferred discount of 33% were to be applied there would still not be a shortfall. Alternatively, if the build rate derived from the RSS Phase 2 Options is adjusted to reflect the phased stepping down in build rates shown in the approved RSS Table 1115, the supply is somewhat less, but still more than 5 years.116

6.27 The use of the RSS Phase 2 Options figures as the basis for calculating the 5 year supply is endorsed by the GOWM117. This approach is also preferred by RPB and the County Council (as well as the District).118 This unanimity of approach is because it applies up to date policy in RSS and is consistent with the radical change in direction of regional policy introduced by the RSS and referred to by the Minister.119 It applies an approach where housing land is deliberately restricted outside the MUA (RSS policies RR1C and CF2D) so that people and investment can be redirected back into the urban core.

6.28 The appellants’ only complaint is that the RSS Phase 2 Option figures are in draft for consultation and not definitive. That is to apply too strict a standard. In approving the RSS, the Minister was not suggesting that the SP proportions are applied until the best

109 Mr Shaw, cross exam. 110 see TW/RS/B/1 ¶3.10. 111 Mr Shaw, cross exam. 112 CD2A & SSDC/AJ/4 App 17 p397 ¶18. 113 CD8 p 24. 114 SSDC/AJ/4 App 19. 115 CD4 p37. 116 SSDC/AJ/4 App 23, explanation at SSDC/AJ/1 ¶ 8.74-8.76. 117 Letters at SSDC/AJ/2 App 3 p31 & p70, App 21 p495. (Referred to at the Inquiry by the Council as the “Ian Smith” approach.) 118 SSDC/AJ/3 App 12 p290, App 13 p299 119 Letter from Rt Hon Keith Hill 15 June 2004 – SSDC/AJ2 App3 p27.

Page 26 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 information is available, but simply until better information is available. The figures are based on up to date evidence and information.120

6.29 The appellant’s approach is to continue with the SP proportions approach. That approach applies the old and outdated thinking of RPG in the 1990s. It does not purport to have any regard to the new RSS policy. It is easy to imagine why that was thought an appropriate interim measure back in 2004, but better information in the form of the Phase 2 revision figures is now to hand. It is now time to abandon the SP proportions approach.

6.30 Even if the SP proportions approach is preferred, it does not help the appellants. The revised LDS indicates the adoption of a site allocations DPD by October 2010.121 The appellants suggest slippage to March 2011 as a more robust date. By March 2011 the MDA would bring forward at most 375 units, applying the appellants’ highest expected build rate.122 This is a generous estimate given that no site in this housing market area had produced more than 70 units per year123. Beyond March 2011, the Council’s housing need will be met by the LDF and this proposal does not, cannot, and does not purport to meet any need beyond that stage. This provides no basis for consent for 870/1,000 houses.

6.31 Furthermore, the in-migration allowance is closed down beyond 2011 in RSS housing figures for Staffordshire. The balance of units to be built on the MDA after March 2011 (TW2: 625-700 and TW3: 495-570)124 would then fall to be assessed against RSS CF2D. It would far exceed the local needs of the immediate area of Featherstone and be a clear breach of the principles of the RSS.

6.32 In resolving the dichotomy of approach to calculating land supply, weight should also be given the CLG guidance (April 2007) on 5 year supply calculations.125 In the absence of a specific Development Plan figure for the District, this advises (¶5i) that the best and most up to date evidence is used. This provides a further and independent basis for preferring the approach suggested by the Council. This later advice should prevail.

6.33 The appellants identify a housing supply shortfall of 620 in the 5 year period.126. But in the Landywood Lane decision, the SOS found that a shortfall of 950 did not create the very special circumstances necessary to allow that development.127

6.34 It should also be borne in mind that the appellants’ calculation of 620 dwellings is based on achieving the full 5 year supply. RSS Policy CF3A128 specifies that outside MUAs the housing figures are “maxima”. There is no obligation to meet the figure in full. The SoS at Landywood Lane found an undershoot would be acceptable.129 In any event a shortfall of 620 does not and cannot provide a justification for 870/1000 houses.

6.35 The third proposition concerns conformity with RSS principles. If the proposals conflict with the underlying aims of RSS they cannot amount to very special circumstances130. A conflict has been identified above. This provides a further independent ground for rejecting the appellants’ case.

6.36 The fourth proposition addresses the absence of an alternative strategy or site. Do nothing is not a bad strategy in the present circumstances. It was, effectively, the strategy

120 CD8 p89 and CD9 pp 1, 4, 6, 7. 121 SSDC7, amending SSDC/AJ/1 ¶5.5 and Table. 122 The “upper” approach in TW14. 123 Mr Shaw cross exam by PH. 124 TW14: For TW2 the appellants upper rate of completion would leave 625 after 2011 (3 years at 175, plus 100 in the final year); their lower rate of completions would leave 700 after 2011 (4 years at 150 plus 100 in the final year). TW3 is completed a year earlier. 125 WCC/AR/2 App A. 126 TWD/RS/B/1 ¶ 6.31. 127 CD2A & SSDC/AJ/4 App 17 p 397 ¶s17, 23-24. 128 CD4 p36 129 CD2B & SSDC/AJ/4 App 18 p477 ¶16.65. 130 CD2A SSDC/AJ/4 App 17 p396 ¶15.

Page 27 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 accepted by the SoS in the Landywood Lane decision. Even if the appellants’ are correct, 620 is not a severe shortfall in the context of RSS Policy RRI(C), CF2 and CF3A. It will be eroded in any event by 50 windfalls coming forward on brownfield land.131 Further, there is no failure to meet South Staffordshire’s brownfield approval or completion targets132 and this therefore provides no further justification for releasing the appeal site. The Council’s approach has the very significant advantages of avoiding major Green Belt incursion, encouraging the development of brownfield sites in sustainable urban areas (which might otherwise have to be refused applying policy CF3A) and of spreading the supply around the District.

6.37 The other strategy in play is geographical spread. The appellants accept133 that this is entitled to some weight because it has been adopted as the preferred approach for the Core Strategy by resolution of the full Council.134 This strategy meets the needs of South Staffordshire which is extremely diverse in geography, socio-economic profile and aspiration. To spread housing in this way is to provide people with a home in a place in which they want to live and to stimulate rural communities. In both respects the geographical spread approach advances the aims of PPS3135.

6.38 The grant of consent on the appeal site would absorb all of the supply for 5 years136 and frustrate the Council’s agreed strategy. It would require all of the people in need of affordable housing to be herded into the appeal site which would conflict with the objectives of PPS3 highlighted above. The geographical spread approach is plainly superior. Affordable housing needs are spread across the district. The number of people in need of affordable housing and expressing a preference for Featherstone/Shareshill is minimal; the largest number expressed a preference for Wombourne and Lower Penn, Perton, Penkridge and Bewood and Coven.137

6.39 The need to consider alternative sites arises through the operation of PPG2 (¶2.6) and SP policy D5A138 which is proposed to be saved. The evidence before this Inquiry is wholly different to that at the Landywood Lane Inquiry and the conclusion in that appeal that a release of Green Belt was inevitable139 has no relevance to this Inquiry.

6.40 The range of alternative sites are set out in the Council’s evidence.140 Sites 1-13 have not been the subject of any formal decision by the Council. Some have previously been identified in the Urban Housing Capacity (UHC) Study in 2003 and some are the subject of recent planning applications and negotiations with Council Officers. Sites 14 (Campions Wood, Cheslyn Hay) and 15 (Brookhouse Lane, Featherstone) are not supported by the Council and are the subject of outstanding appeals. Attention is drawn to the merits of 4 of the alternatives: Britool141, Holly Lane,142 North Penkridge143 and Watery Lane, Codsall144.

131 SCG1 p8. 132 SSDC/AJ/4 App20 p494 133 Mr Shaw, cross exam. 134 SSDC/AJ/2 App 2, p5. 135 See paragraph 9 and 30 136 RSS Phase 2 annual rate of 200 x 5 = 1000 137 SSDC3 – combining the totals from table 9-4 (existing households) and 9-8 (concealed households) showing the preferred location from households in need of affordable housing. Featherstone/Shareshill numeric total is zero. 138 CD5 p40. 139 SSDC/AJ/4 App17 p466 ¶16.9. 140 SSDC/AJ/4 App26 Summary table pp528-9. 141 529/1/2/E 142 529/5/A 143 529/7/A 144 529/9/A

Page 28 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

6.41 The question in each case is not whether they are immediately available, but whether there is a reasonable prospect they will provide dwellings by 2012? In this regard, the appellants generally accepted145 that the following propositions applied to these sites:

a) no impact on GB openness;

b) no harm to purposes of including land in GB;

c) no impact on visual amenities of GB;

d) no strong GB policy presumption against;

e) all currently actively promoted for residential development by experienced developers; and

f) cannot rule out the possibility they will come forward before 2012.

6.42 These sites are also in more sustainable locations than the appeal site because they are within or adjoin settlements which were all identified as main service villages in the Settlement Study undertaken for the local plan review, whereas Featherstone is only a local service village.146

6.43 The composite of all the above factors is that these sites are all preferable to the appeal site. The combined contribution of those sites would be sufficient to remove the housing supply shortfall identified by the appellants. There is no reason why the SoS should not consider a composite approach between strategies. Do nothing might be combined with a preference for one or two brownfield alternative sites (such as Britool 184 dwellings and Holly Lane 28 dwellings), and then live with the remaining shortfall. The evidence clearly indicates there are both strategies and sites available which are far preferable to a major Green Belt incursion.

6.44 In order to succeed on their housing need case, the appellants have to succeed on every one of the 4 issues identified. They have failed on all 4.

The P&R as a very special circumstance

6.45 The question here is whether the P&R will, or may, be delivered in any event. There have been highly significant changes in the evidence which bears upon this issue and which have caused both the appellants and SSDC to drastically alter their pre-Inquiry cases. No one is to be criticised for this. It is axiomatic that the evidence is to be presented and discussed, and the decision made, in the light of the most up to date information.

6.46 The appellants’ evidence147 explains how Network Rail is now able to borrow money from the capital markets to invest in infrastructure projects with guarantees made against future anticipated revenue streams. If the P&R were to be pursued without the MDA, the absence of rail generated income from the new developments would reduce the capital Network Rail are prepared to invest in the P&R from £30m to £24m148. Thus the business case for the P&R is likely to be regarded by Network Rail as still favourable notwithstanding the elimination of the MDA.

6.47 The appellants’ evidence149 also explains that the joint development of P&R and MDA would confer reciprocal benefit on the appellants and Network Rail such that each would be prepared to forego a ransom payment against the other. There is no reason to

145 Mr Shaw in cross exam. 146 CD11 p9. 147 Mr Baker’s evidence TWD/DB/1 p6 and CD57/CD78 148 Mr Baker, cross exam. 149 TWD/DB/1 p4 and Mr Baker, cross exam.

Page 29 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 suggest the attitude of Network Rail would be any different if some other form of beneficial development at the appeal site were to be proposed.

6.48 It is reasonable for SoS to conclude on the evidence that Network Rail would be willing to collaborate in a joint venture to bring about a P&R at the appeal site, that Network Rail would be willing to fund such a project to the order of £24m and that Network Rail would forego any ransom payment to secure the provision of the P&R.

6.49 This provides an extremely attractive starting point for a beneficial development of the appeal site. The first question which the appellants must answer is whether it would be viable to bring forward the 14ha of employment land excluded from the Green Belt by LP policy E4. The appellants dismissed this suggestion for want of an appropriate access. It was not suggested the land would be unattractive to the market for any other reason.

6.50 Attention must be paid to the burden of proof when applying Green Belt policy. The appellants must show that the MDA is the minimum development necessary to allow the P&R to be built. The very existence of the 870 scheme is enough to reveal the 1,000 scheme fails this test.

6.51 The appellants have not actively marketed the site other than approaching some unspecified companies150. More importantly, the appellants have not carried out a viability appraisal assuming co-operation from Network Rail in the manner described above. They are in no position to submit that with a little imagination and effort a viable scheme involving a P&R and 14ha of employment land cannot be achieved.

6.52 Even if 14ha were proved by the appellants to be insufficient, that would not assist them. RSS expressly permits peripheral expansion and Green Belt amendments to bring about regionally important employment and urban regeneration151. The 14ha employment site could grow. It is incumbent on the appellants to prove that a greater site could not be viably promoted in conjunction with Network Rail to provide a rail based distribution centre of regional significance. They have not done so.

6.53 All the appellants have done is to criticise SSDC for not adducing evidence of the viability of some other form of development and to point out that the Council would oppose a large scale distribution centre at Brinsford.152 The first point misunderstands and misapplies national Green Belt policy and the second puts them in no different position to the one they are in at this Inquiry.

6.54 There is a further mechanism by which the P&R can (and probably will) be brought forward in any event namely, a bid for public funding by the County Council (the Annex E bid). In the appellants’ written evidence (not tested at the Inquiry) the P&R scheme has a BCR of 4.10 against a sliding scale from -1 to 2+ where 2+ is a category in which funding is provided for most if not all projects 153. The current position of the County Council as Highway Authority in relation to a bid for public funds is set out in their letter of 6 June 2007. 154 The County Council expect to make such a bid later in 2007.

6.55 The question for the SoS is by how much the BCR of 4.1 would fall if the MDA were excluded (resulting in the loss of the appellants’ £14m contribution including road access, a loss of 20% of new rail passengers, and a Taylor Wimpey ransom introduced. The appellants do not address this, but it is for the appellants to demonstrate the scheme could not be viable alone.

6.56 The Webtag approach allows non-monetary benefits to be included in the assessment with a view to deciding whether it should quality for funding. Allowing

150 Mr Shaw and Mr Brisbane, cross exam. 151 CD4 3.8(e) and 3.14(d) 152 SSDC/AJ/1 ¶8.41 153 Ms Bowkett TWD/HB/1 p8 and TWD/HB/2 App2 p7 154 SSDC/AJ/5 App 37 pp760-761.

Page 30 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 lengthened Pendalinos to stop at Wolverhampton (which the appellants’ highlight155 as a very significant issue for Wolverhampton and the region), reducing climate change impacts and promoting important RSS objectives, are potential examples. But the Webtag case has specifically excluded from the analysis such benefits because they have not yet been quantified, not because they have to be excluded.156

6.57 The appellants also highlighted what they regarded as potential difficulties with a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) if the P&R were to be pursed in isolation against an unwilling landowner (Taylor Wimpey)157. But it is not necessary to be certain of valuation issues before embarking on such action, as is clear from ¶20 of Circular 6/04 Compulsory Purchase and the Crichel Down Rules158. The unascertained value of Taylor Wimpey’s ransom is no bar to a CPO. In this context it is important to note that RSS expressly contemplates the use of CPO powers to create regeneration opportunities159.

6.58 Taking all these matters together, the evidence indicates there is substantial scope for investigating the development of a P&R facility independent of the MDA, that those investigations have not been carried out by the appellants as they ought to have been and that the resulting uncertainty is resolved against them upon a proper application of PPG2.

6.59 The final step in the very special circumstances exercise is to balance harm against advantage. There is no challenge to the GP’s critique of the impact of the health care aspects of the MDA on primary care facilities in Featherstone160. The doctor seeks to correct what are regarded as inaccuracies in information on health care in the ES161 and highlights: that there is adequate GP coverage at present for residents of Featherstone with now 2 GPs at the health centre in the village; that the existing health centre has capacity to accommodate more GPs; that based on typical existing list sizes about 3 GPs would be sufficient to serve the combined population of Featherstone and the new development; and there would need to be a commitment from the Primary Care Trust (PCT) to fund an additional GP if the MDA proposals were not to result in detriment to the present health care in Featherstone.

6.60 In addition, the appeal proposals will cause immense harm to important objectives of the RSS; they will frustrate the geographical spread core strategy resolution of the Council; and they will materially reduce (from 14ha to 9ha) available employment land. Worst of all, these proposals will cajole ordinary and in some cases, vulnerable people, to shape their lives in accordance with the appellant’s commercial aspirations. Added to these factors is the substantial weight which the SOS will attach to the inappropriateness of the proposals. Even making every assumption in favour of the appellants very special circumstances case, it is not such as to “clearly outweigh” these manifold objections.

6.61 Turning briefly to the loss of employment land, the Council is concerned that there may be a shortage of land to meet local employment needs to achieve the RSS Phase 2 Options rolling 5 year requirement. This area of South Staffordshire accommodates employment sites of regional (i54/Wobaston Road about 100ha) and sub regional (Hilton Cross 9ha) significance and Wolverhampton Business Park is just over the boundary in Wolverhampton City. But the District must also provide for local employment needs. The appeal site is the largest potential source of employment land in South Staffordshire. No reliance is now placed by the Council on the Market Appraisal commissioned from GVA

155 Mr Baker oral evidence. 156 CD37 Webtag Business Case 6.2 157 Mr Baker oral evidence. 158 SSDC14. 159 See CD4 p47, ¶7.13 160 SSDC/AJ/1 p89 Letter at SSDC/AJ/5 App 31. 161 CD 40 & CD41: Vol 1 Main Report, section 8.5. This refers to: 1 GP at the existing health centre; limited capacity to expand; discussions with the PCT about new provision and the intention to provide the site for new health centre within the MDA sufficient to accommodate all the health professionals needed to serve the expanded Featherstone.

Page 31 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Grimley's162, but the potential of the ROF site for employment use should not be ignored,163 although it is accepted that the site would need a much improved access along the lines proposed by the appellants.164 An analysis of employment land completions and land supply by the County Council indicates that South Staffordshire may have a shortfall of employment land for local needs.165 Table 3 in the RSS Phase 2 Options shows an adequate long term land supply of 127ha for the District, but this is incorrect because it includes the regionally significant sites of Wobaston Road and Hilton Cross. This error has been confirmed by GOWM.166 The Council accepts that if a new prison were to be built it would be equivalent to employment development because of the number of jobs created, but a prison would not be included in figures for employment land and so would not assist the District in meeting any RSS requirement for land for local employment needs.167

6.62 The remaining Green Belt issues which the SoS requires to be discussed are all resolved against the applications. There would be obvious conflict with the intention in Green Belt policy of preventing urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The most delicate landscape treatment cannot alter the fact that the land is no longer open and that significant urban development has spread north of the M54. There would be obvious impact on the urban regeneration purpose of including land in the Green Belt for reasons discussed above. It is also apposite to consider the SoS reasoning at Landywood Lane by treating coalescence as an important issue between large centres.168 It is appropriate to apply the same reasoning to the appeal site which is 3 times bigger than the Landywood Lane site.

6.63 The Council does not object to the impact of the appeal scheme on the visual amenities of the Green Belt by reference to some other form of development which might have a lesser impact. The appeal proposals are the best that can be devised if this scale if development is to be permitted. The Council’s more obvious point is that this proposal will harm the visual amenities of Green Belt by its very existence. For reasons already explained, that is an unnecessary and unwarranted harm. The appeal proposals will rectify some area of contamination and to that extent will promote the objectives of including land in the Green Belt. As already stated that is a second order issue and of no significance when compared to the harm.

PPS3

6.64 This must be considered by reference to what the proposals will provide and what they will prevent. RSS policy CF3A provides housing in South Staffordshire as a “maxima”.169 To allow the appeal will absorb all the housing allowance proposed for South Staffordshire in the Phase 2 Revision for 5 years. It will preclude the District Council granting consent for brownfield sites to come forward in sustainable urban locations, for housing to be provided to stimulate rural communities or to provide affordable housing in places where people wish to live. In all of these respects the appeal proposals conflict with the central policy objectives of PPS3.

6.65 The Council does not comment beyond the points already made in relation to PPG4, PPG13 and PPS23.

6.66 The conditions are agreed, but the condition on affordable housing falls to be discussed.

162 SSDC/AJ/5 App 36. 163 SSDC/AJ/A 8.37 -8.38, 8.129. 164 Mr Johnson, oral evidence. 165 CD69 Table on p6 which notes that the supply figures exclude land on Major Investment Sites and Regional Investment Sites (which in South Staffordshire are i54 at Wobaston Road and Hilton Cross). 166 Email from Ian Macleod GOWM 6 August 2007 contained within SSDC16. 167 Ibid. 168 CD2B & SSDC/AJ/4 App 17 p470 ¶16.27. 169 CD4 CF3A p36.

Page 32 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

6.67 The agreed conditions provide a very generous framework for the appellants to release a substantial quantity of value from the land before providing the P&R – up to 450 houses can be completed before the station and park and ride are available for use 170. The Council were content to agree to this because, as a quid pro quo, the Council is seeking to increase the affordable housing potential to 40%.

6.68 The SSHMA recommends that 50% of new units negotiated should be the level applied from the total of all suitable sites negotiated.171 The evidence justifying such a request is contained in the body of the report. It is accepted that the Council has not yet formally considered the report, which has only just been delivered, that more detailed work needs to be done (eg stock flows within sub areas) and the consultants have not yet received any feedback from Council officers.

6.69 The SSHMA identifies an annual level of outstanding affordable housing need of 737 units, but over the past 3 years only around 30 new units have been provided annually.172 The scale of affordable housing need justifies a high target provided it is sustainable and viable. Targets of 40% are now well established across the country and 50% is now being adopted by some authorities173. The developer of the Brookhouse Lane site (already considered at Inquiry) offered 50% affordable housing and the proposal at Campions Wood, Cheslyn Hay offers 40%.174

6.70 It is true that 40% is higher than indicated in previous discussions between the Council and the appellants.175. But at that stage the Council did not have the benefit of the SSHMA, nor did it realise the appellants were proposing to be so generous to themselves in the framing of a Grampian condition. If the SoS were minded to allow TW2 or TW3, but agrees that more affordable housing should be provided, the Council suggests that a minded to approve letter be issued to allow the appellants to amend the relevant part of the S106 obligations to increase the provision of affordable housing.

6.71 For reasons discussed, these appeals should all be dismissed.

7. The Case for Wolverhampton City Council (WCC)

I give here the gist of the City Council’s case edited from the closing submissions (WCC4) with additional material drawn from the evidence.

7.1 These submissions do not attempt to be a full discussion of the case – that task will be left to the LPA. Instead, these submissions set out a number of points which complement those pursued by SSDC.

The need for unified decisions.

7.2 WCC join the consensus that not only is it desirable for the 3 appeals to stand or fall together, but also that it is not open to the SoS to grant planning permission for 1 or 2 only of the 3 appeals. That has always been the position of WCC in respect of the two MDA proposals, because the appellants have made it clear that the claimed sustainability credentials of the MDA depend in large measure upon the rail based P&R. However, the initial position of WCC was that it would be appropriate to grant planning permission for the P&R scheme in isolation. It remains the case that such a scheme would be acceptable to WCC in isolation on its own merits, but the problem arises that the mitigation proposals which have been negotiated between the appellants and WCC and which are contained in the S106 undertaking have been arrived at on the basis that the proposals are permitted

170 SCG9 No 9. 171 SSDC3 page 148 ¶14.4.7. 172 SSDC3 ¶13.9.2. 173 SSDC/DC/2 pp5-6. 174 SSDC/DC/2 p9 175 Letter 18 May 2007 from the Housing Strategy Manager - document TW2.

Page 33 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 and built as a package. If, therefore, planning permission were to be granted for the rail based P&R alone, there is no appropriate package of mitigation measures before the SoS.

7.3 For those reasons, in addition to those already advanced jointly by the appellants and SSDC, WCC also now submits that the schemes should be treated as a comprehensive package and that planning permission should not and could not lawfully be granted for any lesser part of the comprehensive package. If the schemes were allowed and implemented then the concerns of WCC on highway capacity176 would be addressed by the payment of the index linked sum of £511,718 to deal with off-site highway works within Wolverhampton City177.

Whether the appellants can ensure delivery of the comprehensive package.

7.4 WCC is still concerned about the security of delivery which the Grampian condition178 for TW2 and TW3 gives to SSDC, WCC and others. An obligation to have in place a Development Agreement designed to contractually ensure the delivery of the rail based P&R is vague and insufficiently precise, even with SSDC being given a role in discharging that condition through the power to consider a submitted version of the completed Development Agreement. There is no reason to conclude, from the words used in the condition, that a contract which obliges a party to it to create the railway station and P&R facility, subject to conditions precedent, would not comply with the condition, even if SSDC concluded that the agreement should not be approved. Nor is there any reason to think that a contract which provided that its obligations would expire after a certain passage of time or in certain circumstances would not comply with the requirements of the condition. As the condition is not clear, then the role given to SSDC does not assist the appellants, because the propriety of any particular decision of SSDC cannot be properly tested by reference to the unclear terms of the condition.

7.5 Even if, contrary to the above submissions, it is concluded that the words of the suggested condition are clear, then although the condition might be found to commit a party contractually to the erection of the station and the P&R, a contractual commitment does not ensure that the commitment is met. Contracts can be broken. The prospects of the Court being willing to compel the relevant party to erect the station and P&R are impossible to predict in advance. All that can be said is that a Court has a discretion to grant the remedy of specific performance and the Court would have to find that damages were an inadequate remedy to the injured party or parties (which would not include SSDC). Further still, the contractual commitment could fail to deliver the station without the contract being broken, because contracts can, in law, be frustrated if some supervening event occurs which makes the performance of the obligation impossible to fulfil.

7.6 It is, in WCC’s submission, vitally important to guard against the commencement of the scheme without either the completion of the P&R or an irrevocable commitment to the provision of the P&R, because the developer would be entitled to build out substantial parts of the development without the provision of the rail based P&R. Provided that the initial hurdle posed by the Grampian condition 7 of TW2 and TW3 was overcome, up to 450 dwellings and all the employment floorspace could be built with no rail based P&R.179

7.7 The upshot is that suggested condition 7 of the TW2 and TW3 list cannot ensure the delivery of the station and P&R. If that is so, it should not be relied upon as the trigger to enable substantial parts of the comprehensive development proposals to go ahead.

176 WCC/BS/1 177 SCG4 ¶ 3.2 178 SCG9 Condition No 7 179 SGC9 Condition No 9

Page 34 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

The merit of the rail P&R and the employment provision.

7.8 The rail based P&R is appropriate development in the Green Belt as it passes the tests set out in PPG2 at paragraph 3.17180. Nor does WCC object to the employment provision. WCC fully recognises that the rail based P&R would significantly contribute to:

a) promoting more sustainable access into the MUA and beyond;

b) the urban regeneration of the MUA; and

c) meeting the RSS aims of improving transport networks, all of which have been gone into in great detail by the Appellants in both written and oral evidence.

The justification for housing.

7.9 The merits of the employment provision and the rail based P&R do not come close to justifying the housing elements of the MDA proposals, unless the appellants can show that the housing elements of the proposal have to be permitted because the rail P&R and the employment development will not come forward in their absence. Despite some attempts to create such an argument late in the day, the appellants have not put their case on that basis. There is evidence to show that the total scheme promoted by the appellants at the Inquiry could deliver the station and the P&R. But that is not evidence that other schemes would fail to deliver the station and the P&R. Nor is it evidence that such other schemes could not be devised if these appeals were to fail. SSDC and WCC have not produced evidence that other schemes could come forward, but that is not the point. It is for the appellants to show that the combination of factors in this case amount to very special circumstances for providing some proportion of the proposed 870 or 1000 dwellings in the adopted Green Belt.

7.10 There is no evidence to show that the erection of 870 or 1000 dwellings is now and will in the foreseeable future be necessary to secure the delivery of the employment development and the station/P&R. There is no evidence that any specific amount of housing is required to deliver the other, non-controversial, elements of the scheme. The appellants have referred to the lack of interest from the market in bringing forward the 14ha of employment land proposed in the local plan, but there is no evidence to show what is the minimum scale and type of development needed to develop the former ROF site and support the P&R package.

7.11 WCC submits that the absence of a clear justification for the proposed scale of housing, against alternative scenarios, in assisting to deliver the station, the P&R and the employment development, is a significant hole in the appellant’s case.

The approach to very special circumstances.

7.12 In the Chelmsford case181 a number of findings were made about the approach which should be taken to the question of whether very special circumstances exist. A useful summary is at ¶56 of the judgment, where Sullivan J said that: The circumstances must be not merely special in the sense of unusual or exceptional, but very special. The decision taker, whether it be the Secretary of State, one of his inspectors or a Local Planning Authority, has to be satisfied that the circumstances relied upon are indeed very special, but it does not follow that, merely because the decision taker considers that they outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, they are reasonably to be described as very special. The breadth of discretion that is conferred upon decision takers in other (non-Green Belt) cases is deliberately constrained by paragraph 3.1 of PPG2. The decision taker must be satisfied that there are very special

180 Inserted by Annex E of PPG13 181 R (on the application of Chelmsford Borough Council) v First Secretary of State and Draper [2003] EWHC 2978 Admin [Sullivan J 25th November 2003]

Page 35 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

circumstances. His judgment that there are such circumstances is subject to review on Wednesbury grounds. A factor is not a very special circumstance merely because the decision taker chooses to describe it in that way. The decision taker must be able to point to a circumstance or circumstances which, viewed objectively, are reasonably capable of being described as "very special".

7.13 The correct approach is thus to consider whether the factors which are put forward as very special circumstances can properly and objectively be so described. It is accepted that, as the appellants submit, a combination of factors can be taken to be very special and it is not necessary to find that every component circumstance is very special in its own right182. However, the circumstance or combination of circumstances must together be capable of being described as “very special”. The fact that they are special or exceptional or, unusual or unique is not enough. Nor is the fact that a person chooses to label them as very special circumstances enough.

7.14 However, in this case the appellants acknowledge183 the importance of those factors which go to the housing requirement and supply question as being critically important to their case on very special circumstances. The appellants have the burden of satisfying the SoS on each of the following 4 matters:

a) That there is a major shortfall in housing supply when tested in terms of PPS3;

b) That the shortfall is so great as to be a very special circumstance;

c) That the meeting of the shortfall on the appeal site is not inconsistent with the aims of RSS;

d) That there is no preferable alternative strategy or site to address the need to the extent that it no longer amounts to a very special circumstance.

7.15 The appellants also accepted184 that if they fail in relation to any one of those 4 matters, then the housing need case falls away.

7.16 But in other evidence185 it is suggested by the appellants that the provision of housing on the appeal site is so important for economic regeneration that its provision amounts to a justification for building a large proportion of the proposed dwellings in the adopted Green Belt. That effectively advocates the erection of a proportion of the 870 or 1000 dwellings in the Green Belt even if there is no housing need for them. That is a bold claim and makes it all the more important to consider whether the housing really is essential to secure the provision of the P&R, the station and the employment development.

Whether there is a shortfall in housing supply over the next five years.

7.17 So far as development control is concerned, it is the 5 year supply which is important (whereas the need for 10 and 15 year supply of housing land are considerations only in plan preparation)186. LPAs should give favourable consideration to planning applications if a 5 year supply cannot be demonstrated. The giving of such favourable consideration to an application cannot be equated to making a finding that very special circumstances exist. Were that the case, every LPA which could not show a 5 year supply would be in severe difficulties in resisting the release of Green Belt land.

182 R (Basildon DC) v First Secretary of State [2004] EWHC 2759 (Admin) Sullivan J 8th November 2004, at ¶s 16 and 17. 183 Mr Shaw, cross exam. 184 Ibid. 185 Mr Brisbane Note TW22 ¶24-26. 186 PPS3 ¶71.

Page 36 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

7.18 For the purposes of a 5 year supply calculation, PPS3 clearly indicates that windfalls are not to be included187. But in considering whether any shortfall of housing supply comprises or contributes to very special circumstances, there is no reason to leave out of account the continuing supply from windfalls amounting to 50 per annum188.

7.19 At the heart of the debate between SSDC and WCC on the one hand and the appellants on the other is the use to be made of Structure Plan policy H1. No party considers that the housing figures in policy H1 of the Structure Plan are any longer relevant. No party at the Inquiry has asked the SoS to save policy H1, although such a representation has been made on behalf of a developer with interests in the Lichfield area. Even if policy H1 is saved, the use of the proportions to be derived from it should no longer be used for the following reasons.

7.20 First, the majority of the housing to be delivered through either of the MDA189 schemes would emerge after 2011, when the Minister’s letter of June 2004190 states that the use of the proportions may not be appropriate. Second, WCC supports the point made by SSDC that the better information referred to in the Minister’s letter which is relevant for the post-2011 phase is now available. That information is the content of the Phase 2 Review of the RSS. It is not just WCC and SSDC that consider that the RSS review figures constitute the better information – that is the view of GOWM191 expressed more than once and not just to South Staffordshire DC192 and of the RPB193.

7.21 Attaching weight to the emerging RSS figures does not sit easily with the guidance on the weight to be attached to emerging plans. But the West Midlands is in an unusual position because of the absence of District figures in RSS and the reliance upon SP proportions as an interim measure. In any event, the general guidance on the weight to be attached to emerging plans has to be seen in the light of the recent guidance from CLG which deals with the use to be made of emerging plans and strategies for the purposes of calculating housing supply.

7.22 The approach advocated by WCC and SSDC accords with the thrust of the CLG guidance produced in April 2007.194 Paragraph 5(i) of that guidance sets out how to approach stage 1 of the three stages of calculating a 5 year supply. The first step is to use, where available, housing provision figures in adopted Development Plans. There is no such figure for South Staffordshire, given that the District figures in policy H1 are inappropriate. RSS contains no figure for South Staffordshire. The Minister’s letter of June 2004 is, at most, an aid to interpretation of the County-wide Development Plan figures and is not part of the Development Plan. Looking at the plain words of the face of the guidance, there is no adopted figure to use.

7.23 In those circumstances, one has to read on in paragraph 5(i) of the guidance. Where no figure is available in the adopted Development Plan, LPAs: should make the best available estimate of the level of housing required over the full 5-year period. For example, this may include having regard to the evidence underpinning housing provision in the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy…. The guidance points to the supporting material created as part of the process of creating the emerging Phase 2 Revisions. The advice refers to underpinning evidence, not the emerging RSS figures themselves. The underpinning evidence of housing demand is 5,204 dwellings in South Staffordshire over the period 2001 to 2026195, compared to the 5,000 figure used in the Spatial Options. Clearly, if the figure of 5,204 were to be used for calculating the 5 year supply, the ultimate

187 PPS3 ¶59 188 SCG 1 ¶s 2.61 & 2.62 189 Appellants’ Housing construction programme at TW14. 190 SSDC/AJ/2 App 3 pp 27-29. 191 Referred to at the Inquiry by SSDC as the “Ian Smith” approach. 192 Letters at SSDC/AJ/2 App 3 p31 & p70; SSDC/AJ/4 App21 p495. 193 SSDC/AJ/3 App12 p290. 194 WCC/AR/1 App A. 195 CD 9 Housing Background Paper, App 1 Table 1.

Page 37 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 result would be for practical purposes the same – SSDC’s housing supply calculation would be in much closer conformity with the CLG guidance than the appellants.

7.24 In any event, although the parties have tended to refer to the housing requirement, that must not obscure the fact that the housing figures prescribed by RSS for areas outside the MUAs are maxima, whereas inside the MUAs the figures are to be approached as minima. That immediately reduces the weight to be attached to exactly achieving the figure prescribed for South Staffordshire.

7.25 In the event that policy H1 is not saved, then the case for not using the Structure Plan proportions approach becomes stronger still. It is bizarre for the appellants to suggest196 that the Structure Plan proportions approach would remain applicable in such an eventuality. It would be illogical to adhere to the proportions derived from a policy which had been deliberately abandoned because it was not appropriate to save it in the contemporary policy climate.

7.26 Whether or not policy H1 of the Structure Plan is saved, the use of the Structure Plan proportions approach is inappropriate. The SSDC has shown that there is no shortfall in a 5 year supply197, still less any shortfall of a degree to render it a proper component of a very special circumstance case.

Whether the proposed housing would be consistent with the aims of RSS.

7.27 There is no dispute between WCC and the appellants as to the correct approach to the interpretation of section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, now section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The approach WCC adopt is as follows198:

a) The decision maker should identify the provisions of the Development Plan relevant to the decision to be made;

b) The decision maker should make a proper interpretation of them, which means ascribing to the policies meanings which their words can properly bear;

c) The decision to be made is whether the proposal in issue does or does not accord with the Development Plan as a whole, not whether it complies with each and every policy. A breach of one policy therefore cannot be equated with a failure to be in accordance with the Development Plan.

d) If different policies pull in different directions, it is for the decision maker to exercise judgment and reach a conclusion as to whether the scheme would accord with the Development Plan as a whole.

7.28 Particularly apposite, in this case, is the content of ¶164 of Ouseley J’s judgment in Cummins, where he said: It may be necessary for a Council in a case where policies pull in different directions to decide which is the dominant policy: whether one policy compared to another is directly as opposed to tangentially relevant, or should be seen as the one to which the greater weight is required to be given.

7.29 There is no reason why that approach should not apply to weighing batches of policies on different topics against each other and weighting their importance to a particular decision on a particular scheme. Some parts of RSS support this scheme and parts of it do not. The issue is how to weigh the competing considerations. Whilst the development proposals come as a package, a very significant part of the proposals is the inclusion of 870 or 1000 dwellings. That number of dwellings with their impacts, good, bad or indifferent, cannot sensibly be regarded as a minor or ancillary aspect of the MDA proposals. They are

196 Mr Shaw, cross exam. 197 SSDC/AJ/4 App 19 198 Drawn from R v Rochdale MBC ex parte Milne 2000 (unreported) paras 46-50 (TW23A); and R (Cummins) v. Camden LBC [2001] EWHC Admin 1116 paras 161-165 (TW23B).

Page 38 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 at its heart and the housing elements of the proposals should be tested against the whole range of applicable RSS policies. When testing the housing elements of the proposals, the main guide should be the housing policies of the RSS.

7.30 Chapter 7 of RSS199 is mainly concerned with economic development. There are references to reversing long standing trends of decentralisation of population in policy PA2, and housing is mentioned in ¶s 7.1 and 7.12. However, in ¶7.1, housing is mentioned in a way which describes it as a factor which will enhance the attractiveness of the Region to inward investment suggesting that housing and inward investment are terms which are being used in different ways. In ¶7.12, housing is referred to in the context of Development Plan and Local Transport Plan preparation, not to making decisions on particular planning applications. The references to housing in chapter 7 are, to use the language of Cummins, more tangentially relevant than directly relevant to the question of whether the housing element of the proposals is or is not in accordance with the RSS aims. That can be further demonstrated by considering:

a) Paragraph 7.4 of RSS, which tells us that the provisions of chapter 7 must be considered in the context of the full RPG. For investment comprising development of housing, the housing policies will therefore be not just material considerations, but material considerations carrying substantial weight, and

b) Paragraph 7.8 of the RSS, which warns that in all cases, development should be controlled to ensure that it meets local needs and does not encourage a further decentralisation of people and jobs from the MUA, which is dealt with more fully below.

7.31 It is self-evident that the housing elements of the proposals can derive no support from the location of the site within a high technology corridor and within a node (if that is the case, given the lack of clarity on the Prosperity for All Diagram)200. Indeed, given the appellants evidence201 on the likely mix of employment uses to be provided on the site, the employment elements cannot derive much assistance from policy PA3 which is aimed at encouraging cluster developments, closely linked to the Region’s critical research and development capabilities and advanced technologies. Sheds202 are not what the policy is contemplating. The conditions agreed between the appellants and SSDC limit B1 floorspace to only 3,000m2 in order to protect the strategic employment site at i54. 203

7.32 As for chapter 4 of RSS, on urban renaissance, policy UR1 cannot assist the case for housing on the appeal site, because it is directed at the MUAs. Policy UR2 is directed at listed settlements. The appeal site is not within one of them. Policies UR3 and UR4 are not relied on by the appellants. All in all, the contents of chapter 4 of the RSS, the references in chapter 7 to the encouraging of investment in URZs and the references to population and housing issues are a very flimsy peg upon which to hang the argument that those references provide weighty support for the MDA proposals with their significant housing elements.

7.33 On the other hand, the Communities for the Future policies204 are patently relevant to housing, as the rationale for their existence is to guide the distribution, location and type of housing205. The primary division in the RSS policies’ approach to locating housing depends on whether a location is within or outside the MUA. There is no mention in chapter 6 of RSS to testing the acceptability of a location for housing by reference to whether the location is within or outside a URZ. The appellants can derive no assistance from the

199 CD4 pp 45-68. 200 CD4 p68. 201 Mr Brisbane, cross exam. 202 Ibid. 203 SCG9 No 9 204 CD4 chapter 6, pp 33-44. 205 CD4 ¶s 6.1 - 6.3

Page 39 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 appeal site being in a URZ when it comes to testing the housing elements of the MDA proposals against the content of chapter 6 of RSS.

7.34 Chapter 6 of the RSS is clear that the main focus of its housing policy and strategy is to create urban renaissance in the MUAs and to increase the level of housing development in the MUAs relative to areas outside the MUAs (¶s 6.1-6.3). That is assisted by providing figures for housing which are maxima outside the MUAs but minima within them (policy CF3A).

7.35 The site lies outside the MUAs and so its development for housing can derive no support from policy CF1. Policy CF2 weighs very heavily against these appeals. In locations beyond the MUAs, longer term strategic housing development should be in those locations which are capable of balanced and sustainable growth. The first sentence of policy CF2A is not freestanding, but conditioned by the words which follow: The five towns identified in the Spatial Strategy (Worcester, Telford, Shrewsbury, Hereford and Rugby) will fulfil this role as sub-regional foci for development. It is not necessary to interpret the first sentence so as to consider whether a location is or is not within its scope. The second sentence identifies and lists the settlements which are capable of balanced and sustainable growth. It is not for the appellants to add Featherstone/Brinsford to the list. Even if that submission were wrong, part B of CF2 states that the role of each of the foci should be determined through further study. It should not be done by ad hoc appeals. The next tier is in CF2C and is made up of the other large settlements shown on the Spatial Strategy Diagram. Featherstone/Brinsford is not one of those either. Even if it were, the role of these other large settlements should not be to accommodate migration from the MUAs.

7.36 Finally, part D of CF2, indicates that in rural areas the provision of new housing should be generally restricted to meeting local housing needs and/or supporting local services. The appellants206 seize on the word generally. That is a very weak point in arguing that a development of 870 or 1000 dwellings outside the MUA, outside a sub- regional focus, outside one of the other defined large settlements and not limited to meeting local needs or supporting local services should nevertheless receive planning permission. Further assistance should be derived from policy RR1. RR1(c)(i) is to the same effect as CF2D and E and the two policies complement each other.

7.37 WCC therefore submits that the housing policies of RSS should be the main guide to the acceptability of the housing proposals within the MDA proposals and that the housing elements of those proposals are in breach of those policies in important respects. But it is not just a matter of particular policies being breached. Important elements of the themes and aims of RSS are breached because the housing elements of the proposals would not support the urban renaissance aims of the housing strategy of the RSS. The simple breach of the policies should have weight attached to it, but there is evidence that these schemes would run counter to the aims of RSS in seeking to stem and reverse past trends of migration from the MUAs. The RSS indicates that out-migration from the MUAs has been a longstanding problem. Paragraph 4.1 of the RSS sets out that of the authorities covered by all of the MUAs (not just the Black Country MUA), only Birmingham, Solihull and Dudley did not suffer a net loss of population over the period 1991 to 2001. Paragraph 3.1 of the RSS identifies the continued decentralisation of population and investment from the MUAs as key challenges and identifies the approach of other strategies which set in place lasting solutions to reverse decline and regenerate deprived areas.

7.38 There is ample evidence before the inquiry that the appeal site would be likely to attract in-migrants to South Staffordshire and that a significant proportion of those migrants would be from the MUAs. The RSS itself recognises this. Paragraph 3.2 states that an important factor in the trend of decentralisation away from the MUAs has been the availability of land for development in the settlements close to the MUAs. This has contributed to a list of undesirable consequences. The appellants have sought to show that none of these consequences would flow from allowing development to proceed at the

206 Mr Shaw, cross exam.

Page 40 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 appeal site, but one of the pressures identified is environmental pressures. Pressure for release of land from the Green Belt can properly be described as an environmental pressure. In any event, if the development of the appeal site would hinder the drive to stem out-migration, then it is not necessary to identify any further problem in order to conclude that the aims of RSS would be undermined. The out-migration would, of itself, be a serious breach of the aims of RSS.

7.39 There is specific evidence of out-migration too. In the period from 1999 to 2005, Wolverhampton suffered a net loss of migrants to other parts of the West Midlands region of 985 persons, a figure well in excess of both migration to other parts of England (net loss to Wolverhampton of 570 persons) and migration to Wales (net loss to Wolverhampton of 130 persons)207. For the period 1999 to 2005, Staffordshire was the main destination for intra-regional out-migration from Wolverhampton (net loss of 633 compared to total gross out-migration of 1107 and total net migration consisting of an outflow of 985)208. New build housing outside the MUA is an attractive draw for persons within the MUA and when the decision is taken to leave (for whatever reason), the out-migrants show little inclination to return209.

7.40 There is also evidence that whilst Wolverhampton has enjoyed some increase in the proportion of its population which falls within the A/B social grouping, it has enjoyed markedly less improvement in that regard than other administrative areas, including South Staffordshire. Wolverhampton had a 27% increase in the A/B population over the period 1991 to 2001 compared to an increase of 56% in South Staffordshire over the same period210. That evidence needs to be seen in the light of the EIP Panel report for the phase 1 Review of RSS recommending that RSS should incorporate an objective to increase the A/B proportion of the population in the Black Country MUA, to match the national profile by 2033 or earlier211.

7.41 It is also clear that proximity to the MUA affects the degree of in-migration from the MUA to a nearby site212. That was also the view of the Inspector and SoS in the Landywood Lane decision213. If a site is close to the MUA, then that tells against the existence of circumstances which can objectively be described as very special.

7.42 The appellants do not set out a detailed case to show that migration patterns are such as to mean that migration would not occur to the appeal site, or that the migration would not, to a material or significant degree, have the MUA as its origin. The appellants seek to make a virtue of any migration of persons in groups A/B into Featherstone. Featherstone is suggested214 to be not relatively prosperous borrowing the phraseology of RSS policy RR1 Part C(i). But the map of Indices of Multiple Deprivation in 2000 of wards in South Staffordshire215 shows that if Featherstone is not relatively prosperous and deserving of an injection of persons in groups A/B, then the same can be said of a significant proportion of the rest of the District. Furthermore, the RSS shows216 that if Featherstone and other parts of South Staffordshire have a problem with an imbalanced community which requires to be addressed, then large swathes of the Black Country MUA have a comparable or greater problem. The reason for allowing some migration of persons in social groups A/B into Featherstone is an argument better deployed in seeking to restrain

207 WCC3 208 WCC/AR/2 App C 209 Black Country and Telford New Build Survey 2005/6 Final Report CSR Partnership Ltd March 2006 at WCC/AR/2 App G, summarised at ¶5.33 of WCC/AR/1. 210 WCC/AR/1 Table 5.1 p42) 211 Referred to at WCC/AR/1 ¶4.44 212 WCC/AR/1 ¶5.25/Table 5.2 and WCC/AR/2 App D. 213 SSDC/AJ/4 App18 ¶24 of the SoS decision and ¶16.20 of the Inspector’s report 214 Mr Round, cross exam. 215 CD11 p22 216 CD4, fig 3, p21

Page 41 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 out-migration of the A/B component of the population in the MUA in the first place, in accordance with the RSS.

7.43 It does not assist the appellants to point to the continued allowance in RSS, until 2011, for out-migration from the MUAs. The majority of the housing development at the MDA would come forward after 2011. In any event, it is not the case that the RSS advocates in-migration from the MUA. The position is usefully summarised by the Landywood Lane Inspector217. The position is that higher than desired levels of in- migration from the MUA are tolerated until the attractiveness of the MUAs is improved. The housing demand figures in the emerging RSS South Staffordshire include 899 households from in-migration218 but that does not justify accepting future in migration from the MUA. Firstly, that figure is for all migration, not just from the MUA and no conclusions can be drawn about the degree of acceptance of migration from the MUAs, as opposed to anywhere outside the MUAs. Secondly, being based on household projections, they are projections of the continuation of past trends, not a prediction of the effect of proposed RSS policy. Thirdly, the full contribution of that migration figure is not proposed to be carried through into the emerging RSS figures. That can be seen because the total demand arising from local needs and migration at 5,204 is higher than the 5,000 figure for South Staffordshire proposed in all three RSS Phase 2 options.

7.44 Nor is it necessary, for the proximity to the MUA to be material or carry weight, that there is evidence of particular harm that the appeal proposals would cause to a particular scheme or regeneration effort in Wolverhampton or in the remainder of the MUA. That too is clear from the Landywood Lane decision letter219. Part of the reason why those proposals did not accord with the Development Plan was that they would conflict with the urban renaissance aims of the RSS because of that site’s location on the outer edge of the Black Country MUA. The same approach should be taken here. There is no need to test for particular harm. The policy framework does not require harm to be demonstrated on a case by case basis. It is sufficient to point to a lack of compliance with the policy approach set out in RSS.

7.45 There is a strong basis for submitting that considerable weight ought to be attached to the harm to RSS strategy which would be caused by allowing the release of a site so close to the MUA boundary, even if the appellants were to succeed on the issue of how to assess housing requirements. That is because of the way that the RSS describes the issue of improving the MUAs. Paragraphs 1.12 and 1.13 refer to material constituting an evidential basis for the judgments expressed in the RSS about how the MUAs and areas outside them interact. Paragraph 2.5 refers to the identification of a number of key challenges, the implications of which are spelt out at ¶2.6. One of those, (2.6b) is the reversal of movement of people and jobs away from the MUAs. That factor is given particular attention in the RSS. Paragraph 3.1 describes the decentralisation of population and investment as one of two key issues and ¶3.2 highlights how an important factor in the decentralisation from the MUAs has been the availability of development land in settlements close to the MUAs. That is why the policy approach in ¶3.9 towards areas outside the MUAs is to significantly reduce the proportion of housing development to meet demand arising from within the MUAs.

7.46 WCC submits that the development of the appeal sites would not only conflict with the policy approach set out in respect of housing in the RSS, but also would conflict with the aims underlying the formulation of those policies, particularly those aims relating to the restraining of out migration from the MUAs.

7.47 In coming to a view about whether the proposals accord with the Development Plan as a whole, WCC invites the SoS to attach more weight to the breaches of the detailed

217 CD2B & SSDC/AJ/4 App 18: ¶16.65 of the Inspector’s report 218 The figure for Demand from Migration for South Staffordshire in Table 2, p 89 of CD (part of the 5,204 housing demand for the district for the period 2001-2026). 219 CD2A & SSDC/AJ/4 App 17: ¶16

Page 42 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 policies dealing with housing than is attached to the compliance with the policies promoting investment in the URZs, which are more generalised and less suited to the detailed testing of a housing proposal. WCC submits that, on the facts of this case, the MDA proposals, even when seen as a package, would not be development in accordance with the Development Plan because of the serious harm caused to RSS objectives which would be caused by a very significant element of the scheme in the form of the housing development, whether 870 or 1,000 units.

Conclusion

7.48 In the light of the above, WCC submits:

a) The proposals should be considered as a package and not permitted in part;

b) The suggested conditions do not ensure the delivery of the comprehensive package and there is an unacceptable risk that a significant proportion of the MDA proposals could be built without the station and P&R ever emerging;

c) Regardless of whether SP policy H1 is saved, the SP proportions approach to calculating the 5 year requirement is not appropriate for this case; on that basis, there is no housing shortfall;

d) If there is no housing shortfall, then there is no housing need for the scheme. If there is no need, there can be no component of very special circumstances which is made up of a housing need case;

e) If there is no housing need component of the claimed very special circumstances, the rest of the claimed very special circumstances are insufficient to justify the erection of 870 or 1,000 dwellings on the appeal site;

f) More weight should be attached to testing the housing proposals against the Communities of the Future chapter of RSS and against the Rural Renaissance policies than to the more generalised “PA” and “UR” policies. When that testing is done, the housing proposals are contrary to the provisions of those policies and the aims underlying them, particularly as regards the promotion of the fortunes of the MUA and stemming out-migration, to the extent that they are unacceptable;

g) The proper conclusion is that the appeals scheme, when taken as a whole and when tested against the whole of the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and a decision in accordance with the Development Plan would be a decision to dismiss the appeals. The appellants do not put their case on the fallback position that there are material considerations which indicate that a decision otherwise than in accordance with the Development Plan should be taken.

7.49 The appeals should therefore be dismissed.

8. The Case for Persimmon Homes (West Midlands) Ltd

I give here the gist of Persimmon Homes’ case edited from the closing submissions (PH8) with additional material drawn from the evidence.

The Principal Issue

8.1 The principal issue in this appeal is whether the harm to the Green Belt caused by the inappropriateness of the TW2 or TW3 proposals and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other material considerations. Within that balance substantial weight is to be attached to the harm to the Green Belt.220

220 PPG2 ¶3.2.

Page 43 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

8.2 The principal thrust of Persimmon Homes’ (PH) case is that the very special circumstances necessary to justify TW2 or TW3 have not been made out by the appellants. The factors relied upon by the appellants to found their cumulative very special circumstances case,221 when properly balanced, do not begin to justify TW2 or TW3.

Approach

8.3 Whether or not very special circumstances can be established in any given case is both site and proposal specific. The overall judgement required by ¶3.2 of PPG2 cannot be translated from one site to another. However, conclusions reached on the way to forming that overall judgment, beyond the site or proposal specific, may apply equally to other schemes. In the decision letter in respect of the Landywood Lane appeals222, the SoS acknowledged (as had all parties at the Inquiry) that a substantial shortfall in the 5 year land supply can amount to very special circumstances. Whether or not it does in any case, turns on the overall balance.

Green Belt harm

8.4 Whilst 30.2ha of the sites is PDL, in the Green Belt the Secretary of State should attach little weight to that as a statistic. Paragraph 1.7 of PPG2 makes abundantly clear that it is the contribution of land to Green Belt purposes and not its visual quality which is of paramount importance to its continued protection. The presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt applies with as much force to previously developed land as it does to greenfield Green Belt land.

8.5 The SoS also needs to be careful that focussing on the various areas with different status within the site223 does not lead to an artificial assessment of the true cumulative impact of the TW1, 2 and 3 proposals on the Green Belt. The appeal proposals, taken together, will effectively link Brinsford, a very small minor settlement on the edge of the A449 through the proposed development area to Featherstone and then to the A460 beyond. There will be a continuous band of development running between the A449 and the A460 effectively linking junctions 1 and 2 of the M54. That part of the overall scheme represented by the TW1 proposals may constitute appropriate development in the Green Belt, but no one could sensibly contend that it could be developed without urbanising what is presently greenfield Green Belt land. Of itself, this could, with sensitive design, be assimilated together with whatever employment development may in due course come forward on the land excluded from the Green Belt. However, the inevitable consequences of the addition of the TW2 and 3 proposals are major urban sprawl, coalescence and loss of countryside. The damage to the Green Belt would be both permanent and substantial.

8.6 There is also a longer term threat posed by the appeal proposals to the Green Belt boundary in this location. As the appellants’ representations to the Deposit South Staffordshire Local Plan indicate,224 their aspirations have embraced the exclusion from the Green Belt at Brinsford of a far larger area of land than the appeal sites. Whether that is still their thinking or now historic is irrelevant. The issue is whether the appeal proposals, if permitted, would lead to pressure for further development and release of land from the Green Belt which would be difficult to resist having regard to that land’s residual Green Belt function. Analysis of the Masterplans within the context of sections 1 and 2 of PPG2 indicates real cause for concern in this respect.

8.7 The SoS should conclude that in addition to the harm by reason of inappropriateness, the other harm to the Green Belt caused by the appeal proposals would be both very substantial and irreversible.

221 TWD/RS/B/1 ¶7.46 p54 and 7.50 p55. 222 CD2A and SDC/AJ/4 App 17, ¶23 p398. 223 Plans at TW16 A/B/C and SCG1 ¶3.8. 224 SSDC12

Page 44 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Other harm

8.8 The principal other harm which the appeal proposals will result in is to the village of Featherstone. Although the appellants have sought to contend that their proposals represent a sustainable extension to the settlement, they are nothing of the sort. The link between Featherstone and the MDA is a tenuous one at every level. The Design and Access Statement produced at the Inquiry (TW12) serves to confirm that the appeal proposals are the product of a design process whose focus has been almost entirely inward looking. The appellants accepted225 that the objective of any extension to Featherstone should be to integrate and contribute to achieving a single cohesive community and that, if the SoS concluded that the appeal proposals amounted effectively to a new settlement then they would fail to achieve that objective.

8.9 The SoS can reasonably expect to see in a Design and Access Statement, a careful contextual analysis which includes an assessment of the form, character, scale and grain of the existing village at Featherstone. The appellants accepted226 that the appellants Design and Access statement does not contain any such detailed analysis. Whilst such a failing may be of little consequence where the product of the process is so self evidently informed by its context that its absence is of no consequence; that is not the case here.

8.10 Indeed, the design intention has been to create “Gateways” into Brinsford227 and once within it, the built form and landscape proposals illustrate a sense of place which has no obvious relationship with the existing village.228 All this would serve to reinforce the separateness of the proposals from the existing settlement. The link provided by the local centre within the eastern Gateway does not save the schemes. It is a tenuous one and insufficiently strong (at whatever point in the future it may be complete and occupied229) to produce a community focus. It amounts to little more than a parade of shops, which already exists on The Avenue and which is an easy walk for most of the existing community. This is not a sustainable extension of an existing community; it is the creation of a new community in close proximity to an existing community where, in an effort to achieve sustainability, it is proposed to duplicate existing facilities.

8.11 That duplication will threaten existing facilities. There will be nothing additional provided that Featherstone does not already possess, with the exception of playing fields and sports facilities. These are of course also proposed at Brookhouse Lane in a location where they can be far more readily and accessibly enjoyed by existing residents.

8.12 The appeal proposals are thus not a sustainable development utilising existing resources to best effect and creating a sustainable mixed community and, therefore fly in the face of important Government objectives. The obvious failings of the scheme in this respect, amount to further substantial harm to weigh in the balance against their claimed benefits.

Housing Need

8.13 PH takes no issue with the appellants on the numerical assessment of housing need. Having regard to the requirement to demonstrate a 5 year supply of available, suitable and achievable housing land230 there is a significant and pressing need for additional housing land to be released now in order to provide for both general needs and affordable housing. However, the need is for sites which can deliver in the period to 2012. Thereafter, provided that there is no further slippage within the Local Development

225 Mr Shaw, cross exam. 226 Mr Shaw, cross exam. 227 TW12 Design & Access Statement p9 228 Ibid Part 5 229 The appellants commit only to provide a site for the health centre and to construct the local centre to shell stage - see OB1 and OB3. 230 PPS3 ¶s 54, 60 and 71

Page 45 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Scheme, an allocations DPD should be both in place and beginning to deliver housing sites231. There is also agreement between the appellants and PH on the importance of the housing need issue. In the absence of acceptance of the housing need argument, irrespective of any other issues, very special circumstances could not be made out.232

8.14 TW2 and TW3 would each represent an wholly inappropriate response to the identified need. They both have a number of key weaknesses. Firstly, they will do very little to contribute to the identified need due to the constraints on their delivery. Secondly, their scale substantially exceeds the identified need. Thirdly, to grant planning permission for over-sized proposals, with uncertain delivery, is likely to prejudice other more suitable sites capable of meeting the need coming forward in the foreseeable future to the prejudice of those in housing need now.

8.15 Regarding deliverability, the key issues are the date of likely implementation and the completion rates thereafter. The appellants Housing Construction Programme233 is absurdly unrealistic. It assumes implementation in June 2008 following a decision to grant planning permission in February 2008. Within that short period, the land deals have to be completed, the land has to be remediated, the conditions precedent each have to be discharged and last but by no means least, a development agreement securing the construction of the station P&R must have been concluded to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. A development agreement the likes of which have not previously been entered into by Network Rail234.

8.16 PH’s assessment235 of the likely start date (assuming that the development agreement poses no constraint on timing) is spring 2009. That is a far more realistic for a site of this scale assuming no abnormal constraints.

8.17 But the Development Agreement is an abnormal constraint given the Grampian condition236. If, as is entirely possible, gap funding via an Annex E bid is required for the provision of the station, it is agreed between the appellants and PH that this would put back the implementation of any permission by 18 months (assuming that the bid was successful)237, leaving just 18 months of the 5 year period in which to deliver any completions at all.

8.18 In terms of completion rates, the appellants claim the ability to deliver completions in the range 150 to 175 in the first 2 full years with a slower completion rate at the outset. PH has no issue with a slower rate at the outset; that is entirely normal. However to contend that the MDA could deliver completions within a range of between 150 and 175 per annum thereafter is unrealistic. The appellants could point to no site within this market area which had delivered that rate of development (irrespective of the number of house builders on site) and, it transpired238 that the assessment was based on completion rates achieved by Wimpey on a site at Didcot. In no sense a relevant comparator239.

8.19 Taking the most optimistic implementation date (i.e. assuming no delay associated with the Development Agreement) and a more realistic completion rate, TW2 and 3 would deliver at most 300 units within the period to 2012. If the station P&R were to require gap funding, the appeal schemes’ total contribution would be in the range 100-150 dwellings in total. That would mean that the vast majority of their contribution to housing land supply would be made after 2012.

231 SSDC7 232 Mr Shaw, cross exam; PH1 ¶1.9. 233 TW14. 234 Mr Baker, cross exam by PH. 235 PH6 236 SCG9 No 7 237 SCG6 ¶3.5 238 Mr Shaw, cross exam PH. 239 The entry in the trajectory at TW13 for Former Littleton Colliery would indicate that the claimed completion rate is double that achieved by a large site in this market area.

Page 46 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

8.20 That has an important bearing on the very special circumstances case. The appellants agreed240 that (i) the extent to which weight could be accorded to meeting housing need would depend on the contribution made during the 5 year period; (ii) that the smaller the contribution made to the identified need within the 5 year period, the less likely it is that the substantial weight afforded to Green Belt harm would be outweighed; and (iii) that less weight should be attached to meeting need over and above the identified 5 year requirement.

8.21 TW2 and TW3 would be delivering the vast majority of their housing at a time no earlier than an allocations DPD is likely to be bringing sites forward in any event. They would do little to address the core need. In addition, if the SoS shares the authorities’ concerns as to out migration from the MUA arising from the proximity of the site to the conurbation, this delivery will be happening at the time when RSS plans for no migration into South Staffordshire. The appeal proposals deliver well after the period of transition to the revised strategy. It follows that not only are TW2 and TW3 unsuitable, but their realistic contribution to meeting the identified short term need make both of them an unacceptably poor response to the problem which they are intended to address.

8.22 Given the existence of the available, suitable and undeniably achievable Persimmon Homes’ proposals at Brookhouse Lane, the need case in support of the appeal proposals dissolves. The Brookhouse Lane proposals are head and shoulders above any alternative proposals advanced to meet the need. The total site area extends to 16.84 ha of which some 8.6 ha will be landscaping and open space leaving a net residential area of 7.55 ha on which 360 dwellings are proposed. In particular:

a) given its well contained nature, the site can be developed with little effect on the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. The appellants advanced no contention of unacceptable Green Belt harm against the scheme at the Brookhouse Lane Inquiry241;

b) the new housing is capable of being readily integrated within the existing community of Featherstone and is sustainable in all respects; being proximate to existing facilities (the existing school, shops and Health Centre would be in easy walking distance)242 and capable of being served by upgraded public transport;

c) the development proposed by PH is of a scale and mix which will make a vital contribution to addressing housing need without any fear of harm to the regeneration objectives for the conurbation or to the proposed housing strategy of the Council’s emerging Core Strategy;

d) 50% affordable housing would be secured; and

e) it is deliverable now.

8.23 Whilst it is undeniably a Green Belt/greenfield site, it is achievable within the requisite timescale and the most suitable of the candidate sites for meeting the immediate housing need. The Government’s “priority” for the re-use of PDL is caveated by a requirement of suitability and PH would note that the SoS did not rule out in principle use of greenfield sites to meet the need in her decision in respect of the Landywood Lane appeals.243 There is no justification for now reaching a different conclusion.

The Benefit of Facilitating TW1

8.24 The TW1 proposal presents the appellants with an insuperable dilemma. Given that the scale of their housing proposals far exceeds the identified need, to establish very

240 Mr Shaw, cross exam PH 241 SSDC/AJ/5 App 35 p729 ¶22 242 Walking distance/time in Table D.1 Appendix D, PH3. 243 CD2A and SSDC/AJ/4 App17: ¶24

Page 47 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 special circumstances they have to be able to identify other significant benefits. The difficulty is that the TW1 proposal creates such uncertainty in respect of the delivery of the housing that it undermines the core element of the very special circumstances case.

8.25 Four issues will need to be resolved by the SoS in relation to the claimed benefit of TW1. Firstly, is it appropriate to impose a condition in the terms presently proposed? Secondly, what weight should be accorded to the contribution which would flow from the approval of TW2/3 to the achievement of TW1? Thirdly, what are the likely implications of the station Grampian condition244 for the delivery of TW2 and 3? Fourthly, if the station P&R could only be delivered through the means of an enabling development, is the extent of harm acceptable having regard to the benefits?

8.26 On the first issue, the proposed station Grampian condition should not be accepted by the SoS. Paragraph 13 of the Annex to Circular 11/95 states: Permission cannot be granted subject to a condition that the applicant enters into a planning obligation under section 106 of the Act or an agreement under other powers. That advice reflects two principles; firstly, that a condition should not impose a positive obligation on an applicant where compliance would require the cooperation of a third party and, secondly, conditions should be sufficiently precise to enable the LPA and applicant to know what compliance requires and for compliance to be enforced. Whilst the first principle may be respected by expressing the condition in a negative form, that does not address the second principle.

8.27 The proposed station Grampian condition fails the second principle because it sets no parameters against which to assess acceptability. It requires a Development Agreement to contractually ensure construction of the railway station prior to implementation, but provides no timescale within which that construction is to take place, provides no means by which the Development Agreement (to which the LPA would not be a party) to be enforced by the LPA and gives no indication of the terms to be included to satisfy it. For example, a fixed term Development Agreement or one which includes a power of variation would satisfy the terms of the condition and allow for implementation, but would not necessarily deliver the railway station.

8.28 This is a point of real substance given that other conditions would allow 450 dwellings and all the employment floorspace to be developed before the construction of the station245. The risk that that could be the end product of development at Brinsford is sufficiently grave that the SoS should not contemplate granting planning permission for either the TW2 or 3 proposals unless she is in a position to annex to the relevant condition a development agreement in the terms which would satisfy this condition and eliminate any risk of the station not proceeding. That is in no sense unreasonable given the very substantial reliance now placed on the delivery of the station in the justification for the TW2 and 3 proposals.

8.29 In relation to the weight to be accorded to the enabling of TW1, the proper question is: have the appellants demonstrated that their TW2/3 appeal schemes are the only means by which the station P&R proposal can be delivered? If not, the SoS should attach little weight to the contribution of the appeal schemes in the Green Belt balance as the appellants’ case would be reduced to arguing that their appeal schemes would save the public purse the capital costs of a scheme which it would otherwise bear (not a material planning consideration) and/or that it would accelerate provision of a facility where all the promoting authorities consider the accelerant (strategic scale housing) unacceptable.

8.30 On the evidence, the only answer which may be given to this first question is “no”. The appellants’ evidence is that the likelihood of the station P&R coming forward would be greatly enhanced with the MDA and diminished significantly without it246 or very difficult or

244 SCG8 No5 and SCG9 No 7 245 SCG 9 No 9 246 Mr Shaw, cross exam by SSDC.

Page 48 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 negligible247 PH’s position is that if the rail based P&R proposal has merit as a transportation proposal, the mechanism and means exist to deliver it without recourse to enabling development, if and when a sound business case can be made to support it.

8.31 The appellants’ reason for questioning deliverability of the station P&R in the absence of the MDA proposals, was that the appellants would become unwilling landowners in any publicly pursued P&R scheme which would require compulsory acquisition and entitle them to compensation248. Compensation which, given the complexities of the interests involved and the benefits to Network Rail would, it was claimed, be very difficult to assess and would frustrate an Annex E bid.

8.32 Leaving aside the obvious unattractiveness of that “pistol to the temple argument”, it is by no means clear that that would in fact be the inevitable consequence of a rejection of the MDA schemes. Delivery of employment development of any scale at Brinsford appears likely to require improved access and in turn the involvement of Network Rail. The position will remain that the station P&R has the potential to benefit both the appellants (or their successors) and Network Rail and that each of them would benefit from the cooperation of the other. The potential for an arrangement to be reached along the lines of the existing heads of terms in the context of an employment scheme cannot be ruled out. In any event, these are quintessentially matters which would require to be fully and publicly considered by the relevant authorities before the principle of enabling development were accepted. It would be quite inappropriate for the SoS to form any view on them given the limited investigation possible within the scope of an Inquiry of this kind.

8.33 As to the likely implications of the station Grampian condition for the delivery of the MDA, there is a remaining dispute as between the appellants and PH as to the likely timescale for progressing matters and securing the Development Agreement. This is set out in the SCG between PH and the appellants on TW1249. It is agreed that the P&R proposals are presently at GRIP stage 2/3 and that it is likely that GRIP stage 4 would need to be reached to provide sufficient certainty for a development agreement to be signed by Network Rail250. Whether that stage is reached and by when will turn on the business case for the scheme and the ability of Network Rail to raise funding within the market for it. PH maintains that whilst a reasonable case could be made for the funding of the P&R without recourse to public funding, the existing business case has a number of material weaknesses such that significant public sector funding could be required as previously indicated in the written evidence251.

8.34 In summary252, those weaknesses are as follows:

a) the existing park and ride stations utilised in the demand modelling are in central urban locations and not comparable in terms of attraction to a park and ride facility at Brinsford. This is likely to exaggerate demand;

b) the factor (120%) to derive daily trips from the morning peak period trips is excessive for such a facility and likely to exaggerate demand. A factor of 90% is more realistic;

c) the mode shares utilised to identify rail trips from the MDA housing and to and from the i54 site are unrealistically high, again exaggerating demand;

d) the inclusion within the business case of all of the parking revenue is a flawed approach given the high level of abstracted trips (85%). The majority of this

247 Mr Baker 248 Mr Baker in chief and cross exam by PH 249 SCG6 250 SCG 6 ¶3.4 251 PH5 ¶5.1.3 252 Drawn from PH5, sections 3.2 and 3.4

Page 49 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

85% will already be paying for parking at a station and therefore any parking revenue from that 85% at Brinsford will itself be abstracted and not new;

e) the parking charge utilised in the model is inflated;

f) there remains uncertainty as to the level of cost.

8.35 It is true that the appellants are more confident of their business case than PH and this in part is likely to be based on the as yet unquantified enhancements which could be made to it.253 However, it is important to note that they do not rule out, whether in the SCG or in evidence, the possibility that public funding may yet be required. The up to date position is set out in the appellants’ evidence254 and may be summarised as follows:

a) Network Rail is of the view, based on their assessment carried out to date that the business case makes a coherent case for commercial investment by them;

b) The capital sum which Network Rail can invest will turn on the revenue and yield and, ultimately, interest rates at the time funding is finalised;

c) Not until more detailed design work has been completed and costed can relative certainty of the actual costs be established;

d) Only then will the ability of Network Rail entirely to fund the proposal be known.

8.36 The optimism of the appellants in respect of their business case must be viewed in the knowledge that projects of this kind across the public sector have been shown to suffer from optimism bias at the stage at which this proposal is at, sufficient to require the addition of an increment of 50% to the costs. On any assessment much more work needs to be done before this project progresses and there is a real prospect that before it does, it will need to compete for public funds through the Annex E process. There can be no certainty whatever as to the point in time at which the planning permission could be implemented having regard to the terms of the station Grampian condition.

8.37 Finally on TW1, there is the issue of whether, even if the SoS is satisfied that the delivery of a rail based P&R is dependent on an MDA being permitted, the balance would be in favour of the grant of permission. The scale of harm to the Green Belt and the detriment to Featherstone which would result from either of these the MDA proposals would be a very heavy and wholly unacceptable price to pay.

Urban Regeneration Zone/High Tech Corridor

8.38 The SoS will need to determine what weight should be attached to the location of the appeal sites within a URZ and HTC when assessing the proposals as a whole, encompassing as they do housing, employment, P&R, Green Belt loss, greenfield loss, PDL remediation and re-use. The appellants stretch the URZ concept far beyond breaking point in order to claim material support for the proposals as a whole. The SoS would have to conclude that the URZs were strategy free zones and to give the RSS a meaning which defies all logic. When probed255, the appellants’ case narrowed to the proposition that housing of “a reasonable” scale trumped the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt by reason of its ability to enable the P&R and employment within the URZ. Apparently, however, any other type of enabling development (leisure or retail) would not have that effect because of PPS6. How it can be argued that the PA policies trump any national planning guidance in the absence of a clear statement to that effect in the RSS. Nothing in PA2 or its supporting text would support such an approach and indeed, where there is an alternative, far more rational approach, it must be preferred.

253 SCG6 ¶3.8. 254 Drawn from TWD/DB/4 App 1; ¶2.5-2.7. 255 Mr Brisbane, cross exam by PH.

Page 50 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

8.39 The designation of URZs and HTCs is part of the Prosperity for All Chapter in the RSS. This is not within the context of housing strategy, but in the context of economic development. Neither URZs or HTCs are to be regarded as a focus for housing development and it is clear that their definition was a result of the assessment of economic development opportunities i.e. development sites256 and the objective is employment growth to stabilise the employment and unemployment gap between themselves and the regional average.257 They lend no policy support for the development of strategic scale housing at Brinsford. Whilst this part of the URZ may be unique in including land within the Green Belt within its extent, the RSS indicates no unique policy approach to it and a proper holistic approach to the RSS lends support only to TW1 and to employment development on the land excluded from the Green Belt. If the enabling development argument has any real merit then it should not need the prop of the URZ.

8.40 As to the employment element of the appeal proposals, whilst a benefit, there is no evidence produced by the appellants to demonstrate that employment development at Brinsford is dependent upon the development of 870 or 1000 dwellings. This also deals with the benefit of re-using PDL. That same benefit could be achieved by an appropriate employment development on the land excluded from the Green Belt by the local plan. That is by far and away the use for which it is most suited.

Providing Balance to the Community of Featherstone

8.41 The extent to which the appellants place any particular reliance on this benefit is far from clear. Their position appears to be that persons in socio economic groups A and B may or may not be drawn out of the MUA to live within the MDA. If they are, that is a benefit to Featherstone which has a below average population in those groups. It is therefore, even on the appellants own case an unquantified and unquantifiable benefit. There is, furthermore, no evidence that providing an appropriate balance within the settlement requires a strategic scale housing proposal. It was no part of the appellants’ case at the Brookhouse Lane Inquiry258 that the far more modest Persimmon proposals made an inadequate contribution to achieving a balanced community.

Sustainability and Provision of Facilities

8.42 It will only be if and when the MDA proposals deliver their associated services and facilities, the railway station and the public transport service that they will attain the same level of accessibility as the better related Brookhouse Lane scheme. Until that point, and there can be no guarantee that it will ever be achieved, there will be substantial numbers of residential car trips which can be avoided by directing growth to a more suitable site. There is no need for, nor benefit to be derived from, these strategic scale proposals.

8.43 In terms of new facilities to be provided, there is a lack of a football pitch in Featherstone. To the extent that this would be provided as part of the appeal proposals it is a benefit but again, it is one which would be provided by the altogether better Persimmon proposals.

Conclusion

8.44 Properly weighted, the factors which militate against the grant of permission for either TW2 or TW3 clearly outweigh those advanced in their favour. It follows that the presumption against them contained in PPG2 is not rebutted and the appeals must be dismissed. The consensus is that it follows that TW1 should also be dismissed and PH see no reason to argue otherwise.

256 See CD4 ¶7.3 p45. 257 See CD48 para 9.2. 258 Accepted by Mr Shaw in cross exam by PH

Page 51 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

9. The Case for Taylor Wimpey Developments and BAE Systems

I give here the gist of the appellants’ case edited from the closing submissions (TW25) with additional material drawn from the evidence.

Background

9.1 Each of these appeals has involved the preparation of an Environmental Assessment in accordance with the Regulations. In each instance the adequacy or otherwise of the ES has been considered and where appropriate and necessary requests made for additional information. So far as the appellants are aware all additional information which has been requested has been supplied and there are no outstanding requests for any further information in respect of any relevant matter. Nonetheless the appellants make clear that if, at any stage, the view is taken that further information is required in order to allow for proper and appropriate consideration of the appeals they remain ready, willing and able to provide such information as might reasonably be required and would accordingly not expect that there would be any complaint as to the adequacy of the information provided without there having been a further request for such information and an appropriate time allowed to provide it.

9.2 Although there are 3 separate appeals to be considered it is the view of the appellants, a view shared now by SSDC and others, that the proposals should be considered as a package. Thus the appellants invite consideration of appeal TW1 with TW2 or TW3 for the purpose of deciding whether or not planning permission should be granted. TW2 and TW3 are alternatives and should be considered as such in each case as a package with TW1.

Compliance with the Development Plan

9.3 The Development Plan for the area consists of: the Regional Spatial Strategy (RPG11) 2004259; the Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Structure Plan 2001260 ; and the South Staffordshire Local Plan 1996261. The RSS is the most up to date element of the Development Plan. In accordance with Section 38 of the 2004 Act in the event of any conflict between its provisions and any other part of the Development Plan it should prevail. In addition, but subject to any saving, the Structure Plan and Local Plan will cease to be part of the Development Plan at 28th September 2007. These submissions proceed on the basis that those parts of the Plans which the LPAs have requested to be saved will be saved and other parts will be not saved. Where policies are proposed to be saved it is appropriate to proceed on the basis that the authorities have concluded that the relevant part of the Plan is still up to date and appropriate to be given full weight.

9.4 In considering whether the proposals are in accordance with the Development Plan attention is drawn to the following:

a) The decision of the High Court in Rochdale262 where it was held that: It is not at all unusual for Development Plan Policies to pull in different directions…For the purposes of Section 54A it is enough that the proposal accords with the Development Plan considered as a whole. It does not have to accord with each and every policy therein and;

b) The decision of the High Court in Camden263 (referred to elsewhere as Cummins) where it was held that: There is a real risk that (if) each individual relevant policy had to be examined against the proposal, and the implication of the breach of one necessarily shows a proposal out of accord with the Development

259 CD4 260 CD5 261 CD6 262 TW23(A): R. v. Rochdale MBC Ex p. Milne (2001) 81 P&CR 365 para’s 46-50. 263 TW23(B): R. (on the application of C.) v. Camden LBC (2001) EWHC (Admin) 1116 para 165)

Page 52 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Plan, (it) would impose a legalistic straight jacket upon an appraisal which cannot sensibly be made in such a manner”; and

c) The decision of the High Court in Cranage264 where it was held that in considering Development Plans it was appropriate for decision making bodies to adopt an interpretive approach which considers the purpose of the plan, rather than an approach which was semantic or overly legalistic.

9.5 The Green Belt is clearly a very important part of national planning policy, well understood and with a clear role set out in PPG2. The RSS makes clear that urban regeneration is sufficiently important that Green Belt boundaries may be adjusted to support regeneration265. That is not to devalue the Green Belt, but to flag up just how important is the urban regeneration agenda and what weight it is to be accorded in applying and interpreting the policies in RSS.

9.6 The judgements referred to make plain that interpretations of policy that do not produce results consistent with identified objectives are not appropriate. Thus the word by word and out of context approach such as to the PA (housing) policies should be rejected. The proposals viewed as a whole are in accordance with the Plan.

9.7 In considering the RSS, it is relevant to bear in mind the acceptance by SSDC266 that in the context of RSS policy and designations the appeal site is appropriately described as unique. That arises because the site is:

a) Within an Urban Regeneration Zone (URZ) covered by Policy PA2;

b) Within a High Technology Corridor (HTC) covered by Policy PA3;

c) Is the only identified location for a strategic park and ride proposal set out in Policy T6 and identified in Policy T12 as being a sub regional priority for investment within an MUA; and that projects such as the Brinsford P&R should be regarded as regionally significant (¶9.91);

d) It is identified by Future Foundations on their Regeneration Zone Plan as a Development Opportunity 267 notwithstanding the Green Belt location.

9.8 Against that unique background, the decisions on the appeal proposal could not possibly be regarded as setting a precedent for any development elsewhere. In addition, although the site lies in what might generally be regarded as a Green Belt area, some 33.8ha is not Green Belt (that area includes the 10.6 ha sold to the prison service).

9.9 The RSS was carefully constructed to be read and interpreted as a whole with many of the policies described as cross-cutting and applying across all other policy areas268. Thus although, for example, URZs are considered in the Prosperity for All section which addresses, among other things, the regional economy, it is absolutely clear both from RSS and the Regional Economic Strategy (RES)269 that one cannot read the PA Policies as being unconnected to other policies in the RSS and in particular to the housing policies. If there is a main or dominant policy here, applying the Camden approach (¶164), it is clearly the locationally specific and urban regeneration focused URZ policies of RSS. The cross cutting nature of the RSS strategy is especially relevant to the URZs, since it is a designation applying across all policy areas.

264 TW23 (C) Cranage Parish Council v. First Secretary of State (2005) JPL 1176 paras 28 and 44-50. 265 CD4 ¶3.4(d) p16 266 Mr Johnson, cross exam 267 CD41 Planning Statement for TW3 p23. 268 CD4 ¶1.1 p1 269 CD48.

Page 53 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

9.10 Even without the legal principles set out above, the RSS makes its position clear in setting out the spatial strategy in Chapter 3, from which are drawn the following matters270:

a) The RSS is seeking to stem the continued decentralisation of population and investment from MUAs and seeks to create balanced and stable communities reversing decline and regenerating deprived areas;

b) An important factor in the trend of decentralisation has been the availability of land in settlements close to the MUAs; the decentralisation has contributed to unsustainable development patterns and led people to make more and longer journeys more often than not by private car;

c) Against that background the 4 challenges for the region are urban renaissance, rural renaissance, diversifying and modernising the region’s economy and modernising the transport infrastructure of the West Midlands; challenges which must be addressed simultaneously and as different aspects of the same issues;

d) The tackling of the issues raised will require a significant redistribution of development investment and action particularly to support the development of the region’s transport networks; to bring forward appropriate development opportunities and improve the quality of the environment within MUAs.

9.11 Both the nature of the appeal proposals and the RSS policies make it inappropriate to divide up the appeal proposals into separate elements and test them as separate elements against separate elements of RSS policy. What is required is a judgment against the objectives of the RSS policy as to whether the development proposals taken as a whole support the objectives of RSS and accordingly comply with it.

9.12 It is clearly not accidental that uniquely for the West Midlands conurbation the URZ extends beyond the MUA into this part of South Staffordshire to cover the appeal site area. Thus although the proposals are in South Staffordshire District, a district which is essentially rural, redevelopment and development on this site explicitly falls to be considered in the context of PA2 as being within an area which is designated as urban with identified opportunities to develop consistent with urban regeneration.

9.13 The purpose of the URZs is to encourage urban renaissance, something which relates not only to the site itself, but to the remaining area of the URZ as it extends southward into the conurbation, to reverse longstanding trends of decentralisation of economic activity and population and to focus investment within such designated URZs. The impact of the proposals on the wider URZ is clearly to be taken into account.

9.14 It necessarily follows that development of the kind proposed within the URZ which has been designated with the objective of reversing longstanding trends of decentralisation of economic activity and population cannot be said to conflict with the objectives of the RSS as identified above. To take any other approach is to make nonsense of the designation and the policy. Likewise with regard to the focusing of investment - investment in this case is not simply economic investment, but investment in all types of development including housing.

9.15 The text and the policy relating to URZs are to be read together, they are both part of the development plan, no arbitrary distinction should be drawn. Together they make clear that URZs are not simply areas where there are priorities for investment in terms of employment land, but also areas for investment in terms of housing and the renewal of infrastructure in which category comes the P&R proposals. SSDC accepted271 that in the context of ¶7.12, housing within an URZ is not in principle in conflict with the objectives of the RSS or indeed with the objective of achieving urban renaissance. It is relevant also to

270 CD4 ¶s 3.1-3.5 p13 271 Mr Johnson, cross exam.

Page 54 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 note that ¶7.13, whilst referring to regeneration zones in the MUAs, invites particular emphasis to be given to the provision of high quality employment sites, the regeneration of town centres and other opportunity areas with the clear implication that whilst particular emphasis might be given to those matters, the other matters embraced by ¶7.12 are also relevant.

9.16 Having regard to the nearby and regionally extremely important i54 employment development (now with the benefit of recent permissions272 after a lengthy gestation process) attention is drawn to ¶7.15 of the RSS and its invitation for specific measures to be introduced to enhance employment and training opportunities arising from new investment in the regeneration zones. The appeal proposals for a substantial element of regionally significant transport infrastructure, providing a high quality P&R and a railway station on a recently upgraded part of the rail network (the WCML) is undeniably relevant to the objectives of RSS and to the achievement of a successful development of the i54 site. In the light of the references contained in the Regional Transport Delivery Plan273 and to Advantage West Midlands’ (AWM) representations on the appeal applications274, those matters should be beyond doubt.

9.17 To suggest that the dominant policies here are those addressing Green Belt or housing is to miss the point completely about the focus of RSS and the significance of URZs. The RSS is, among other things, giving effect to the RES.275 It is plain from the RES that in the URZs, housing is an important part of the regenerative mix. The fact the proposals have a significant element of housing within them or rely on housing as part of the viability mix does not make them housing proposals for the purpose of RSS when there is a directly relevant spatial policy covering the area and overall proposal.

9.18 The approach to be taken in URZs is emphasised by the wording in Policy UR1 and in particular UR1C where ¶s (iii) and (iv) invite concentrated action within URZs aimed at, among other things, business support, access improvements, land assembly and environmental improvements and developing strategies to provide employment growth and the creation of new residential environments in areas of opportunity276. There is hardly an element there which is not embraced by these proposals. It is clear from the introductory words of UR1C that the URZs are regarded as the areas of greatest need and opportunity to create growth and new choices. It would be curious indeed if URZs had been designated which did not fall into that category having regard to their overall objectives.

9.19 High Technology Corridors (HTC) are addressed in Policy PA3 which identifies them as corridors to encourage diversification of the regional economy and as areas where in land use terms new developments should be focussed on the MUAs and at specific nodes shown on the Prosperity for All Diagram. This site is at such an identified node. In considering that Policy, the text at ¶7.20 needs to be borne in mind. The text points out that corridor development should be at key nodes such as the appeal site, well served by public transport where there is a high quality environment and supporting infrastructure including…attractive housing. It is also pointed out that corridors should provide a focus for transport improvements particularly where this can help enhance links and accessibility within, to and from regeneration zones. It would be difficult to find a more explicit endorsement of the form of the appeal proposals than is provided by that paragraph.

9.20 The RSS draws attention to the need for and desirability of improving the environment within URZs. They are regeneration zones. The appeal proposals remediation and redevelopment of no less than 64ha of PDL should particularly be borne in mind

272 Planning permissions and plans at SSDC6. 273 CD52 pp A12 & B41 & TWD/RS/B/2 App7. 274 TWD/RS/B/2 App 8. 275 CD48. 276 As shown on the Regeneration Zone plan - CD41 Planning Statement for TW3 p23.

Page 55 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 alongside not only the objectives of RSS, but also PPS3 with its priority being given to PDL for housing277.

9.21 SSDC and WCC suggest that although the PA policies and chapter 7 of the RSS do refer to housing, the policies and chapter and by implication, the URZs, are focuses for essentially economic activity and not for housing development. Leaving aside the clear denial of the wording of RSS, such an approach ignores the injunction contained within the RSS that it should be read as a whole with the necessity for simultaneous action on all fronts and more importantly ignores the fact that the prosperity for all chapter of RSS is said explicitly to be closely linked with and to support the implementation of the RES278. The RES is explicit about the connection between delivering a housing agenda for economic growth as part of Pillar 3 - Creating the Conditions for Growth279. The importance of creating those conditions for growth as part of the urban regeneration which the RSS seeks is undeniable and it is in the circumstances startling that notwithstanding the explicit terms of RSS, the explicit terms of the RES and more widely such matters as the Barker Report280, the suggestion should be made that in some way housing was either inappropriate or insignificant in a URZ in this location.

9.22 The RES is explicit281 in pointing out that:

a) The links between sustainable communities, the regional housing strategy and the contribution to urban and rural renaissance that new housing makes in providing balanced and sustainable communities;

b) That there is a two way relationship between housing markets and economic success, the vitality of housing markets affects the vitality of the economy and vice versa. A vibrant economy brings higher levels of housing investment, a weak economy results in low levels of investment with consequent dilapidation and decay. It is explicitly acknowledged that the housing market can also be a driver for change providing an impetus or intervention leading to increased activity and employment;

c) That the linking of employment to housing requires action at a range of levels including control through the planning process and support for mixed developments and targeted public transport initiatives;

d) That securing large scale intervention across administrative boundaries including actions to address market restructuring and housing market failure is important as a priority.

9.23 RES envisages regeneration zones as targeted areas creating bridges to success282 which were not intended to be constrained by administrative boundaries. This URZ has not been so constrained. The emerging, and still consultation draft, revised RES283 does not take any different approach, but simply recasts the current approach in a different way.284

9.24 The RSS identifies modernising the transport infrastructure of the West Midlands and supporting its sustainable development as one of the elements that must be simultaneously addressed285. The Regional Transport Strategy is set out in Chapter 9 of the RSS. Better transport is stated to be essential for key components of the spatial

277 PPS3 ¶36. 278 CD4 ¶ 7.5 p45. 279 CD48 pp30-33. 280 See Mr Brisbane’s Evidence in chief note and GHK report extract attached - TW22. 281 CD48 p33 section 6.5. 282 CD48 section 9 p40. 283 SSDC13. 284 see Mr Brisbane’s evidence in chief (TW22) and Mr Johnson’s proof (SSDC/AJ/1) para 6.99 p78. 285 CD4 ¶s 3.4 & 3.5.

Page 56 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 strategy with particular reference to urban and rural renaissance only being successful if fully supported by appropriate transport policies286.

9.25 The P&R proposal has been the subject of extensive investigation both as to its appropriateness in principle and its location over many years287. It features in the RSS as an identified proposal as part of a strategy looking for a significant behavioural change across the region, changes in the cost of transport and the construction of new infrastructure288. The policies, of which T6 are a part, are introduced by Policy T1 which is an over-arching policy. Section A of T1 proposes that access within and across the region will be improved in a way that supports the spatial strategy, reduces the need for travel, expands travel choice, tackles congestion, improves safety and protects the environment. It is against that background and over-arching objectives that the P&R proposal has been identified in Policy T6 and with which the proposal should be taken to be compliant.

9.26 One of the major challenges of the transport strategy is to produce a change in travel patterns. The P&R achieves a significant number of the measures identified at ¶9.24 of RSS, among them a, b, c, e, f and h. The RSS unequivocally identifies the location and in that respect distinguishes Brinsford from others which are potential rather than actual proposals.

9.27 Against that background and in particular Policies T6 and T12 it is clear that the appeal proposals include a strategic piece of transport infrastructure consistent with the Regional Transport Strategy and contributing materially to the objectives of RSS, including urban regeneration. In addition this infrastructure is at a location identified as a result of a process and a series of reports, produced over a period of years, which have included a consideration of potential alternative locations.

9.28 Major development in such a location combining the P&R proposal, employment, housing and other facilities has an easy fit with Policies PA2 and PA3 of the RSS and the supporting text.

9.29 The thrust of SSDC’s and WCC’s objection to the appeal proposals is with regard to the housing element alone. It is said that the provision of either 870 or 1000 dwellings at this location is inconsistent with the objectives of RSS in seeking to avoid and reverse trends of decentralisation and that it will fundamentally undermine the strategy. The Councils draw support for their approach from the views of the RPB set out in the conformity opinion289. What both the Councils and the RPB overlook is the unique combination of circumstances and policies that combine on the appeal site to produce a Development Opportunity identified in the URZ Zone Plan290 which not only does not undermine the RSS, but actively and fully supports its objectives in a clear and consistent way. The remaining housing issues are dealt with below against a background of the RSS’s explicit endorsement of housing within URZs and that the link between housing development, economic development and urban renaissance is explicit in the approach taken by RSS. In these circumstances, the proposals would not undermine the objectives of the RSS with regard to out migration.

9.30 Even if the SoS were to conclude that there was a 5 year supply of land available within South Staffordshire, housing of the scale proposed would not be inconsistent with the RSS, because of the role of housing within URZs and HTCs and its particular role at this location as part of the creation of a sustainable community contributing to urban regeneration and renaissance. The appeal sites and sizeable parts of South Staffordshire fall within both the Wolverhampton and the Walsall Local Housing Market Areas identified in

286 CD4 ¶9.1 c) p101. 287 TWD/RS/A/1 ¶3.4. 288 CD4 ¶9.14. 289 SSDC/AJ/3 App 15. 290 CD41 Planning Statement for TW3 p23.

Page 57 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 background work in support of the RSS revision.291 There may be difficulties in accommodating and delivering the higher levels of housing growth within the urban areas of Wolverhampton and Walsall suggested in RSS Phase 2 Options, particularly if the loss of better quality employment sites is to be avoided.292 Given that the appeal site is within the Wolverhampton and Walsall HMA and a designated URZ it should be seen as a potential source of housing land for the housing needed in those urban areas. It would be a sustainable location for such housing given the predominant use of PDL and the accessibility that would be available from the investment in public transport. In any case, there is no conflict with RSS housing policy CF2D applicable in rural areas and relied on by SSDC and WCC. It allows for flexibility by referring to housing being generally restricted to meeting local needs. More widely, there is no reason why this location should not be regarded as another focus in addition to those listed in CF2A.

9.31 In considering questions of housing need, it is obvious that the SoS attaches importance to ensuring that housing needs are met both as to market housing and affordable housing. Whilst the RSS looks for the housing provision identified in it as being minima within the MUAs and maxima outside that does not mean one can regard with indifference a material departure from the housing figures identified in RSS in areas such as South Staffordshire and in particular in areas such as this unique location within a URZ/HTC.

9.32 There is no prospect of the Council producing sites for housing via the LDF process until, even on its timetable, about 2011293 (and that timetable has been subject to repeated and significant amendment putting back the adoption date294). It would be wise to treat any dates given by the Council with regard to an allocations DPD as being essentially preliminary. In any event, to the extent that the appeal proposal commits housing which might extend beyond the period when a DPD is in place, it would be committed on the basis that the location was a thoroughly sustainable one for housing development in accordance with the RSS strategy and accordingly not a problem.

9.33 In addition, as AWM have pointed out295, housing development in this location has potential benefits. The only argument to the contrary offered by SSDC is that they have recently adopted what is described as a dispersal strategy for housing, seeking to disperse housing around the many poorly connected settlements in the district, admitting as they do that public transport and accessibility in such locations is poor, particularly by public transport296. The suggestion that it might be a disadvantage of the appeal proposal that that strategy would be frustrated is bizarre given that national policy encourages housing and particularly affordable housing in locations which are accessible, particularly by public transport so as to support sustainable travel patterns, and in order to avoid disadvantaging further those who may already be disadvantaged as a consequence of their need for affordable housing.

9.34 In the assessment of the housing land supply there is a clear dispute between the appellants and the SSDC, WCC, SCC, RPB and GOWM. The SSDC asserts that in assessing whether or not there is a 5 year supply of land for private house building in accordance with PPS3 the appropriate figures to use are those in the RSS Phase 2 Revision Consultation.297 The genesis for that approach appears to be the GOWM letter of January 2007298, a letter

291 Study into the Identification and Use of Local Housing Market Areas for the Development of the RSS - Initial Findings, June 2006, CD50A; Final Revised Technical Report, October 2006, CD50B. Extracts at TWD/BB/3 App G. 292 TWD/BB/1 ¶s 6.5-6.18. 293 SSDC7 294 See the anticipated adoption dated noted at the Landywood Inquiry - SSDC/AJ/4 App 18 ¶16.51. 295 TWD/RS/B/2 App 8. 296 SSDC/AJ/1 ¶8.122 p124. 297 CD8 298 Letter of 9 January 2007 to all West Midlands LPAs SSDC/AJ/2 App3 p31.

Page 58 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 which was explicitly related to LDF preparation. The use of such consultation figures for LDF preparation need not be problematic and could have advantages.

9.35 Unfortunately, and apparently without a great deal of consideration of what might arise as a consequence, the suggested approach for LDF preparation has been extended by GOWM299 to include a suggestion that such an approach should be used when assessing the 5 year supply of land in accordance with PPS3. But subsequent advice from GOWM to Stafford Borough Council300 indicate that the approach could be disagreed with both by authorities and others and accordingly is not to be taken as in any sense mandatory. For the reasons set out below, that rather more flexible approach is entirely appropriate and respects the reality of the current position.

9.36 The RSS review consultation figures are just that - consultation figures. They are reference points against which comments can be made with the explicit acknowledgement that the preferred option may not be one of the 3 identified in the consultation, with no indication that in the meantime they should carry any particular weight301. The fact that the figure for South Staffordshire remains the same in each option does not make them more creditable because there is an obvious inter-relationship between the figures for the different authorities. Changes elsewhere could have significant implications for South Staffordshire.

9.37 In determining an appeal in Stafford302 an Inspector set out a clear view on the inappropriateness of placing any weight on such figures. This view entirely accords with the SoS’s advice with regard to prematurity set out in the companion document to PPS1. In an appeal in Liverpool 303 the SoS adopted a similar approach. In the recent Filton case304 the SoS extended the approach to an RSS which had reached EIP

9.38 The letter issued with the RSS in June 2004 by the Minister is in clear and explicit terms305 to produce the following result:

a) Structure Plan proportions should be used in applying the RSS figures to 2011;

b) Beyond 2011 such proportions may not be appropriate, but should be used until better information becomes available;

c) The Structure Plan proportions should be used beyond 2011 until better information becomes available unless the result produced is in conflict with the objectives of RSS.

9.39 Using the Structure Plan proportions to 2011 is not inconsistent with the RSS which assumes continued out-migration in the same way that the Structure Plan proportions do through to 2011. There ought accordingly to be no argument about that approach and the appropriateness of it. As to the use of the Structure Plan proportions beyond 2011 and whether or not the RSS Phase 2 figures represent better information it is appropriate to bear in mind the guidance issued by CLG/PINS306 with regard to the calculation of the 5 year land supply and in particular ¶5.

9.40 It does not endorse the use of consultation draft figures contained in an emerging RSS. But it allows regard to be given to the evidence underpinning the housing provision policies, which in this instance would mean having regard to the household projections. The advice therefore offers no support for the approach adopted by the Council which is to

299 Letter of 17 May 2007 at SSDC/AJ/4 App 21 p495. 300 TW8 301 CD8 p20 & CD9 ¶5.3, p12. 302 TWD/RS/B/2 App 14 ¶24. 303 TWD/RS/B/2, App 15 ¶19. 304 TW11 ¶8 of decision letter. 305 Accepted as such by Mr Johnson in cross exam. 306 Copy at WCC/AR/2 App A.

Page 59 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 simply use the figures in the consultation draft. Against that background, and subject to one matter contained in the final sentence of the relevant paragraph of the Minister’s letter of June 2004, the appropriate approach is to use the Structure Plan proportions throughout the calculation or, alternatively, until 2011 only and beyond 2011 to use a hybrid form of calculation using the latest household projection figures in the RSS revision rather than the RSS policy figure. Even if the RSS policy figure is used, the result307 still leaves the Council substantially lacking a 5 year supply of land for private house building and accordingly with a need for additional sites to be provided.

9.41 The Council/GOWM’s alternative method of using the consultation draft policy figure from the base date of 2001 is inappropriate. The trajectory based on such an approach is not a trajectory with its straight line 200 dwellings per annum from 2001 and does not respect or adopt the residual calculation method which is endorsed by the recent CLG/PINS guidance.

9.42 The one caveat which needs to be considered is that contained in the final sentence of the relevant paragraph of the Minister’s letter - that the result of relying on the Structure Plan proportions should not be inconsistent with the principles of the RSS resulting in the release of sites, particularly but not only greenfield, which would conflict with the RSS strategy. This takes us full circle to the matters addressed above and a consideration as to whether or not these proposals taken as a whole support or frustrate the approach in the RSS.

9.43 SSDC and WCC draw attention to the references in the RSS308 to the outward movement of people and jobs away from the MUAs being recognised as an unsustainable trend and providing a key challenge. What the Councils are less conscious of is that the paragraph continues by setting what is the undesirable consequence of that trend in the context of the RSS objectives. Those matters are pressures on the environment, encouraging development of greenfield sites, increasing the need for car based travel and creating dangers of abandonment and greater social polarisation within the region. It is to be observed that the appeal proposals, so far from contributing to those trends, demonstrably supports the reverse, in the following ways:

a) as to pressures on the environment - they produce a form of development which utilises 64 ha of PDL within a part of Staffordshire where, there is encouragement for landscape improvement because of the degraded nature of the area;

b) as to encouraging development of greenfield sites – other than for the P&R (which is universally supported where it has to be - adjacent to the railway) the appeal proposals involve substantially the use of PDL, not greenfield sites;309

c) as to increasing the need for car based travel - the Councils fully accept that the appeal proposals produce a piece of transport infrastructure which is of singular importance in its contribution to achieving modal shift310, relieving congestion and contributing thereby to urban renaissance;

d) as to greater social polarisation - the circumstances of the appeal sites within a URZ are unique. They are adjacent to a community which has a lower than national average of social classes A and B; a lower than national average of economically active people; and a higher than the national average economically inactive. To the extent that the proposals would result in A and B households

307 TW13 308 CD4 ¶2.7. 309 SCG1 ¶3.8 p7 310 A comparison of the modal split for the current residents of Featherstone with those predicted for the MDA is given in Table 3.2.1 of TWD/KM/1. The use of public transport (bus and train) would increase from 8% to 17% of trips and car use would be 70% of trips compared with 85% now.

Page 60 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

and employment locating in this area, it will actively avoid social polarisation and redress an imbalance.311

9.44 In undertaking the detail of the housing land supply calculation there is an issue with regard to the lapse rate which should not be ignored. A 33% lapse rate is justified, rather than SSDC’s 17%. This approach is consistent with the conclusion of the Inspector in the Landywood Lane appeal.312

9.45 The second issue with regard to housing land supply and which connects with the issue of Development Plan compliance is the site selection process. If further housing sites are required in the District then so far as possible they should accord with the policies in the Development Plan and at the very least avoid conflicting with such policies and their objectives. The starting point here is the fact that all of the sites identified in the 1996 Local Plan for housing development have been fully developed.

9.46 The Council embarked on the process of identifying new housing sites when it was seeking to review its Local Plan. Whilst no policy weight is to be attached to the abandoned Deposit Local Plan Review313, it is appropriate to have regard to the process and outcomes which the Council went through in identifying sites in preparing that review. The Council itself has relied on one of the background documents produced as part of that work – the settlement study314.

9.47 But the Council also prepared a full suite of related documents addressing among other things landscape and related issues315 and public transport accessibility316. The study includes a visual analysis of Featherstone317 which identifies the Brookhouse Lane site (being pursued at appeal by Persimmon Homes) as being important to the setting of the settlement (and thus effectively inappropriate for development), but with potential for significant development at the present appeal site as a consequence of its largely previously developed nature. In broader terms the public transport accessibility analysis identifies Featherstone as being within an area with high public transport accessibility in the peak hour and medium in the off peak, distinguishing it from many other settlements in the district which do not enjoy anything like such good accessibility.

9.48 It is necessary to look at the proposals in Deposit Local Plan Review to see what the outcome was when all the background studies were integrated. The Council was concerned to ensure that its new housing sites should be at sustainable locations, make effective use of existing infrastructure and services, be accessible by public transport and be well related in scale to existing villages with minimal impact on the environment318. It is in that context that the Council identified the appeal site as a suitable location for major development under Policy H1 of that Plan.

9.49 SSDC now wants to describe the appeal proposals as creating a new settlement, at the time when it brought the proposal forward itself, it identified the form of development as providing an opportunity to create a new focus for Featherstone village, addressing some of the deficiencies of existing facilities and services and appropriately providing for employment opportunities319.

9.50 When the Council decided to abandon the Local Plan Review it made clear that the work which had been undertaken would not be wasted because it could contribute

311 SSDC/AJ/4 App 24 p507. 312 CD2B and SSDC/AJ/4 App 18 ¶16.12. 313 CD7. 314 CD11. 315 CD13. 316 TW5. 317 CD13 plan 9b. 318 CD7 ¶s 3.22, 3.25 and 3.26 p48. 319 CD7 ¶ 2 p53.

Page 61 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 appropriately to the preparation of the LDF320. It is thus entirely appropriate to have regard to the conclusions reached by the Council against a background of studies undertaken with the explicit purpose of identifying suitable opportunities for development in locations which were regarded as sustainable.

9.51 SSDC suggest that the undoubted change in policy in the RSS, to move progressively towards the stemming of out migration from the conurbation, makes inappropriate reliance on either the Structure Plan or other documents which pre-date the RSS. For the reasons already given that view is not accepted.

9.52 SSDC and WCC argue that whilst Featherstone might be identified among the 50% most deprived wards in the UK, to be lacking social groups A and B and to be lacking economically active people, it is not as badly off as other parts of the MUA. That may be correct in as much as some parts of the MUA have greater levels of deprivation, but the appeal proposals are part of a URZ identified as a whole and within which it is explicitly sought to connect opportunity with need. There is no suggestion in the RSS of some order of ranking between the URZs or within URZs.

9.53 Finally, in relation to housing is the question of alternative sites and SSDC’s suggestion that there are alternative sites available which are to be preferred to the appeal site. None of these supposed alternative sites are within a URZ and none of them offers the outstanding opportunities presented by the appeal site to support the objectives of RSS. Even if such sites are considered suitable for housing development and available in the context of the tests set out in PPS3, they do not offer any advantage whatsoever. Whilst the appeal site lies partly in the Green Belt, that was the position at the time the RSS was approved and the URZ/HTC was identified.

9.54 SSDC’s alternative sites321 represent a curious mixture of, in the main, the inappropriate or unattractive pooled together in what looks like an increasingly desperate attempt to demonstrate some availability. Of the PDL sites in settlements, only the 28 dwellings on Site 5 (Holly Lane, Great Wyrley) are accepted as available in the terms of PPS3. As to the remainder, the following comments are made.

9.55 Sites 1/2, the Britool site, is an employment site at a strategic location on the highway network, the promotion of which for housing appears to be totally inconsistent with the Council’s attempt at suggesting, in the context of this Inquiry, that there is some local shortage of employment sites322. The assessment of part of that site undertaken in the UHC study identified the alternative use of the land as industry323. The Council324 acknowledged that industry was, indeed, the alternative use and offered no explanation as to why, if there were any genuine shortage of employment land in the district, that site was nonetheless to be regarded as suitable for housing development.

9.56 Alternative sites 3 (New Horse Road, Cheslyn Hay) and 4 (Maypole Street, Wombourne) were identified in the UHC study in 2003; sites 9 (Watery Lane, Codsall) and 10 (Hobnock Road, Essington) were identified as white land in the 1996 local plan, yet neither of these pairs of sites have not come forward notwithstanding a buoyant housing market. Other sites appear to be inappropriately located relative to the nearest settlement offer poor opportunities for the creation of sustainable communities. The appellants' assessment of the Brookhouse Lane site is set out in written evidence325 and the Council’s own assessment (an important element in the setting of Featherstone) is in the Landscape Study referred to above. The Campions Wood site (site 14) is the subject of a forthcoming Inquiry. It is a greenfield site, not in a URZ and contributing nothing to, but rather detracting from, urban regeneration.

320 TW3 - the Committee Report 1st May 2005 para 3.3.4 321 SSDC/AJ/4 App 28 (Summary table at pp528-9). 322 SSDC/AJ/1 ¶8.28 -8.41 323 CD12 Site No 1 324 Mr Johnson cross exam 325 TWD/RS/B/1A Section 10

Page 62 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Development Plan - employment

9.57 The Council no longer relies on any part of the GVA Grimley Report included in the SSDC’s pre-Inquiry evidence326. Without that report the suggestion that there is any requirement for additional employment land in the District suffers a significant blow and lacks any satisfactory evidential foundation. The current land supply and future employment needs are addressed by Mr Brisbane327. Rolling forward past rates of employment land development are likely to overestimate actual needs because of the changing nature of new employment development which creates more jobs for a given area than in the past. Land requirements need to be considered in the context of economic forecasts. Furthermore, there is no justification for excluding from the District’s employment land supply the regionally important employment sites within it. The RSS explicitly states: To avoid over provision where strategic sites are located within an authority’s area then these should be reflected as part of the portfolio for that authority.328 Consistent with this view, the employment land supply table in the RSS Phase 2 Options329 includes such sites, giving South Staffordshire a total supply of 127ha.

9.58 In terms of the Development Plan the Council is seeking to save policy E4 of the adopted local plan330 as being a policy which is relevant and up to date. That policy involves among other things, a requirement that the employment land to be provided at the ROF site should not exceed 14ha. There is no minimum requirement and it is not possible to suggest that the appeal proposals’ 9.3ha of employment land is contrary to E4. In addition, if a new prison comes forward on the land proposed to be reserved for such use, this would make a substantial contribution to local employment331.

9.59 The allocation of the employment land in 1996 has not produced any realisable opportunity for employment development. The reason for that should is obvious – the poor access. There is no direct access from the A449, Brinsford Lane is inadequate and there is no easy opportunity to provide a satisfactory access to the land. Outwith the appeal proposals, there is no proposal which would provide a satisfactory access and release any part of the allocated employment land. The Council accepted332 that any employment development on the ROF site would need a quality of access similar to that now proposed (ie the A449 link road) which is not viable on the basis of the local plan allocation for the ROF site. The site has been exposed to the commercial market and potential developers were not interested.

9.60 The 9.3 ha of employment land in the appeal applications has not resulted in any objection from AWM. AWM can be taken to be an interested and informed party with regard to employment land proposals333 having a close interest in the i54 site and well able to make any necessary points with regard to either a shortage of employment land or the inappropriateness of this proposal in employment land terms. The absence of any objection and the support which AWM provide overall for the appeal proposals is eloquent as to their compliance not only with Development Plan policy but also with broader objectives.

9.61 The appeal proposals are not in conflict with the adopted local plan or Structure Plan, comply fully with the RSS and the URZ/HTC designations and as part of a mixed use scheme represent an appropriate land use contributing to a sustainable form of development. They will provide opportunities for people to live near their work and to travel by a wide range of means of transport.

326 SSDC/AJ/5 App 36. 327 TWD/BB4 and TW18. 328 CD4 7.32. 329 CD8 Table 3 p38. 330 CD6 331 The appellants’ estimate that there would be 323 jobs at a 500 inmate prison and 640 jobs at a 1,000 inmate prison (TWD/BB/1 ¶ 5.25) and that the existing 2 prisons employ about 730 (¶5.12). 332 Mr Johnson, cross exam 333 Accepted by Mr Round, cross exam.

Page 63 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Development Plan - P & R

9.62 No party at the Inquiry suggests that the P&R proposal involves any conflict with the Development Plan. That proposal is fully compliant. The only issue is what weight to accord to the very substantial benefits that flow from this part of the development. The P&R proposal is a regionally significant element in a strategy which makes transport a key input. The proposal would strongly complement the i54 development which is an extremely important development for the regeneration of this part of the West Midlands and in particular the desire to attract high quality occupiers.

9.63 The benefits of the P&R proposal extend not only to the elements which critically support the RSS objectives for urban renaissance but also to wider policy objectives which seek to maximise the utilisation of existing infrastructure and the enhancement of the railway network. The WCML has been the subject of very substantial public investment. It is existing infrastructure which ought to be fully utilised and to have its potential maximised. The work undertaken by the appellants and explained in written evidence334 indicates that, contrary to earlier assertions, the appeal proposals will improve current train performance rather than cause delays, will allow for the lengthened Pendalino trains to run to and from Wolverhampton without difficulty and will maximise the opportunity for the use of the improved line and service. The support of Network Rail and Virgin Trains is evident from the correspondence335. Such are the benefits to the rail network that Network Rail has agreed that there will be no ransom required for the bridge crossing of the WCML in relation to these very substantial proposals336.

9.64 The focus of SSDC and other objectors was previously the suggestion that the proposals were simply not achievable because they would not obtain grant funding and could not otherwise be funded and were described as absurdly optimistic in opening by SSDC. That position has now been completely resolved. No party now contends that the proposals cannot be funded. The position can be summarised by reference to the SCG between Mr Storey on behalf of WCC and Mr Mitchell where it is recorded that WCC believes that the P&R is highly likely to be delivered because of the weight of the business case, the operational advantages of, and the policy support for, the scheme337. That acknowledgement is a testament not simply to the value of the scheme to the railways, but the value of the scheme in the context of this part of the West Midlands and in particular the links to the urban renaissance agenda set out in RSS. The SoS should attach significant weight to the fact that the package involves the delivery of a proposal which offers the opportunity in a high profile and effective way to impact on all elements of the RSS’s agenda for this area, but which has been substantially delayed hitherto by the absence of any delivery mechanism.

9.65 It remains to examine the new position adopted by the Council with regard to the P&R proposal. This represents a complete volte-face from the outset of the Inquiry: SSDC’s case was that such was the lack of merit in the proposals that they were not fundable by way of Annex E funding, now the Council suggest that such is the merit of the proposals that they will be easily funded by an Annex E bid by the County Council.

9.66 SSDC has no evidence to support that proposition from its own consultant. The fundability and deliverability of the P&R scheme as part of the appeal proposals is a fundamentally different proposition than the fundability and deliverability of the P&R proposals as a freestanding element requiring support by way of an Annex E bid. The criteria for an Annex E bid could not be met by SCC. They do not control the relevant land, do not know how much it would cost them to gain control of it and in promoting an independent scheme would have lost the Taylor Wimpey financial contribution, as well as the contribution to revenues (supporting the business case) from the wider MDA

334 TWD/MGG/A/1 particularly ¶s5.15-5.17. 335 TWD/MGG/A/2 App 4 & TWD/DB/2 App 2and 3. 336 TWD/DB/1 para3.3; TWD/DB4 section 3, App 1 and 2. 337 SCG4 ¶3.3.

Page 64 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 proposals338. The suggestion that there might be a CPO of the required land is effectively undone by the SoS’s guidance in Circular 6/2004 (¶s20-21).

9.67 Against that brief summary of the compelling evidence available, without the appeal proposals the prospect of delivery of the P&R proposal, already 2 years behind the timescale in RSS, is non-existent. The issue and importance of delay is heightened by the fact that all parties acknowledge the real benefit of the P&R for urban regeneration. To the extent that any part of the appeal proposals are considered to have any disadvantage for any element of planning policy, the undoubted and compelling advantages of the P&R proposal and the wide ranging beneficial effects flowing from it should be weighed favourably in the balance.

9.68 Other Development Plan policies are also relevant: in the RSS, policies QE1, QE2, QE6 and QE7339in Chapter 8 Quality of the Environment and in the Structure Plan policies NC2, NC5 and NC8340. Those policies variously relate to landscape, restoration, conservation and enhancement, the restoration of degraded areas of land and protection/enhancement of biodiversity.

9.69 There has been a substantial amount of work undertaken to analyse and assess the landscape of Staffordshire and what measures are necessary in different parts of it341. Areas have been identified for either regeneration or restoration where the landscape is currently not in a satisfactory condition. As Mr Stevenson’s evidence demonstrates342 the appeal site falls into such an area and offers the opportunity for enhancement in accordance with policy objectives. Bearing in mind the importance attached to areas such as this in PPS7343 the opportunity to enhance the landscape in accordance with detailed identified strategies is a significant matter to which weight should be attached. There is no landscape objection to these proposals and no party has attempted to challenge Mr Stevenson’s conclusions in any material particular. In summary344, each of the applications would give rise to some limited harm to the visual amenities of the Green Belt either side of the WCML, but this harm would be very localised. But this must be seen in the context that: the landscape directly affected is not of widespread public benefit and is subject to a landscape improvement policy; there would be a major benefit from the restoration of the degraded former ROF site; and that the proposed landscape structure would provide an attractive landscape for future residents and assimilate the development into the broader environment, especially as the structural planting matures. Overall, the visual/landscape effects would be positive. The development would diminish the perception of openness over part of the Green Belt.

9.70 The ES addendum statements contain an update report on ecology345 and review the evidence for the presence of protected species on the sites. A small number of Great Crested Newts (GCN) were recorded in surveys during the first half of 2007 at 2 ponds to the west of the WCML and immediately to the north of the embankment of the proposed link road. No GCN had ever been recorded at other nearby water bodies and these particular 2 ponds had been dry during surveys conducted in 2003, 2004 and 2005. The report sets out a mitigation and enhancement strategy. Mr Farmer’s evidence346 also addresses this matter.

9.71 The measures proposed would not simply adequately protect the GCN population, but would enhance their status as a result of the creation of new habitat areas to the east

338 Mr Baker, oral evidence. 339 CD4 pp70-71 & 75. 340 CD5 pp99, 101 & 105. 341 CD31. 342 TWD/JS/A/1, TWD/JS/B/1, TWD/JS/C/1, TWD/JS/2. 343 PPS7 Para 26 344 Summarised from Mr Stevenson’s conclusions at: TWD/JS/A/1, section 9; TWD/JS/B/1, section 10; TWD/JS/C/1, section 10. 345 CD75,CD76, CD77: Appendix 3. 346 TWD/DF/1, TWD/DF/2, TWD/DF/4.

Page 65 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 of the railway line and south of the P&R proposal347 and the creation of stepping stones between the existing and proposed water areas and fringing habitat. The proposal is therefore fully compliant with the policy objectives both in the Development Plan and also with regard to the objectives of the regulatory framework. The appellants’ proposals have been accepted as satisfactory by SCC348 and Natural England.

9.72 Some local residents express concerns about the impact on GCN. With regard to the consideration of alternatives and in particular for the access road alignment the following points are made:

a) Alternative locations for the P&R proposal as a whole have been exhaustively examined by way of the range of studies349. No alternative locations have been identified which would meet the locational requirements for the P&R proposal;

b) The ES350 addresses the alternatives considered for the access link road. In practical terms any alternative access to the selected site would be affecting land which falls into the same category as having potential for use by GCN.

9.73 There is therefore no basis for any suggestion that some other more wide ranging search for a different alignment of access road would be appropriate. In addition, even if alternative sites were available they would not have the advantage of the appeal proposals which not only avoid harmful impacts on the GCN population but actually benefit the population in accordance with the objectives of both Development Plan and wider regulatory policies. Thus there has been a consideration of alternative locations for the P&R proposal as a whole, there has been a consideration of alternative access arrangements and thereby a consideration of “alternative sites” which could reasonably have accommodated the activity.

9.74 It is noteworthy, as the written evidence of Dr Box for the Council points out351 that the ODPM guidance in Circular 06/2005 indicates that the presence of a protective species is a material consideration when a planning authority is considering a development proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat. This proposal is not likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat. To the contrary, it is likely to result in enhancement. Thus in the balance of considerations should be placed the benefits the scheme offers which are an ecological benefit of major significance at the national level352.

Development Plan conclusions

9.75 The most up to date and relevant element of the Development Plan is the RSS. The RSS identifies the appeal site as part of an area which in policy terms is unique and which extends to embrace proposals for a URZ, HTC and regionally strategic transport proposal. The appeal proposals delivering housing, employment and transport elements in the context of the relevant policies satisfy the overall objectives of the RSS and the individual policy outcomes sought.

9.76 In practical terms, the only element of the scheme to which objection is taken is the housing element, based on a misunderstanding of the role of housing within the URZ/HTC areas and in regeneration specifically in this area. The objection also fails to consider the extent to which, even if there were any conflict with the letter of the policy in relation to housing, the proposals are in accordance with the purpose of the policies and in particular does not contribute to the evils which the policies were designed to stem. Taken

347 TWD/DF/2 App 1. 348 Letter dated 3 January 2007 TWD/DF/2 App 3. 349 TWD/RS/A/1 ¶ 3.4. 350 CD39: TW1 Environmental Statement Volume 3 Section B. Also at CD75,CD76, CD77: Appendix 2. 351 SSDC/JB/7 ¶2.8. 352 TWD/DF/1 ¶4.13.

Page 66 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 as a whole the proposals should be regarded as being in accordance with the Development Plan and accordingly should be approved.

Green Belt and PPG2

9.77 Housing and employment development are, in general terms, inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The appellants do not submit to the contrary but in this instance the position is not straightforward. The appeal site has a 33 ha gap in the middle of it which is not Green Belt as a result of the decision taken in the 1996 local plan to take 38 ha out of the Green Belt. A significant portion of the development for housing and employment purposes falls within the area which was removed from the Green Belt. The proposals involve development which is partly in the Green Belt (but part of which - the P&R proposal – is not inappropriate development) and partly not in the Green Belt.

9.78 To the extent that the proposals involve inappropriate development in the Green Belt the appellants rely on the very special circumstances identified in their written evidence353. In summary these are: the inadequate supply of housing land, the urgent need for affordable housing, the lack of any alternative non Green Belt land, the recognition in the RSS that Green Belt boundaries could be adjusted to achieve RSS objectives, the need for employment land; the location within the URZ, the achievement of an RSS transport proposal, the overall support for RSS objectives, the use of a large area of non Green Belt land, the use of PDL for most built development and nearly all the housing, the provision of additional community facilities for Featherstone including much needed playing fields, the achievement of beneficial uses of land in the Green Belt, and the restoration of a large area of derelict and contaminated land, and the locational/sustainable advantages given the proposed public transport improvements.

9.79 In considering the above it is necessary to bear in mind:

a) the judgments of the High Court in the Chelmsford354 and Basildon355 cases identifying what very special circumstances are and the appropriateness of a consideration of in-combination circumstances;

b) the extent to which the matters relied on engage with the RSS policy;

c) the extent to which the matters identified are in themselves matters of substantial and admitted importance, such as the P&R proposal.

9.80 Harm by reason of inappropriateness is clearly a significant matter but is substantially mitigated by the fact that the RSS has deliberately extended the URZ into this area and that URZs are intended to be the focus of investment and renewal – which at the appeal site could be anticipated to involve redevelopment. In the context of a Development Plan approach which has acknowledged the appropriateness of the area being a focus for investment, the priorities of urban renaissance and renewal should carry weight. To the extent that there is inappropriate development, it is fully and completely outweighed by the very special circumstances identified.

9.81 There would be a loss of openness, but that loss of openness appears to have been anticipated in any event by the RSS and the designation applied to the area. It is a necessary consequence of the fulfilment of important policy objectives to maximise the potential of PDL and the achievement of sustainability objectives by locating new development close to the new transport infrastructure. While there will be some loss of openness (although there are already buildings on the ROF site) it is a loss of openness which is of a limited impact and, as it achieves regional policy objectives, ought to be encouraged and accepted.

353 TWD/RS/B/1 ¶ 7.46 and 7.50. 354 SSDC1/6. 355 TW9.

Page 67 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

9.82 The second particular matter identified by the SoS is whether the proposed development would conflict with the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Urban sprawl relates to the first of the 5 purposes of the Green Belt identified in PPG2356. The purpose is to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas (emphasis added). The proposals do not involve unrestricted sprawl, but rather a form of development which has been carefully designed and contained by a defined framework of built and landscape elements.

9.83 The third matter identified by the SoS with regard to Green Belt is the extent to which the scheme would be consistent with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. The first purpose is dealt with above. The next is to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another. In this instance there are no towns which are engaged by this proposal. In addition, the proposed development does not bring development any closer to Wolverhampton than it currently exists and does not extend further south than the area removed from the Green Belt in the adopted Local Plan. There is no basis for any suggestion that this purpose of including land in the Green Belt would be offended. It would be inappropriate to suggest that Featherstone should be regarded as a town and that its merging with any adjacent smaller settlement (such as Brinsford) would offend against this purpose.

9.84 The third purpose is to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The area of the Green Belt to be occupied by development that is regarded as inappropriate (housing, employment, local centre) and which is not also PDL, is very small (about 1ha in TW3)357. In those circumstances, there is no threat to this purpose and by accommodating development in this location, maximising the use of PDL, the objectives of both national and regional policy to safeguard greenfield areas can be fully respected.

9.85 The fourth purpose relates to the preservation of the setting and special character of historic towns and is not engaged by these proposals. The fifth purpose - to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land - is positively supported by these proposals. These proposals are within an URZ, involve the redevelopment of some 64ha of PDL and have the prospect of benefiting the wider URZ as it extends southward into the conurbation. A powerful supporting characteristic of these proposals is their fit with not only the RSS approach with regard to regeneration and recycling of land, but also this element of PPG2.

9.86 The next matter identified by the SoS is any harm to the visual amenities of the Green Belt by reason of siting, materials or design. No party asserts that this proposal would have those undesirable consequences. The evidence of Mr Stevenson demonstrates that the proposals would overall have beneficial consequences in respect of landscape and visual amenities, despite some localised adverse impacts. The main adverse visual impact arises from the P&R, including the link road and bridge which, of course is appropriate development in the Green Belt

9.87 The final matter identified with regard to the Green Belt is the extent to which the proposed development might contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land in Green Belts as set out in paragraph 1.6 of PPG2. Once again the proposals score very well. Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are positively supported by these proposals and to the extent that the proposals avoid the loss of greenfield sites elsewhere they will assist in the retention of land in agriculture, forestry and related uses (6th objective). The guidance in ¶3.13 of PPG2 has been fully complied with, that is this large scale development has, as far as possible, contributed to the achievement of the objectives identified in ¶1.6 of PPG2 there being no evidence that something further should have been done which has not been done.

356 PPG2 ¶1.5 357 TWD/RS/B1 Table at 7.44: Green Belt and greenfield which is for inappropriate uses = 1 ha.

Page 68 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Housing and affordable housing – compliance with PPS3

9.88 The issue of land availability and the need for additional housing land in this location has already been addressed. As to whether or not a sequential approach to residential development has been adopted this matter fundamentally engages with the RSS policy and its application to this area. If, as the appellants submit, the conclusion is reached that URZs are an appropriate location for housing development and the SoS wishes to give effect to the priority accorded to PDL in PPS3 then this location is appropriate.

9.89 Whether or not the site is a sustainable location, in part, engages with the PPG13 issue considered below. That aspect apart, the location is an entirely sustainable one, being within a URZ where there is the opportunity to contribute to urban renaissance and where there is the opportunity to create a more sustainable and balanced community. It would provide opportunities for housing for social groups A and B in a location where such groups are under-represented and where there is a need to encourage higher levels of economic activity. The proposals would directly provide jobs and improve access to jobs by public transport. As to housing density, there has been no suggestion that the density proposed in either application TW2 or 3 is inappropriate.

9.90 The Council’s policy with regard to affordable housing provision arising from the adopted local plan and the recent 2006 Supplementary Guidance358 is clear. The appropriate provision is a figure of 30%. The appellants have been in detailed negotiation with the Council as to the level, mix and phasing of affordable housing. These negotiations gave rise to the letter from the Council’s Housing Strategy Manager of 18 May 2007359 which clearly sets out the Council’s requirements. There is no caveat in relation to the needs survey being undertaken by DCA which was already underway (commenced in March 2007). The Council now asserts that a requirement of some 40% should be imposed upon the appellants. The basis for that is speculative and unsatisfactory.

9.91 The Council called Mr Couttie to produce the results of DCA’s recent assessment of affordable housing needs in the district360. The study has only very recently been concluded. A number of things emerged from the study:

a) there is a chronic level of need for affordable housing in the district as a whole;

b) the rate of delivery of affordable housing in the district has been very limited361;

c) the study is based on housing sub-markets previously identified by SSDC362. These are clearly not rigid boundaries based as they are on groups of parishes, with the inevitable overlap between the areas with areas of the adjacent conurbation;

d) Featherstone borders the north east and north west areas and is close to the central area;

e) The survey questionnaire invites a response when identifying where people want to move to or wish to live which leaves them free to define in their own unspecified terms what near or nearer might mean363;

f) Mr Couttie’s evidence inadvertently translates nearer as near in his interpretation of the survey results364 compared with the survey questions;

358 CD20. 359 TW2. 360 SSDC3. 361 SSDC3 Table 13-9 p144 - average over the last 3 years of 30pa. Also TWD/RS/B/1 ¶7.16. 362 SSDC3 Table 2.1 and ¶ 2.6.4 p15. 363 SSDC3 App 2: Questions 26 and 34. 364 SSDC/DC/1 Table 4-3 p8.

Page 69 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

g) The structure of the survey relies on demand being expressed in relation to existing communities or locations, with 2 choices given and no choice presented with regard to housing in a new location such as the appeal site365;

h) The inevitable consequence of the survey approach is that the bigger the housing area that already exists the bigger the demand for affordable housing within it.

9.92 The survey method adopted by the study means that if one were considering the requirement for affordable housing in a new location/settlement there would be a nil requirement because the existence of such a potential option is not identified in the survey questionnaire. Such an approach cannot satisfactorily form a complete basis for the assessment of housing need in any particular area. Whilst it is appropriate to have regard to expressed desires to locate in general areas it is not appropriate to assess housing need on the basis of, in effect, Parish boundaries, without at least having some regard to the effect of doing so.

9.93 The study’s findings were prayed in aid by the Council in terms of their dispersal strategy, a strategy which attempts to pervert ¶9 of PPS3 and its reference to providing housing where people want to live into a strategy for a wholly unsustainable approach to the provision of housing and particularly affordable housing. Those who have a need for affordable housing are likely to be particularly vulnerable in terms of the accessibility to public transport and local employment opportunities. To disperse them in the manner the Council currently propose would be to emphasise their vulnerability and put them at yet further disadvantage. The best and most appropriate locations for affordable housing are locations which offer genuine opportunities for good access to public transport, services and employment.

9.94 It is evident from the survey that people moving into the north east sub area were more likely to be moving from Cannock than from the MUA366. Thus the propensity of housing outside of the MUAs to attract people from within them applies to a significantly lesser extent to this north eastern area than it does elsewhere. That provides yet further justification for the provision of housing in this area (within a URZ) than elsewhere in South Staffordshire.

9.95 It is important to note that Mr Couttie was at pains to point out367 that his work was not intended to suggest, and indeed he was not called to promote, any particular level of affordable housing as being appropriate on the appeal site. His work related to the Council’s LDF and the resolution of an appropriate figure within it. As to that figure, that was for the Council to decide and not him and the Council had not yet considered it, let alone decided it.

9.96 Subsequently, the Council indicated368 that there should be a 40% affordable housing requirement on the appeal site. The basis for that figure was not explained in evidence and remains a mystery. There is no justification for it. It is a figure plucked from the air and appears to derive its support in part from the fact that the greenfield Green Belt site at Brookhouse Lane (Persimmon Homes) has offered 50%. Local authorities should not randomly adopt a figure for affordable housing need where they have carefully negotiated with an appellant appropriate provision, only to abandon that proportion on an opportunistic basis.

Compliance with PPG4

9.97 The proposal fully accords with PPG4 and its objectives. There do not appear to be any submissions to the contrary. The proposals would for the first time provide a high quality highway and public transport connection which would make the promotion of the

365 SSDC3 App 2 Questions 25 and 33. 366 SSDC/DC/1 Table 4-4 p9. 367 Mr Couttie, cross exam. 368 Mr Johnson oral evidence and closing submissions.

Page 70 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 site for employment development realistic. As a consequence, there is a genuine opportunity to provide employment and take advantage of previously developed land in a location which is within an URZ and HTC and which would enable it to play a role supporting the i54 development. AWM are satisfied with the level of employment land being proffered.

Compliance with PPG13

9.98 In this respect the development is in an outstandingly good location. As a consequence of the appeal proposals, the development would be adjacent to a high quality P&R served by both rail and bus. The bus and rail access proposals are comprehensive and integrated369. They do not attempt to compete with each other but rather compliment each other. The train would be attractive for people who wish to access directly either Wolverhampton, areas beyond within the conurbation, or beyond that; whilst the bus services would be attractive for people who wish to access other intermediate locations and/or for whom the cost is a more significant consideration. The bus services are agreed and are supported by the relevant transport authorities, and would improve access to Featherstone village, provide access to the MDA, the P&R site, ultimately to i54 and also then intermediate locations towards Wolverhampton City Centre. The proposals create the opportunity to achieve modal shift which not only reduces travel by private car, but provides substantial opportunities to relieve congestion within the urban area both nearby and further afield.

9.99 The proposals should be seen in the context of other elements of the West Midlands Local Transport Plan and in particular the proposals for Wolverhampton centre access, red routes and Wolverhampton Bus Station370. In all of those respects, the proposals offer outstanding opportunities to access jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and other services by public transport. In addition the evidence demonstrates that with regard to walking and cycling and reducing the need to travel generally and especially by car, the proposals are fully compliant with the national guidance371. Local facilities would be easily accessed and more significant facilities would be easily accessed by public transport. The absence of any significant criticism of the proposals in that regard is to be noted and the level of agreement overall in the SCG reached with WCC372 and Persimmon Homes373 is significant.

9.100 The combined Design and Access Statement indicates the overall approach proposed for parking.374 For residential development parking is envisaged either: on or at the rear of plots; with occasional on-street visitor parking; integral parking for town houses; and some small courtyards to the rear of blocks of terraces and flats. A draft parking strategy has been prepared which is part of the Transport Strategy which the appellants are working-up pending the outcome of the appeals375. The Council’ parking standards are in the local plan and are expressed as minimum standards. These standards have been superseded by the advice in PPG13 that parking standards should be maximum standards. Thus the car parking proposed in the parking strategy interprets the Council’s minimum as maximum standards. For residential parking, an overall average of 1.5 spaces is proposed, varying between 1 space for 1 bedroom flats and 2 spaces for family accommodation.

9.101 On a detailed matter, residents of New Buildings express concern about the new junction with the A449 and, if the development were to proceed express a preference for an alternative junction design. The ES describes the 3 alternatives junction layouts considered

369 Ddetailed explanation is in the appellants’ evidence in TWD/BP/1 and TWD/KM/1. The proposed bus services are summarised in SCG3 section 3.3.2 370 CD43 pp 121, 131 and 146 respectively 371 TWD/KM/1 section 2.2; SCG2 sections 3.1 and 3.2; SCG3 sections 3.1 and 3.2 372 SCG4 373 SCG5. 374 TW12 - Part 5 Parking is listed in the Key Outputs for each of 9 different areas. 375 TW21

Page 71 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 and summarises their comparative advantages and disadvantages.376 The selected on-line signalised T junction minimises the land take for the junction, accommodates the existing lay-bys, includes a signalised pedestrian crossing and, with its straight alignment, provides adequate visibility for the junction. The alternatives would be less suitable in relation to some of these factors although they would improve parking and access alongside New Buildings. The roundabout design could not include a signalised pedestrian crossing of the A449. There is no objection from the Highway Authority.

Compliance with PPS23

9.102 The ES demonstrate the extent to which the proposal would fully, carefully and appropriately remediate the site in accordance with the most up to date guidance377. There has been no suggestion at the Inquiry that the approach taken in the ES or set out in the appellants’ written evidence378 is in any way inappropriate. It appears to be accepted as being entirely beneficial in bringing back into appropriate and effective use the currently derelict former ROF site. Concerns about the level of contamination and the nature of the risks have been addressed. All depleted uranium waste and products associated with former processing activities have been removed from the site to the satisfaction of the Environment Agency.379 The Environment Agency is content that remaining contamination can be satisfactorily addressed by conditions. There is no basis for a conclusion that the risks have not been properly assessed or would not be appropriately reduced to acceptable levels.

Conditions, agreements and undertakings

9.103 The extensive list of conditions380 has been discussed between the appellants and the Council and have been available for comment by any interested party. The extent of the agreement is indicated in the list and does not represent any issue of principle between the 2 main parties. It is considered that the specification of reserved matters and the timescale for the submission of reserved matters should be the same for all 3 applications, notwithstanding the statutory changes to these matters during the period the 3 applications were submitted. The wording and timescales should be those which reflected the up to date legislative position.

9.104 As to the concerns raised by others about the Grampian condition for the station381, it is commonly the case that conditions require the exercise of judgment as to whether the requirements are met. That is the case here and there is nothing unusual or inappropriate about the wording.

9.105 There is a suite of undertakings382 addressing all relevant issues. They are comprehensive and not the subject of any dispute save in respect of the proportion of affordable housing.

Conclusions

9.106 The appeal proposals come forward as a package. The package is one which responds to the unique circumstances of the site. It is not a package designed to contain the good as a way of sweetening what might otherwise be regarded as the bad. The appellants submit that the proposals in each of their particulars - P&R, employment and housing - should be welcomed with the contributions that they make individually and jointly to the urban and rural renaissance agendas set out in RSS.

376 CD39: TW1 Environmental Statement Volume 3 Section B: Figs B.2, B.3B.4 and Table B2. 377 CD39: Vol 3 Appendices Part II Appendix I Geology, Geotechnics and Land Quality; CD40: Vol 3 Appendices Part B, Appendix G G1, G2, G3; CD41: Vol 3 Appendices Part B, Appendix G G1, G2, G3. 378 TWD/MS/A/1 & TWD/MS/B/1. 379 SSDC1/7: Statement of Kerry Green, Property Manger for BAE Systems April 2006. 380 SCG8 and SCG9. 381 SCG8 No 6 and SCG9 No 7. 382 OB1-OB6.

Page 72 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

9.107 The uniqueness of this location in policy terms and the opportunities to address a broad range of policy objectives should be firmly grasped. These proposals have had a lengthy gestation and have engaged fully with all relevant interests in order to ensure that no appropriate element has been omitted. They are characterised by opponents as being substantial and inappropriate Green Belt development. Such an approach is superficial and denies the relevance of carefully formulated RSS policy and its application to this area. Even the characterisation in the course of evidence, with the repeated attempts to refer to 870 or 1,000 houses in the Green Belt manifestly failed to grapple with the facts that some 33ha of the site are not Green Belt or that some 64ha of it are PDL. Those sorts of characterisation of the appeal proposals expose the superficiality of the approach which has been adopted in trying to resist them. In the end it ought to be acknowledged that the merits and the fit with relevant and up to date regional policy are overwhelming and that there are no sound reasons for the refusal of planning permission.

9.108 We accordingly invite the grant of planning permission for TW1 and TW2 and/or TW3 in accordance with the agreed conditions and undertakings.

10. The Cases for Other Parties

Local residents and representatives of the Parish Councils were heard on the opening day of the Inquiry. These parties support the District Council’s opposition to the appeal proposals. The gist of the representations is given below and focuses on the concerns not pursued by the Council.

Mr M Beech

10.1 The proposals would result in a substantial and unacceptable increase in traffic on local roads. Traffic congestion is already a problem. The 2 existing prisons generate substantial traffic. Another large prison at Featherstone will generate more traffic, as will the employment development on the former Hilton Main site (south of J1 M54). The new housing, proposed employment and the P&R would all generate additional traffic. This would result in additional noise, pollution and congestion for local residents. The proposed P&R could be a white elephant, little used and a waste of money. The existing P&R at the Science Park on the way to Wolverhampton City centre is often empty. The proposals would also adversely affect Great Created Newts which are a protected species383.

Ms J Bayliss384

10.2 In the original Environmental Statement, the appellant’s consultants underestimated the traffic flows on the A460 Cannock Road. With the proposed development, traffic levels are predicted to be 33,000 vehicles a day by 2010. How can the village cope with such traffic levels? The proposed new prison will also bring additional traffic.

10.3 The junction of New Road and the A460 is congested in the morning and evening with queuing traffic and results in traffic using Cat and Kittens Lane to access Wolverhampton. Traffic congestion is worse in bad weather; on Sundays as a result of local markets and boot fairs; or if there is an accident on the M6 or M54 nearby, when the local area becomes gridlocked.

10.4 The additional traffic would increase pollution. Existing pollution is evident from dirt on washing drying outside if there is a shower. Turnstone Drive (a residential road within Featherstone) is a rat-run, but is also a route for children going to and from the local primary school. Additional traffic from the development would increase the risk of accidents along this road.

383 Description of their behaviour and conservation status at IP1. 384 Statement and appendices at IP2.

Page 73 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

10.5 Featherstone needs only about 90 houses to meet local needs. These would be welcome, but not the large scale development proposed by the appellants.

Ms M Goodwin

10.6 Featherstone is encircled by motorways and main roads; already has 2 prisons and the major truckstop at Hilton Main which generates social problems of drugs and prostitution. The proposals would create too much additional traffic especially within the village and along New Road.

Featherstone and Brinsford Parish Council

10.7 The Parish Council has sought to consider these proposals thoroughly and reflect local concerns. A public meeting was held with over 200 people present; about 98% were strongly opposed to the development. A local action group (FLAG) was established.

10.8 The Parish Council questions the need to use Green Belt land and whether the necessary very special circumstances exist. Brinsford and Featherstone would be joined up into one urban area with development extending westwards to Coven Heath. There is enough brownfield land to accommodate developments to meet local needs. Additional local facilities would be welcome, particularly football pitches, but not at the expense of the scale of development proposed.

10.9 The practicality of the P&R is questionable. The new station is not finalised and could be a white elephant.

10.10 The ROF is certainly a unique location given it history, including shell making involving the use of depleted uranium. It is a noisy location with the nearby WCML and dog kennels. The development might result in local flooding as a result of increased ground levels adjoining Featherstone Brook.

Brewood and Coven Parish Council

10.11 The Parish Council supports the District Council’s plans for accommodating development that would fit into the area, involving small scale development only and meeting the need for affordable housing. The Green Belt is disappearing; the SoS should be fighting to protect the environment and not allow this development. The P&R may not be used. Other problems are likely to arise, such as the lack of adequate policing.

Mr Barrett385

10.12 The effect of the proposals on Coven Heath has been largely ignored by the developers. Promotional literature was not distributed in this area, nor were local residents consulted on the choice of junction arrangement.

10.13 The proposed junction of the new main access road and the A449 would be immediately outside New Buildings, a terrace of housing on the western side of the A449. There is a lay-by alongside the road386.

10.14 The proposals would generate much additional traffic which would result in noise, pollution, vibration and highway dangers for local residents, especially those using the lay- by. The developers considered 3 alternative junctions: on line signalised, off line signalised and a roundabout387. The developers have chosen the on-line junction which involves the least work. But this would be very dangerous for residents using the lay-by outside New Buildings. If the development were to go ahead, either of the other 2 junction options would be preferable so as to provide a proper service road in front of New Buildings.

385 Statement and appendices at IP4 386 Photographs included in IP4. 387 Illustrated in IP4. (Appellants’ assessment and plans at CD39: TW1 Environmental Statement Volume 3 Section B: Figs B.2, B.3, B.4).

Page 74 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Ms E McNally

10.15 The proposals would result in the loss of Green Belt. Featherstone has had its fair share of development in the past. There would be a loss of wildlife from the site. The P&R could be a white elephant.

Mr Lawrence (County Councillor and local resident)

10.16 The P&R is in the wrong place. It would bring more traffic to a heavily congested area. It should be further from the edge of the conurbation - further north - where it is less congested. The P&R would also be in competition with the existing P&R towards Wolverhampton City Centre.

10.17 The proposals would double the size of the village and destroy its natural environment, joining Featherstone and Brinsford. The appellants highlight that 60% of the site is previously developed land, but much of it looks like greenfield because much development was underground. There is no special reason to build in the Green Belt. The local need is for 90-100 dwellings only.

Mr Hampson (District Councillor)

10.18 South Staffordshire District is a community of 27 villages. All are fairly small. The District has no towns. The development would destroy the special character of the area. Such development should be within the conurbation, since that is where the occupants of the new houses would come from.

10.19 The nearby main roads are heavily congested and this congestion will increase with the development of the i54 employment site. There is no justification for a new station P&R here. The new station would slow down train journeys, but they should be speeded up. There are plenty of local railway stations. If there is a need for a rail based P&R then a site should be found within the urban area such as at the Oxley Moor goods yard which is close to the existing P&R at the Science Park.

Mr R Cope (District Councillor)

10.20 It is disappointing that Staffordshire County Highways are not objecting to the proposals. There would be highway problems. The appellants have suggested that Dark Lane at the junction of New Road and the A460 could be closed388, but the police object to such a closure because the alternative route and turning would be a safety hazard. It is premature to consider increased traffic at this junction until the new link road between the M54 and M6 is in place389. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has expressed concern about the traffic predictions for the A460 and the resulting conclusion on air quality390. The P&R could attract much traffic - it has been estimated that there might be 1.6m passengers a year391. Additional traffic would have an adverse affect on minor local roads such as Featherstone Lane to Shareshill and Moseley Lane/Road which are both single track lanes. The new link road to the A449 would increase rat-running on roads such as Cat and kittens Lane into Wolverhampton. Alternative sites for P&R and a new station should be considered, such as Wolverhampton Business Park which would be nearer to the i54 site.

10.21 There is not a pressing need for this scale of housing in the District. It would suck out people and skills from the urban area. There are alternative sites. Housing development needs to be spread around the District. This development would provide the majority of new affordable housing in one place. There were many objections to the major

388 IP5 (i) 389 The alternative routes which have been the subject of public consultation are shown in TWD/KM/2 App KM2 and the timing is outlined at TWD/KM/1¶2.4.13 p12. 390 IP5 (ii) 391 IP5(iv) ¶20 and App 1

Page 75 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 residential development proposed here in the Deposit Local Plan Review392. Those would be ignored if the appeal were to be allowed. Residents should be given the opportunity to comment on housing sites through the LDF process.

10.22 Only 9.3 ha of employment land is proposed compared with the 14ha allocated in the adopted local plan393. The local plan policy (E4) also requires 10ha of planting, but this seems to have been ignored. If the local plan employment allocation was developed it would remove the dereliction of the site.

10.23 The Green Belt should be robustly protected. The proposals would lead to the coalescence of Featherstone, Brinsford and Coven Heath. They are tantamount to a new settlement. The plans show new facilities, but not all would necessarily be delivered. The proposed school would probably not be built because the existing school would be extended. There is concern about the effect on the provision of GP services.394

11. Written Representations

11.1 Written representations were received in response to the notification of the appeals. The main body of representations395 is in response to the appeals for TW1 and TW2, with a smaller number in response to the more recent appeal for TW3.396

11.2 Staffordshire Police Authority objects to the development because it could not be served with existing police resources. The Authority seeks a planning obligation to provide police service facilities and/or to fund improvements to service provision. No details are provided as to the scale or nature of the provision sought.

11.3 The West Midland Regional Assembly (WMRA) provides copies of its previously expressed conformity opinions and subsequent correspondence confirming those views, namely that TW1 does conform to the RSS (letter of 15 July 2005), but that TW2 does not (letter of 20 March 2006)397.

11.4 Brewood and Coven Parish Council objects to the proposals and support local residents and the Coven Heath Community Association in their opposition. The development would greatly increase traffic flows on the A449 which is already heavily congested causing inconvenience to local residents.

11.5 Featherstone and Brinsford Parish Council objects for the following reasons (in summary):

a) the proposals are strongly opposed by the local community

b) allowing the appeals would usurp the LDF process;

c) the proposals are in the Green Belt and there are not the very special circumstances to allow such development;

d) part of the land is allocated for employment - this is a preferable and needed use;

e) the road infrastructure could not cope with the greatly increased traffic, existing roads are heavily congested and traffic will increase with the committed i54 development;

f) the developers’ traffic forecasts are flawed;

392 CD7. 393 CD6. 394 IP5 (v) and in SSDC/AJ/5 App 31. 395 INQ5. 396 INQ6. 397 Bundle of correspondence to and from WMRA also at SSDC/AJ/3 App15.

Page 76 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

g) there has been no proper search for alternative sites for the P&R;

h) the development would be a visual intrusion in the Green Belt and remove the natural buffer between the village and the motorway;

i) the character of Brinsford and Featherstone would be lost.

11.6 Sport England West Midlands398 provides a copy of its previously expressed views (28 February 2006 and 4 December 2006) which questioned whether there was adequate background assessment to justify the particular provision being made for different sports and the arrangements for future management. The need for additional built sport/community facilities was also highlighted.

11.7 The Vehicle & Operator Services Agency399 refers to its Heavy Goods Vehicle Testing Station which adjoins the appeal sites and the large volume of daily movements by heavy good vehicles. It raises no objections in principle to the development, but is concerned to ensure that its operations are accommodated and unaffected during construction.

11.8 Letters from local residents broadly raise similar issues to those already set out for other opposing parties and may be summarised as:

a) unacceptable increase in traffic congestion especially on the A460 and at the New Road A460 junction;

b) unacceptable impact on the A449 and especially on the residents of New Buildings;

c) consequential increases in local pollution (significant given that there is already in place an Air Quality Management Area);

d) the viability of the station and P&R is questionable, there are better sites/stations elsewhere;

e) loss of Green Belt and countryside, harm to the character of the individual small settlements, which would be merged;

f) loss of wildlife;

g) the housing is not needed;

h) the threat of subsidence and vibration from the extra traffic especially during construction;

i) increase in crime and anti social behaviour, because of inadequate policing;

j) concern about the practicality of the railway station layout for pedestrians.

12. Conditions and Obligations

Obligations

12.1 A summary of the S106 provisions is set out in the appellants’ note (OBX). There are 6 separate obligations, 2 similar sets of 3 for each of the combinations of TW1/TW2 and TW1/TW3. They are:

a) TW1 + TW2 District matters (plus education) (OB1)

b) TW1 + TW2 County matters (OB2)

398 Letters froth e above 5 bodies in INQ5. 399 Letter within INQ6

Page 77 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

c) TW2 Wolverhampton City matters (OB3)

d) TW1 + TW3 District matters (plus education) (OB4)

e) TW1 + TW3 County matters (OB5)

f) TW3 Wolverhampton City matters (OB6).

12.2 The District Council and Wolverhampton City Council are both content with the evidence provided to them about the title of the land encompassed by the applications. The independent report to the District Council on title is at SSDC18. No party at the Inquiry raised any concerns about the effectiveness of the obligations to deliver what they purport to deliver.

12.3 The plan accompanying each obligation excludes all freehold land owned by NOMS. NOMS is a signature to the obligations only as a chargee. Whilst the outline development plans for TW2 and TW3 indicate this freehold land as “safeguarded for future prison use” since there are no proposals made for this land in the applications, I consider that this does not impinge on the effectiveness of the obligations.

12.4 The owner of the agricultural land alongside Brookhouse Lane which is part of the application site of TW2, but is excluded from the site in TW3, is not a signature to the TW2 related obligations. A competing house builder (Persimmon Homes) has an interest in this land. The appellants therefore suggest that a condition should be imposed on any permission for TW2 precluding commencement until all the landowners are signatures to the agreement. I consider the need for such a condition in the next sub section.

12.5 Subject to the phasing and various trigger mechanisms set out in the obligations, the appellants would provide the following if either TW1 and TW2 or TW1 and TW3 were granted and implemented (any differences are indicated):

a) £511,718 for highway works payable to Wolverhampton City Council on commencement;

b) £400,000 for improvements to the New Road/A460 junction payable to the County Council prior to first occupation;

c) £30,000 for traffic calming at The Avenue, Featherstone or in the vicinity payable to the County Council on commencement;

d) £12,000 for Traffic Regulation/Stopping Up Orders payable to the County Council on commencement;

e) £727,000 as a bus subsidy for the provision of a bus service from and within the development to Wolverhampton City centre payable to the County Council in 5 equal annual instalments when the phase 1 Park and Ride facility is ready for use; further payments would be triggered if the proposed railway station were not ready by the end of 2010;

f) £62,000 for the provision of an initial bus service payable to the County Council;

g) £800,000 payable to the rail station provider as a contribution to the construction of the railway station and the provision of free land and the 500 phase 1 car park, all prior to first occupation;

h) £45,000 for library services payable to the County Council upon commencement;

i) £73,500 as salary for a police community support officer over 3 years to be based at a police post at the local centre prior to 300 dwelllings being occupied;

j) the arrangements for the provision of 30% affordable housing in 3 phases;

Page 78 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

k) the provision of a local centre (serviced site provided prior to 200 dwelllings being occupied and buildings constructed and ready for fit out prior to 300 dwelllings being occupied) to include land to be offered free to the local Primary Care Trust for a Health Centre if required;

l) £2,955,802(TW2) or £2,571,548 (TW3) education contribution payable in 3 unequal instalments relating to the progress of plans for primary school provision;

m) reservation of the school site shown in the outline development plans for 5 years from commencement to be offered at nil cost to the County Council if required;

n) £39,108 (TW2) or £34,023 (TW3) payable to the District Council as a contribution to the provision of off-site sports facilities (referred to as the “Sport England” contribution, but not payable to that body).

o) The provision of public open space including formal pitches for various sports, equipped play areas, and a sports pavilion (see summary list at OBX ¶2.2.15).

p) Arrangements for the possible adoption of open space by the Council and commuted payments for future maintenance.

12.6 I am satisfied that these obligations adhere to the principles set out in Annex B of Circular 5/2005 Planning Obligations and can be taken into account as material considerations in these appeals.

Conditions

12.7 The conditions which I recommend be imposed if any of the appeals were to be allowed are set out in Annex 1 of this report. This contains a list specific to TW1 and a combined list for TW2 and TW3. The recommended conditions are drawn from schedules of conditions for TW1 and TW2/3 prepared by the appellants and agreed with SSDC400. These schedules formed the basis for the discussion of conditions during the Inquiry.

12.8 The agreed schedules usefully indicate whether a condition has been recommended by any statutory consultee and include all the conditions recommended by statutory consultees; as a result there is considerable overlap between some of these conditions. I have deleted those conditions whose purpose is wholly encompassed within other conditions, but I have not sought to rewrite others, given the agreement between the appellants and the SSDC. Where I have made more than very minor editing changes to the wording of conditions I have indicated this in the schedule. I do not comment here on the minor changes that I have made. The significant issues relating to conditions which were the subject of discussion at the Inquiry are considered below.

12.9 I explored with the parties at the Inquiry the appropriate wording of the standard outline conditions applicable to the different applications, bearing in mind their different dates of submission in relation to the regulatory changes in the length of permissions and definition of reserved matters.401 The appellants and SSDC agree that all the appeals should have the same time limits and a mix of the old and new definition of reserved matters has been used for TW2 and TW3.

12.10 Given the intended linkage of TW1 to either TW2 or TW3, I can see the practical benefit for the appellants and SSDC of having a similar basis for dealing with conditions on both sets of applications. But since the definition of reserved matters is fixed in Regulations and reflected in the matters described as being reserved when the applications were made, I consider that the description of reserved matters needs to be related to the definitions in force when the applications were made. Thus for TW1 and TW2 the old

400 SCG8 and SCG9. 401 INQ3: Inspector’s Inquiry Note 3

Page 79 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 definition should be used, but for TW3 - submitted after the regulatory changes came into force in August 2006 - the new definition should be used.402

12.11 In relation to time limits, Circular 11/95 sets out the standard wording applicable prior to the statutory changes which came into force in August 2005 and which would normally apply to applications made before that date - in this case TW1. Model Condition (MC) 4 indicates that approval of reserved matters should be made before the expiration of 3 years and MC5 indicates that the development shall begin before the expiration of 5 years from the date of the outline permission or 2 years from the approval of the last of the reserved matters. But ¶56 (revoked by Circular 08/2005) of that Circular indicated that these limits could be varied on planning grounds. Circular 08/2005 (¶24) indicates that for applications made after August 2005 the time limit for applications for reserved matters will normally be 3 years from the grant of the outline permission with a 2 year period from the final approval of reserved matters for the development to be started, but in each case these periods may be longer or shorter.

12.12 Agreed condition 1 indicates a 3 year period for the commencement of development and condition 3 indicates a 2 year period for the submission of reserved matters. The wording and time limits thus differ from that set out in ¶24 Circular 08/2005. There was no specific evidence advanced for this difference. I recommend conditions for TW2 and TW3 which apply the normal time periods applicable to applications made after August 2005. In addition, I consider that TW1 must remain subject to the principle of the 2 alternative time limits for the commencement of development and have used as a basis MC 4 and 5 in Circular 11/95.

12.13 Both WCC and PH403 raised concerns at the Inquiry about the clarity, enforceability and potential consequences of the Grampian condition404 agreed between the appellants and SSDC that would preclude a start on TW2 and TW3 until a development agreement is in place to contractually ensure the construction of the railway station and park and ride facility. The condition requires SSDC to be satisfied as to the adequacy of the agreement, although the SSDC would not be a party to it. In my view, the requirement to contractually ensure construction of the required facilities is clear and meaningful. It would be within the control of the SSDC to ensure that the Development Agreement does what it purports to do and that the contractual arrangements are secure and cannot readily be set aside. An agreement which terminated after a set period or contained clauses allowing the contract to be set aside would not in my view ensure that the required facilities were delivered. I see no justification for a draft of any such agreement to be available now or related in some way to any permission.

12.14 I recognise that a contract might be breached; that exceptional circumstances might justify a breach; and that there might not be a remedy to ensure compliance with that contract if there was a breach. There is therefore a risk that the MDA proposals could legitimately start; be well underway before any problems in delivering the station became apparent; and that the only check on the progress of housing construction would be the separate condition which requires no more than 450 units to be occupied until the station is constructed.405 Drawing on my conclusions in the next section, such an outcome would be serious - contrary to good planning and the sustainability credentials of the overall development and undermine the balance of considerations which might have justified the grant of permission. Whilst the consequences would be serious, I consider that the risk would be low. In addition, even if a contract were to be breached beyond remedy, that does not mean that subsequently the project could not be rescued and eventually delivered through a new contract. I therefore consider that, on balance, a Grampian condition relating to the station development agreement meets the tests in Circular 11/95.

402 Application details at ¶1.5. 403 See summary of cases: ¶7.4-7.7 and¶ 8.25-8.28. 404 SCG8 No 6 SCG9 No 7 405 SCG9 No 9

Page 80 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

12.15 One condition recommended by the Highways Agency406 required a review of the likely delivery of the station and details of alternative plans for traffic mitigation if that review concluded that the station would not be delivered. That condition was recommended prior to the agreement between the appellants and SSDC of the Grampian condition concerning the delivery of the station. The appellants and SSDC agree that the station review condition is no longer needed. I agree and I have therefore not included it in the recommended schedule of conditions.

12.16 Finally, the parties’ schedule includes a condition precluding commencement of construction of TW2 until all parties with a legal interest in the application site have been joined as parties to the S106 undertaking407. This condition is suggested because the owner of the agricultural land alongside Brookhouse Lane included within the application site of TW2 is not a party to the submitted obligations. This land is excluded from TW3. The need for such a condition was discussed at the Inquiry. The land concerned is proposed as playing fields in the Masterplan. These are unlikely to be created in isolation from the rest of the development and no adverse planning consequences would arise if they were. Accordingly, the Council and the appellants agreed that the condition is not strictly necessary, but it was retained in their schedule in case the SoS considers it is required. For the reasons given, I do not consider that it is necessary and it is not included in my recommended conditions.

My conclusions begin on the next page

406 SCG9 No 46. 407 SCG9 Last, unnumbered condition.

Page 81 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

13. Conclusions

The footnotes in this section refer to earlier paragraphs of this report.

Introduction

13.1 There are 3 separate appeal applications. TW1 proposes, in summary, a new railway station, railway track, 1,500 parking spaces and a new access road over the West Coast Main Line (WCML) railway. TW2 and TW3 are alternative schemes for a mixed-use development. TW3 has a slightly reduced and amended application boundary and proposes 870 rather than 1,000 houses. TW2 and TW3 encompass the same access arrangements over the WCML as TW1. The full scope of each proposal is set out in the respective descriptions of development in the appeal headings at the beginning of this report.

13.2 Each application requires a separate formal decision, but at the Inquiry, the appellants, the South Staffordshire Council (SSDC) and Wolverhampton City Council (WCC) all agreed that the proposals should be considered on a comprehensive basis with TW1 being linked to TW2 and/or TW3 by a condition and that these pairings should stand or fall together. The evidence at the Inquiry was heard on the basis of this linking and the mitigation measures set out in conditions and obligations are also based on the implications of the combined package of development rather than on the individual applications alone. For these reasons, my conclusions are based on the comprehensive approach advocated by the parties at the Inquiry, although I make recommendations on each application at the end.408

13.3 Consistent with the use of terms at the Inquiry, I abbreviate the TW1 proposal for a new station and Park and Ride facility as the P&R proposals and the housing, employment, local centre and other features included in TW2 and TW3, but not within TW1, as the MDA (major developed area) proposals.

13.4 The main considerations are:

a) Whether the developments would support or undermine the overall strategy of the RSS;

b) The effect on the openness of the Green Belt, its purposes and objectives;

c) Whether there is a shortfall of housing supply;

d) Whether the development makes appropriate provision for affordable housing;

e) Whether there are very special circumstances to clearly outweigh the harm from inappropriate development in the Green Belt and any other harm.

13.5 These considerations centre on a number of the matters raised by the Secretary of State (SoS), but not all. Determining whether very special circumstances exist requires a balancing of all considerations, accordingly I address in my conclusions the remaining matters raised by the SoS before undertaking that exercise. I also address at that stage other matters raised by members of the public and community representatives not already dealt with.

13.6 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications be determined in accordance with development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan consists of:409

a) West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)(formerly RPG11), June 2004;

408 6.1, 7.2-3, 8.44, 9.2 409 3.2

Page 82 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

b) Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan (SP), February 2002 (saved to September 2007); and

c) South Staffordshire Local Plan, December 1996 (saved to September 2007).

d) Any policies from the Structure Plan and Local Plan which have been saved by the SoS beyond 27 September 2007.

13.7 The only policy referred to in these appeals which the planning authorities had not sought to save is SP policy H1. I have not had regard to any announcements concerning saved policies made after the close of the Inquiry. Where I refer to local plan or structure plan policies, I have assumed that they have been saved. I conclude in relation to relevant development plan policies at the end of each section or topic, where applicable.410

RSS

13.8 All parties agree that the RSS is the most up to date and important part of the development plan for these appeals. All parties also agree that where a range of development plan policies are applicable, proposals need to be judged against the most important or dominant policy or policies, having regard to the purposes or objectives of those policies. But there is disagreement as to what are the most relevant or primary policies in this case. The appellants place particular emphasis on the inclusion of the site within an Urban Regeneration Zone (URZ) in the RSS, seeing this designation as the spatial expression of the overall strategy for the area. SSDC and WCC, however, place greater emphasis on the housing policies.411

13.9 The appeal site and vicinity is unique in policy terms. It is the only area designated as an URZ outside the Major Urban Areas (MUAs). It is also within a High Technology Corridor (HCT) and Brinsford is a specified location for a major transport improvement - a strategic park and ride facility. URZs are intended to encourage urban renaissance and reverse longstanding trends of decentralisation of economic activity and population and to be the focus of investment. The purposes of URZs are closely aligned with some of the overall objectives of the RSS. For this reason the appellants regard their investment within the URZ as inherently supportive of the RSS objectives and strategy.412

13.10 One of the challenges which the RSS seeks to address is urban renaissance. The RSS seeks to bring about a fundamental improvement in the environment of the MUAs so as to make them much more attractive places to live, work and invest, thus reversing the past pattern of out migration and improving their economic vitality. The RSS emphasises the cross-cutting nature of its policies and the need for a comprehensive approach to tackle the problems it identifies. Whilst the RSS supports, where necessary, economic development outside but on the edge of the MUA (and there has been much recent employment development on the edge of the MUA in the vicinity of the appeal site) it does not explicitly countenance housing development abutting the MUA and extending the boundaries of the MUA is specifically precluded in policy CF3C.413

13.11 The intended purpose of the URZ designation in this location needs to be considered in the above context. Given the unique location of this part of the URZ outside the MUAs it is necessary to consider whether the particular form of development proposed here would be consistent with the aim of the URZ and the overall objectives of the RSS. I do not regard the URZ designation as the sole or primary expression of the RSS’ crossing- cutting approach, but as one tool, albeit an important one, in a range of measures to help achieve the RSS’ objectives.

410 3.13, 9.3 411 3.3, 6.10, 6.13, 6.18, 7.27-29, 9.3-4, 9.6, 9.14-17. 412 3.7, 3.9, 9.7, 9.13-16 413 2.9, 3.4, 3.6, 6.13, 7.30, 9.9-10, 9.21

Page 83 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

13.12 Policy PA2, which designates URZs, is part of the Prosperity for All chapter of the RSS, the principal focus of which is economic development. I recognise that housing development is not excluded from URZs. The supporting text to the policy (¶7.12) specifically requires: development plans to set out priorities for investment in terms of employment land, housing and the renewal of infrastructure in these zones. Given that the URZ designation covers a substantial part of the MUAs, much housing development is likely to take place within URZs. I also recognise that housing development is likely to be an important element in transforming run down urban environments; that encouraging housing development within the MUAs is an important part of the overall strategy of the RSS; and that such investment is endorsed in the existing and emerging Regional Economic Strategies (RES). Therefore there is not normally anything incompatible with proposing housing within a URZ. But in my view, these broad realities do not translate into the URZ designation of the appeal location providing overriding support for a substantial housing development, given that the location is outside the MUA.414

13.13 TW2 proposes 1,000 houses and TW3 proposes 870 houses. Housing would be the most extensive new land use in the overall development. Accordingly, particular attention must be given to the housing policies of the RSS; to do so is entirely consistent with the holistic and cross-cutting approach to the RSS. As the site is beyond the MUAs, policy CF2 is applicable. I see no scope within the wording of the policy for the appellants’ suggestion that additional sub-regional foci can be added to the 5 which are identified in the policy, which are all large towns. Thus only CF2D is applicable to housing in this rural area. This indicates that housing should: generally be restricted to meeting local needs and/or to support local services.415

13.14 Local housing needs are defined as needs arising from the immediate area, excluding migration from elsewhere. In my view, the immediate area is smaller than the District Council’s area. From the South Staffordshire Housing Market Assessment (SSHMA) there is evidence of very limited demand for moving to or within Featherstone. I accept that this is based on a questionnaire survey which did not include an option for moving to a new or expended settlement in this location, but it is indicative of limited local demand.416

13.15 The RSS seek to reverse the past pattern of out migration. To promote this strategy, housing provision over the plan period moves progressively from the position whereby the majority of new housing is accommodated outside the MUAs to the majority being within them. Up to 2011 the balance of housing distribution still favours the areas beyond the MUAs and incorporates an element of out-migration from the MUAs. After 2011, the balance is tipped in favour of the MUAs. The timing of this rebalancing recognises that it will take time for the MUAs to become more attractive places to live. As a result, the approved RSS housing figures to 2011 for places like Staffordshire still accommodates an element of out migration in the figures. The majority of the proposed housing on this site would become available after 2011. The appellants estimate for TW2 is for between 150-175 dwellings a year to be completed on the site between 2011 and 2014/2015. The approved RSS requires a maximum of 189 dwellings a year for South Staffordshire in the period 2011-2021; the RSS Phase 2 Options currently suggest 200 dwellings a year. This district-wide provision would thus largely be met on this one site.417

13.16 The appellants draw attention to the Housing Market Areas (HMA) for Wolverhampton and Walsall which extend into South Staffordshire. Given the strong distinction in the RSS between housing provision within and outside MUAs, I do not regard the extent of the Wolverhampton/Walsall HMA as enabling the housing needs of Wolverhampton and Walsall to be included as part of the local needs which might legitimately be accommodated on the appeal sites under CF2D. For the same reason, I see little justification for contemplating accommodating on the appeal site housing provision

414 7.30, 7.32, 8.38-9, 9.9, 9.11-15, 9.18-23. 415 6.19, 7.3, 7.29-30, 7.35-36, 9.11, 9.17, 9.29. 416 6.19-20. 417 3.5, 6.15-16, 6.31, 7.37, 7.43, 8.21, 9.10, 9.43.

Page 84 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 that is or might be required in those MUAs. In my view, the appellants’ interpretation of the scope and weight to be accorded to the URZ designation in supporting housing development equate to making the area part of the MUA (albeit separated by a narrow band of undeveloped land alongside the M54). But extending the boundaries of the MUA is specifically precluded in policy CF3C.418

13.17 I consider that the scale of the proposed housing would considerably exceed that reasonably required for local housing needs in the immediate area and thus conflict with RSS policy CF2D. Compliance with CF2D would thus depend on coming within any exception encompassed by the word generally. However, my reading of the policy is not that generally is intended to allow substantial provision beyond local needs, but simply intended to avoid undue precision in assessing local needs. I consider that TW2 and TW3 conflict with Policy CF2.419

13.18 The RSS seek to reverse the past pattern of out migration. Retaining and attracting households in socio-economic groups A and B is an important element of the strategy. Figures for migration in and out of Wolverhampton between 1999-2005 indicate a net loss of population. The SSHMA on the origins of households moving into the District in the last 3 years indicate the strong pull of the district for households in the adjoining MUAs, although I recognise that Featherstone and the north eastern part of the District has not in the past attracted as many migrants from the MUA as other parts of the District. There is also evidence that whilst Wolverhampton has enjoyed some increase in the proportion of its population which falls within the A/B social grouping, it has enjoyed markedly less improvement in that regard than other administrative areas, including South Staffordshire.420

13.19 The RSS specifically highlights that the availability of development land in the settlements close to the MUAs has been an important factor in the trend of decentralisation. The location of the appeal site close to the edge of the MUA, the substantial scale of the new development and the proposed high quality public transport links into the MUA would be likely to favourably alter the perception of the area and would make the appeal development particularly likely to attract households from the MUA, including households in social economic groups A and B. This view is supported by research on the characteristics of occupiers of new build properties in the districts adjoining the Black Country.421

13.20 Economically, Featherstone is a relatively deprived area in comparison to much of South Staffordshire and nationally. The attraction of a higher proportion of households in socio economic groups A and B, the creation of additional jobs and the provision of better access to a wide range of jobs would all assist in making the enlarged Featherstone a more balanced community socially and improving the economic prospects of existing residents. But to focus on Featherstone is to ignore the more important sub-regional picture. Featherstone is a modest settlement outside the MUA. The degree of deprivation in parts of the MUA is much greater than in Featherstone. As part of the urban renaissance agenda of the RSS, the MUA needs to be a more attractive place to live, especially for socio economic groups A and B. Substantial investment within the MUA is needed to achieve that aim.422

13.21 Whilst the appellants question some of the detail of the evidence referred to above, there is no evidence to suggest that the new housing would not attract a substantial proportion of out-migrants from the MUA. The appellants regard the location of the proposals within the URZ as making them incapable of conflicting with the strategy of the RSS. But given the location of this part of the URZ outside the MUA that proposition cannot simply be assumed and the evidence to the contrary cannot be ignored. The appellants

418 9.12, 9.30. 419 6.20, 7.36, 9.30. 420 6.15-16, 7.38-40, 7.45, 9.29, 421 7.38-39, 7.41, 7.44-45, 9.91-92. 422 6.16, 7.42, 8.41, 9.43, 9.52, 9.89.

Page 85 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 also consider that the proposals would not give rise to the unacceptable environmental pressures that the RSS sees as a consequence of out-migration from the MUAs (namely: increasing pressures on the environment; encouraging the development of greenfield sites; increasing the need for car based travel and the dangers of abandonment and greater social polarisation within the region). I address some of these matters later in my conclusions. I identify harm to the Green Belt, which I regard as an environmental pressure. I do not find fundamental harm in relation to use of greenfield land or sustainability in relation to travel. I have addressed the economic and social issue above. Although the proposals do not exhibit all the harmful consequences referred to in the RSS, that does not equate to the proposal being consistent with the aims of the RSS, since the RSS seeks to bring about certain positive outcomes not just avoid adverse impacts. 423

13.22 I consider that in relation to the housing element of the proposals both TW2 and TW3 would conflict with relevant housing policies and produce an outcome that was at odds with and would undermine an important element of the strategy of the RSS. This is consistent with the conclusion of the Inspector, accepted by the SoS, when determining another appeal for housing in South Staffordshire in 2006 (land at Landywood Lane, Great Wyrley).424

13.23 I turn now from housing to other themes of the RSS which are reflected in the URZ designation and in the development proposals. The provision of the new station/P&R at Brinsford is fully in accordance with RSS policy T6B and the aims of policy T8. Application TW1 is regarded as being in conformity with the RSS by the West Midlands Regional Assembly (WMRA); has been consistently supported by WCC and, by the end of the Inquiry, was considered acceptable by SSDC (since it considers that the station/P&R now has good prospects of coming forward without the enabling development of the MDA proposals).425

13.24 This transport facility at Brinsford has been endorsed by policy and technical studies over a period of more than 10 years. Despite the scepticism of many local residents, who regard it as a likely white elephant, there is no credible evidence to suggest that the implementation of this facility would not make a very significant contribution to improving accessibility by means other than the car and encouraging a switch from cars to trains and buses. The facility would complement the substantial and regionally important employment development at the nearby i54 site, and in this respect is endorsed by Advantage West Midlands (AWM). The delivery of this transport infrastructure is entirely consistent with the URZ designation and would advance an important objective of the RSS.426

13.25 The MDA proposals include 9.3 ha of employment land. The masterplans for TW2 and TW3 also accommodate the possibility of a new prison, although the applications do not specifically propose such a development. All the main parties at the Inquiry accept or support employment development in this location.427

13.26 SSDC objects to the loss of 3.7ha of employment land - the difference between what is specifically proposed (9.3ha) and what local plan policy E4 refers to (up to 14ha). For the following reasons, I consider that this difference does not amount to a material conflict with policy E4 nor otherwise weigh against the proposals. Firstly, the wording of the local plan policy suggests an upper limit for employment land provision, rather than a minimum to be achieved. Secondly, the land has been allocated for employment for 10 years and has not been redeveloped for this use. There is no dispute that a substantially

423 6.11, 7.38, 7.43, 8.21, 9.29, 9.39, 9.43, 9.91. 424 6.14, 622, 7.41. 425 6.21, 7.8, 9.25, 9.28. 426 7.8, 9.16, 9.24-27, 9.62. 427 6.52, 7.8, 8.40.

Page 86 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 better access is needed to make the site attractive to the market. The proposals would make employment land actually available for development.428

13.27 Thirdly, the masterplans for TW2 and TW3 accommodate the possibility of a new prison on part of the former ROF, on land now owned by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS). SSDC accept that a new prison would be equivalent to employment development because of the large number of people employed by prisons (even if a prison would not be recorded as employment development in annual monitoring by the County Council).429

13.28 Fourthly, given the scale of employment land with permission and being developed in this part of South Staffordshire (including the i54 site and Hilton Cross Business Park) I cannot see any practical justification for the Council’s concern that there might be inadequate land to meet local employment needs. There are conflicting interpretations of how the different types of employment land allocations and development on them should be monitored, but that should not obscure what is happening on the ground. Including the regional significant employment sites within a district’s employment land supply is explicitly endorsed in the RSS.430

13.29 Finally, I note that AWM, who have particular interest in the promotion of economic development, do not object to the reduction in employment land compared with the maximum figure in local plan policy E4 and generally express a favourable view on the appeal proposals.431

13.30 I therefore consider that the employment element of the MDA proposals is consistent with RSS policy PA6 for the provision of a portfolio of employment land. The employment and transport elements are also consistent with its location within a broad High Technology Corridor (HTC) designated by policy PA3. Given the appellants indication that the likely employment development would be mainly B8 warehouse uses (and their agreement to a condition limiting B1 uses to a maximum of 3,000m2) the employment element is complementary to the provision made to encourage specialist B1 uses, such as at the nearby large i54 site.432

13.31 I have therefore found that the overall appeal proposals would be consistent with specific RSS policies for transport and employment development and in these respects strongly support Spatial Strategy Objectives h) improve significantly the Regions’ transport systems and f) support the diversification and modernisation of the Region’s economy. But the development would conflict with the housing strategy of the RSS and, in my view, be more likely to undermine rather than support objective a) to make the MUAs increasingly attractive places where people want to live, work and invest. For the reasons already given, the designation of the appeal location as an URZ does not resolve or override this conflict so as to favour the appeal proposal. Given, as the appellants emphasise, the cross- cutting nature of the RSS to address the region’s problems, housing policies should not be given less weight than the URZ designation and in my view are the most important polices for the largest single elements of the proposals. The location of this part of a URZ outside the MUA requires discrimination in the mix and scale of uses which are acceptable in this area. Because of the scale and significance of the housing element of the proposals, I consider that the proposals as a package would, overall, result in harmful conflict with the strategy of the RSS.433

428 6.8, 6.61, 9.58-59. 429 6.61, 9.58 430 2.9, 6.61, 9.57. 431 3.8, 9.33, 9.60. 432 3.8, 7.31, 9.19, 9.61, 9.97. 433 3.4

Page 87 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Green Belt

13.32 It is agreed that taken as a comprehensive package, the P&R and MDA proposals involve inappropriate development in the Green Belt which PPG2 indicates is harmful. Although the RSS contemplates the revision of Green Belt boundaries in certain circumstances, the URZ notation applying to the location does not imply that any less weight should be given to protection of the those parts of the appeal sites which are Green Belt. Although the main parties at the Inquiry emphasised that a comprehensive approach should be taken, I consider that to fairly assess Green Belt issues some disaggregation is necessary.434

13.33 TW1 - the proposed station, park and ride facility and new access road - should be regarded as not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. None of the main parties at the Inquiry suggested otherwise. The tests sets out in PPG2 ¶3.17/PPG13 Annex E are met. The selection of this location has been confirmed through a series of technical studies of potential park and ride sites over the past 10 years and has been a proposal in the LTP for some time. There is no credible evidence that there might be a better location. Whilst many local residents generally ascribe harm from the loss of Green Belt, there is no specific evidence that the park and ride proposal would seriously compromise the inclusion of land in the Green Belt. Given the location of its main elements in the narrow band of land between the WCML, HMP Featherstone and the non Green Belt land of the former ROF site, I consider that it would not. There was no evidence to suggest that a new station and P&R in this location could be designed in a different way so as to reduce the impact on the Green Belt. My favourable assessment is consistent with the conformity opinion expressed by WMRA; the support expressed for this part of the package by WCC; and SSDC’s view that the merits of the scheme are such that it is likely to come forward without reliance on the MDA proposals.435

13.34 About one third of the application sites of TW2 and TW3 is not in the Green Belt, as the proposals are centred on the former ROF site, part of which is removed from the Green Belt in the adopted local plan. Most of the proposed employment area and the majority of the proposed housing are on this non Green Belt land. Apart from 12 flats within the proposed district centre, all the rest of the housing is on previously developed land (PDL) in the Green Belt. TW2 has a larger area of housing (13.5ha) on this Green Belt/PDL than TW3 (9.2ha). In TW2, the main elements of built development on Green Belt which is also greenfield land are the school, recreation pavilion and local centre and related facilities. In TW3 the school and recreation pavilion are relocated to Green Belt/PDL, resulting in only about 1ha of Green Belt/greenfield land being used for built development.436

13.35 At the Inquiry, there was no detailed assessment of the loss of openness that would result from the MDA proposals and no differentiation between the 2 applications in relation to openness was made either by the appellants or by SSDC. The harm to the Green Belt is of concern to many residents. In my view, there would be a materially greater impact on openness from TW2 than TW3, given the materially smaller area occupied by built development in TW3. This is readily apparent when comparing the 2 masterplans. In TW2, much of the eastern part of the former ROF site would be occupied by new housing. Whilst there are existing buildings on part of this area, they are widely spaced and there is much open space to their east. TW2 would create a fairly dense urban form throughout this area stretching northwards to East Road. Accordingly, there would be a considerable loss of openness in this area. The impact of TW3 on this part of the site would be much less because the large area of housing in TW2 would be replaced by playing fields; nevertheless there would still be a significant loss of openness.437

434 5.7, 6.2-3, 8.5, 9.77, 9.5, 9.80. 435 6.58, 7.8, 8.5, 9.25, 9.27. 9.62, 1016, 1019, 10.20, 11.5, 11.8. 436 5.4-6. 437 2.3, 4.6, 5.5-6, 6.4, 6.62, 9.81, 11.8.

Page 88 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

13.36 There would also be a substantial loss of openness in both TW2 and TW3 from the housing proposed at Brinsford Lodge. Although this is PDL with extensive hard surfaced areas, most of the site is open with only a few small upstanding structures. Finally, most of the district centre would be on open agricultural land to the south of Brinsford Lodge and so would also result in a loss of openness.438

13.37 I turn now to the effect on the 5 purposes of the Green Belt listed in PPG2. The MDA proposals would extend the built up area of Featherstone in a westerly direction, but Featherstone is a modest sized settlement separate from the main urban area to the south of the M54. Accordingly, I consider that the development would not represent the unrestricted sprawl of a large built-up area. Featherstone is not a town and Brinsford is a small group of houses and 2 prisons. Whilst the MDA proposals would link these elements, I do not regard this as resulting in the merging of neighbouring towns. But on a larger scale, this part of the Green Belt separates Cannock from the northern edge of Wolverhampton and Walsall and the small but material degree to which the proposals would fill-in part of this Green Belt would be contrary to the long term aim of preventing coalescence. However, this concern would arise from any similar scale of development in this extensive Green Belt and in this case the significance of the impact is somewhat lessened because part of the Green Belt involved is occupied by buildings and is PDL. (For the reasons already given, the conflict is slightly less with TW3 than TW2).439

13.38 Material harm from encroachment into the countryside would be very limited because of the extent of PDL. Although this PDL is still countryside in planning terms it is, in part, a degraded landscape. The harm is somewhat greater with TW2 than with TW3 for the reasons already given in relation to openness. The Green Belt purpose relating to historic towns is not applicable in this area. Given my conclusion that the proposals, taken together, are contrary to the overall strategy of the RSS, I consider that the proposals would not assist urban regeneration. Although the proposals would result in the recycling of derelict land both within and outside the Green Belt, this land is not in an urban area, despite the URZ designation. I consider that the proposals would not give rise to any irresistible future pressure for the development of further land in the Green Belt given that such adjoining land is all greenfield; that the master plans create clear boundaries for the proposed development; and the appeals would be allowed only if very special circumstances exist.440

13.39 I turn now to the objectives for the use of land in the Green Belt (PPG2 ¶1.6). I accept that the proposals would meet 4 of the 6 objectives for the Green Belt. It would provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation through the extensive playing fields and parkland alongside Featherstone Brook; would enhance the landscape where people live; would improve damaged and derelict land; and would secure nature conservation interest (see Other Matters below). The proposals would not, however, directly provide opportunities for access to the open countryside, but neither would they preclude the existing opportunities for such access. I do not regard the parkland proposed alongside the Featherstone Brook as being open countryside since it would have a developed setting between housing and any future prison. Both TW2 and TW3 include the use of some agricultural land, but in TW3 the MDA elements would involve the permanent loss of little such land (only for the local centre).441

13.40 Finally, I turn to the visual amenities of the Green Belt. SSDC asserts that there would be harm to the visual amenities from the development, but does not suggest any alternative design or layout would be preferable if the principle of the proposals were accepted. A detailed landscape analysis was presented by the appellants, but the effect on visual amenities/landscape was not the subject of detailed evidence at the Inquiry.442

438 2.4. 439 6.62, 8.5, 9.82-3. 440 6.62, 9.84-5. 441 9.87. 442 6.63, 9.69

Page 89 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

13.41 In considering the overall impact on visual amenities of the MDA proposals, I have taken into account the derelict nature of much of the land involved (including the derelict nature of the main ROF site not in the Green Belt, but visible from it); the general visual containment of the location by Featherstone, the prisons, the M54 and the WCML; the retention of most of the major groups of trees and the proposals for new planting. In TW3 the areas of existing built development and dereliction would be replaced by new development with very limited development beyond these areas. I consider that the MDA proposals in TW3 would not, overall, have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the Green Belt. But as already explained in relation to openness, TW2 would extend built development over considerable open areas where existing or past built development is not readily noticeable. The scale of development proposed in TW2 is not necessary to achieve the positive benefit of the removal of dereliction. Overall, I consider that TW2 would have a localised adverse impact on visual amenity.443

13.42 The new link road from the A449 would cut across agricultural land and the bridge over the WCML would be raised on a substantial embankment resulting in some localised adverse visual impact. But a road link and bridge is needed to serve the new station and P&R and would be needed to serve any substantial new employment uses on the land allocated in the local plan. I have thus not weighed this harm against the proposals. In addition, there would be an adverse visual impact from the extensive car parking proposed for the P&R on what is currently agricultural land, but given the support for this element of the proposals and the absence of any credible less harmful layout or location I have also not weighed this harm in the balance of considerations.444

13.43 Overall, I consider that there would be conflict with the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy of keeping land permanently open and with the purpose of preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another. The MDA proposals would be generally compatible with the use of land in the Green Belt and only TW2 would result in localised visual harm, less than might normally be expected from this scale of development.

Housing supply

13.44 Generally, the background information on housing supply is agreed. The main technical issue in dispute is the discount rate to be applied to sites with planning permission but not yet started. SSDC apply a discount rate of 17% (based on non implementations rates over the past 5 years) whereas the appellants apply a discount of 33% (based on non implementations rates over the past 10 years). The latter approach was broadly accepted by the Inspector and SoS when dismissing the appeal at Landywood Lane, Great Wyrley. I consider that the longer term timescale is a more reliable guide and I see no basis for coming to a different view from that in the Landywood Lane appeal. A 33% discount should be applied.445 The main policy dispute is whether the requirement should be calculated using the existing RSS or draw in some form on the RSS Phase 2 Options.

13.45 The RSS sets out housing figures for counties, but not districts. In approving the RSS in June 2004, the Minister advised that, pending the completion of the RSS Reviews (which would include more detailed housing figures - as now proposed in RSS Phase 2 Options) apportionment to districts up to 2011 should be made using the proportions in SP policy H1. For beyond 2011, the implication of the Minister’s advice is that if better information becomes available it could replace the use of the SP proportions. The overall approach is subject to the caveat that it should not lead to significant, particularly greenfield, allocations.446

13.46 Option 1 of the RSS Phase 2 Revision distributes to districts the housing provision set out in the approved RSS (5,000 for South Staffordshire in the period 2001-2026).

443 6.63, 9.69, 9.86. 444 9.86 445 5.18, 9.44. 446 3.5, 7.20, 9.38.

Page 90 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Options 2 and 3 substantially increase the overall housing provision in the region, but the provision to be made in South Staffordshire remain the same at 5,000. The accompanying Housing Background Paper provides estimates of housing demand by district (5,204 for South Staffordshire over the same period). I consider that both the Option 1 and the housing demand figure represent better information for use after 2011 than the SP proportions from H1, because they are a reflection of the approved RSS strategy which SP Policy H1 is not. The difference of 204 between the Option 1 figure and the housing demand figure would make little difference to the 5 year supply calculation. Using the combination of the SP proportions to 2011 (342 dpa) and the RSS Phase 2 Option 1 (200 dpa) thereafter (and applying the 33% lapse rate referred to above) the housing supply would be only 3.4 years, as calculated by the appellants. Persimmon Homes supports the appellants approach on housing supply and the conclusion that there is a shortfall.447

13.47 The Minister’s advice in 2004 was necessary to overcome practical difficulties arising from the limited scope of the RSS, but in my view it should not necessarily still be applied over 3 years later if circumstances have changed. Three matters give strong grounds for not following the Minister’s advice now, but do not provide a consistent alternative.

13.48 Firstly, SP policy H1, which is used in the proportions approach referred to by the Minister, will have expired as part of the development plan on 27 September 2007 unless it has been specifically saved by the SoS. The County Council, supported by the WMRA and the district, are not seeking to save this policy, although some developer interests have sought this. If H1 is not saved (and I have not had regard to any such announcements after the close of the Inquiry), then it would be illogical in my view to have regard to a policy which is no longer part of the development plan in determining housing requirements. In any case, it is a policy which predates the radical change of approach to housing distribution set out in the RSS and the Minister advised that it be used only because there was no other basis for calculating apportionments to districts. The MDA proposals equate to a significant housing allocation (albeit not mainly on greenfield land) and the Minister cautioned against the use of SP proportions resulting in such developments.448

13.49 Secondly, the Government Office for the West Midlands (GOWM) has endorsed the RSS Phase 2 Option 1 for use by all West Midlands’ Authorities in preparing LDFs and in calculating the 5 year supply. GOWM suggest a trajectory approach adjusting the annual dwelling requirement derived from the Phase 2 figure to reflect the different proportions over the 3 phases of the plan period set out in the approved RSS. This approach has been applied up by the Council and results in a supply of about 6 years (based on their assumptions). WCC endorses this approach. Applying the 33% lapse rate would bring the supply down close to 5 years.449

13.50 The approach advised by GOWM would mean according considerable weight to an emerging RSS which is still at an early, consultative stage. To do so would not be consistent with past views expressed by Inspectors and the SoS in relation to such emerging policy. Although the housing figures for South Staffordshire are the same in each of the 3 options (whereas for most urban authorities housing provision is increased in Option 2 and increased again in Option 3) it cannot be assumed that the provision required in South Staffordshire will not subsequently be increased. In addition, the current base date of 2001, currently used in RSS Phase 2, has a significant effect on the housing supply calculation. If the base date were to be brought forward, the residual requirement shown in the Council’s calculation would be increased and the 5 year supply reduced, even if the allocation for South Staffordshire did not change (other than adjustment for any such

447 3.17, 8.13, 9.40 448 3.13, 6.11-12, 6.29, 7.19, 7.25, 7.11-12, 9.3, 9.39. 449 6.27, 7.20, 7.26, 9.34- 35.

Page 91 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 shorter plan period). For these reasons, I am reluctant to rely in this appeal on the approach advised by the GOWM.450

13.51 Thirdly, there is advice published by Communities and Local Government (April 2007) for Government Offices and the Planning Inspectorate on how the 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites required by PPS3 should be calculated. This indicates that where housing provision figures are not available in adopted development plans for the following 5 years, planning authorities should make the best available estimate of the level of housing required and that this may include having regard to the evidence underpinning housing provision policies in the emerging RSS or projecting forward based on current Development Plan figures or other up to date information. In the absence of a specific district figure in the approved RSS, I consider that this points to using the estimate of housing demand in the Housing Background Paper of 5,204.451

13.52 In my view, the implied annual average rate of 208 dwellings derived from the 5,204 total should be used only for the 5 year period from 2007 and not be used retrospectively for the period 2001 -2007, which should be based on the SP proportions approach. I recognise that this is a hybrid approach not advanced by the parties, but I consider that it would fairly reflect the transition intended by the RSS strategy of progressively reducing the scale of housing outside the MUAs and the past application of the Minister’s advice when approving the RSS. It is consistent with the stepping down of housing provision outside the MUAs set out in the approved RSS. Drawing on the agreed baseline figures and applying a lapse rate of 33% to permissions not started, I calculate that this hybrid approach would give a current supply of about 4 years452.

13.53 If the SoS were to conclude that there was a 5 year supply of deliverable sites in South Staffordshire then the appeal applications do not gain any particular weight from this consideration and it would not be necessary to address further the remaining matters in this section. If the SoS were to conclude that there was not a 5 year supply then PPS3 indicates that favourable consideration should be given to applications (¶71).

13.54 I proceed on the basis that there is less than a 5 year supply in the district. But in my view, there are a number of factors which lessen the weight that the appeal applications should enjoy from the favourable consideration referred to in PPS3.

13.55 Firstly, there is no certainty about delivery and thus of the site’s likely contribution to the current shortfall. If housing is being permitted in part to respond to a shortfall in supply then there must be good prospects of it making up that shortfall in a timely manner. The appellants envisage a start by June 2008 if permission is given in February 2008. On the appellants estimate for TW2, 50-60 houses would be completed by March 2009 and 450-550 by March 2012. The start of construction is dependent on meeting the terms of the agreed condition that there should be an agreement in place to ensure the construction of the proposed station as well as getting the approval of the Council on all the other conditions precedent.

13.56 The appellants have made great progress in advancing the station/P&R proposal, but much work remains to be done to get to the stage where a development agreement is likely to be finalised. The business case will need to be refined to form a sound basis to assess the funds that Network Rail can raise in the capital market. This is a complex scheme and requires a partnership approach between the appellants, Network Rail and train operating companies. In satisfying the condition that the agreement would contractually ensure that the station is built, it seems to me that in addition to refining the business cases, considerable detail of the implementation and timing of construction needs

450 3.17, 6.26, 6.28, 7.21, 9.36-7, 9.41. 451 6.32, 7.22-23, 9.39-40. 452 3.5, 9.41. (Requirement: 342 dpa 2001-2007 = 2,052 dwellings + 208 dpa 2007-2012 = 1,040, giving a total requirement of 3,092. Less completions of 1,514, gives an annual average requirement of 315 dpa. The total supply is 1,282, representing 4.06 years.)

Page 92 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 to be resolved for the works to be accommodated on the busy WCML. This is more than achieving the in principle agreement of all the parties. In favourable circumstances, the appellants’ timetable might be achieved, but it is not unreasonable to envisage slippage.453

13.57 An element of public funding might still be needed and the appellants cannot at this stage rule out at least a modest top-up to the funding package. The need for any such contribution can only be determined as the business cases are refined and there is more work to be done to advance the project through the GRIP process. Any need for public funding would cause delay. Whilst, I accept that the appellants’ proposals offer a very good prospect of eventually delivering the station/P&R, there must be a question mark over the speed at which the development agreement can be secured. I thus regard the appellants start date of June 2008 as optimistic. The later the start on site the smaller the contribution to the presently identified housing supply shortfall.454

13.58 Secondly, the scale of the housing proposed means that the site would continue to deliver housing for 2-3 years (TW3) or 3-4 years (TW2) after the current 5 year period, even on the appellants' optimistic timetable of a start in mid 2008. The later the start on site the greater the proportion of housing that is delivered after 2012. This proportion of the housing proposed cannot derive support from any 5 year supply shortfall.455

13.59 Thirdly, the scale of the housing involved would severely limit the opportunity and options available to SSDC to plan for housing elsewhere in the District, particularly if the housing requirement is modest, such as that suggested in the RSS Phase 2 Options. This would affect the ability of the Council to respond to local housing needs elsewhere in the District, as I indicate later in relation to affordable housing. In this regard, I give limited weight to the Council’s preferred strategy for its forthcoming Core Strategy of geographical spread. The soundness of that strategy will need to be independently examined, but given the range of settlements within the District and their geographic spread, I consider that a mix of sites in a number of locations is more likely to address local needs than having the majority of housing on one site. I recognise that the degree of spread across the District will need to be balanced against the sustainability/accessibility of the various settlements where housing might be contemplated. That process is one which will need to be undertaken in preparing the Core Strategy; but at this stage I do not regard the approach as unreasonable.456

13.60 Fourthly, outside MUAs the housing provision in the RSS is to be regarded as a maximum (an upper limit) which lessens the significance of a shortfall. In this context I consider that the agreed contribution from windfalls of 50 dwellings a year cannot be ignored. These will be counted in the total of the housing provision in the district even though PPS3 advises that they should not be included in the calculation of the 5 year housing supply.457

13.61 Fifthly, I have already identified a conflict with the RSS strategy.

13.62 Finally, in the medium term, the Council’s forthcoming Core Strategy will confirm the spatial pattern across the district of housing development. Even if, as suggested by the appellants, the adoption date slips by a year to March 2010 from the date in the latest LDS, the CS would provide an up to date framework to consider planning applications on potential housing sites even in advance of any site allocations DPD. (The LDS indicates adoption of the site allocations DPD in 2010, but any slippage in the CS would be likely to delay adoption). Thus there would be an up to date planning framework in place before most of the housing within the MDA had been built.458

453 8.15-8.17. 454 8.34-35 455 8.19-20 456 3.19, 6.37-8, 6.64, 9.93. 457 3.5, 6.34, 6.36, 7.24, 9.31. 458 3.19, 6.30, 8.13, 9.32.

Page 93 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

13.63 In addition to the above points, there is the possibility of the Council giving favourable consideration to housing on some of the alternative sites outlined by the Council at the Inquiry. Two of the sites – Campions Wood (Cheslyn Hay) and Brookhouse Lane, (Featherstone) involve development in the Green Belt, are not supported by the Council and are the subject of outstanding appeals. In my view, most of the other sites also involve some planning disadvantage or constraint, but other than the sites which the Council is contesting at appeal, none would involve development in the Green Belt. The largest of these would result in the loss of well located employment land (Britool), the displacement of existing uses (Penkridge market) or are greenfield sites. Nevertheless, planning applications are being pursed on several of these sites following negotiations with officers and at the Inquiry the Council, through its Director of Planning, did not indicate any in principle objection to most of these developments. Accordingly, although I see many of them as problematic, if the Council were to grant permission on any of these sites it would reduce the shortfall of housing land.459

13.64 If the SoS were to allow the appeal on either of the other 2 sites the subject of appeals there would be a material increase in housing land supply. The merits of the site at Brookhouse Lane, Featherstone were advanced at this Inquiry. Given that the SoS will have a full report and recommendation on that proposal, I do not need to comment much on it, but 2 points are worth noting. The total site area extends to 16.84ha of which some 8.6ha will be landscaping and open space leaving a net residential area of 7.55ha on which 360 dwellings are proposed. All the development is on Green Belt/greenfield land, whereas in the present appeal proposals only 12 flats and the local centre are on Green Belt which is greenfield land.460

13.65 I accept that the Brookhouse Lane site is better located to integrate with the existing community of Featherstone. The existing school, shops and Health Centre would be within easy walking distance. This is significant because of the likelihood that the MDA proposals would not include a new school as part of the development and there is uncertainty about the delivery of a health centre within the development. Although the proposals at Brookhouse Lane involve a contribution to improve local bus services it would not deliver the substantial change in accessibility that would be delivered by the present appeal proposals. Thus in relation to sustainability and Green Belt, I do not regard Brookhouse Lane as an obviously preferable means of providing 360 houses in this part of the district. I accept however that the speedy delivery of housing on this site is more certain than on the appeal sites.461

13.66 Two other housing matters are raised by the SoS: the sequential search for housing land and density. Given the lack of any main towns within the district the extent of potential urban sites for housing is clearly limited. The housing development within the MDA proposals would be almost entirely on PDL, albeit a part of the housing is also in the Green Belt. The priority given to the use of PDL must be weighed alongside the harm to the Green Belt and the overall sustainability of the location. This is essentially part of the overall balancing exercise in this case. I recognise, however, that in preparing the now abandoned Deposit Local Plan, the District Council’s balancing of all relevant planning issues resulted in the allocation of 1, 000 at the former ROF site. The sequential search for housing sites and considerations of sustainability and accessibility would be best addressed in the preparation of SSDC’s LDF, as referred to above. The density of TW2 is 41.5 dwellings per hectare (dph). The density of TW3 is 46.5 dph. No concerns are raised by the SSDC or others about density. I consider that both developments would make efficient use of land, and there is no evidence to the contrary.462

459 6.39-43, 9.53-56. 460 8.23, 9.56. 461 8.23, 9.56. 462 3.20, 4.4, 9.45-49, 9.88-99.

Page 94 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Affordable Housing

13.67 There are 2 important elements to this consideration. Firstly, whether the proportion of affordable housing proposed as part of TW2 and TW3 is adequate and appropriate and, secondly, whether the provision of this amount of affordable housing in this one location has advantages or disadvantages for affordable housing needs.

13.68 Both TW2 and TW3 would provide 30% affordable housing and this would be built in phases in step with the overall phasing of the development. The arrangements for provision are set out in the linked Section 106 obligations (12.5). This % and the arrangements for provision arise from detailed negotiations with SSDC and, prior to the Inquiry, were not in dispute. The 30% proportion is consistent with SSDC’s Interim Advice Note. No Development Plan policies specify a particular proportion for the provision of affordable housing.463

13.69 At the Inquiry, SSDC contested that 40% provision of affordable housing should be made as a result of the findings and recommendations of the SSHMA. If the SoS were to find the applications otherwise acceptable SSDC suggests that a minded to approve letter could be issued to allow the appellants to agree to increase affordable housing provision through an amendment to the relevant S106 obligations.464

13.70 In my view, SSDC’s requirement for 40% affordable housing from the appeal proposals has little justification, despite the substantial need for affordable housing which is demonstrated. The findings and recommendations of the SSHMA are important evidence for the development of affordable housing policies in the District, but the report has no policy weight itself. The SSHMA is intended to inform the development of policy in the Council’s LDF, but the Council has not yet formally considered the recommendations of the SSHMA - the report had only just been received by the Council at the opening of the Inquiry. The Council’s evidence to the Inquiry, drawn from the SSHMA, strongly supports a future revision in the Council’s overall target for the provision of affordable housing, but that does not mean that 40% (or any other figure above 30%) can reasonably be expected from the appeal proposals.465

13.71 A 40% requirement has not been the subject of any negotiations with the appellants and would usurp the recent negotiations which had agreed a 30% contribution. The imposition of a 40% requirement would not take into account the effect on the viability of the development. Simply because 40% or more affordable housing has been offered or secured on other developments or because the Grampian condition allows up to 450 houses to be built before the station, does not mean that such provision would be viable from these particular schemes. The proposals would make substantial financial contributions to transport and social infrastructure. Whilst the appellants did not raise viability at the Inquiry, they strongly resisted any increase in provision. I consider that the imposition of a 40% requirement would conflict with the long established principle that affordable housing should be the subject of negotiation, the consideration of viability and the achievement of other planning objectives.466

13.72 PPS3 gives particular emphasis to meeting affordable housing needs, but in the context of clear and detailed policies in Development Plan Documents. In the absence of any such local policy framework, the Council’s requirement for 40% provision is arbitrary and opportunistic. I therefore consider that the 30% provision to be delivered by the submitted planning obligations is fair and reasonable. There is no dispute about the detailed make-up of this contribution.

463 6.70, 9.90. 464 3.6, 3.12, 3.14, 6.67, 6.70, 9.96. 465 6.68, 9.95. 466 9.96

Page 95 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

13.73 The second aspect of this consideration is the fit between the provision of a substantial component of affordable housing in this location and affordable housing needs. Given the high level of need identified in the SSHMA, the provision that would arise from allowing the appeals, weighs in their favour. I also recognise that the site is relatively close to a range of major employment opportunities and, with the provision of the new station and bus services, future residents would have good access by public transport to these, Wolverhampton city centre and further afield. Such accessibility may be of particular benefit to some of those who are in need of affordable housing.467

13.74 On the other hand, the SSHMA indicates affordable housing needs arising across the settlements of the District. I accept that the Questionnaire which underpins these findings has limitations. It does not, for example, allow for any expression of interest in moving to a new/expanded settlement, such as presented by the appeal proposals. Such an option might have been attractive to some respondents. Not many people in need of affordable housing expressed an interest in Featherstone. Bearing in mind, the wide geographic spread of settlements across this District and the substantial numbers expressing a preference for other settlements, the offer of affordable housing on the appeal development would probably require a compromise on their preferred location from the majority of the occupiers of the proposed affordable housing.468

13.75 I have already indicated that the appellants estimate for annual completions on this site would be likely to represent a substantial proportion of the total annual housing requirement for the district. Such a substantial scale of provision in one location would severely restrict the opportunity for housing elsewhere and thus the District Council’s ability to negotiate an element of affordable housing in those other locations. There is evidence of a need for affordable housing across the settlements of the District

13.76 I consider that the concentration in one location of a very substantial proportion of the current potential of affordable housing provision in the District would conflict with promoting locational choice amongst those in need of such housing and considerably lessens the benefit of providing a substantial number of affordable dwellings.

Other Matters

13.77 Before turning to the consideration of very special circumstances, I address here the other matters raised by the SoS and matters raised in representations by the local community.

Sustainability/accessibility and compliance with PPG13 Transport

13.78 By the close of the Inquiry this was not a matter that was the subject of any substantial dispute between the main parties. Various matters are covered in Statements of Common Ground.

13.79 New residents would be close to a range of employment opportunities, including those on the employment areas proposed as part of the MDA; at the 2 prisons immediately to the north and any future new prison; and the major employment sites on the southern side of the M54. The provision of a new station would provide frequent and quick access to Wolverhampton and Birmingham and the range of job opportunities and higher level services and facilities that they offer, as well as direct trains services to places further afield. The proposed bus service would link Featherstone and the new development with the station/P&R, with the i54 site and Wolverhampton City centre. An interim bus service would be provided to the city centre in the first phase of the development.469

13.80 Some convenience shopping is intended to be provided in the proposed district centre within the development. But there is some weight in Persimmon Homes’ criticisms

467 6.69, 468 6.64, 6.69, 9.91-93. 469 9.89, 9.98.

Page 96 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 that the local centre may well duplicate the limited shopping already available in the settlement. Both TW2 and TW3 include a new school and health centre, but it is likely that if either development were to proceed the existing primary school in Featherstone would be enlarged rather than new school built within the MDA. Accordingly, the primary school would not be as easily accessible on foot as envisaged in the evidence. A health centre would be built only if the PCT decided to fund it.470

13.81 In considering the sustainability of the location it is relevant to note that SSDC proposed 1,000 dwellings in this location in the Deposit Local Plan Review in 2003. That proposal had been informed by a series of studies on accessibility and the services available in the existing settlements in South Staffordshire. It is reasonable to assume that the Council had concluded that the appeal location was a sustainable location.471

13.82 I consider that the combination of the many nearby employment opportunities, the readily accessible train services and the bus services would mean that there were attractive opportunities to travel other than by car. In this respect I conclude that the proposals, as a comprehensive package, would represent a sustainable form of development with good accessibility by non car modes. The benefits highlighted are sufficient to outweigh what I accept would be the poor physical integration with the existing settlement of Featherstone (see below) and the likely absence of some of the facilities included in the applications.

13.83 All the applications are in outline and detailed proposals relating to parking within the MDA are not set out. The combined Design and Access Statement envisages residential parking mainly on or at the rear of plots, with occasional on street visitor parking, integral parking for town houses and some small courtyards to the rear of blocks of terraces and flats. The appellants’ preliminary parking strategy interprets, rightly in my view, the Council’s out of date minimum parking standard as maximum standards. For residential parking, an overall average of 1.5 spaces is proposed, varying between 1 space for 1 bedroom flats and 2 spaces for family accommodation. SSDC raises no concerns about parking. In my view, the appellant’s intended approach is consistent with the advice on parking in PPG13 and with the aim of creating quality residential areas in PPS3. The detail can be appropriately controlled through the reserved matters.472

13.84 I therefore consider that the overall package of proposals is consistent with the sustainability aims of PPG13.

Contamination and compliance with PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control.

13.85 The former ROF site is a derelict and contaminated site because of its past use. The nature and extent of contamination has been the subject of careful investigation. A remediation strategy has been agreed with the Environment Agency which raises no objections with the development subject to conditions. Although a concern about contamination was expressed on behalf of the Parish Council, no concerns are raised by SSDC and there is no evidence to suggest that the remediation strategy is in any way inadequate. I am therefore satisfied that subject to the conditions set out in the Annex, the proposals would satisfactorily remediate the contamination and make the land suitable for the new uses proposed.473

13.86 Many local residents express concern about increased pollution mainly from increased traffic and highlight the existence of the designated Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) at New Road, Featherstone. Pollution and air quality is not a matter raised in evidence by SSDC. I note that monitoring at New Road has indicated that pollution levels are not as high as were thought when the AQMA was declared and accordingly the Council

470 8.10-12, 9.99. 471 3.20, 9.48 472 9.100 473 5.16, 9.102, 10.10

Page 97 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 is being advised to remove this designation. In these circumstances, there is no creditable basis for any concern in relation to pollution.474

13.87 I therefore consider that the proposals are consistent with the advice in PPS23.

Protected species

13.88 Recent survey work by the appellants found a small population of Great Crested Newts at 2 water bodies immediately to the north of the embankment for the bridge over the WCML. Whilst the proposals would not directly affect these water bodies the habitat to the south would be lost. The appellants propose a mitigation strategy to provide additional wetland areas and related habitat and stepping stone ponds to link the existing ponds to this area. Although a general concern about the impact on this protected species was raised by a local resident, there is no expert evidence to suggest that the appellants’ mitigation strategy would not provide a practical and permanent arrangement for sustaining this small population of Great Crested Newts. The 2 ponds forming the core of the present habit were dry in 2003, 2004 and 2005 and thus the long term survival of this population must be in doubt without intervention. The proposed measures represent a benefit to this protected species rather than harm.475

13.89 Leading up to the Inquiry, SSDC expressed concern about the adequacy given to the consideration of alternatives, but by the end of the Inquiry, SSDC had no concerns about the impact on protected species. Given the extensive range of background studies undertaken in relation to strategic park and ride sites, resulting in the identification of Brinsford in the RSS, I am satisfied that there is no satisfactory alternative location for this facility. In addition there is no evidence to suggest that such a facility could be accessed without an affect on the habitat of this small population of Great Created Newts. I consider that there is no conflict with national or development plans policies for the protection of biodiversity - RSS policy QE7 and SP policies NC5 and NC8.476

Highways

13.90 Many local residents express concern about increased traffic congestion. There is no highway objection from the Highways Agency, Staffordshire County Council or Wolverhampton City Council based on the package of measures offered by the appellants to be secured by conditions and obligations although the Highways Agency sought a further contingent condition. The SCG indicates agreement as to the methodology for assessing traffic impacts. In the absence of any technical evidence to the contrary, I conclude that there is no highway objection to the proposal.477

13.91 Residents of the terrace of houses fronting the A449 opposite the proposed junction with the new link road are concerned about the safety implications for the continued use of the lay-by in front of their homes (as well as the principle of the development). The proposed on-line junction would retain this lay-by alongside the northbound dual carriageway. I recognise that entering and, particularly, leaving this lay- by, especially at peak times, is not easy. However, the proposals for the junction include the introduction of a 40mph speed limit and the traffic light controlled junction would result in pauses in the flow of northbound traffic. Accordingly, I consider that the proposals would not make the use of the lay-by materially worse. Whilst the alternative junction designs rejected by the appellants would create a better service road/ parking arrangement for residents, they have disadvantages (greater land take, possible visibility concerns and in one case lack of opportunity for a controlled pedestrian crossing).478

474 5.17, 10.4, 11.8 475 9.70-72, 9.74, 10.1, 11.8. 476 3.9, 3.11, 5.17, 9.72-9.73, 477 5.12-13, 10.1-10.4, 10.14, 10.19, 10.20, 11.8, 11.5, 12.15 478 10.12-10.14, 9.101.

Page 98 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Health care

13.92 Both TW2 and TW3 propose a GP’s practice/health centre as part of the local centre. But the appellants’ commitment to this facility is solely to offer the PCT a free site for such a facility if they want to establish one. There is no evidence of the PCTs views on this possibility. I accept the point made by one of the existing doctors in Featherstone that the critical issue in relation to local health care is the funding from the PCT for an additional GP(s) to serve the expanded population. This is very much a matter for the PCT and not something that can reasonably be expected to be funded by the appellants. The availability of such funding is also not unique to this development and would be likely to arise wherever there was a substantial development. Accordingly, I consider that the concern expressed by the local doctor and highlighted by the Council does not amount to harm to weigh against the appeal proposals. The uncertainty over whether there would be a GP surgery/health centre as part of the MDA raises an issue of local accessibility which I have already taken into account.479

Design and Layout

13.93 No issue is raised by SSDC in relation to the layout and the design concepts shown in the masterplans and the combined Design and Access Statement. Persimmon Homes criticise the lack of any detailed assessment of the existing characteristics of Featherstone and consider that the proposal would amount to a new settlement rather than a satisfactory extension to Featherstone. Given the scale of development proposed and its spread westwards from the western edge of Featherstone, I agree that there would be a poor geographic relationship with Featherstone. However, this relationship is essentially the consequence of 2 fixed features. The new station and park and ride facility has to be located on the existing railway line, which is well to the west of Featherstone and it is logical to focus the MDA on the PDL and non Green Belt land at the centre of the former ROF. There is no evidence to suggest that an alternative design for a scheme of similar scale would provide any better integration than that proposed by the appellants. I am also conscious that SSDC proposed 1,000 houses on the former ROF site in the Deposit Local Plan Review. I have already noted that the Brookhouse Lane site promoted by Persimmon Homes would have a better physical relationship with the existing village, but it proposes only one third of the housing proposed in TW2. As I consider that, overall, the appellants proposals would represent a sustainable form of development, I do not regard the poor physical relationship with Featherstone as material harm weighing against the proposals.480

Very special circumstances

13.94 I have assessed above most of the matters on which the appellants rely in support of their very special circumstances case. One important element remains to be considered and that is the weight to be given to the appellants' contribution to achieving the new station and park and ride facility.481

13.95 I have already noted the long evolution of a strategic park and ride development at Brinsford. It was a scheme in the LTP and a specific policy proposal in the RSS before the present applications were submitted. In my view, considerable weight must be attached to realising this longstanding proposal and to achieving it sooner rather than later. It is an integral part of the cross-cutting strategy of the RSS to achieve urban regeneration by improving access to job opportunities and to modernise the transport infrastructure of the region; it would reduce car use within the urban area; and would provide a solution to operational difficulties on the rail network at Wolverhampton.482

13.96 The appellants have already made an important contribution to advancing this proposal by the design work undertaken and the development of the business cases which

479 4.7, 6.8, 6.59, 6.63, 12.5 k). 480 8.8-12, 9.48, 9.49. 481 6.7, 6.23, 9.78. 482 9.24-27, 9.63

Page 99 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 has achieved the, in principle, support of Network Rail and its strong interest in pursuing the project with the appellants, reflected in the draft Heads of Terms.483

13.97 In my view, the appellants’ contribution to realising the scheme if the appeals were to be allowed would be considerable. Firstly, they would provide at no cost all the land for the facility; secondly, they would fund the link road, bridge and realigned Cat and Kittens Lane (£11m); thirdly, they would construct the first phase (500 spaces) of the parking required (£1.2m); fourthly, they would make a financial contribution for design work (£1m); and, fifthly pay £0.8m to the station provider on its completion. These are significant contributions to a project which is currently costed at about £40m (assuming free land and not including any contingencies or optimism bias).484

13.98 In addition to these direct financial contributions, the appellants’ interest in progressing the project (so as to be able to start the MDA development) would ensure that the momentum behind the project which they have built up would not be lost. There are also 2 other indirect benefits. The appellants would provide a substantial subsidy for at least 5 years for a bus service which would link Featherstone, the new station, the i54 site (when access is available) and Wolverhampton City centre. This service would promote the use of the station. In addition, the new residents of the MDA would provide an element of the new demand and thus revenue for the station on which the commercial case and Network Rail’s ability to raise money for it would be based.485

13.99 I have already commented that given the complexity of the project there can be no certainty as to when the station would be built. The appellants expect to be able to have a development agreement in place by the middle of 2008 to secure the construction of the station. But the complexities of the project would be there irrespective of the link to the MDA proposals and I am satisfied that the appellants proposals represent the speediest mechanism for delivering the project, even though it might well take longer than they suggest. I now turn to consider whether the station and park and ride project is likely to be achieved in the absence of these appeals being allowed.

13.100 I give little weight to the suggestions by SSDC and Persimmon Homes that the combination of the commercial case and benefit to cost ratio is now shown to be so favourable that the project would be delivered by Network Rail, supported as necessary by public funds, without enabling development. There is little evidence to suggest that this might happen. In such circumstances, there would be the loss of the appellants direct £14m contribution; the additional cost and delay in securing the necessary land from an unwilling landowner; the loss of part of the future revenues in the absence of future residents of the MDA; and the loss of momentum and experience if the appellants project team is no longer involved. It is reasonable to conclude that the necessary contribution from public funds would be sizeable. But it cannot be assumed that such funding would be forthcoming, since there are always more projects competing for such funds than can be supported and the additional uncertainties in the absence of the willing participation of the appellants would make any such bid harder to firm up and be convincing and probably require acquisition of the land by means of a CPO.486

13.101 Given that I have found the MDA proposals would conflict with the strategy of the RSS and harm the Green Belt it is necessary, however, to consider whether any less harmful alternative form and scale of development could make a sufficient contribution to the station/P&R proposal so as to make its realisation likely. The appellants did not put their case in this way because they regard the overall scheme as consistent with the RSS. There is no evidence on the costs/value of alternative forms of development, such as employment development on the land excluded from the Green Belt by the local plan, and

483 9.64. 484 5.9. 485 6.46, 12.5 e). 486 6.7, 6.46-48, 6.54-56, 8.31-2, 8.30, 9.65-67.

Page 100 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 thus whether such alternative development could make a significant contribution to the P&R project.487

13.102 The pursuit by the appellants of TW3 for 870 houses demonstrates that TW2 and its 1,000 houses is not needed to achieve the appellants' contribution to the P&R. I have no evidence on which to judge whether less than 870 houses would still enable such a contribution to be made. In these circumstances, whilst I still give weight to the benefit of advancing the P&R project, that weight is limited because I cannot be satisfied that the harm identified from the MDA proposal (in relation to both the RSS strategy and the Green Belt) is the minimum necessary to make such a contribution. I can give much less weight to TW2 in relation to this contribution than TW3 because TW2 clearly involves a greater scale of harmful development to achieve the same benefit.488

13.103 The only other benefit referred to by the appellants not already addressed is that the proposed open space provision includes an additional playing field so as to meet an existing deficit within Featherstone. Whilst a benefit, I give this very limited weight in the context of the more major planning policy and other issues addressed above. The appeal proposals are not the only means by which this existing deficit might be overcome (similar provision is made in Persimmon Homes’ proposals at Brookhouse Lane).489

Overall balancing of considerations

13.104 The approach I adopt to the consideration of very special circumstances is to determine whether the factors weighing in favour of the proposals clearly outweigh the harm and create the necessary very special circumstances to allow the appeals.490

13.105 Rather than the full alignment of the appeal proposals with RSS advanced by the appellants, I have found conflict with its housing policies and harm to the overall strategy. Part of the scheme involves inappropriate development in the Green Belt; that part also involves a loss of openness (more so in TW2 than TW3).

13.106 Against this harm, I have concluded that there is less than 5 years supply of housing land in the district, but that there are reasons to lessen the support that this gives the appeals. The scheme would bring forward 9.3ha of well located and accessible employment land, remediate contamination and bring back into use a large derelict site which is PDL. The comprehensive package would give the new residents and existing residents of Featherstone good access to jobs and services in the adjoining MUA by means other than the car and, overall, create a sustainable community. The proposals would also provide a substantial number of affordable homes in a district where there is considerable need and little recent provision, but this provision would not relate well to the geographic spread of such needs. There would be a benefit to protected species.

13.107 In addition, the proposals offer very good prospects of eventually delivering a major improvement to the region’s transport infrastructure which is a proposal in the RSS and would promote more sustainable patterns of travel in this part of the region. But the weight to be attached to this benefit is considerably reduced by the fact that there is no basis to conclude that the scale of harmful development proposed is the minimum necessary to achieve this important objective.

13.108 Taking in account all the matters I have addressed in my conclusions, I consider that the benefits of the proposals do not clearly outweigh the conflict with RSS, the harm to openness of the Green Belt and from inappropriate development. There are not therefore the very special circumstances necessary to allow the appeals.

487 6.49-53, 7.9-11, 8.32 488 7.9-11. 489 8.11, 8.43, 10.8, 9.49 490 6.5-9, 7.12-13, 9.79.

Page 101 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

13.109 In relation to the development plan, I conclude that the proposals would conflict with the development plan policies for the protection of the Green Belt - SP policy D5B and local plan policy GB1. There is conflict with the urban renaissance strategy of the RSS and specific conflict with policy CF2 Housing beyond the Major Urban Area. There is compliance with RSS policy T6. There is no material conflict with any other development plan policy.

13.110 I have not identified any specific harm arising from TW1, but for the reasons set out in the introduction to these conclusions, I consider that it should stand or fall alongside TW2 and TW3 and therefore I recommend dismissal of the appeal for TW1. The appellants did not seek a permission for TW1 in isolation.

13.111 I have dealt with the submitted planning obligations and possible conditions, including concerns raised by WCC and Persimmon Homes about the effectiveness of the Grampian condition relating to the delivery of the station, in section 12. I am satisfied that the combination of the undertakings in the obligations and the recommended conditions would ensure that all the necessary mitigation measures raised in the ESs would be secured if the appeals were to be allowed.491

14. Recommendations

Appeal A/TW1

14.1 I recommend that the appeal be dismissed.

Appeal B/TW2

14.2 I recommend that the appeal be dismissed.

Appeal C/TW3

14.3 I recommend that the appeal be dismissed.

14.4 If the Secretary of State decides to allow any of the appeals then I recommend that the relevant conditions relating to that application as set out in Annex 1 should be imposed.

Simon Emerson

Inspector

491 1.10, 6.66, 7.4-7.7, 8.26-28, 9.103-4, 10.3-4.

Page 102 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

ANNEX 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS

In both sets of lists below, the numbering follows that of the conditions schedules agreed between the appellants and South Staffordshire Council, even though I have deleted some of those conditions. Some conditions refer to other condition numbers and these references will need to be amended to reflect the final numbering of the conditions.

Condition 17 for TW1 and condition 13 for TW2/3 require the attachment of a plan to any permission (plan TW19 and TW20 respectively) - copies are on the case file.

FOR APPEAL A (TW1)

1. The development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act.

(Comment: The wording is changed from that agreed by the parties to reflect that of MC5 in Circular 11/95 which is applicable to applications made before August 2005.)

2. Details of the design and external appearance of the buildings, structures, and engineering works and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to exercise control over such details that have not been particularised in the planning application.

(Comment: minor editing to conform to MC2 Circular 11/95.)

3. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act and to prevent the accumulation of unimplemented planning conditions.

(Comment: Amended from the 2 years agreed by the parties so as to conform with MC4 Circular 11/95.)

4. The submission of details pursuant to Condition 2 shall be made broadly in accordance with the approved Land Use Master Plan (drawing no. 12577/PA/002 rev F) and the Design and Access Statement, except as shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is undertaken in accordance with the illustrative material supporting the application.

5. The development hereby permitted shall not be implemented (save for remediation works only) until agreements under Section 278 of the Highways Act have been entered into in relation to necessary road improvements, namely: the junction of Paradise Lane and New Road; the Paradise Lane / Cat and Kittens Lane improvements; and the A449 junction and related works, as included in the Transport Assessment..

Reason: To ensure that necessary off-site highway measures are implemented in

Page 103 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

accordance with the proposed scheme.

6. The development hereby permitted shall not be implemented (save for remediation works only) until a Development Agreement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority which contractually ensures the construction of the railway station, park and ride facility, and associated works, to enable delivery of the entire facility.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of the proposal on a comprehensive basis.

(Comment: minor reordering of wording.)

7. No development shall commence (save for remediation works only) until a scheme for the provision of surface water drainage works including surface water limitation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency. The drainage layout and supporting calculations shall be based on 1 in 100 year design standard plus 20% for climate change. The drainage works shall be completed in accordance with the approved programme and details agreed.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal.

8. No development shall commence (save for remediation works only) until a scheme for the provision and implementation of compensatory flood storage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency. Flood compensation shall be designed to cater for the 1 in 100 year flood event plus 20% for climate change. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved programme and details.

Reason: To alleviate the increased risk of flooding.

9. No development shall commence until the application site has been subjected to a detailed scheme for the investigation and recording of contamination and a report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority. The site investigation should be designed using the information obtained from the desktop study and conceptual site model. The investigation must be comprehensive enough to enable: a) a risk assessment to be undertaken relating to groundwater and surface waters that may be affected by contamination; b) the refinement of the conceptual model; c) the development of a method statement detailing the remediation requirements.

Reason: To prevent pollution of ‘controlled waters’.

10. If contamination is identified within the soils / groundwaters during the site investigation works referred to in condition 9, a Quantitative Risk Assessment shall be undertaken based on a conceptual understanding of the site conditions to derive Site Specific Remedial Targets for soil / groundwaters. The Quantitative Risk Assessments and Site Specific Remedial Targets shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency prior to the commencement of on-site remediation works.

Reason: To prevent pollution of ‘controlled waters’.

11. If the site investigation report referred to in condition 9 identifies contaminated

Page 104 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

material, the applicants shall submit to the Local Planning Authority for written approval a remediation scheme and programme for the site. The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and programme unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent pollution of ‘controlled waters’.

12. If remediation works are required a Remediation Method Statement shall be prepared detailing the remediation objectives, how the remediation works will be undertaken, and the validation procedures. The Remediation Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency prior to the commencement of on-site remediation works. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Remediation Method Statement.

Reason: To prevent pollution of ‘controlled waters’.

13. If during development, contamination not previously identified, is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the LPA, for an addendum to the Method Statement. This addendum to the Method Statement must detail how the unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.

Reason: To prevent pollution of ‘controlled waters’.

14. (Comment: agreed condition - requiring submission of a landscaping scheme – is deleted. Landscaping is a reserved matter and further conditions are not needed on landscaping for this scheme.)

15. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage for parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through oil interceptors designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.

16. No development shall commence (save for remediation works only) until a scheme for the provision of foul drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure adequate means of disposing of foul water from the site.

17. No development (including any ground works) shall take place within the area indicated on Plan TW19 until there has been implemented a programme of archaeological recording work in accordance with a written scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To secure the investigation and recording of archaeological remains.

(Comment: similar agreed condition 17a deleted as it is encompassed within 17.)

18. No development shall commence (save for remediation works only) until a scheme for the protection of protected species and their habitats and a programme for the implementation of that scheme has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the

Page 105 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect species and features of nature conservation importance.

19. No construction of development shall take place (save for remediation works only) until the contract for the A449 / Link Road junction including the connection to Brinsford Lane has been entered into by the developer.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

20. No more than 500 car parking spaces at the park and ride site shall be constructed and opened for use until the access road from the A449, including the rail overbridge, are open for use as public highway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

21.. No more than 500 car parking spaces at the park and ride site shall be constructed and opened for use until the Paradise Lane / Cat and Kittens Lane highway improvement scheme, including 3 new roundabouts, highway realignment and junction improvements (as shown in drawing numbers 12577-PA-004 REV E and 12577-PA-005 REV D are open for use as public highway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

22. No development shall commence (save for remediation works only) until details of surface water drainage and outfalls, including details of any off-site provision and necessary improvements, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved details and phasing programme, agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

23. No development shall commence (save for remediation works only) unless and until a detailed scheme for the proposed access to the A449 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highways Agency. The scheme will provide for:

a) a full signalisation incorporating a MOVA control system broadly shown in drawing 12577/PA/003 Revision D.

b) speed reduction measures on the A449 approaches to the access including signage, safety cameras and road markings / surface treatments as appropriate broadly as shown in drawing 12577/MDA/SK51.

Reason: to ensure that the A449 trunk road continues to serve its purpose as part of the national system of traffic routes for through traffic by minimising disruption on the trunk road resulting from traffic entering and emerging from the application site and in the interests of road safety.

24. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use unless and until the scheme of works detailed and approved under condition 23 above has been completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Highways Agency.

Reason: to ensure that the A449 trunk road continues to serve its purpose as part of the national system of traffic routes for through traffic by minimising disruption on

Page 106 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

the trunk road resulting from traffic entering and emerging from the application site and in the interests of road safety.

25. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until a scheme for the marketing of the facility in Wolverhampton, South Staffordshire and Stafford Borough administrative areas has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highways Agency. This scheme shall detail the types and extent of advertisements to be used and a programme of advertising that shall run for a period of not less than 6 months from the date on which the facility is first brought into use. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To promote more sustainable patterns of travel, to minimise disruption on the trunk road network and in the interests of road safety.

(Comment: reason amended)

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR APPEAL B (TW2) & APPEAL C (TW3) All conditions applicable to both applications unless indicated otherwise.

1. The development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters.

Reason: In accordance with section 42 of the Town and Country Planning Act 2004.

(Comment: the wording and timing is changed from that agreed by the parties to reflect that normally applicable to applications made after August 2005.)

2. For TW2 only Approval of the details of the siting, design, external appearance of the buildings, structures and engineering works and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called the “reserved matters”) shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced and the development shall be implemented in accordance with those details.

For TW3 only Approval of the details of the layout, scale and appearance of the buildings, structures and engineering works and landscaping of the site (hereinafter called the “reserved matters”) shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced and the development shall be implemented in accordance with those details.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to exercise control over such details that have not been particularised in the planning application.

(Comment: the wording for TW2 differs from that agreed by the parties to reflect the definition of reserved matters current at the time the application was submitted.)

3. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In accordance with section 42 of the Town and Country Planning Act 2004.

(Comment: Amended from the 2 years agreed by the parties.)

4. The submission of details pursuant to Condition 2 shall be made broadly in

Page 107 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

accordance with the approved Outline Development Plan (drawing no. TW2: TAW001/37/J or TW3: TW3/PA/002), and the Design and Access Statement August 2007, except as shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is undertaken in accordance with the illustrative material supporting the application.

5. The development hereby permitted shall not be implemented (save for remediation works only) until agreements under Section 278 of the Highways Act have been entered into in relation to necessary road improvements, namely: at the junction of Paradise Lane and New Road; the Paradise Lane / Cat and Kittens Lane improvements; the A449 junction and related works, and the Brookhouse Lane / East Road Junction, as included in the Transport Assessment.

Reason: To ensure that necessary off-site highway measures are implemented in accordance with the proposed scheme.

6. No built development shall commence until a Design Code (to accord with the principles established by the Design and Access Statement) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Each reserved matters application should be accompanied by a statement that sets out how that phase has complied with the principles set out in the Design Code. Matters for inclusion in the Design Code are set out below.

General: i. Principles of urban design and opportunities for using locally sourced and recycled construction materials; ii. Accessibility to public spaces for the disabled and physically impaired; iii. Sustainable design and construction, in order to achieve a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 (or other such sustainability standard as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) and equivalent BREEAM rating for office and industrial buildings; iv. Measures which show how energy efficiency is being addressed and show the on-site measures to be taken to generate energy by renewable sources; and v. Built form strategies to include density and massing, street grain and permeability, street enclosure and active frontages, type and form of buildings including relationship to plot and landmarks and vistas.

Landscaping and Ecology: vi. Principles for hard and soft landscaping including the inclusion of important trees and hedgerows; vii. Structures (including street lighting, floodlighting and boundary treatments for commercial premises, street furniture and play equipment); viii. Design of the public realm, including layout and design of squares, Public Open Space and areas for play; ix. Open space needs; x. Conservation of flora and fauna interests; and xi. Provision to be made for art.

Highways and Transport: xii. A strategy for a hierarchy of streets and spaces; alignment, width, and surface materials (quality, colour and texture) proposed for all footways, cycleways, bridleways, roads and vehicular accesses to and within the site (where relevant) and individual properties; and xiii. On-street and off-street residential and commercial vehicular parking and / or loading areas.

Page 108 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Reason: To ensure satisfactory comprehensive development and proper planning of the area.

7. The development hereby permitted shall not be implemented (save for remediation works only) until a Development Agreement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which contractually ensures the construction of the railway station, park and ride facility, and associated works, as shown in application (LPA ref: 05/00677/OUT appeal ref: APP/C3430/A/06/2027165) to ensure delivery of the entire facility.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of the proposal on a comprehensive basis.

(Comment: minor reordering of wording.)

8. No more than 200 residential units shall be occupied until a bus only park and ride facility and the associated 500 space car park has been constructed and is ready for use.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of the proposal on a comprehensive basis.

9. No more than 450 residential units shall be occupied until the railway station, park and ride facility and associated works are fully constructed and ready for use.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of the proposal on a comprehensive basis.

9a No more than 3,000m2 of B1 floorspace shall be developed within the employment areas on the site.

Reason: To protect the strategic employment site at i54, Wobaston Road, Wolverhampton.

10. The submission of details pursuant to Condition 2 shall include details of noise amelioration schemes for dwellings on the site falling within Noise Exposure Categories B or C as defined in Planning Policy Guidance 24 Planning and Noise. The details shall include the design of individual properties and/or provision of acoustic glazing and acoustically treated ventilation systems. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect residential properties from adverse noise impact.

(Comment: implementation clause added to agreed condition.)

11. The submission of details pursuant to Condition 2 shall include noise attenuation measures in relation to the areas of commercial / industrial development within the site. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details

Reason: To protect residential properties from adverse noise impact.

(Comment: implementation clause added to agreed condition.)

12. The submission of details pursuant to Condition 2 shall include details of any atmospheric emissions, in relation to commercial /industrial development within the site

Reason: To protect air quality.

Page 109 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

13. No development (including ground works) shall take place within the area indicated in Plan TW20 until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological recording work in accordance with a written scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure an appropriate historic record of the site is prepared.

14. Comment: Agreed condition deleted; encompassed within 13 above.

15. No development shall commence until drainage details, incorporating sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro-geological context of the development, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed/occupied.

Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to reduce the risk of creating or exacerbating a flooding problem and to minimise the risk of pollution.

16. No buildings shall be erected or trees planted within 5 metres of the public sewer which crosses the site.

Reason: To maintain essential access for maintenance, repair, renewal, and to protect the structural integrity of the public sewerage system

Note: The applicant may wish to apply to Severn Trent Water to divert the sewer in accordance with section 185 of the Water Industry Act 1991.

17. No development shall commence until a scheme for the protection of protected species and their habitats, a programme for its implementation and the means for its implementation has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory protection of protected species and their habitats.

18. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision and implementation of wildlife corridors has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved programme and details.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory protection of badgers and their habitats.

19. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision and implementation of surface water run-off limitation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved programme and details.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal.

20. No finished floor levels shall be set less than a minimum of 600mm above the 1 in 100 year plus 20% for climate change flood levels across the site, as defined within Section 7 of the submitted Flood Risk Assessment Addendum (Ref: 12577/CBH/MPC/DTH/SMK, 20 June 2007).

Page 110 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Reason: To protect the proposed development from flooding.

21. No development hereby approved shall be undertaken within the area defined as a 1 in 100 year floodplain extent, as defined on Figure E3 in the original Flood Risk Assessment (Project Ref: 12577/032, February 2007.

Reason: To protect the proposed development from flooding.

22. No built development shall commence until details of the construction of balancing ponds, watercourse works, wetland creation and floodplain compensatory works, and the timing of such works, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved programme and details

Reason: To prevent increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal.

(Comment: implementation clause added to agreed condition and minor editing.)

23. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision and implementation of compensatory flood storage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include full engineering drawings and cross-sections. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved programme and details.

Reason: To alleviate the increased risk of flooding.

24. No development shall commence until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing the detailed design of all proposed works to Featherstone Brook and any proposed on and off-line water bodies. The works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved programme and details.

Reason: To protect, restore or replace the natural features of importance within the watercourse.

(Comment: implementation clause added to agreed condition.)

25. No development shall commence until a hand search for native crayfish has been carried out by a suitably qualified and experienced individual or organisation as agreed with the Local Planning Authority. If crayfish are found, suitable mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect and conserve native crayfish.

26. (Comment: agreed condition - requiring submission of a landscaping scheme to include native and non-invasive planting - deleted. Landscaping is a reserved matter and detailed aspects of landscaping are encompassed in other conditions.)

27. No development shall commence until detailed investigation works and a Quantitative Risk Assessment have been undertaken, based on a conceptual understanding of the site conditions, to derive Site Specific Remedial Targets for soils/ ground waters. The Quantitative Risk Assessments and Site Specific Remedial Targets shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency.

Page 111 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Reason: To prevent pollution of ‘controlled waters’.

28. Where remediation works are identified in the Quantitative Risk Assessment approved by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to condition 27, a Remediation Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency. The Remediation works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme and a Validation Report shall be provided upon completion, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent pollution of ‘controlled waters’.

29. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of foul drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment. 30. No development shall commence until a scheme for the improvement and/or extension of the existing sewerage system has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Sewerage Undertaker. No buildings or uses hereby permitted shall be occupied or commenced until such improvements and or extensions have been completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.

31. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through an oil interceptor designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.

32. The details submitted pursuant to condition 2 shall include a detailed scheme of any proposed tree, shrub and hedgerow removal. Once agreed in writing, no other tree, shrubs or hedgerows on the site or its boundaries shall be lopped, topped or cut down during construction without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. If any existing trees, shrubs or hedges which are intended to be retained are cut down or die, they shall be replaced with the same species (unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority) within the next available planting season and shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: to protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area.

(Comment: minor editing of agreed condition for clarity)

33. The submission of landscape details pursuant to Condition 2 shall include proposals for implementing the recommendations set out in the submitted Environmental Statement and Summary (Volume 1 Main Report) and the Strategic Design Statement in relation to Landscape Mitigation Measures and the Landscape and Open Space Framework Plan; details of the proposed landform as indicated in the Environmental Statement and Summary (Volume 2); areas of structural landscape as shown in the submitted Strategic Design Statement (Landscape and Open Space Framework Plan) and for the areas of nature conservation interest.

Page 112 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Reason: to protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area.

34. The landscape schemes required by conditions 2 and 33 shall include any proposed phasing of the implementation of the landscape and nature conservation proposals, details of all trees, shrubs and other vegetation to be planted, including species, sizes, spacing and the provision for their protection from damage, and details of any alterations to existing ground levels. The structural landscape areas shall be implemented in accordance with that approved scheme and shall remain as landscaped areas and shall not be used for any other use. Any trees, shrubs or other vegetation, which are removed or die, shall be replaced in accordance with the management plan. The proposed landscape works shall be carried out within 12 months of the development hereby permitted, or other such period as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any failures shall be replaced in the next available planting season and the scheme shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with its terms

Reason: to protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area.

35. The details submitted pursuant to conditions 2 and 33 shall include a landscape management plan including long-term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscaped areas and areas of nature conservation interest.

Reason: to protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area.

36. No development shall commence until a site fencing scheme including fencing specification and detailed location to protect areas of retained and proposed landscaping, hedgerows and nature conservation interest has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No materials or equipment shall be stored or placed or disposed of, nor shall any fires be lit in any area fenced and identified as protected in accordance with this condition and the ground levels in those areas shall not he altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Such aforesaid fencing shall be implemented prior to infrastructure works commencing and retained and maintained until such time as agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: to protect and enhance the visual amenities of the area.

37. No development shall commence (save for remediation works only) until a contract for the construction of the A449 / Link Road junction including the temporary connection to Brinsford Lane has been entered into by the developer.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

38. No development shall be occupied until a contract for the A449 to Cat and Kittens Lane Link Road, including the new bridge over the West Coast Main Line Railway has been entered into by the Developer.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

39. No more than 50 dwellings shall be occupied until an Initial Bus Service (operating at a minimum 30 minute frequency based on an extension of the existing 503 daytime service) is in operation.

Reason: To facilitate a more sustainable pattern of travel.

(Comment: reason changed)

Page 113 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

40. No development shall commence, including any spoil movements from the site, until details of wheel washing facilities and a scheme for the routing of all haulage vehicles, have been submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority and the measures contained therein have been implemented.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

41. All existing site access points made redundant as a consequence of the development hereby permitted shall be permanently closed and reinstated in accordance with details and a programme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

42. None of the development hereby approved shall be occupied until a Transport Strategy has been submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Wolverhampton City Council; to include; arrangements for the appointment of a Transport Steering Group; a Transport Delivery Programme; a Travel Plan with expected outcomes and monitoring and review procedures; and funding arrangements for sustainable transport and traffic management measures in the event of significant variation from the Transport Delivery Programme or the expected outcomes.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

(Comment: minor editing of agreed condition.)

43. The development shall not commence until the applicant submits engineering details and receives approval in writing from the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highways Agency for the highway improvement works as shown on drawing number TW2: 12577/MDA/PA/005 (Rev. B); or TW3: 12577/TW3/PA/05 and enters into a Section 278 Agreement with the Highways Agency for the implementation of the agreed works. Details to be approved include speed reduction measures on the A449 approaches to the access including signage, road markings/surface treatments as appropriate broadly as shown on drawing number TW2: 12577/MDA/PA/005 (Rev. B), or TW3: 12577/TW3/PA/05. The junction is to incorporate a ‘MOVA’ control system.

Reason: To ensure that the M54, A5 and A449 trunk roads continue to serve its purpose as part of a national system of routes for through traffic and in the interests of road safety.

44. The development shall not commence until the applicant submits travel plans and associated monitoring schedules and receives approval in writing from the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highways Agency. The travel plans shall contain a schedule of implementation and shall be implemented in accordance with that schedule.

Reason: To ensure that the M54, A5 and A449 trunk roads continue to serve its purpose as part of a national system of routes for through traffic by minimising the traffic generated by the development through the promotion of sustainable access thereby reducing the impact caused by traffic entering and emerging from the application site and in the interests of road safety.

Page 114 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

45. No more than 150 dwellings and 25,000m2 of employment floor space shall be occupied until the highway improvement works as shown on drawing number TW2: 12577/MDA/PA/005 (Rev. B); or TW3: 12577/TW3/PA/05 have been completed and are open to traffic.

Reason: To ensure that the M54, A5 and A449 trunk roads continue to serve their purpose as part of a national system of routes for through traffic and in the interests of road safety.

46. (Comment: This condition, recommended by the Highways Agency, is now superseded by conditions 7 and 9 and is no longer needed).

47. No more than 800 dwellings shall be occupied until the signalisation of M54 J2 has been implemented in accordance with the scheme prepared by Pell Frischman included in the Transport Assessment.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety at the A449 / M54 Junction

Page 115 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Annex 2 Applications Drawings Schedule

TW1 - Featherstone / Brinsford Park & Ride Drawing number Dated Title Submitted 12577-PA-001 Rev. October 2004 Park & ride application plan June 2005 E 12577-PA-002 Rev. May 2005 Land-use masterplan June 2005 F 12577-PA-003 Rev. (amendment) A449 Stafford Road plans and sections August D August 2006 2006 12577-PA-004 Rev. October 2004 Plan of access road, Cat & Kittens Lane June 2005 E and Paradise Lane 12577-PA-005 Rev. October 2004 Access road, Cat & Kittens Lane and June 2005 D Paradise Lane - Sections 12577-PA-006 Rev. October 2004 Pedestrian and Cyclist facilities June 2005 E 12577-PA-007 Rev. October 2004 Access road bridge June 2005 C 12577/MDA/SK51 August 2006 A449 Junction: speed limits and August supplementary warning signs 2006

TW2 - Featherstone / Brinsford MDA Drawing number Dated Title Submitted 12577/MDA/PA/001Rev A July 2005 Application plan January 2006 TAW001/37/J Dec 2005 Outline development plan January 2006 TAW001/47/H Dec 2005 Residential density and building January heights 2006 12577/MDA/PA/005Rev.B June 2007 A449 Stafford Road & Sections July 2007 12577/MDA/PA/006 July 2005 Plan of link road, Cat & Kittens Lane January and Paradise Lane 2006 12577/MDA/PA/007 August Link road, Cat & Kittens Lane and January 2005 Paradise Lane - Sections 2006 12577/MDA/PA/008Rev A August Secondary access plans and sections January 2005 2006 12577/MDA/PA/009 Oct 2004 Link Road bridge January 2006 12577/MDA/PA/010 August Pedestrian and cyclist facilities for Link January 2005 Road, Paradise Lane and Cat & Kittens 2006 Lane

Page 116 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

TW3 - Featherstone / Brinsford MDA Drawing number Dated Title Submitted 12577/TW3/PA/01 January Application plan February 2007 2007 12577/TW3/PA/02 February Outline development plan February 2007 2007 12577/TW3/PA/03 February Residential density plan February 2007 2007 12577/TW3/PA/04 February Building heights strategy February 2007 2007 12577/TW3/PA/05 January A449 Stafford Road & Sections February 2007 2007 12577/TW3/PA/06 January Plan of link road, Cat & Kittens Lane and February 2007 Paradise Lane 2007 12577/TW3/PA/07 January Link road, Cat & Kittens Lane and February 2007 Paradise Lane - Sections 2007 12577/TW3/PA/08 January Secondary access plan February 2007 2007 12577/TW3/PA/09 January Link Road bridge February 2007 2007 12577/TW3/PA/010 January Pedestrian and cyclist facilities for Link February 2007 Road, Paradise Lane and Cat & Kittens 2007 Lane

Page 117 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Annex 3: Appearances and Documents

APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Mr A Crean QC Instructed by South Staffordshire Council. He called Mr D Couttie FCIB DMS Managing Director, David Couttie Associates, Huddersfield. Mr A Johnson BSc DipTP Director of Planning and Strategic Services, South MBA MRTPI Staffordshire Council.

FOR WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL

Mr M Carter, of Counsel Instructed by the Solicitor to Wolverhampton City Council. He called Mr A Round BSc MSc DipTP Partner, GVA Grimley LLP, Birmingham. MRTPI MRICS MIED.

FOR PERSIMMON HOMES (WEST MIDLANDS) LTD:

Mr S Bird, of Counsel Instructed by Mr W Strachan, RPS Planning, Birmingham. He called Mr W Strachan BSc MSc Consultant to RPS Planning, Birmingham. MRTPI

FOR THE APPELLANTS:

Mr M Kingston QC, assisted by Instructed by Eversheds, Birmingham. Mr R Bull (Solicitor) He called Mr R Shaw BA MRTPI Dip Planning Director, Savills. Urb Des Mr D Baker MRICS MCILT Principal, Baker Rose Consulting, London. Mr W Brisbane BSC (Estate Managing Partner, Roger Tym and Partners, London Management) DipTP MRTPI, FRICS.

FOR STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL EDUCATION AUTHORITY

Miss Clover, of Counsel Instructed by the Solicitor for the County Council (No witnesses were called)

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Mr M Beech Local resident; 33A Thistledown Drive, Featherstone, Staffordshire WV10 7SX. Ms J Bayliss Local resident; 4 Turnstone Drive, Featherstone, Staffordshire WV10 7TB. Ms M Goodwin Local resident; 10 New Road, Featherstone, Staffordshire, WV10 7NL. Mr F Beardsmore Chairman, Featherstone and Brinsford Parish Council; 7 South Crescent Featherstone, Staffordshire, WV10 7AV.

Page 118 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Mr J Brindle Parish Councillor (Featherstone and Brinsford); 8 North Crescent, Featherstone, Staffordshire, WV10 7AY. Ms Holmes Parish Councillor, Brewood and Coven Parish Council, c/o 35 Stafford Street, Brewood, Stafford ST19 9DX. Mr F Barrett 12 New Buildings, Stafford Road, Coven Heath, Staffordshire, WV10 7HF. Ms E McNally Local resident; 11 Dunlin Drive, Featherstone, Staffordshire WV10 7TG. Mr M J Lawrence County Councillor; 11 The Leas, Featherstone, Staffordshire WV10 7AJ. Mr M Hampson District Councillor; Trewrong, Coven Road, Hill Top, Brewood, Staffordshire, ST19 9DF. Mr R Cope District Councillor, Chairman Shareshill Parish Council; 1 Spires Croft, Shareshill, Staffordshire, WV10 7SH.

INQUIRY DOCUMENTS

INQ1 Attendance Lists (with case file). INQ2 Note of the Pre-Inquiry Meeting 10 May 2007. INQ3 Inspector’s Pre-Inquiry and Inquiry Notes (1-4). INQ4 Council’s notification of the appeals and lists of those notified. INQ5 Representations at appeal stage on TW1/TW2. INQ6 Representations at appeal stage on TW3. INQ7 Copy of letter from the Environment Agency to the District Council 2 July 2007 removing objection to TW3 subject to conditions. INQ8 Copy of letter from the Environment Agency to the appellants’ agents 2 August 2007 commenting on the Environmental Statement addenda and flood risk addenda for TW1, TW2 and TW3.

CORE DOCUMENTS (as listed at the Inquiry)

CD1 Council Committee Reports on Planning Applications: 19 December 2006 (TW1 and A/B/C TW2) and 22 May 2007 (TW3). CD2 Landywood Lane Appeal Decision and Inspector’s Report, Sept 2006. CD3 Council Committee Report : Working Towards a Preferred Option, April, 2007 CD4 Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands 2004. CD5 Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996 to 2011. CD6 South Staffordshire Adopted Local Plan 1996. CD7 South Staffordshire Deposit Draft Local Plan, 2003 CD8 RSS Partial Review Spatial Options Consultation Document January 2007. CD9 RSS Spatial Options: Housing Background Paper January, 2007. CD10 South Staffordshire Housing Strategy 2003 to 2008. CD11 South Staffordshire Settlement Study 2003. CD12 South Staffordshire Urban Capacity Study 2003. CD13 Right from the Start – Landscape Assessment’; South Staffordshire Council, 2003 CD14 South Staffordshire Core Strategy Issues and Options 2006. CD15 Staffordshire Residential Land Availability Survey 2006 CD16 South Staffordshire Annual Monitoring Report 2005/2006 CD17 Duplicates, in error, CD14. CD18 South Staffordshire Housing Land Availability Assessment Scoping Report: January, 2007 CD19 South Staffordshire Housing Requirements Assessment 2001 CD20 Interim Advice to Landowners/Developers on Implementation of Affordable Housing Policies March, 2006 CD21 South Staffordshire Local Plan: Inspector’s Report June,1995

Page 119 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

CD22 South Staffordshire Housing Allocations and Policies DPD: Background Paper January, 2007 CD23 South Staffordshire Local Development Scheme March, 2005 (as revised), and LDS revision 2007 CD24 Regional Housing Strategy for the West Midlands 2005 CD25 Government Circular Biodiversity and Geological Conservation- Statutory Obligations and their impact within the planning system (ODPM Circular 06/2005) CD26 Wildlife & Countryside Act (as amended), 1981 CD27 Protection of Badgers Act, 1992 CD28 Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1994 CD29 Staffordshire Biodiversity Action, Second Edition, November 2001 CD30 Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines, English Nature, 2001 CD31 Planning for Landscape Change Supplementary Planning Guidance, Staffordshire County Council, 2001 CD32 Countryside Character Volume 5: West Midlands; Character Areas 66 and 67 Mid Severn Sandstone Plateau and Cannock Chase & Cank Wood, Countryside Agency, 1999 CD33 Right from the Start – Landscape Assessment’; South Staffordshire Council, 2003 CD34 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’; 2nd Edition; E & FN Spon, Copyright the Institute of Environmental Assessment and the Landscape Institute, 2002 CD35 ‘Landscape Character Assessment – Guidance for England and Scotland’; Prepared on behalf of the Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage; Land Use Consultants, 2002 CD36 Business Case Summary, Peter Brett Associates, June 2007 CD37 Webtag business Case, Peter Brett Associates, June 2007 CD38 Commercial Business Case, Peter Brett Associates, June 2007 CD39 TW1 Planning Application supporting information (Planning Statement, Design Statement, Rail Statement and Public Consultation Statement - all May 2005) and Environmental Statement (Main Report Vol 1, Figures Vol 2, Appendices Vol 3 [2 files] and Non-Technical Summary all incorporating additional information and up dated to May 2006) CD40 TW2 Planning Application supporting information (Supporting Planning Statement – January 2006, Strategic Design Statement December 2005, Sustainability Statement - January 2006 and Public Consultation Statement and Appendices – December 2005) and Environmental Statement (Main Report Vol 1, Figures Vols 2 and Appendices Vol 3 [4 files] and Non-Technical Summary - all dated January 2006) CD41 TW3 Planning Application supporting information (Supporting Planning Statement, Design and Access Statement and Public Consultation Statement Vols 1-3 – all February 2007) and Environmental Statement (Main Report Vol 1, Figures Vols 2 and Appendices Vol 3 (4 files) and Non-Technical Summary - all dated January 2006 . CD42 Motorway Park and Ride Scoping Study (Centro, 1998). CD43 West Midlands LTP (West Midlands Joint Committee, 2000) and WM LTP 2006 (Documents CD43 A/B/C) CD44 Staffordshire LTP (2000) (Documents CD44 A/B/C). CD45 West Midlands Area Multi Modal Study (GOWM, 2001). CD46 West Coast Main Line Strategy (SRA, June 2003). CD47 Staffordshire LTP (APR 2004). CD48 Regional Economic Strategy (Delivering Advantage):2004-2010 CD49 Draft RSS Phase One Revision, The Black Country, May 2006 and associated documents. CD50 Study into the Identification and Use of Local Housing Market Areas for the A/B Development of the Regional Spatial Strategy. Report of Initial Findings/June 2006 & Final Revised Technical Report/October 2006 CD51 Regional Housing Land and Urban Capacity Study – Refresh, November 2006.

Page 120 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Analysis Report and Technical Appendix. CD52 The Regions Transport Delivery Plan 2005 CD53 West Midlands Regional Assembly: 2006 Annual Monitoring Report (AMR), February 2007. CD54 Calculation of Core National Accessibility Indicators 2005, Department for Transport. CD55 West Midlands Park and Ride Strategy, Phase 2, Final Report, Atkins 2003. CD56 West Midlands Regional Transport Prioritization Framework, Final Report, Ecotec, November 2005. CD57 Policy Framework for Investments: Guidelines on Implementation Arrangements & Process. Office of the Rail Regulator, March 2006 CD58 Policy Framework for Investments – update on implementation guidelines. Office of the Rail Regulator March 2007 CD59 Network Rail – Business Planning Criteria. March 2006 CD60 Black Country Joint Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper. June 2007 CD61 RSS Phase 2 Housing Demand Paper. Jan 2007 CD62 Brookhouse Lane Inquiry: Closing Submissions from Vincent Fraser QC – Representing RPS CD63 Brookhouse Lane Inquiry: Closing Submissions from Anthony Crean QC – Representing South Staffordshire District Council CD64 Brookhouse Lane Inquiry: Closing Submissions from Martin Carter – Representing Wolverhampton City Council CD65 Brookhouse Lane Inquiry: Closing Submissions from Satnam Choongh – Representing Savills (L&P) Limited. CD66 Consultation Responses (TW1) 05/00677/OUT CD67 Consultation Responses (TW2) 06/00048/OUT CD68 Consultation Responses (TW3) 07/00244/OUT CD69 Regional Spatial Strategy Review -Policy Options Briefing Note – Paper 6. Analysis of the Levels of Employment Land Completions and Employment Land Supply. CD70 Regional Spatial Strategy Review -Policy Options Briefing Note – Paper 5. Analysis Of The Levels Of Floorspace And Number Of Units Of Warehousing Based Operations, And Completions And Supply Of B8 Employment Land. CD71 Regional Funding Allocations Letter from Douglas Alexander dated 06/07/06 CD72 West Midlands Advice to Government on Regional Funding Allocations, Advantage West Midlands and The WMRA, Jan 2006 CD73 West Midlands Route Utilisation Strategy, July 2005 CD74 New Stations: A Guide for Promoters, September 2004

Additions made by Inspector post Inquiry. CD75 TW1 Environmental Statement Addendum and Environmental Statement: flood risk assessment addendum ,both dated July 2007 CD76 TW2 Environmental Statement Addendum and Environmental Statement: flood risk assessment addendum, both dated July 2007 CD77 TW3 Environmental Statement Addendum and Environmental Statement: flood risk assessment addendum, both dated July 2007

STATEMENTS OF COMMON GROUND & CONDITIONS

SCG1 Matters agreed with South Staffordshire District Council (TW1, TW2, TW3) SCG2 TW1 Highways and Transportation. SCG3 TW2 and TW3 Highways and Transportation. SCG4 TW1, TW32, TW3 Mr Storey and Mr Mitchell: Transport Issues. SCG5 TW1, TW2, TW3 Mr Cross and Mr Mitchell: Accessibility Issues. SCG6 TW1 Park and Ride Issues (Mr Cross and Mr Mitchell); Appendices - The Grip Process and Definition of Optimism Bias. SCG7 Education contribution Statement of Common Ground.

Page 121 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

SCG8 Draft Schedule of conditions TW1 (agreed between the appellants and the District Council). SCG9 Draft Schedule of conditions TW2 and 3 (agreed between the appellants and the District Council).

S106 OBLIGATIONS (all dated 23 August 2007)

OB1 TW1 and TW2 District (including Education). OB2 TW1 and TW2. County OB3 TW2 Wolverhampton City. OB4 TW1 and TW3 District (including Education). OB5 TW1 and TW3 County OB6 TW2 Wolverhampton City. OBX Appellants’ summary note of S106 Provisions.

DISTRICT COUNCIL DOCUMENTS

Proofs of Evidence of witnesses called at the Inquiry SSDC/DC/1 Proof of Mr D Couttie (including appendices). SSDC/DC/2 Supplementary proof of Mr D Couttie. SSDC/AJ/1 Proof of Mr Johnson. SSDC/AJ/2 Appendices Vol 1 to Mr Johnson’s proof. SSDC/AJ/3 Appendices Vol 2 to Mr Johnson’s proof. SSDC/AJ/4 Appendices Vol 3 to Mr Johnson’s proof. SSDC/AJ/5 Appendices Vol 4 to Mr Johnson’s proof. SSDC/AJ/6 Summary of Mr Johnson’s proof.

Proofs of witnesses not called – treated as written statements only SSDC/JB/7 Proof and appendices of John Box, Atkins (Ecology).

Documents submitted at the Inquiry SSDC1 Compendium of Documents (buff folder) 1. Email from Mr Johnson to Mr Bull 3 August 2007. 2. Email from Mr Hulland to Mr Chaplain 24 July 2007. 3. Letter from Natural England to Mr Johnson 13 July 2007. 4. Newsum et al v Welsh Assembly Government High Court 4 February 2004. 5. Newsum et al v Welsh Assembly Government, Court of Appeal 22 November 2004. 6. Chelmsford BC v SoS, High Court 25 November 2003. 7. Statement of Kerry Green for BAE Systems Property Services 28 April 2006. 8. Letter to NOMS from M Morgan (SSDC) 18 July 2007. 9. Letter from Regional Planning Partnership and enclosures 19 July 2006. 10. Letters to and from Harris Lamb, 9 July 2007 and 31 July 2007 concerning land north of Penkridge. SSDC2 PINS letter to Purbeck District Council and Chapter 6 of Purbeck District Local Plan Inspector’s Report 2002. SSDC3 Draft Final Report Housing Market Assessment. SSDC4 Note from LPA regarding Grampian condition. SSDC5 Featherstone Parish Map. SSDC6 i54 decision and plans. SSDC7 Updated timetable in accordance with the Revised LDS to come into effect 7th August 2007. SSDC8 Letter from Ministry of Justice (NOMS Custodial Property) to Mr Morgan SSDC, 8th August 2007 - Land in the vicinity of existing

Page 122 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

prison Brinsford/Featherstone. SSDC9 (Withdrawn) SSDC10 South Staffordshire Council Further Assessment of Air Quality 2007, Draft for Consultation, April 2007. SSDC11 South Staffordshire Council Climate Change Strategy, Draft Consultation Document, August 2007. SSDC12 Savills’ Representation to South Staffordshire Deposit Local Plan, November 2003. SSDC13 West Midland Economic Strategy, Consultation Draft, May 2007. SSDC14 Extract from Circular No 06/20004 Compulsory Purchase and the Crichel Down Rules. SSDC15 Mr Johnson’s note in respect of SSDC13 West Midlands Economic Strategy Consultation Draft May 2007. SSDC16 Email from Mr Johnson to Rod Bull and David Jackson, 20 August 2007 - RSS Phase 2 Options for Employment. SSDC17 Email Rod Bull to Mr Johnson 20th August 2007 - Featherstone Valuations. SSDC18 Title Report for SSDC in relation to land at Featherstone/Brinsford, 22 August 2007. SSDC19 Closing submissions.

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL’S DOCUMENTS

Proof of Evidence of witness called at the Inquiry WCC/AR/1 Proof of Mr Round. WCC/AR/2 Appendices to Mr Round’s proof.

Proof of witness not called – treated as written statements only WCC/BS/1 Proof of Mr B Storey (Transport matters).

Documents submitted at the Inquiry WCC1 Note on the Science Park park and ride and A449 red route. WCC2 Wolverhampton Bus Map. WCC3 Note by Mr Round on Wolverhampton migration figures 1995- 2005. WCC4 Closing submissions.

PERSIMMON HOMES’ DOCUMENTS

Proof of Evidence of witness called at the Inquiry PH1 Proof of Mr W Strachan including appendices.

Proof of witness not called – treated as written statements only PH2 Proof of Mr A Cross of WSP Development and Transportation (Transport matters). PH3 Appendices to Mr Cross’ proof. PH4 Summary of Mr Cross’ proof. PH5 Supplementary proof of Mr Cross.

Documents submitted at Inquiry (numbering continued from above) PH6 Mr Strachan’s table of estimated completion rates. PH7 Corrections to Mr Cross’ Supplementary proof (also inserted in that proof).

Page 123 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

PH8 Closing submissions.

STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL’S DOCUMENTS

Proofs of witnesses not called – treated as written statements only SCC/AM/1 Proof of Mr A Marsden (including summary and appendices) (Educational provision). SCC/HJ/1 Proof of Ms H Jackson (Library provision).

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY INTERESTED PARTIES

IP1 Extract from Wikipedia on Great Crested Newts, submitted by Mr Beech. IP2 Statement of Ms Bayliss and appendix. IP3 Bullet points of Featherstone and Brinsford Parish Council. IP4 Statement of Mr Barrett and appendices. IP5 Bundle of extracts submitted by Mr Cope.

APPELLANTS’ DOCUMENTS

Proofs of Evidence of witnesses called at the Inquiry TWD/RS/A/1 Proof of Mr Shaw – Park and Ride proposal (TW1). TWD/RS/A/1S Summary of Mr Shaw’s Park and Ride proof TWD/RS/A/2 Appendices to Mr Shaw’s Park and Ride proof. TWD/RS/B/1 Proof of Mr Shaw - MDA proposal (TW2/3). TWD/RS/B/1S Summary of Mr Shaw’s MDA proof. TWD/RS/B/2 Appendices to Mr Shaw’s MDA proof. TWD/RS/B/1A Supplementary/rebuttal proof of Mr Shaw. TWD/DB/1 Proof of Mr Baker. TWD/DB/2 Appendices to Mr Baker’s TWD/DB/3 Summary of Mr Baker’s proof TWD/DB/4 Supplementary proof of Mr Baker TWD/DB/5 Rebuttal proof of Mr Baker to Mr Johnson. TWD/DB/6 Rebuttal proof of Mr Baker to Mr Chaplain. TWD/DB/7 Rebuttal proof of Mr Baker to Mr Cross. TWD/BB/1 Proof of Mr Brisbane TWD/BB/2 Appendices to Mr Brisbane’s proof. TWD/BB/3 Summary of Mr Brisbane’s proof TWD/BB/4 Rebuttal proof of Mr Brisbane.

Proof of witnesses not called – treated as written statements only TWD/KM/1 Proof of Mr Mitchell. TWD/KM/2 Appendices to Mr Mitchell’s proof. TWD/KM/3 Summary of Mr Mitchell’s proof TWD/KM/4 Rebuttal proof of Mr Mitchell. TWD/BP/1 Proof of Mr Pinkett. TWD/BP/2 Appendices to Mr Pinkett’s proof. TWD/BP/3 Summary of Mr Pinkett’s proof TWD/BP/4 Rebuttal proof of Mr Pinkett. TWD/HB/1 Proof of Mrs Bowkett. TWD/HB/2 Appendices to Mrs Bowkett’s proof. TWD/HB/3 Summary of Mrs Bowkett’s proof TWD/HB/4 Rebuttal proof of Mrs Bowkett. TWD/MGG/A/1 Proof of Mr Garratt. TWD/MGG/A/2 Appendices to Mr Garratt’s proof. TWD/MGG/A/3 Summary of Mr Garratt’s proof

Page 124 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

TWD/MGG/A/4 Rebuttal proof of Mr Garratt. TWD/SC/1 Proof of Mr Clyne. TWD/SC/2 Appendices to Mr Clyne’s proof. TWD/SC/3 Summary of Mr Clyne’s proof TWD/SC/4 Rebuttal proof of Mr Clyne. TWD/DF/1 Proof of Mr Farmer. TWD/DF/2 Appendices to Mr Farmer’s proof. TWD/DF/3 Summary of Mr Farmer’s proof TWD/DF/4 Rebuttal proof of Mr Farmer. TWD/MS/A/1 Proof (and appendices) of Mr Smith – Park and Ride proposal (TW1). TWD/MS/B/1 Proof (and appendices) of Mr Smith - MDA proposal (TW2/3). TWD/JS/A/1 Proof of Mr Stevenson – TW1. TWD/JS/A/3 Summary of Mr Stevenson’s TW1 proof. TWD/JS/B/1 Proof of Mr Stevenson – TW2. TWD/JS/B/3 Summary of Mr Stevenson’s TW2 proof. TWD/JS/C/1 Proof of Mr Stevenson – TW3. TWD/JS/C/3 Summary of Mr Stevenson’s TW3 proof. TWD/JS/2 Joint Appendices to Mr Stevenson’s proofs.

Documents submitted at the Inquiry TW1 Draft Grampian Conditions. TW2 Letter of 18 May 2007 from South Staffordshire DC to EC Harris regarding affordable housing. TW3 Appendix B of Committee Report 1 May 2005 on the option to prepare a LDF. TW4 South Staffordshire DC Executive Committee Report 5 August 2003 concerning Deposit Local Plan. TW5 Public Transport Accessibility Profile – Right from the Start SSDC 2003. TW6 Tables on Internal Migration within the UK (Mr Brisbane) TW7 Extract from Housing in England 2000/1 (DTLR May 2002) TW8 Stafford Borough Council/Ian Smith email correspondence on housing allocations 28 March 2007. TW9 Basildon District Council –v- First Secretary of State (QB 8 November 2004). TW10 Correspondence between appellants’ agent and SSDC regarding Park & Ride Grampian Conditions. TW11 Secretary of State’s decision and Inspector’s report on development at North Field, Filton, 19 June 2007. TW12 Combined Design and Access Statement August 2007 TW13 RSS/RSS2 Hybrid Housing Land Supply Note. TW14 Housing Construction Programme. TW15 Housing Land Supply with TW2/3. TW16A, B, C GB/PDL Plans – TW1/TW2/TW3. TW17 Proposed/Potential – Employment and Employment Equivalent land on non Green Belt. TW18 Note on Employment Projections. TW19 Plan – TW1 Archaeology Condition. TW20 Plan – TW2/3 Archaeology Condition. TW21 Car Parking Note. TW22 Mr Brisbane – Summary of Evidence in Chief. TW23 ABCD Bundles of cases: R. v. Rochdale MBC Ex p. Milne (2001) 81 P&CR 365 R. (on the application of C.) v. Camden LBC (2001) EWHC (Admin) 1116.

Page 125 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Cranage Parish Council v. First Secretary of State (2005) JPL 1176. R.(on the application of Newsum) v Welsh Assembly Government (2004) EWCA 156. TW24 ABCD Schedules of mitigation measures identified in the ESs and mechanisms now proposed to secure their delivery, together with explanatory Footnotes. TW25 Closing submissions.

------

Page 126 Report APP/C3430/A/06/2027165

Annex 4 Site visits

Accompanied site visits – 22 August 2007:

- appeal site; - land to the south of Brookhurst Lane, Featherstone.

Unaccompanied site visits:

6 August 2007 (pm) The surroundings of the site and locality from public roads. Local roads nearby in Wolverhampton.

9 August 2007 (pm) Penkridge, including land north of Penkridge and Penkridge market, Acton Trussell and Huntington.

15 August (pm) Cheslyn Hay, including land at New Horse Road, Campions Wood and land at Landywood Lane. Essington, including land at Hobnock Road.

21 August (pm) Mosley Road, A449 to Wolverhampton City Centre, Wombourne, including land at Maypole Street and Smestow Bridge, Kinver, Codsall and Billbrook, including land at Watery Lane, Wobaston Road and i54 site.

22 August (pm) Featherstone Lane to Shareshill, Local roads near site in Wolverhampton, New Buildings, Stafford Road (A449), Coven and Brewood, Penkridge – land at Cherrybrook Drive, Cheslyn Hay – Britool.

Page 127

Document 2 Brinsford Major Development Area Application Site (870 dwellings)

KEY Total area of site - 95.95 ha

Land in Brownfield not Greenfield - 34.46 ha (35%) Land in Greenfield and Greenbelt N - 29.96 ha (27%) Scale 1:4,230 Land in Brownfield and Greenbelt Reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of - 4.87 ha (5%) Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Area in Greenbelt Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. - 30.66 ha (31%) South Staffordshire Council Licence No. 100019681, 2017.

Document 3 SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE COUNCIL

TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED) (SECTION 78(1))

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING INQUIRY RULES 2000

APPEALS BY – TAYLOR WOODROW DEVELOPMENTS LTD & BAE SYSTEMS SITE AT CAT AND KITTENS LANE, BRINSFORD/FEATHERSTONE, SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE

PUBLIC INQUIRY DATE

7TH AUGUST 2007

PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBERS: A) 06/00048/OUT B) 05/00677/OUT C) 07/00244/OUT

PINS REF: APPEAL A) APP/C3430/A/06/2027177/NWF APPEAL B) APP/C3430/A/06/2027165 APPEAL C) APP/C3430/A/07/2046907

SUMMARY PROOF ANDREW KEITH JOHNSON BSC (HONS) DIP TP MBA MRTPI FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 I hold a Diploma in Town and Country Planning. I am a Chartered Town Planner and have been a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute since 1983. I am employed by South Staffordshire Council as the Director of Planning & Strategic Services. I have twenty-six years planning experience in local government and have managed both development control and development planning functions at different local planning authorities. Twenty-one years of my experience has been within the West Midlands Region. I am familiar with the appeal site and its environs.

1.2 Appeals A & C relate to a development proposal on approximately 50 hectares of previously developed land (pdl), also known as brownfield land, within the District of South Staffordshire. The principal differences between these 2 proposals relates to a small difference in overall site area (98.9 ha in Appeal A and 95.6ha in Appeal C) and the fact that Appeal A would deliver up to 1000 dwellings whilst Appeal C would deliver up to 870 dwellings. These 2 appeals are alternative proposals and are not cumulative. The Council considers that the planning issues raised by both these Appeals are so similar that, for the avoidance of doubt, where reference is made to the impact of these developments, that impact will apply with equal force to both proposals unless otherwise stated.

1.3 38 hectares of the appeal sites (A & C) comprises land that is not in the Green Belt and was part of the former Royal Ordnance Factory (ROF) at Featherstone/Brinsford. The Council understands that 13.1ha of the former ROF site has been sold by BAE systems to HM Prison Service. The Council anticipates receipt of an application for a new prison with 1000 places capacity, shortly. The Council further understands that the entire 38ha brownfield site of the former ROF Featherstone, will be cleaned up as a requirement of this sale. This will happen irrespective of whether the Secretary of State grants planning permission for the appeal proposals (A, B & C) or not. For that reason the Council asserts that the appellants cannot reasonably claim to be redeveloping 64ha of previously developed land (pdl) as a result of these appeal proposals. It is for that reason, that the Council considers that 50.9ha of pdl would be reused as a result of the appeal proposals. This will include 5 hectares of land situated immediately to the west of the village of Featherstone, that formerly provided

2 residential accommodation for workers at the ROF at Brinsford/Featherstone (known as Brinsford Lodge). Thus a total of 35.9ha of Greenfield land within the Green Belt would be developed as part of Appeal A (1000 dwellings) and 32.3ha of Greenfield land within the Green Belt as part of Appeal C (870 dwellings). All of the bus and rail based park and ride facility the subject of Appeal B is Greenfield land within the Green Belt.

1.4 The Council accepts that an appropriate re-use of the PDL should, in due course, be found. However, this proof of evidence will demonstrate that the appeal proposals would be in conflict with the thrust of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the West Midlands, which seeks an Urban and Rural Renaissance within the Region.

1.5 There are 3 Inquiry proposals that include residential development of a significant scale that are taking place in South Staffordshire in the Summer of 2007, a total of 2,000 dwellings, if all were to be allowed. The Brookhouse Lane Site at Featherstone and the Campions Wood Site at Cheslyn Hay are both Greenfield sites within the Green Belt. The Brinsford Inquiry Sites (Appeals A & C) include about 60% previously developed land (pdl) and 40% Greenfield Green Belt Land. All of these decisions have been recovered by the Secretary of State for determination. At the Brookhouse Lane Inquiry it was accepted by all parties that the Secretary of State should have 3 Inspectors Reports available when she makes her decisions. For the avoidance of doubt the Council re-asserts its position regarding the importance of the decision making process following this approach. None of these 3 Inquiry proposals should be considered in isolation and in advance of any other of them.

1.6 The Council asserts, through this Proof of Evidence, that there is no shortfall in the 5 year housing supply in South Staffordshire. If the Inspector and the Secretary of State disagree with the Council and further, consider that there is a ‘pressing need’ now to make provision for a significant scale of new housing development within South Staffordshire, then the Council will draw attention to the availability of alternative sites/solutions to meet a ‘pressing need’. If the Secretary of State finds none of these alternative sites/solutions acceptable and wishes to grant planning permission on one of these Inquiry sites then the Council,

3 through its evidence at these 3 Inquiries, point the Secretary of State towards the Brookhouse Lane Inquiry Site as being the most deliverable of the 3 sites having regard to its availability, suitability and achievability (PPS3 Para 54).

2.0 LOCATION AND SETTING OF THE APPEAL SITE

South Staffordshire – In Context

2.1 South Staffordshire is located in a strategically important position on the edge of the built up area of the West Midlands Conurbation. In particular, the District is situated in close proximity to the Major Urban Area (MUA) of the Black Country, with its industrial heritage based on heavy industries such as steel making and metal bashing. A number of the settlements of South Staffordshire are located within 2 or 3 kms of the Black Country MUA. The District also retains a unique and distinctive rural character that has become established through the heritage of its natural and built environments. Map A, attached at Appendix 1 (page 1), places South Staffordshire in a National context, whilst Map B, attached at Appendix 2 (page 2), provides a Regional context within the West Midlands.

2.2 South Staffordshire is made up of 27 parishes with a pattern of diverse settlements ranging from small hamlets to large villages, each with their own distinctive character and set in attractive countryside. There is no single dominant settlement and South Staffordshire can be described as a ‘community of communities’. In 2002 the Council produced a Settlement Study, attached to the report at Appendix 3 (page 44), that identified 22 villages within South Staffordshire District. In order to be classified as a village, the settlement had to have a primary school. Settlements that did not achieve village status are recognised as hamlets. Map C, attached at Appendix 4 (page 71), shows the local context of South Staffordshire. Included in Map C are the population sizes of the 27 parishes in South Staffordshire.

4 3.0 CONCLUSION

APPEALS A/C): Featherstone/Brinsford MDA (including up to 1000 dwellings (24.1ha), employment uses (9.3ha), land for primary school, local facilities, open space/playing fields, infrastructure/land remediation, principal access from A449 (Stafford Road) and first phase bus-based park and ride including shelter building (140 sqm) and up to 500 parking spaces

3.1 The overall conclusion that I have reached is that the appeal proposals would not deliver the right development in the right place at the right time. The granting of planning permission for mixed use development, including a significant level of housing development in this location which is in close proximity to the MUA and within an area identified to support economic growth, through its regeneration zone and high technology corridor status, would be in conflict with the principles of sustainable development that underpins the planning system. I reached this conclusion by examining the main issues arising. The main findings that helped me to reach my conclusion are as follows: -

(i) The development proposal, by reason of its scale and location, would harm the pursuit of an Urban Renaissance in the Major Urban Areas (MUAs) of the West Midlands by diverting people and investment away from the MUAs contrary to the thrust of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS).

(ii) The development proposal, by reason of its scale and location, would conflict with the objectives of the RSS Phase One Revision – the Black Country – that is seeking to reverse out-migration, raise income levels, create an inclusive and cohesive society within the Black Country and to transform the Black Country environment. The proximity of the appeal site to the Black Country MUA gives rise to the prospect of this greenfield site being brought forward in competition to previously developed land (pdl) within the MUA

(iii) The scale of the development proposal goes significantly beyond meeting local housing needs and could indeed prejudice the Council’s ability to deliver sustainable communities across South

5 Staffordshire within the context of its emerging Core Strategy & Housing Allocations and Policies DPDs. In particular, the Council has agreed its strategic approach to meeting its housing needs up to 2026. The geographic spread of new housing development throughout existing settlements will be pursued in accordance with an emerging ‘hierarchy of South Staffordshire Settlements’. The appeal proposal would prejudice the Council’s strategic approach to housing distribution thus harming the pursuit of a Rural Renaissance.

(iv) The Council can demonstrate that it has a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites consistent with the thrust of PPS3 and therefore there is no need to release this site which is partly in the Green Belt, for housing purposes.

(v) Residential development on the appeal site would harm the openness of the Green Belt by creating a new settlement to the west of the village of Featherstone. The scale of the proposal is such that the resulting urban sprawl would be extensive and would give rise to coalescence with a number of small settlements that comprise part of the rural hinterland of Featherstone – Slade Heath, Brinsford, Coven Heath and Cross Green. The development would give rise to coalescence between the market town of Cannock to the north and MUA of the Black Country to the south. In addition the existing gap between the villages of Featherstone and Coven would be narrowed. The scale of the development is such that the new settlement would be visually prominent when viewed from the surrounding area. Structural landscaping could help soften the impact of the development and the M54 would, in effect, limit any further expansion to the south. But these are very minor mitigating features. There are no very special circumstances to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and the other harm identified above.

(vi) The appeal proposal would result in the loss of a potentially valuable employment site that could meet employment needs at a local or Sub Regional level. The appeal site’s proximity to the MUA, but outside it, and location within the North Black Country and

6 South Staffordshire Regeneration Zone (RZ) and the Wolverhampton Telford High Technology Corridor (WTTC), provides an opportunity for the site to complement other strategic employment sites located close to the M54 – i54, Hilton Cross and Wolverhampton Business Park. A modern distribution facility (B8/logistics) would be supported by a recent GVA Grimley/Cranfield University Study and PPG4 (Industrial and commercial Development and Small Firms).

(vii) The appeal site is located within 2 kms of the MUA and therefore the likelihood of commuting back into the Conurbation is high. Indeed, it is highly likely that the development will be car-based in that future residents will choose to travel to work by car, to go shopping by car and to access their leisure pursuits by car, given the proximity of the strategic highway network to the Appeal Site. The geography of South Staffordshire is such that the private motor car is often needed to travel between villages and the scale of this housing proposal, significantly beyond local needs, is likely to promote car trips back to the villages of origin of the new residents.

(viii) The identified harm to the achievement of Urban and Rural Renaissance would be in conflict with the thrust of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands (RSS) and residential development on this partly greenfield site which is partly the Green Belt would harm the aims, purposes and objectives of including land in the Green Belt. Thus, I conclude that the appeal proposal would be in conflict with the development plan for the area and should not be approved.

3.2 In respectfully inviting the Inspector and Secretary of State to find against these Appeal proposals, and dismiss the proposed development, I repeat an earlier quote from the WMRA/AWM advice to Government on the Regional Fund Allocation (RFA) – January 2006

‘The last 50 years has seen an increasing outflow of population from the conurbation to the Shire Counties. The cities have been hollowed out, while services and house prices have been put under great pressure in rural areas. A fundamental policy shift has been made in the RSS to reverse this outflow – stimulating an urban renaissance

7 through improved housing, access, employment and services. As a counterpoint, meeting local needs will be the focus of a rural renaissance through the provision of affordable housing and better access to services and jobs.’

The Appeal proposals A & C would merely succeed in repeating the patterns of the past. These proposals would not succeed in building sustainable communities for the future.

Appeal B): Bus and rail-based park and ride (including principal access from A449 (Stafford Road), landscaping and land remediation)

3.3 The Council asserts that there is a clear functional link between the Bus and Rail based Park and Ride (Appeal B) and the MDA proposals (Appeals A/C). It is clear that a significant number of dwellings are proposed to be built in advance of the first phase bus based Park and Ride and an even greater number before the rail station is provided. That is unacceptable for all the reasons set out above (Paras 3.1 – 3.2). Accordingly the Inspector and Secretary of State are respectfully requested to find against the bus and rail based park and ride, as currently proposed, and also dismiss Appeal B.

8 Map A: South Staffordshire – National Context

Map B: South Staffordshire – Regional Context

Map C: South Staffordshire - Local Context STAFFORD X

A449

M6 A34

X Penkridge

Weston-under-Lizard A5

12 A5 M6 Brewood Toll 11a A449 T8 11 Great Coven Wyrley X

Featherstone A462 A34 M54 Cheslyn Hay S 1 2 Codsall Bilbrook 10a X M6 X A460 A464 A41

Perton

X WOLVERHAMPTON South Staffordshire Population by Parish (April 2001) A454 Acton Trussell and Bednall CP 1,105 Bilbrook CP 4,569 Blymhill and Weston-under-Lizard CP 654 A449 Bobbington CP 506 A463 Brewood CP 7,071 Cheslyn Hay CP 7,539 Wombourne Codsall CP 7,496 Coppenhall CP 201 Dunston CP 250 Enville CP 477 c? Essington CP 4,831 Featherstone CP 4,676 Great Wyrley CP 11,236 Bobbington Hatherton CP 532 Hilton CP 240 Himley CP 713 Huntington CP 3,940 A449 Kinver CP 6,805 Lapley, Stretton and Wheaton Aston CP 2,612 A458 Lower Penn CP 974 Pattingham and Patshull CP 2,229 Penkridge CP 8,559 Perton CP 11,118 Saredon CP 699 Shareshill CP 718 Kinver Swindon CP 1,281 Teddesly Hay CP 82 A449 Trysull and Seisdon CP 1,092 Wombourne CP 13,691 A451 R eproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery N Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Scale 1:180,000 South Staffordshire Council Licence No. 100018672, 2005.

Document 4 PHOTOGRAPHS OF BRINSFORD LODGE MARCH 2015

Photograph 1. Aerial Photograph (View North)

Photograph 2. Aerial Photograph - Hardstandings of Former Main Hall

Photograph 3. Aerial Photograph (View East)

Photograph 4. Aerial View

Photograph 5. Aerial Photograph (View East)

Photograph 6. Tarmac Hardstanding

Photograph 7. Tarmac Hardstanding

Photograph 8. Connecting Road

Photograph 9. Foundations of Former Building

Photograph 10. Remains of Former Above-Ground Piping Supports

Photograph 11. Remains of Former Delivery Bay and further Above-Ground Piping Supports

Firstplan Ltd Bramah House 65-71 Bermondsey Street London SE1 3XF

T: 020 3096 7000 www.firstplan.co.uk

COPYRIGHT The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of Firstplan Ltd