SOUTH COUNCIL – LOCAL PLAN REVIEW – 2018 - 2037 SPATIAL HOUSING STRATEGY & INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY – OCTOBER 2019 LAND AT –

KGL (HOLDINGS ) LTD: Mr C WALLACE & Mrs SNAPE

1. I refer to the above consultation and confirm that I act for the owners, as above, of the land identified on the attached plan .

2. Firstly, the approach in the Review which states that areas of safeguarded land will become housing land allocations, is welcomed and endorsed . In the context of my client’s land which is already allocated and safeguarded, this will enable a comprehensive scheme for these areas to come forward, consistent with the need to ensure public safety within the areas concerned.

3. However, my clients wish their land, as above, to be considered for future housing development either independently or, in association with the above land parcels, as part of an overall comprehensive scheme thereby providing the potential to incorporate employment and other uses, as appropriate, in a highly sustainable location.

4. The land parcels concerned which are owned by KGL (Holdings) Ltd., have previously been considered in the 2018 SHELAA (site refs. 136 and 137) and categorised as “potentially suitable”.

1

5. It is noted that the Green Belt Study 2019 (GBS) assesses the impact upon the green belt of development on the land east of Upper Landywood Lane now being promoted as “moderate” , with the following explanation:

“The sub-parcel (S21A) makes a strong contribution to preventing sprawl of the large built-up area of /Great Wyrley and to preventing encroachment on the countryside, and a moderate contribution to maintaining the separation between the neighbouring towns of Great Wyrley and . The sub-parcel is contained on three sides by the settlement edge of Great Wyrley/, but retains strong spatial openness within. Due to the extent of its containment, the release of this subparcel would lead to a simpler and more consistent Green Belt boundary, which would now lie along Upper Landywood lane to the south, without significantly weakening the integrity of adjacent Green Belt land to the south. (my emphasis)

6. Moreover, the GBS assesses the impact upon the green belt of development in land parcel 137, west of Upper Landywood Lane, as “moderate-high” with the following explanation:

The sub-parcel S20B “..has strong spatial openness but is somewhat contained by surrounding urbanising uses, and the nature-designated area around the former Wyrley and canal (Forest of Mercia Way) contains the land and limits its relationship with the wider countryside. As such, releasing this land would not significantly weaken the integrity of surrounding Green Belt land, given the role of the clear boundary provided to the south. It should be recognised that releasing this land would lead to the almost complete containment of neighbouring sub- parcel S21A, leaving little justification for the latter remaining within the Green Belt, however this would not increase the overall degree of harm.” (my emphasis)

2

7. Noting that the assessment above for sub-parcel 21A does not have regard to the public open space proposal within the adopted SAD (this proposal must reduce any potential green belt harm), these assessments are generally agreed and, in particular, simpler and enduring green belt boundaries would clearly result from the allocation of these two parcels for development “..without significantly weakening the integrity of adjacent green belt areas to the south.” Moreover, the degree of green belt harm is in stark contrast to some proposals which form the basis of the Council’s preferred Option G – please see below.

8. It is further noted that the Landscape Study 2019 (LS ) assesses the two parcels as having “low-moderate” overall sensitivity to residential development. “The larger scale, generally flat topography, together with lack of time depth in much of the area indicates lower sensitivity. However, this is counterbalanced by the importance of the area in providing a rural gap between Great Wyrley and Cheslyn Hay. The strength of the landscape pattern and rural perceptual qualities increase to the south of the area around Upper Landywood”.

9. Again, whilst generally supporting this assessment, it does not have regard to the public open space proposal within the adopted SAD which substantially maintains the “gap”. Moreover, the sub parcel evaluated includes a large area of land beyond my clients to the east and south east where, inter alia,, “rural perceptual qualities increase” , which may have distorted the overall assessment.

10. Despite the above assessments of the land, the Council’s currently preferred Option G rules out any further new housing in Cheslyn Hay/Great Wyrley beyond that provided for in the currently allocated and safeguarded sites.

3

11. This is on the alleged basis that (page 21 of Appendix 3) “.. there do not currently appear to be the same opportunities to address infrastructure needs through new development when compared to other Tier 1 villages” and “larger strategic site options with significant on site infrastructure offers exist on the northern edge of the Black Country and in the vicinity of ROF Featherstone which may be more sustainable alternatives given the locations which drive unmet housing needs in the wider housing market area”.

12. It is not at all clear from published documentation what infrastructure needs (or indeed what spare infrastructure capacity exists) have been identified for Cheslyn Hay/Great Wyrley or, indeed, why these cannot be addressed “through new development” . Representations made on recent planning applications suggest that there are issues regarding drainage; highway capacity; existing play provision and education etc., albeit not all assertions are borne out by statutory consultees’s responses. However, these and related mattes clearly need further consideration and evaluation.

13. Furthermore, the assertion that larger strategic developments may be “more sustainable alternatives” is highly questionable given the relative sustainability credentials of these locations and those of my clients’ land and the proximity of my clients’ land parcels to the conurbation edge and the ability to access these areas by public transport.

4

14. Cheslyn Hay/Great Wyrley is one of three localities which are now re-classified in the Rural Services and Facilities Audit 2019 (RSF) as Tier 1 settlements along with and /Bilbrook. “These settlements typically have food stores, a wider range of services and facilities than other villages, a range of education establishments, access to a train station and good access to employment and wider facilities outside the village via public transport.” (page 11 of the RSF). Moreover, Cheslyn Hay/Great Wyrley contain “..the largest proportion of the

District’s young population when compared to all other tier 1-4 settlements meaning additional housing may assist in providing new homes for these residents should they seek to remain in the area within which they grew up ..” (Appendix 3, page 12)

15. From the published documentation, it is clear that within all the options put forward which can actually meet the housing requirement as stated, a significant area or areas of land will need to be removed from the green belt (either as allocations or future areas of safeguarded land).

16. The NPPF is clear (para. 78) that, to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. This approach supports a pattern of development which facilitates sustainable transport modes, including walking, cycling and use of public transport and minimising journey lengths to employment, shopping, leisure, education and other activities. Development also should maximise the opportunities to use existing and proposed transport infrastructure.

5

17. Furthermore, the NPPF (paras. 92; 102, 103 and 104) encourages that an integrated approach is used in considering the location of housing, employment uses and community facilities and requires plans and decisions to ensure developments that generate significant movements are located where the need to travel will be minimised and use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised.

18. It is agreed that, in the case of , which has relatively few employment opportunities within its existing settlements when compared to the centres of adjacent towns/cities which border the district, the availability of public transport access to employment is particularly important.

19. Considering the Council’s preferred Option G in this context, it is noted the employment/warehousing led proposal west of ROF Featherstone is to provide some 23% of the new housing allocation, whilst allocations adjoining the Black Country are to provide some 39% of these new allocations.

20. These “unique infrastructure opportunities” west of ROF Featherstone closely align to an area of ‘very high’ harm Green Belt , as identified in the GBS. It is also noted that the SHELAA describes the location as “not disassociated from the urban area” . This description is challenged. The proposal will create new housing in a totally isolated location, devoid of any community and related facilities and unrelated to any urban area and related facilities and with no certainty of creating sustainable transport modes.

6

21. From documentation considered to-date, the feasibility and viability of the overall proposal at ROF Featherstone appears to be still under evaluation. Moreover, a decision on the proposed Interchange (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange) (SRFI) is anticipated during the early part of 2020. This proposes some 743,200m2 of new rail-served and rail-linked warehousing and other associated development on land west of Junction 12 of the M6 in South Staffordshire and will create some “..8,550 direct jobs boosting opportunities”. If the SRFI proposal is approved, there would be no need for ROF Featherstone warehousing led scheme and no need, therefore, for the enabling housing development.

22. A Strategy that relies upon this proposal can, therefore, only be described as “high risk”. Moreover, from the SHELAA, much of the potential land available to provide for some 60% of new housing allocations, as above, appears to be under the control of a small number of national house builders, thereby placing heavy reliance on their ability to meet the requirements. This adds to the “risk” that the strategy will not produce the necessary number of dwellings and in the timescale required.

23. The NPPF is clear (Para. 138) that, in accordance with the need to promote sustainable patterns of development, where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development (as in this case), plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport and they should also set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining green belt land.

7

24. My clients’ land parcels are extremely well-served by public transport including by bus and by rail. Indeed, the land put forward is the closest undeveloped land to Landywood Railway Station, which, following electrification in 2018, has provided more regular services between , city centre and beyond, including London Euston. Moreover, significant parts of the land east of Upper Landywood Lane suffer from the after-effects of historic open cast coal mining, including untreated former mine shafts. As restoration was not a requirement of the opencast permission, there is a strong case to argue that the land concerned falls under the definition of “previously developed”. The land is very poor quality agricultural land (grade 4) and because of this only used for summer grazing.

25. It is also clear that a comprehensive approach to the land provides the potential to provide compensatory improvements to areas adjacent that are to remain the Green Belt, also in accordance with national green belt policy.

26. Moreover, my client’s land parcels are within walking distance (less than 1mile, as determined in the Rural Services and Facilities Audit 2019 [RSFA]) of not only the railway station but also the Community Centre, the Health Centre; the village retail Centre; all six schools in the locality as well as Strawberry Lane cemetery. This accessibility will be further enhanced once the adjacent allocated and safeguarded sites are developed and associated roads, footways and public open spaces provided.

8

27. The land is clearly in a highly sustainable location which is easily accessible to a range of services and facilities in the villages and is extremely well connected by public transport to higher order services and employment in Cannock and the West Midlands conurbation. Development of the land would clearly enhance the vitality of the two villages and assist them to continue to thrive by supporting local services and facilities.

28. The “Infrastructure led” approach, which is at the heart of Option G. is considered to be both too risky and too rigid in application. There are no stated infrastructure needs associated with development on the edge of the conurbation, the location for nearly 40% of new allocations.

29. The strategy potentially, and in practice in relation to Great Wyrley, ignores the sustainability and other positive planning credentials of land parcels within Tier 1 settlements, in particular, and in locations well suited geographically to meet the conurbation’s needs. Moreover, there appears to have been no attempt to specifically seek the views of local communities regarding infrastructure capacities or needs in their villages or their locality.

30. Furthermore, there is no explanation of why there is to be no growth beyond allocated and safeguarded sites in all the villages in Locality 3 (i.e. Cheslyn Hay, Featherstone, Essington, Great Wyrley and . Rather this Locality is to accommodate two strategic housing developments, one certainly where major harm to the green belt will result i.e. ROF Featherstone.

9

31. A more balanced approach providing for land parcels that meet the site selection methodology within Appendix 6 - page 4 onwards – would be more compatible with national policy and guidance.

32. My clients’ land is available, suitable and achievable and is, therefore, deliverable, in accordance with the NPPF.

A comprehensive development of the land concerned can result in a wide range of unique benefits being offered as follows:

• discounted [up to 30%] house purchase (in perpetuity) for local first-time buyers • discounted [up to 30%] bungalow purchase (in perpetuity) for local people over 60 years of age • availability of self-build plots • availability of houses for private rent • treatment of all mine shafts and other potential hazards affecting the land, ensuring public safety • additional public open space linking with existing provision particularly to the west (i.e. former canal) • off-site highway improvement to the junction between Old Landywood Lane and Warstones Road, where land is under the control of one of my clients, to provide for the works • additional parking for the railway station and any other infrastructure that is identified in this and subsequent consultations

10

33. It is noted that the Sustainability Appraisal [SA ] (Para. 10.14.2) whilst concluding Option G is identified as the best performing option, states that “ It is difficult to differentiate between the sustainability performance of Spatial Options D, E, F and G, as the proposed development under all of these options would be likely to result in the same or similar sustainability impacts….” . The justification for choosing Option G is that it “..would be likely to result in the greatest positive impacts in terms of sustainability in particular in regard to education and access to employment”. These alleged positive effects are neither fully explained nor justified.

34. From the above and the clear sustainability credentials of my clients’ land together with the high risk associated particularly with the ROF Featherstone proposal, it can only be concluded that more balanced approach, and one more consistent with national green belt and related Policies – NPPF paras. 60; 78; 91; 92: 96: 102; 103; 104; 138; 139 and 141 in particular, refer – is necessary, if the housing requirement is to be met and, in the timescale required.

35. Such an approach would take elements of the other considered options and evaluate further the potential of settlements and communities. In particular, a further review of potential sites, adjacent to Tier 1 settlements, and which meet relevant site selection criteria including national planning policies and guidance is necessary. Such a review would inevitably highlight the sustainability and other positive credentials of my clients’ land parcels.

11

36. In the above context, strong objection is made to the approach in paras.1.5 & 1.6 of Appendix 6 which state that the Council “..will only consider the allocation of sites which are either suitable (i.e. S1, S2 and S3), or could be made suitable through the removal of a policy or physical constraint (i.e. NCD1 and NCD2)” and “..1.6 To further narrow down which sites will be selected for allocation, sites will only be assessed for allocation where they are in an potential location for growth under the infrastructure-led strategy (Spatial Option G) (my emphasis) proposed by the Council in section 5 of the Spatial Housing Strategy and Infrastructure Delivery document….”

37. This is in direct contrast with the stated intention in the published Spatial Housing Strategy & Infrastructure Delivery Consultation document at paras. 2.7-2.9 and 5.3., that:

“.. We are seeking views on these options to allow for more detailed consideration of potential sites and infrastructure requirements which will meet the preferred Spatial Housing Strategy. This will be reflected in the Preferred Options Plan consultation (Summer 2020).”

and

“Feedback from this consultation on all of the spatial housing options will be used to consider whether the Council’s preferred approach (Spatial Option G) should be amended to place greater weight to delivering other elements of the alternative options, or whether a different strategy should be pursued altogether”.

12

38. It must be correct that the basis of any consultation exercise must be to obtain both information and views on the preferred approach and the options available. In this case, the Council’s preferred option is a very significant departure from historic development patterns in the District. Moreover, the Council acknowledges (paras. 2.17 – 2.18 of Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2019 [IDP ] refers) that various studies are still underway on aspects of the strategy All the above may well influence the final strategy and site selections.

39. In summary:

• My clients’ land is now put forward for consideration in the context of the Local Plan Review process. Where it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development (as in this case), National Policy at Para. 138 of the NPPF must be the starting point for evaluating potential locations to accommodate new housing and related development.

• The land parcels are inarguably in highly sustainable locations, within walking distance of the railway station and community facilities and are also deliverable.

• Development of the land parcels would overall have a moderate impact upon green belt and landscape considerations and accord with many other aspects of national planning policy and guidance.

• The land parcels can, on a comprehensive basis, secure unique benefits, including discounted dwelling purchase for first time buyers and those aged over 60.

13

• Objection is made to the the Council’s currently Preferred Option G which precludes any further housing development in Cheslyn Hay/Great Wyrley beyond the currently allocated and safeguarded sites.

• Objection is also made to the site selection methodology (Appendix 6) which limits further consideration to those sites that fit the Council’s currently preferred strategy, without regard to the responses to this consultation and other material considerations.

• The Council’s currently Preferred Option G is very high “risk” in view of its heavy reliance on both the implementation of ROF Featherstone etc. “enabled” by development which would result in “high harm” to the Green Belt and fails to accord in this and other respects with many aspects of national planning policy and guidance.

• The “risk” is exacerbated by the apparent reliance also on a small number of national house builders, who appear to have secured interests in the land areas concerned, to meet the housing requirements over the plan period.

40. In relation to the specific questions set out, the above results in the following responses:

Q1 - no, the evidence base awaits the completion of further studies and the results of this consultation, the conclusions and findings of which may influence the final strategy and site selections. We have seen no evidence that relates to existing available infrastructure capacity in localities or where communities views on infrastructure needs have been sought.

Q2 - yes

14

Q3 - yes, but density should be considered on a site by site basis having regard to context and consistent with the emphasis in the NPPF on design considerations

Q4 - no, provided that elements of the seven options are not considered to be mutually exclusive

Q5 - yes, provided that elements of the seven options are not considered to be mutually exclusive. An alternative strategy delivering elements of other options, as above, should be pursued.

Q6 - no, for the reasons explained above

Q7 - no

Q8 - green belt release is inevitable

Q9 - yes

Q10 - yes

15