Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

July 2012 District Strategic Green Belt Review

Context & Principles for the Green Belt Review 1 Introduction & Purpose of the Review 4

2 Scope of the Review 6

3 Green Belt Context & Planning History within 8

4 Principles of the Approach to the Review: Considering the 'general extent' of 10 the Green Belt and the need for change Settlements within the Green Belt 5 Lichfield and 17

6 The Larger Green Belt Inset Villages 20

7 Smaller Green Belt Inset Villages 30

8 Other Villages and Hamlets within the Green Belt 43 Employment & Other Land Uses Outside Settlements 9 Developed Sites in the Green Belt 48 The Permanence of Green Belt Boundaries 10 Looking Beyond the Plan Period 53

July 2012 Context & Principles for the Green Belt Review

July 2012 3 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

1 Introduction & Purpose of the Hospital Retail Review Leisure, Tourism and Culture Employemnt Burton & East ¯ Midlands Airport Hospital Retail 1.1 The establishment and maintenance Employment Leisure, Tourism of Green Belts around many of ’s and Cutlure To Stafford and the North West main urban areas in order to strictly control

To Ashbourne and the North development, has long been a part of To with To Burton and national planning policy. In the West the North

Cannock Midlands there is a Green Belt that encircles Hospital, Retail Leisure, Tourism the main ‘conurbation’ area and encloses and Culture Employment Lichfield , , , Burntwood Whittington

To and and the built up areas of the North West

oll To M 6T and Walsall

Sandwell and . It extends to the east To Tamworth To Tamworth and the South Shenstone of Birmingham extending to . To Tamworth The Black Tamworth

Country M Employment 6 Hospitals T Retail, Leisure, o

l Although National Planning Guidance has Retail l Tourism and Leisure, Tourism To Culture and Birmingham and Culture To Birmingham identified five specific purposes of Green Employment and the South Little Aston

Belts, (see paragraph 4.14), the principal Key Train Stations reason for establishing a Green Belt in the Main Roads Birmingham Canals Airport Watercourses was to stop the further Major Rail Station Retail Railway Leisure, Tourism and Culture National Forest outward spread of these main urban areas Employment AONB Education SSSI Hospitals into the open countryside surrounding them. Forest of Mercia Green Belt District Settlement Reproduced from The Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Offices (C) Crown Copyright : License No 100017765 Dated 2011 Urban areas 1.2 Part of the lies within Lichfield District. It covers much Picture 1.1 of the southern part of the District Council area, extending from the West Midlands 1.3 The development restraint imposed Planning Authorities areas to approximately by Green Belt policy has been a major the line of the railway. feature of land use planning within Lichfield Green Belt therefore covers in excess of half District for many years, particularly in of the area of Lichfield District, although the focussing new development on existing main towns and villages are excluded settlements. This Green Belt Review has through the definition of ‘Insets’ within the been prepared to support the Lichfield Green Belt. This means that the built up District Local Plan Strategy 2012. In areas of the settlements are not within the particular its purpose is to ensure that Green Green Belt, but there is a defined Green Belt Belt policy will continue to be applied within boundary for the settlement that is generally Lichfield District in locations that it is tightly drawn against the edge of the existing essential to keep open, taking account of built up area. The general extent of the the Local Plan spatial development strategy. Green Belt within Lichfield District is shown In order to consider this fully however it is in the diagram opposite. necessary to also examine whether there are places that it may not be essential to keep open in the long term through Green Belt policy, i.e. whether the existing extent and boundaries of the Green Belt are appropriate for the plan period (up to 2028) and beyond.

4 July 2012 1.4 The spatial development strategy 1.7 It is intended that Green Belt policy focuses major development mainly on the should direct development to appropriate two main settlements of Lichfield and and sustainable locations. It should not be Burntwood and at Strategic Development used to constrain necessary and sustainable Locations that are located beyond the outer development. The approach followed in this edge of the Green Belt. It is based upon Review is to consider whether there are or evidence of the relative degrees of may be sustainable development needs sustainability of the existing settlements within the plan period that require within the District. This has included a study amendments to existing Green Belt of all rural settlements both within and boundaries and to suggest where these may beyond the Green Belt, in the Rural be. This approach is entirely consistent with Settlements Sustainability Study, which was national planning policy, provided that it published in 2009 with an update in 2011. demonstrates appropriate evidence to Sustainable development is therefore the support any proposed changes to existing central focus of the Local Plan, Green Belt boundaries that would amount to ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying 1.5 The Local Plan is being prepared at boundary changes. a time when national planning policy is being re-shaped to empower local communities to 1.8 Where the Review concludes that it have a greater say in the future of the is, or may be, appropriate for changes to be settlements in which they live. Parish Plans made to existing Green Belt boundaries, and Neighbourhood Plans developed at a either in relation to villages or employment local scale will have more of a place in the locations, these are identified. This means future of the planning and there is therefore that the principle of making a change to a need to provide for the flexibility within the some existing boundaries and the general Lichfield District Local Plan Strategy to allow locations identified, can be addressed by these to be prepared in the future. The the Local Plan Strategy. However, no Green Belt Review therefore needs to detailed boundary changes are identified by consider what the implications of this might this review or proposed to be included within be for the settlements that lie within the the Local Plan Strategy. The details of general extent of the Green Belt within the boundaries will be the subject of the District. Allocations part of the Local Plan, to be prepared separately, so that any boundary 1.6 Where Green Belt exists, severe changes can be scrutinised at that stage. restriction on the type of development that will be permitted applies, and national policy defines the limited types of development that are appropriate within Green Belts (now contained within the National Planning Policy Framework, published March 2012). The Review considers the implications of such restrictions on existing Green Belt villages and on existing development in open countryside, so as to ensure that the strategy of seeking sustainable development within Lichfield District is supported by, and not hindered by, Green Belt policy.

July 2012 5 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

2 Scope of the Review Key rural settlements

2.1 The Local Plan Strategy Evidence 2.5 The larger villages of Alrewas, Base has already shown that there is no , Fazeley, Little need within Lichfield District for any major Aston, Shenstone and Whittington, were ‘pulling back’ of existing Green Belt defined as key rural settlements within the boundaries to meet major or strategic RSSS. These settlements were the subject development needs. In particular the of a ‘rural masterplanning’ study during 2010 identified housing requirements for Lichfield and 2011 that involved extensive local District for the period up to 2028, which are community engagement. significant in scale, are proposed to be 2.6 All of the key rural settlements except accommodated either on previously for Alrewas lie within the general extent of developed or greenfield land outside the the Green Belt, although they are ‘Inset’ Green Belt. Overall there is only limited need within it (i.e. their built up areas have been for additional employment land within the excluded from the Green Belt through a District. defined boundary). The Rural 2.2 The context and scope of the Green Masterplanning study resulted in a series of Belt Review is therefore principally to village reports that have already been consider whether there may be any specific published by the District Council as part of requirements to amend existing Green Belt the Evidence Base for the Local Plan. The boundaries to meet more local, rather than reports include recommendations on the ‘strategic’, needs (i.e. those that would have potential for change and growth. The any significant impact upon a District spatial potential implications on existing Green Belt strategy) and therefore at a modest scale. boundaries arising from the Rural It follows that any changes suggested within Masterplanning Village Reports, are this review should not have a significant summarised within this Review. impact upon the overall spatial development ‘Inset’ Smaller villages strategy for the District for the period up to 2028. 2.7 There are several smaller villages lying within the Green Belt that are also 2.3 A particular focus of the Green Belt ‘Inset’ within the Green Belt. These are Review is on the future needs of villages , , , lying within the Green Belt and whether their Longdon (Brook End), Stonnall, and Upper future needs or aspirations to be vibrant and Longdon. The Review considers each of sustainable communities necessitate any these villages in some detail. This includes Green Belt changes. their existing size and function; constraints 2.4 It is important to note that the Rural on and opportunities for small-scale Settlements Sustainability Study (RSSS), development to meet any local needs; and revised in 2011, sets a general context for the potential implications of these for existing the study of Green Belt villages within the Green Belt boundaries. These village Green Belt Review in that it defines a reviews suggest locations or directions ‘hierarchy’ of settlements across the District where it may be appropriate, or as a whole related to their size and access inappropriate, to consider any future to services and facilities. development needs.

6 July 2012 ‘Washed-over’ Villages the National Planning Policy Framework and therefore future long-term development 2.8 Within the remainder of the Green Belt needs have to be examined as part of the there are many small villages and hamlets preparation of the Local Plan. that are not ‘Insets’, but where the Green Belt simply ‘washes over’ the village, meaning that Green Belt policies controlling development apply to all land and properties within the built up extent of a village rather than only land or property that lies outside a defined settlement boundary. These villages vary significantly in character and whilst some, such as Wall or Chorley, are compact in form, some such as , have a more dispersed building form and are therefore more open in character. The Review considers whether there is any need to change current policy in relation to any of these villages.

Employment areas

2.9 There are also several existing employment areas located within the District’s Green Belt, of various sizes, types and scale. Several of these are currently subject to a specific planning policy on ‘Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt’. This policy is based on the former Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts. The Planning Policy Guidance has recently been replaced by the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012). It is therefore an appropriate time to consider future policy that should apply to all Green Belt employment sites.

Future Needs & Considerations

2.10 The Review also considers the particular issue of whether the general extent of the Green Belt meets not only the needs of the Local Plan Strategy for the plan period of up to 2028, but also foreseeable needs beyond then, so that there is a long term Green Belt boundary that will not need to be altered when the end of the Plan period is reached. This long-term consideration is a specific requirement of

July 2012 7 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

3 Green Belt Context & Planning Handsacre within the Northern Area, at Rake History within Lichfield District Hill in Burntwood and at Pinfold Hill, Shenstone, on land that had been included 3.1 A Green Belt was first proposed in the within the draft Green Belt. West Midlands during the 1950’s. It was 3.5 After the approval of these Local Plans devised principally as a means through there remained parts of the Green Belt within planning policy of preventing the continuing Lichfield District that were not covered by outward expansion of the built up area of Local Plans, in particular the area around the West Midlands towns and cities into the city of Lichfield and around Whittington. open countryside and towards the series of The latter was however included within an freestanding towns and villages surrounding informal ‘Eastern Area Village Plans’ the main West Midlands urban area. document. 3.2 The proposal to establish the Green 3.6 Lichfield District Council prepared a Belt took many years to be formally District-wide Local Plan during the 1990’s approved. Within this was a that was finally approved in 1998 following gradual process, firstly including draft a major Local Plan Public Inquiry. This proposals within the Staffordshire County brought the Green Belt within a single Local Development Plan in the 1960’s and early Plan for the first time and defined a detailed 1970’s, then by including broad proposals Green Belt boundary within the District as a within the first Staffordshire Structure Plan whole. of 1973. At this time the County Council prepared proposals for ‘Insets’ within the 3.7 As for the earlier Area Local Plans, Green Belt. These ‘Insets’ defined the District-wide Local Plan took account of boundaries around some towns and villages development needs identified at that time in that were located within the general extent defining the Green Belt boundaries. In of the proposed Green Belt. The Insets took particular it allowed for the development of the approach of leaving out of the Green more than 1,000 houses as a south-western Belt the built up areas of the settlements extension to Lichfield, with a Green Belt concerned – mainly towns and the larger boundary defined by the route of the villages – and also areas on their edges that proposed Lichfield Southern Bypass were identified at that time for development, between Walsall Road and Birmingham or where detailed boundaries were to be Road. defined in future Local Plans, taking account of development needs. 3.8 The 1998 Lichfield District Local Plan also allowed for the development of housing 3.3 It was not until the early 1980’s within to the west of Burntwood, again with the Lichfield District that the preparation of Local Green Belt boundary defined by a proposed Plans saw detailed Green Belt boundaries new distributor road. drawn for parts of the District. These were through the Northern Area District Plan, 3.9 At Burntwood, however, the largest adopted in 1980, Burntwood Area District scale of housing development was proposed Plan, adopted in 1983 and the Southern by the redevelopment of St. Matthew’s Area District Plan, adopted in 1985. Hospital, which had become redundant. St. Matthew’s was a former psychiatric hospital 3.4 These Plans defined detailed Green that lay at the north-eastern edge of the Belt boundaries, but allowed for major town. Whilst the hospital was proposed for housing developments in Armitage with housing development, the Local Plan policy

8 July 2012 was that the area redeveloped for housing would remain within the Green belt and would be covered by a specific policy for ‘Major Developed Sites within the Green Belt’.

3.10 The 1998 Local Plan did not contain any new proposals for development that would extend existing Green Belt villages and there were therefore no proposals included that amended any village Green Belt boundaries.

3.11 The Lichfield District Local Plan met the requirement of the then current Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts (PPG 2), to consider longer term development needs when drawing the Green Belt boundary. In the light of a forecast continuing development need for Lichfield, the Lichfield District Local Plan identified an area south of the city between Birmingham Road and Road, then known as ‘Berryfields’, as an Area of Development Restraint. The 1998 Local Plan policy ensured that this area was protected from development during the Plan Period, but provided for its future to be reviewed when the Local Plan was itself reviewed. The Local Plan originally had a plan period of up to 2001, however the policy was one of those ‘Saved’ policies retained by the Secretary of State for the period beyond September 2007 and at the current time remains an extant policy.

July 2012 9 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

4 Principles of the Approach to be required at the ‘Allocations’ stage, where the Review: Considering the detailed proposals will be made. Therefore in considering the specific circumstances of 'general extent' of the Green Belt individual settlements and employment and the need for change locations within this Review, potential exceptional circumstances are suggested The need for ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ and considered; these would need to be to alter boundaries demonstrated in more detail if they are confirmed as being necessary in the 4.1 The National Planning Policy 'Allocations' stage of Local Plan preparation. Framework continues the previous policy If there are situations where it is considered on Green Belts, set out in PPG2, that once that the exceptional circumstances can established (in Local Plans), Green Belt already be demonstrated for the ‘Strategy’ boundaries should be altered only in stage of the Local Plan, these are set out in exceptional circumstances, through the the Review. preparation or review of the Local Plan. This is the process that is currently taking place The development strategy of the Local for Lichfield District. The NPPF says that Plan Strategy when reviewing their Local Plan, authorities should consider the Green Belt boundaries, 4.4 As noted in the introduction to this having regard to their intended permanence Review, the District Council has prepared a in the long term, so that they should be spatial development strategy for the Local capable of enduring beyond the plan period. Plan that is based broadly upon a principle No guidance is given in the NPPF on what of focussing the majority of new may constitute ‘exceptional circumstances’ development on the existing settlements necessitating a change to boundaries, that show the greatest levels of although clearly a need for development ‘sustainability’. In the Lichfield District beyond the plan period being considered context this means on those settlements that could be one such circumstance. have the greatest range of facilities and the best access to employment by public 4.2 This Review takes the approach that transport. The Strategy is therefore aimed there may be either a District-wide ‘strategic’ at achieving most growth in settlements need, or a locally founded need, which could where there is the least need to travel by constitute the ‘exceptional circumstances’ car to meet daily or weekly needs for shops, and may require a Green Belt boundary schools, health, sport or community facilities, change to be made. Because of the nature or to work. of the Local Plan being prepared by the District Council, (i.e. in two parts with a 4.5 The evidence base developed for the Strategy document being prepared first and Strategy shows that the settlements within an Allocations document to follow as a the District most able to function as second part to the Local Plan once the sustainable settlements are Lichfield and Strategy has been adopted), no site specific Burntwood and therefore that most growth boundary changes are proposed at this to meet the District’s needs should be ‘Strategy’ stage of the ‘Local Plan’ related to these towns. The Strategy also preparation. considers the needs of other towns in neighbouring Districts and as a result also 4.3 It is considered that the need to proposes to focus some development on demonstrate the specific circumstances of any proposed change will, for the most part,

10 July 2012 the boundaries of Tamworth and Rugeley, Rural Settlements Sustainability Study which also have access to a wide range of services, facilities and employment. 4.10 The Rural Settlements Sustainability Study 2011 (RSSS) uses two types of 4.6 It therefore follows that a lesser measure to assess the degree to which amount of new development should be villages within Lichfield District are able to located within or on the edges of smaller meet the needs of their communities. The settlements where there are fewer facilities measures used in assessing how and generally less frequent or available ‘sustainable’ a village is, were, firstly, the public transport facilities and the spatial range of facilities contained within the village development strategy follows this approach. itself and secondly, the availability and frequency of public transport access from 4.7 As a principle therefore, the Strategy the village to opportunities for employment should allow for Green Belt boundaries that and services. support this approach to spatial development, both in terms of restricting 4.11 The RSSS considers villages across development in locations inappropriate to Lichfield District and has no regard to the Strategy, but also in terms of having whether a village lies within or beyond the boundaries that allow sufficient development Green Belt, since it considers the function to take place in those locations that would of villages rather than the implications of support the Strategy. existing planning policy. It does however identify three broad groups of villages with 4.8 In relation to villages, this means that different levels of access to facilities and job considerations in relation to Green Belt opportunities by public transport. boundaries are: Key Rural Settlements: These were the whether a particular village can make villages considered within the ‘Rural an appropriate level of contribution to Masterplanning’ study and were District-wide development needs, Alrewas, Armitage with Handsacre, Fazeley Mile Oak, Little Aston, whether there are local aspirations for Shenstone and Whittington. They have some growth, or the greatest range of, and access to, facilities and services, whether there is evidence of local need. In these cases then a further A middle range of villages, where there consideration is whether an appropriate are fewer facilities, but nevertheless scale of development can be achieved they have some local facilities that within the existing defined Green Belt allow for a cohesive local community boundaries. to function. Amongst these villages were the smaller Green Belt ‘Inset’ 4.9 For the larger or ‘key’ villages defined villages of Hopwas, Longdon and by the RSSS these considerations were the Stonnall. subject of the Rural ‘Masterplanning’ A third group of villages that achieved exercise, but for the smaller villages this is low scores for both types of measure. a consideration for this Review. These included the ‘Inset’ villages of Drayton Bassett, Hammerwich and . There were no Green

July 2012 11 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

Belt ‘washed over’ villages that ‘organic’ growth. There was a view among achieved any mid-range or higher their residents about change that it should scores on either measure. be limited to a scale and nature that was sympathetic to the character of the existing village and met a local need. 4.12 It is considered that as a broad principle, this ‘hierarchy’ of settlement 4.15 For the smaller ‘Inset’ villages there groups should be used as a basis for has been no similar public involvement considering the potential scale of exercise carried out, with the exception of development that might be appropriate to Stonnall. Here a project led by the each village, set within the overall spatial community has resulted in the village strategy principles for the District. Specific becoming a Neighbourhood Planning local considerations could influence this Frontrunner, supported by a Government general principle however, for example grant. For this, and for the other villages, the conservation issues, flooding or access more general public consultations carried constraints. out throughout the preparation of the Local Plan Strategy, have not revealed any desire Local Features & Factors for major growth among the residents or representatives of any of the smaller 4.13 Where there are local development villages, although some villages are needs, or aspirations that may help to considering the need for change, potentially support or increase the long-term including housing to meet local needs. There sustainability of village communities, or is therefore no reason to believe anything indeed where there is interest from the other than that smaller scale, ‘organic’ development industry, there will always be growth, where villages have a local local factors present that both make each aspiration or identified need, would be the place unique and which need to be taken favoured local way forward. account of in considering the most appropriate ways of meeting future needs. 4.16 It is considered therefore that this Therefore local factors have been given approach should be one of the general consideration within this Review. For the principles of the Green Belt Review. It has larger, ‘key’ rural settlements the Rural implications in terms of the potential scale Masterplanning Village Reports examine the of growth to be considered, but also since local issues, community views and options ‘character’ is also part of this approach, it in a significant amount of detail and they are has implications in terms of the types of therefore only briefly summarised within this development site that might be acceptable Review. For the smaller ‘Inset’ villages more in principle at a local level. detailed consideration is given within Section 7 of the Review. 4.17 Future change for a village that takes account of local character needs to consider 4.14 Within the Rural Masterplanning several aspects – the history and nature of Project some emphasis was given to both the built environment, the general form of a the key characteristics of villages and the settlement (for example whether a historic way they had evolved, as pointers to the form is relatively intact), the general setting way that the future development might be of a village (e.g. is it concealed within a addressed. One of the main elements of this valley or prominent on a hilltop), and was the way in which most villages had particular local features of landform or historically grown in relatively small landscape. All of these factors can impact increments and this was often referred to as upon the suitability of any potential locations

12 July 2012 for growth. In addition there may be specific most recently a Southern Staffordshire local constraints, such as areas of flood risk Districts Housing Needs Study and SHMA or nature conservation interest, that would Update 2012, prepared by Nathaniel be best avoided if possible. These factors Lichfield and Partners (NLP). are therefore taken into account in the specific consideration of the smaller villages, 4.21 Housing needs within the District fall as they were in the Rural Masterplanning broadly into the categories of needs arising Village Reports on the larger settlements. from the attraction of the area to households ‘migrating’ from outside, and needs arising Other evidence: from households already living within the area, which is frequently referred to as local Employment needs need. The housing evidence base has identified significant housing needs from 4.18 There is a significant rural economy within both categories, which have been within Lichfield District, and much of the rural identified at District and in ‘sub-areas’ within area is covered by Green Belt. It is both the District. The ‘sub-areas’ are aligned to national and local policy to seek a thriving more local housing markets, for example rural economy and therefore the Burntwood, or the ‘rural north’ part of the employment contribution made by the Green District. A need for ‘affordable’ housing Belt area needs to be considered as part of requiring some form of subsidy, has been the Review. The rural economy within the identified within all ‘sub-areas’ of the District. Green Belt is made up of agriculture, small rural-based employers, and some larger 4.22 Consultations on the Local Plan well-established employment sites. Several Strategy and surveys have identified a view villages, such as Fazeley and Shenstone, amongst many communities that there is a have small industrial estates, but these do ‘local need’ for small levels of additional not lie in the Green Belt. housing. People have tended to include a range of potential types of housing when 4.19 Therefore the Review needs to take referring to ‘local need’. This has included as a principle that there should be an open market housing for first time buyers or approach to Green Belt that meets the for people to ‘downsize’, and subsidised needs of the rural economy and allows it to housing provided by Housing Associations. continue to thrive. This means considering Consultations in rural communities have also the extent to which there is any ‘tension’ shown that people have identified particular between the stringencies of applying the types of housing to meet a local need, such national Green Belt policies in controlling as bungalows for the elderly, sheltered development, and the ability of rural accommodation, or houses for young employment to function in the future. couples and families.

Housing to meet Local Needs 4.23 To local communities a ‘local needs’ element of housing can therefore include a 4.20 During the course of preparing the wide range of housing types and different Local Plan Strategy, several evidence tenures, whilst ‘planning evidence’ reports have examined housing needs for separately defines ‘affordable housing’ need, the District and neighbouring local planning within the subsidised category. For rural authorities within south-. areas no ‘local needs’ housing of any These have been a Strategic Housing category has been assessed at the Markets Assessment of 2008 (SHMA), a individual settlement level. Rural Housing Needs Survey of 2008 and

July 2012 13 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

4.24 While the Local Plan Strategy will To check the unrestricted sprawl of provide for all housing needs to be met built-up areas; within the District, it needs to be recognised that the greater empowerment of people to To prevent neighbouring towns make decisions at local level, for example merging into one another; through Neighbourhood and Parish Plans, will potentially lead to communities To assist in safeguarding the identifying ‘local housing needs’ for their own countryside from encroachment; communities and seeking to meet them. The Green Belt Review needs to acknowledge To preserve the setting and special this developing context in considering the character of historic towns; and potential for future local demands to meet ‘local needs’ within individual communities To assist in urban regeneration, by that may lie within the Green Belt. A locally encouraging the recycling of derelict identified housing need where there are no and other urban land. non-Green Belt options available, may constitute ‘exceptional circumstances’ that 4.28 One approach to the principles of the justify amendment to the Green Belt Review would therefore to be to consider, boundary. for any area, whether land currently in the Green Belt contributes to serving any of National Guidance: The purposes of these purposes, either by itself or as part of Green Belt and guidelines on defining a larger area. It may not be easy or simple, boundaries however, to apply all of these tests to 4.25 The National Planning Policy individual parcels of land when defining or Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government considering the amendment of specific policy towards protecting Green Belt land. Green Belt boundaries and they are not set This includes identifying five purposes that out within the NPPF as ‘tests’ that should Green Belt serves, as well as guidance on be met in defining boundaries. defining Green Belt boundaries, and 4.29 To illustrate this point, it may be easy identifying the exceptions to the general rule to see that there is a general issue of a that the construction of new buildings in the potential to merge towns in a particular area, Green Belt is inappropriate. but it may be more open to argument 4.26 Local Plans are required to be whether the development of a particular consistent with the NPPF in order to be parcel of land in a specific location would ‘sound’. They should be plans that enable undermine this purpose. It could also be the delivery of sustainable development in argued that any parcel of land on the edge accordance with the policies of the of a settlement that is ‘Inset’ into the Green Framework. It is important therefore that this Belt is in effect assisting in safeguarding the Green Belt Review properly takes account countryside from encroachment. If that were of and follows, the policies and guidance simply to be applied by itself as a test, it within the NPPF. would effectively defeat the purpose of reviewing Green Belt boundaries through 4.27 The NPPF says that Green Belt Local Plans, which is the requirement set serves 5 purposes. These purposes have out in the NPPF. been established for a long time through previous guidance and are:

14 July 2012 4.30 This Review does not propose any specific detailed Green Belt boundary changes, but does include advice on settlements where boundary changes may be appropriate to take account of needed development. It also advises on potential preferred directions or locations for development within individual settlements that would require a Green Belt boundary change. The five purposes of Green Belt will therefore be taken account of as potential issues for a settlement and contribute, as a consideration, to any preferred locations for development, but not applied as individual tests.

4.31 There are however, specific guidelines for defining boundaries, which are set out in paragraph 85 of the NPPF. These need to be followed, since this Review will itself be providing guidance for future potential Green Belt boundary changes and identifying the locations where detailed changes may be brought forward within the Development Plan process in future. Most of the guidance relates to preparing an overall sustainable strategy and ensuring long-term Green Belt boundaries are established. In relation to considering individual settlements, including the villages ‘Inset’ within Lichfield District, the requirement to “not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open” is a specific ‘test’ that needs consideration.

July 2012 15 Settlements within the Green Belt

July 2012 16 5 Lichfield and Burntwood significant development on the edges of Rugeley and Tamworth on land outside the 5.1 The range of evidence compiled for Green Belt. the preparation of the Local Plan Strategy demonstrates that in the context of Lichfield 5.4 The preparation process for the Local District, Lichfield and Burntwood represent Plan Strategy included the preparation of the two most ‘sustainable’ freestanding evidence on the development requirements settlements within the District. This is shown of the District and on the range of potential through the range of facilities and services development sites that are available. It has available within them, through their level of included the preparation of a Strategic accessibility for movement to and from each Housing Land Availability Assessment, settlement, and the resulting functions of which has been reviewed as the Local Plan each in serving a wider area. process has continued. The assessment of needs and potential sites led to the 5.2 Of the two settlements, Lichfield publication of potential development options, clearly has a distinctly greater range of which were tested by extensive consultation facilities and services and functions as a and reviewed to define preferred options, centre for the whole District, for example for subsequently refining these into a proposed shopping, professional services and spatial development strategy. administration. The Local Plan Strategy has already used this evidence in the 5.5 This process included the identification preparation of its spatial development of development options for strategic scale strategy, which seeks to locate new development, taking account of the physical development close to services and facilities and environmental constraints identified for and also recognise that the facilities, each settlement. These factors limited the services and transport availability within both range of potential options for Lichfield and Lichfield and Burntwood need improvement. Burntwood. For example for Lichfield there were issues related to impact on the historic 5.3 The finalisation of the Local Plan core of the city, whilst for Burntwood outward Strategy has taken place against the expansion is constrained by a number of background of the Government proposal to factors including the presence of abandon Regional Spatial Strategies. Since reservoir and its associated the West Midlands RSS was to include SSSI’s, and flood risk for some areas. It District level housing requirements there has was clear that for large strategic scale been a need to review housing needs at a development, significant areas of Green Belt more local level. For the Lichfield Local Plan land might be required. Options identified this has resulted in re-focussing housing for consultation included the potential requirements to consider more broadly the release of Green Belt land to the south and needs of south-east Staffordshire. The west of Lichfield and to the south, south-east proposed Local Plan Strategy has an and north of Burntwood. emphasis on meeting the majority of housing needs up to 2028 within, or as extensions 5.6 There was significant local opposition to urban areas. To meet Lichfield Districts’ to these options. The Local Plan preparation needs the Strategy provides principally for process has subsequently examined how housing growth in Lichfield and Burntwood Green Belt impact could be avoided and and at Fradley in Strategic Development refined the Strategy to avoid any proposals Locations, without requiring any Green Belt requiring major Green Belt land releases. land. In addition the Strategy proposes This has meant developing a spatial strategy which places greater emphasis on

July 2012 17 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

redevelopment within the urban areas of This issue is identified in the National Lichfield and Burntwood in particular, Planning Policy Framework as one that including existing employment areas and should be considered in the preparation or land identified for future employment. review of the Local Plan. Permanence of the Green Belt boundary is therefore considered 5.7 For Lichfield the Strategy utilises separately in Section 10 of this Review. Strategic Development Allocations at South Lichfield (on ‘Safeguarded Land’ already St. Matthews Hospital taken out of the Green Belt by the 1998 Local Plan) and at . For Burntwood 5.11 St. Matthews Hospital was a the Strategy proposes a sustainable urban psychiatric hospital located at the north- extension principally on employment land eastern edge of Burntwood, but lying in the and urban redevelopment. Major Green Belt. It closed during the 1990’s and development locations at Fradley, east of was subsequently allocated for residential Rugeley and north of Tamworth will development through the Lichfield District complement the emphasis on Lichfield and Local Plan, adopted in 1998. The Local Plan, Burntwood with significant housing however, maintained the St. Matthews area development close to existing urban areas within the Green Belt and included it as one but beyond the Green Belt. of the Major Developed Sites (MDS) covered by a policy (Emp. 5) that followed the former 5.8 Hammerwich was one of the PPG2: Green Belts guidance on MDS. The communities that would have been site was redeveloped, principally for 380 particularly affected by the potential Green new dwellings, including the conversion of Belt land releases considered as extensions part of the former main hospital building to to Burntwood. As well as issues relating to housing and of the church to a nursery. the potential impact on the relatively small rural community at Hammerwich village, the 5.12 When the District Council published options raised issues of the merging of its Core Strategy and Allocations of Land settlements to the south of the town. and Development Control Policies Although the development of the spatial Development Plan Documents in 2005, it strategy has subsequently been able to proposed to remove the St. Matthew’s area avoid such major releases, the location of from the Green Belt by preparing an Inset Hammerwich village in relation to the larger boundary on which it had previously urban area of Burntwood remains relevant consulted. The Inset was included on the in considering smaller scale development. Proposals Map, although the Core Strategy made no specific reference to the change 5.9 As a result of the finalisation of the to the Green Belt proposed in the St. spatial strategy for the Local Plan involving Matthew’s area. the extensive consideration of strategic options and refinement of the strategy to 5.13 At the Examination into the Core take account of the sub-regional context, Strategy in 2006 the District Council there is no need for the Green Belt Review proposed to a make specific reference to to consider the issue of Green Belt further the change within the Core Strategy for the two main settlements of Lichfield and document. It argued that the St. Matthew’s Burntwood for the period up to 2028. area was now effectively a new suburb of Burntwood, that it was desirable to integrate 5.10 Beyond the end of the Plan period the area with the town and allow it to there is the matter of the permanence of function as part of the larger urban area in Green Belt boundaries in the longer term. terms of the future control of development.

18 July 2012 In the light of this major change in circumstances there was no longer a need to seek to keep the area open through a Green Belt designation. In his Examination Report on the Core Strategy, the Inspector accepted the argument that the area should be excluded from the Green Belt, but took the view that a specific reference to the change should be made in the Core Strategy and it should be given publicity. Since the proposed Development Plan Documents were subsequently withdrawn, the proposed changes have not been implemented.

5.14 It is considered that the proposal to exclude this area from the Green Belt remains valid for the reasons given at the time. The Local Plan Strategy should therefore specifically identify the proposed change, and the precise boundary for the change should be determined through the 'Allocations' part of the Local Plan.

July 2012 19 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

6 The Larger Green Belt Inset affecting their quality of life, approaches to Villages future needs and potential development. These common themes were: 6.1 The District Council has carried out a a desire for more management of traffic Rural Planning Project, which forms part of within settlements, particularly related the Evidence Base for the Local Plan. This to speed; was also known as the ‘Rural Masterplanning’ exercise. The project, which a desire for improved local facilities, in considered the future of the larger villages, particular for younger people; was carried out between March 2010 and the end of 2011. It involved the 6 larger a desire for environmental villages of Alrewas, Armitage with improvements; acceptance of the need Handsacre, Fazeley, Little Aston, Shenstone for change but and Whittington. All of these settlements, except for Alrewas, lie within the Green Belt. little enthusiasm for significant housing growth – an ‘organic’ approach to 6.2 The Rural Masterplanning Project was growth was preferred; based on extensive community involvement through questionnaires, workshops and where some housing need was public events, to firstly establish if there was identified it was normally related to a local consensus on existing and future meeting the needs of specific groups. issues for each village, then to consider options for addressing issues and finally to seek public reaction to outputs from the 6.4 In most cases there was a consensus report for each village. This last stage within the individual settlement, particularly outlined the conclusions of separate reports on the issues, but often on potential for each settlement. The ‘Village Reports’ solutions. However in the case of Little described the views expressed by local Aston, consensus was not really apparent communities but also considered other amongst residents. The full Rural Planning factors relevant to the future, such as Project Report including the detailed village evidence on rural housing need, settlement reports can be viewed on the District Council evolution and character, and factors that website. might act as constraints to growth such as flood or ecological issues. Each Village 6.5 The following sections on individual Report suggested Guiding Principles and a larger settlements within the Green Belt Vision to guide future policy, but also drew include brief summaries of the conclusions conclusions on the housing development of the separate Rural Masterplanning Village potential of each village. For settlements Reports and the overall conclusions from where it was considered there was potential the study, in particular where they relate to for future additional housing, preferred future growth, potential ‘exceptional locations were identified, some of which circumstances’ for development in the Green involved limited amounts of Green Belt land. Belt, and possible locations for future development. It should be noted that the 6.3 The Rural Masterplanning Project conclusions from the Rural Settlement allowed ‘grass roots’ views to feed directly Sustainability Study, which identified the into consideration of rural planning and to settlements, and from the Transport wider strategy. It revealed some common Accessibility Study that forms part of the themes for rural communities on issues Local Plan Evidence Base, suggests that all

20 July 2012 of the settlements may be capable of a view amongst some that facilities and accommodating some housing growth as environment had not improved to match part of a sustainable strategy for recent housing developments. There was development. no consensus on the need for new housing development, but there was some perceived Armitage with Handsacre need for accommodation for particular groups: affordable housing for younger 6.6 General factors: The present day people, bungalows for the elderly housing settlement results from the coalescence of for first-time buyers and smaller properties the two formerly separate communities of for downsizing were among the suggestions Armitage and Handsacre, making it made on local need. elongated along the main roads. It is unlike many rural settlements in having a single 6.9 Despite disagreement on future need major employer, but the large settlement residents were willing to contemplate options today results from mainly twentieth century for future housing growth. The key issue for development, including major housing many was maintaining physical separation development in the 1990’s, which enabled from Rugeley and no-one was willing to provision of the village hall and major open consider options that would reduce the space. Its main facilities, including the village separation any further. Within workshop hall, health centre and some shops, are groups, whilst some felt the need to protect loosely located in the New Road/ the Green Belt, others considered Green Brook Road area. Belt land south of the village as the best location for new development. 6.7 Local views: Whilst most people living in Armitage with Handsacre valued their 6.10 Development needs and potential rural environment, they were particularly sites: The local community sees the concerned that a range of issues should be priorities for Armitage with Handsacre as addressed that affected their quality of life. improvements to facilities and infrastructure The priorities identified amongst residents rather than growth, although it does were to reduce the impact of traffic and acknowledge that there may be some improve pedestrian accessibility, to maintain specific housing needs. The District Council public transport, to improve the range of has prepared evidence on housing need for activities available for both younger people the preparation of the Local Plan Strategy, and adults, to address highway flooding including a Strategic Housing Markets issues and for environmental improvements Assessment, 2008. The evidence suggests to spaces. One of the issues raised was a significant housing need within the District whether there is an issue of a single identity as a whole, a substantial element of which for the village as a result of its origins as results from migration demand. Armitage separate communities. Today’s physical, with Handsacre has been a popular location structure with an elongated shape, a spread for housing for both local residents and of local facilities and the distance of some migrants because house prices tend to be areas from the village hall, main open a little lower than some parts of Lichfield spaces and some local services was District. A Rural Housing Needs survey considered by some to have a harmful prepared for the District Council in 2008 impact on community ‘identity’. gave some indication that there is some local need, for people to move within the 6.8 In terms of future development many area, to form new households and as a villagers questioned the need for any new destination for households moving from housing and it was apparent that there was elsewhere. There were also indications that

July 2012 21 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

there may be difficulty for some in being able Masterplanning Village Report and the to access the open market to realise their Report concludes that in the light in housing needs locally. It needs to be noted particular of the form of the village and however that the needs have proved difficult where the existing facilities are to quantify at the local level. concentrated, development in the area of Brick Kiln farm would be the preferred 6.11 In relation to potential future location for any village extension. Capacity development locations for Armitage with in this area would be around 100 dwellings. Handsacre, some recent development has taken place and there is some remaining 6.14 Recommendations for the Green identified housing capacity within the Belt: Locally there is a short-term but settlement. A significant proportion of the significant increase in the availability of new new capacity would be through dwellings in the local housing market, redevelopment of a small part of the Ideal through the development of the major site Standard (Armitage Shanks) works. The east of Rugeley. There also remain potential Rural Planning Village Report identifies a options within the settlement boundary that total capacity of some 106 dwellings from involve redeveloping brownfield land, which 2010, taking account of recent are likely to come to fruition during the plan developments and the potential Ideal period. It is considered therefore that there Standard redevelopment. is no immediate or short-term need presently identified that would require a Green Belt 6.12 In the absence of the redevelopment amendment. However it needs to be there is little remaining capacity within the recognised in the case of Armitage with settlement to meet local needs or any Handsacre that there are limited emerging community aspirations. However development options for village expansion there is development under construction and that those identified all lie within the attached to the eastern edge of Rugeley that Green Belt. There may therefore be medium lies within the Parish of Armitage with or longer-term needs arising for Handsacre and the emerging Local Plan development that would need to rely on Strategy identifies a further proposal for a Green Belt land and the absence of suitable strategic site of 450 dwellings on brownfield alternatives may constitute ‘exceptional land beyond the Green Belt. Whilst these circumstances’ for amending the Green Belt developments will play a major part in boundary. In addition to meeting local meeting the housing needs of Rugeley they housing needs, the local priority for will nevertheless serve the local housing additional community activities and facilities market around Armitage with Handsacre. should be recognised and both of these It may be concluded therefore that there are could potentially be met south of the village a range of potential options to meet local in proximity to the existing centre of village housing needs, although development east activity. For these reasons it is considered of Rugeley is unlikely to contribute that the Local Plan Strategy should significantly to reinforcing community identity acknowledge that there may be a need to within the existing village. amend the Green Belt boundary in the Brick Kiln Farm area to meet locally identified 6.13 Largely because of flood risk and needs and aspirations. The 'Allocations' flood plain constraints, all reasonable process, which would identify specific options for development beyond the village boundaries for the Green Belt, should clarify potentially relate to development within the Green Belt, either to the west, east, or south. These are described in the Rural

22 July 2012 the likelihood and timescales for the 6.17 Local views: People living in implementation of the redevelopment Fazeley, Mile Oak and Bonehill were opportunities within the village. particularly concerned that a range of issues should be addressed that were seen as Fazeley Mile Oak and Bonehill affecting their quality of life. In particular deficiencies in the quality of the built 6.15 General factors: Fazeley, Mile Oak environment, (such as potential building and Bonehill are three communities dereliction and poor maintenance), and the physically joined by twentieth century growth poor quality of social and community that today form a single settlement, although facilities are seen as priority issues. In a Bonehill retains some separation. It lies at similar way to Armitage with Handsacre, one the outer edge of the West Midlands Green of the issues raised through the Rural Belt, the outer boundary here being formed Planning Project was re-enforcing a single by the Birmingham and Fazeley and identity for the village, seen by some as an Coventry canals. More significantly it is issue because of its physical form and physically joined to the town of Tamworth origins as separate communities. at its north eastern and eastern edges. Tamworth has a population of around 6.18 Residents were more concerned with 76,000 people, but also a range of shopping improving the environment and the quality and other facilities that are easily accessible and range of local facilities than with future to Fazeley residents. This relationship also development. However current housing means that Fazeley residents have access issues were raised, identified as limited to the larger local housing market of social housing choice, including specialist Tamworth. The converse situation, i.e. that housing for older people and housing for housing in Fazeley is very accessible to families. There was some acceptance of Tamworth residents, may have some impact redevelopment potential within the upon local accessibility to housing, for settlement but a reluctance to consider example for first time buyers. options for expansion of the settlement. This was mostly because expansion threatened 6.16 Fazeley and Bonehill have a historic the separate identity of Fazeley and industrial heritage linked to the tape milling increased the likelihood of the settlement industry and the Peel family. This heritage effectively merging into Tamworth, both forms the basis of a Conservation Area that physically and in administrative terms. impacts upon the potential for realising Therefore, although the Strategic Housing housing capacity within the settlement. An Land Availability Assessment had identified example is the need to retain and re-use the potential greenfield sites around Mile Oak local landmark building of Tolson’s Mill, and Bonehill amounting to some 700 which is redundant. There is a Fazeley local dwellings, all of which were in the Green centre, where most shops and facilities are Belt, it was clear that most residents would located, and this is some distance from the find development of any of these sites communities at Mile Oak and Bonehill. The unacceptable. River Tame flood plain and the more limited flood risk area associated with 6.19 Development needs and potential (which flows south of the settlement from sites: The District Council’s evidence on the west to meet the River Tame) effectively housing need for the preparation of the prevent growth of the settlement to the east Local Plan Strategy, suggests a significant and south, where it is also restricted by housing need within the District as a whole, Theme Park. and a need within the Tamworth Housing Market Area, although need within Fazeley,

July 2012 23 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

Mile Oak and Bonehill has not been 6.22 Recommendations for the Green individually assessed. Within Fazeley, Mile Belt: The conclusions of the Rural Oak and Bonehill the proportion of the total Masterplanning Report that there are housing stock that is social housing is 22%, existing and potential redevelopment which is relatively high compared to other opportunities and that the existing larger rural settlements within the District. separation from Tamworth is important, The Rural Housing Survey (2008) found that effectively mean that no case has been the proportion both of households who identified and accepted by the District planned a move and newly formed Council that there are any ‘exceptional households expected to rent, was higher circumstances’ that would justify amending when compared to other parts of the District. the Green Belt boundaries in this area. For Overall the evidence suggests that there is these reasons it is considered that the Local likely to be a need for affordable and social Plan does not need to identify Fazeley, Mile housing. Oak and Bonehill as an area where Green Belt boundary changes may be 6.20 The constraints affecting Fazeley, necessary. Mile Oak and Bonehill limit the development options available to locations to the north, Little Aston west and south-west of the existing settlement. All of the housing options, which 6.23 General factors: The defining amount to some 700 dwellings, represent characteristics of Little Aston are that for the an outward spread of the settlement, or most part it has a very low density of would lead to the enclosure of Bonehill, development, much of which is set within a increasing its physical connection to leafy landscape created by a tree canopy Tamworth or Mile Oak. across the area. The architecture and quality of the environment are recognised through 6.21 Taking account of the fragile nature the designation of an extensive of the physical separation between Fazeley Conservation Area. Its position as an outer and Tamworth, but also of the significant ‘suburb’ has also be recognised, since it level of redevelopment capacity already effectively forms part of the outer edge of identified in the settlement, the Rural the built up area of the West Midlands Masterplanning report recommends that no conurbation. This is a fundamental greenfield land releases should be consideration in considering the potential or considered at present. At 2010 there was options for any future development. identified capacity of 247 dwellings within the settlement, higher than any other larger 6.24 In the past Little Aston has seen a rural settlement within the District. The report considerable level of infill development, further notes that due to the presence of mainly through redevelopments of large small industrial complexes and individual dwellings in extensive grounds. The adopted sites, there may be further redevelopment Local Plan includes a low density opportunities coming forward within the plan development policy to protect the existing period. Since the preparation of the rural character of the area, which covers the Masterplanning Report an Evidence Base remaining area of Little Aston Park. The Report on Employment within the District Rural Masterplanning Report recommends (Employment Land Review 2012) has that this policy continues to be applied. It is identified the potential for redevelopment of notable that Little Aston covers an extensive the William Tolson Industrial estate. area, has a number of locations where there are facilities and local shops, but no identifiable central place to the community.

24 July 2012 It is not freestanding and relies on character of the settlement. Some people neighbouring areas for wider shopping and suggested there was a local need for town centre facilities. housing to provide opportunities for ‘downsizing’, but overall no strong view 6.25 A key conclusion of the Rural expressed on the need for new housing. Masterplanning Project was that Little Aston should no longer be included within the ‘key 6.28 Development needs and potential rural settlements’ of the District because its sites: The Local Plan evidence base on characteristics do not support it functioning housing shows that the ‘rural south’ part of as a local service centre or a focus for any Lichfield District has some of the highest future development, including housing. levels of owner occupation and some of the Important points leading to this conclusion highest house prices. For Little Aston owner were the limited range and wide spread of occupation is at around 95%. There is a low facilities and services, limited remaining supply of social housing. Most local people scope for infill development, the significance who expected to move in the short term of its Green Belt location in terms of the expected to be in market housing, principally spread of the conurbation and that its limited four and three bedroomed detached facilities themselves have wider catchments dwellings, with little specific demand for to help support them for the longer term. social housing. Against this context of a likely limited local housing need, the area 6.26 Local views: Little Aston is a would certainly be attractive to the housing community that lies at the inner edge of the market and a number of both large and small Green Belt and for the most part the sites have been promoted through the settlement is joined to parts of Sutton Strategic Housing Land Availability Coldfield and Streetly. It is generally of high Assessment. Most of these sites lie within environmental quality. Much, but not all, of the Green Belt and identified capacity within the area is built at very low densities, which Little Aston at 2010 amounted to only 37 accounts for its large area and that Little dwellings. Aston residents identified a number of separate ‘districts’ of Little Aston during the 6.29 The conclusions reached about the Rural Masterplanning workshops. It was future role of Little Aston, which focus on clear that most people liked living in Little environmental and social objectives, rather Aston, but the Rural Masterplanning Project than a role in meeting housing demand, found a divergence of views from residents mean that there is no strategy context to on issues affecting the settlement. support the outward expansion of the Maintaining the quality of the environment settlement. This in turn would support the was important to most people who role of the Green Belt in this area, which commented, and there appeared to be a fundamentally is to prevent the outward level of consensus that Little Aston needs spread of the conurbation. Although there a clearer identity. There was little consensus are significant development options that however on whether there was a need for would be capable of implementation, none more local facilities, where any should be of them would be appropriate in this context. located, or if public transport improvements were needed. 6.30 Recommendations for the Green Belt: The conclusions of the Rural 6.27 Few residents who took part in the Masterplanning Report on the future role of Rural Masterplanning Project had any desire Little Aston and the importance of the for any significant expansion of Little Aston existing Green Belt boundaries in limiting and their priorities were for maintaining the the spread of the conurbation mean that it

July 2012 25 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

would be undesirable for the Local Plan 6.33 Residents who took part in the Rural Strategy to identify Little Aston as a location Masterplanning Project gave priority to where Green Belt boundaries may need to resolving traffic and transport issues, such be amended. Rather, the Strategy should as traffic speed, heavy traffic and increasing emphasise that the inner edge of the Green the frequency of stopping trains. Retaining Belt will continue to play a fundamental role the character of the village was also a in planning strategy and that there are no priority when contemplating the possibility identified circumstances that suggest any of future development. Some people were amendment to its existing boundaries. interested in developing projects to provide renewable energy for the village. In terms Shenstone of housing there were views supporting the need for some housing to meet local needs, 6.31 General factors: Key features of which included homes for ‘downsizing’, Shenstone are that it is a compact village smaller housing for young people and with a Conservation Area at its heart, a affordable housing, but no specific reference range of facilities and a rail station on the to ‘social housing’. Villagers were willing to cross-city rail line. Its residential area is consider options for future housing growth, largely contained within the rail line in the although the clear preference was for an west and Birmingham road in the east, whilst approach that developed brownfield to the north the Footherley Brook limits the opportunities ahead of greenfield sites. northward spread of the village. West of the railway line however is a significantly sized 6.34 Development needs and potential industrial estate, which, whilst it provides sites: Shenstone falls within the ‘rural south’ employment, has given rise to local issues part of Lichfield District, which has some of about the impact of heavy traffic through the the highest levels of owner occupation and village. Some people have questioned some of the highest house prices. There is whether the industrial units provided many a low supply of social housing. Evidence on jobs for local people. The estate parkland local housing need is not specifically of Shenstone Court lies at the southern edge quantified for Shenstone, although overall of the village, and was seen by many it is considered that there are needs within residents as an important feature to keep, the ‘Lichfield south’ part of the District that adding to the village character. could potentially be met at Shenstone. The area would be attractive to the housing 6.32 Local views: Shenstone is a market and offer the opportunity of travel by freestanding village that lies some two miles train. north of Little Aston and three miles south of Lichfield along one of the main commuter 6.35 The SHLAA process has identified routes between Lichfield and Birmingham. limited opportunities for redevelopment It was clear from the Rural Masterplanning within Shenstone with capacity only of 36 Project that people living in Shenstone dwellings (at 2010), including development valued the good quality of rural environment of 14 dwellings on Lynn Lane outside the it provided and the relatively easy access village boundary. Some major sites have the location gave them to both Lichfield and been put forward by the development Birmingham, with a choice of private or industry within this process, which either lie public transport. There was a strong sense within the Green Belt or involve the of a single community, a willingness to redevelopment of all or part of the contemplate change, but a view that this Shenstone industrial estate. At the should be limited. workshops some residents contemplated an eastwards development of the village,

26 July 2012 involving the construction of a bypass. This settlement. It is concluded therefore that the was seen as a longer term option by those Local Plan does not need to identify people who thought it might offer Shenstone as a location where the Green opportunities for growth. belt boundaries should be amended.

6.36 The conclusions reached by the Whittington Rural Masterplanning Project were that in addition to any infill capacity, preference 6.38 General factors: Whittington is an should be given to the redevelopment of part historic village that ‘nestles’ into the of the Industrial Estate, principally for landscape, sitting in a shallow depression, housing, but also potentially for small and having some significant slopes to its business development. Whilst employment south rising towards Whittington Barracks. evidence confirms the viability of the Whilst there are some local issues relating industrial estate, part of it is currently to ecology, flood risk and access, there are unoccupied. There is a need for the Local no over-riding physical constraints that Plan to consider an issue of competing would prevent future development. Although objectives in terms of the future of this area. Whittington saw significant growth in the A capacity of around 80 to 100 dwellings twentieth century up to the 1980’s, there has was recommended, as a partial been little development since then except redevelopment by the Rural Masterplanning for the recent redevelopment of a special Report. It was considered that school. redevelopment of the whole estate ran the risk of reducing the potential of Shenstone 6.39 Local views: Whittington is a as a sustainable community. However there freestanding village that lies only some two might be a range of options for miles from Lichfield. Separated from the redevelopment that would deliver different village, but having an important relationship scales of housing if the recommended area with it, is Whittington Barracks, which is in could not all be delivered. Few people the process of being converted to a national attending the consultation event on the draft medical training establishment for all three Village Report were opposed to forces. Throughout the Rural Masterplanning redevelopment in principle, although some Project it was clear that there was a strong identified that linkages between this area local community and that people valued and the rest of the village would need to be ‘community spirit’, some linking it to the improved. scale of the settlement. Villagers valued the quality of their local environment and access 6.37 Recommendations for the Green to the countryside. Most people thought Belt: Taking account of the potential to there was a good range of local facilities and deliver capacity of around 136 dwellings for recognised that their recreation facilities Shenstone, through redevelopment of part were being improved. There were issues, of the Industrial Estate, it is considered that however, particularly relating to traffic speed, there is no currently identified ‘exceptional’ and some sought additional traffic need to consider amendments to the Green management measures. A local group are Belt boundaries in this area. Should seeking to develop Whittington as an additional requirements for housing be ‘exemplar’ village in the use of renewable identified, then a next step would be to energy. consider whether the option of further redevelopment of the Industrial Estate could 6.40 There was concern among many be implemented without unacceptable harm villagers that a significant scale of additional to the sustainability of Shenstone as a development involving village extension into

July 2012 27 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

the countryside would erode the character services and facilities, although it is likely of the village. Various views were expressed that the scale of development currently about a local need for particular types of identified would lead to a largely static or housing, including starter homes, ‘supported’ slightly declining village population. As a housing, and smaller houses to allow result of this the Rural Masterplanning ‘downsizing’. However there appeared to be Village Report concludes that following the a fair degree of consensus that existing resolution of the matter of the scale of village boundaries should be retained. housing need for the District as a whole, there is a need to confirm whether small 6.41 Development needs and potential scale Green Belt sites on the periphery of sites: Whilst there is no evidence on Whittington should be carried forward. housing need related to Whittington itself, Whittington forms the largest village of the 6.43 The consultation on the draft Village ‘rural east’ part of the District. The Evidence Report for Whittington showed some support Base does suggest that there is some local for the view that there should be some housing need, although both those growth to help maintain the viability of the households intending to move and those local services in the longer term. Overall the potentially forming new households were Rural Masterplanning Report conclusions principally interested in owner occupation. are that if Green Belt sites are proven to be Taking account of the limited capacity within necessary, those at Armitage and at the current Whittington settlement boundary, Whittington should be considered in the SHLAA process has identified two preference to other potential Green Belt significant sites on the north and south sites. boundaries of the village respectively, together with a smaller area on Back Lane. 6.44 Recommendations for the Green The Rural Masterplanning Village Report Belt: Of all the ‘key rural settlements’, identifies preferences for the smaller Back Whittington has the smallest identified Lane sites and the Huddlesford Lane site housing capacity within its boundaries. As (60 dwellings), in preference to development discussed above, the limited capacity gives south of the village. rise to some risk of declining population and pressure on facilities. It is considered that 6.42 The housing capacity identified within the potential for a slow decline of a Whittington through infill and redevelopment settlement could be an ‘exceptional amounts to only some 33 to 38 dwellings (at circumstance’ that might justify an 2010), part of which (Chapel amendment to the Green Belt boundary in Lane/Blacksmith Lane) remains untested in the village to allow for limited growth. terms of availability and capacity. The overall However, as noted, there are uncertainties situation of little recent development and in the argument and in the potential impact little identified capacity is unique among the of population decline. framework of key rural settlements within the District. It gives rise to a potential issue 6.45 It is suggested therefore that there of whether the population of Whittington is needs to be additional weight given to likely to fall in the future through the arguments for amending the Green Belt. continuation of the trend towards lower One such argument could be local household occupancy rates. No aspirations for limited growth and the Rural development at all would result in a gradual Planning Project has revealed that there are fall in population. The effects of falling some local people who see a need for household size over a 20 year period are growth. There remain uncertainties in these uncertain, including any impact on local arguments. These may be resolved over

28 July 2012 time, for example Whittington is itself developing a Parish Plan. In the light of the circumstances identified, there is a need to consider including Whittington in the Local Plan as a location where the Green Belt boundaries may be amended to meet local requirements for housing growth.

July 2012 29 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

7 Smaller Green Belt Inset change or development. The Village Context Villages Plans are included as an Appendix to this report, as a separate document. 7.1 In addition to the larger villages 7.3 It is known through responses to the considered above, there are six smaller preparation stages of the Local Plan villages that are also Inset into the Green Strategy, that some of the villages have local Belt. These are Drayton Bassett, aspirations for change, which may include Hammerwich, Hopwas, Longdon, Stonnall some development. It is intended that the and Upper Longdon. Each of these villages consideration of each village will assist the was inset into the Green Belt by the original Lichfield District Local Plan Strategy to proposed Staffordshire Green Belt as part provide an appropriate framework for the of the County Development Plan, although local communities to consider their future the boundaries have had minor amendments and provide some guidance on appropriate made through subsequent Local Plans. directions for and scale of future 7.2 This section of the report considers development, should this form part of each village individually. For these villages community aspirations. It is considered that Lichfield District Council has not facilitated this approach fits in with the emerging specific community participation exercises approach to local community development seeking local views on village issues or but also allows a view to be taken on attitudes to change, although views have whether there would be implications for been received individually from villagers as Green Belt boundaries in individual villages part of general consultations on the Local that need to be highlighted within the Local Plan. The community in Stonnall is however Plan Strategy. developing its own Neighbourhood Plan and 7.4 The Rural Settlement Sustainability has undertaken considerable work locally Study, 2011, was able to group the District’s in preparation for this. The approach taken settlements into high, medium or low in for these villages has been to examine the terms of both the facilities present within the known factors that would be relevant to the settlement and their accessibility to facilities consideration of change, to potential growth outside the settlement by public transport. and the implications of these for the Green These measures were used as a proxy for Belt. Each village is considered in terms of the level of ‘sustainability’ of each ‘sustainability’ factors, character and settlement. Whereas all of the larger villages constraints, potential development options, considered in the previous section of this scale factors, and recommendations. A Report fell into the high category on both ‘Context Plan’ for each village has been measures, the smaller ‘Inset’ villages prepared, which illustrates factors relevant showed a more mixed picture. The Table to the consideration of the potential for below shows how each of the villages performed overall within the RSSS on the two measures.

(i) Village Population Dwellings RSSS Facilities RSSS Accessibility Measure Measure

Drayton Bassett 723 304 Low Low

i Population & dwellings at 2001 with the exception of Hopwas, which is estimate at 2012

30 July 2012 (i) Village Population Dwellings RSSS Facilities RSSS Accessibility Measure Measure

Hammerwich 870 323 Low Low

Hopwas 650 265 Medium High

Longdon 557 245 Medium Low

Stonnall 1,298 571 Medium Low

Upper Longdon 399 175 Low Low

Table 7.1

7.5 The Table also illustrates the general 7.7 There are no current indicators that size of these villages, which is significantly there are specific housing or other smaller than the group identified as ‘key development needs or aspirations for growth settlements’ within the District, where the in Drayton Bassett and it should be noted size ranges from 2,000 to nearly 5,000 that no developer interest has been people. Stonnall seems to fall into a category identified by the Strategic Housing Land of its own, lying between the two groups of Availability process. Two recent planning villages in terms of its size. permissions for single dwellings have however been granted. Drayton Bassett 7.8 The range of remaining facilities 7.6 Sustainability: Drayton Bassett lies present within the village provides the just to the south of Fazeley, one of the framework for a vibrant community life for largest rural settlements within Lichfield residents. This suggests that Drayton District. At around 300 dwellings Drayton Bassett is not a totally unsustainable rural Bassett is of a mid-size in the group of location, but its lack of local shop and limited smaller Inset villages, but has scored ‘Low’ public transport increase reliance on the for both the facilities and accessibility private car to access important facilities. assessments within the Rural Settlements These factors suggest that some future Sustainability Study (RSSS). It is noted development could be appropriate to meet however that a limited Community bus a local need or aspiration, but that it should service now operates for the village, which be of a very limited scale. slightly improves its accessibility. Despite the ‘Low’ score within the RSSS, the village 7.9 Character and Constraints: Drayton does have a range of facilities to support Bassett is a compact village set on a slight local community life, in particular a primary rise above the valley of the River Tame. It school, church, recreation ground with some is an ancient settlement. The Historic modern facilities, a Club and a W.I. Hall. The Environment Character Appraisal prepared village has lost its Post Office and shop in by Staffordshire County Council as evidence the recent past; the former store/P.O. now for the Local Plan notes that settlement at being a residential property. Drayton Bassett is likely to date from at least the later Anglo-Saxon period since two water mills held by the King were recorded in the Domesday Book. However the village has i Population & dwellings at 2001 with the exception of Hopwas, which is estimate at 2012

July 2012 31 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

been much affected by modern development 7.12 Development needs and potential and there is only a small core of sites: Within the village options to meet any conservation interest, centred on the Listed small-scale need would be limited to either buildings of St. Peter’s church and New existing open spaces or to redevelopment. Row. The existing open spaces within the settlement boundary are amenity spaces so 7.10 The compact and largely modern small in size as to be impractical for form of the village means that there are few consideration. There are no non-residential spaces within the settlement boundary to uses within the village that are currently provide potential for small-scale redundant and therefore suitable options development and therefore it would be within the village cannot be identified. difficult to meet any development needs Outside the village boundary, the landscape within the village without redevelopment of difficulties caused by the large open fields existing properties. There are a number of referred to above make the definition of dwellings in large grounds outside the boundaries for future development options settlement boundary on the approach from difficult. However it is considered that if a Tamworth, that form part of the village, but future development need is identified it is lie within the Green Belt. likely to be best met through the continuation of frontage development on the south side 7.11 In the consideration of any of Drayton Lane, as indicated on the village development beyond the existing village Context Plan (see separate Appendix boundaries, there are few specific flood risk document). Access here would not be a or ecological issues, however the general difficulty, compared to other potential setting of Drayton Bassett within the locations and although there would clearly surrounding landscape is important. While be an impact. A form and scale of a high point of the village is reached around development could be achieved here that the church, the village is set almost upon a would be sympathetic to the previous gentle plateau, which is revealed from the development of the village. south and from the east. Tree belts immediately to the north of the village, 7.13 Scale: The ‘sustainability’ (including Edden’s Wood), are important to considerations assessed through the RSSS the setting but also to screening from suggest that any development of Drayton . Any growth or Bassett should be very limited in scale. consolidation of the village northwards would There is however little identifiable capacity tend to promote the merging of Drayton within the existing village boundary and any Bassett with the Drayton Manor Park site development options do not by complex. Most of the fields to the west, themselves assist in defining scale because south and east of the village are large in of the lack of boundaries. Options of around scale giving an openness to the immediate 10 - 15 dwellings would be capable of being surroundings of the village. This means that defined along Drayton Lane in the area there would be no obvious boundaries that identified, through frontage development. could define small-scale developments, but also that development on any of these 7.14 Recommendations for the Green edges would be prominent either on Belt: No specific needs or aspirations are approaches to the village or in the wider currently identified in the village. If future landscape. small-scale needs or aspirations for development emerge within Drayton Bassett, it is considered that the potential of any small infill or redevelopment opportunities

32 July 2012 would need to be fully explored at the time, scored ‘Low’ for both the facilities and before consideration of village extensions. accessibility assessments within the Rural Dependent upon the outcome of this Settlements Sustainability Study (RSSS). process, then development of a limited scale The village has limited facilities and no along the south side of Drayton Lane is likely longer has a primary school. However there to provide the most acceptable village is a limited range of local facilities that extension option compatible with village form contribute to community life. These include in this area. a shop and post office, church, community centre, social club and cricket and bowling 7.15 It is difficult to identify ‘exceptional club. Because of the proximity of Burntwood, circumstances’ at present that would justify some local needs are met there, including any change to the existing Green Belt schools. boundary. If a local affordable housing need is identified in future this could potentially 7.17 It is clear from the activities operating be dealt with through an ‘exceptions site’ within the social and community facilities policy, since this approach has been located in the village that Hammerwich has retained within the National Planning Policy a thriving local community life. The Framework. However if a need or aspiration limitations on the range of facilities however, for a more ‘mixed,’ mostly market housing suggest that the village is not a particularly development is identified, for example suitable location for considering any involving both open market and affordable significant growth, when compared with housing, then provided the options for many other rural settlements within the development within the village have been District. This does not mean, however, that fully explored, this may amount to should a specific local need be identified in ‘exceptional circumstances’ for a minor the future, there would necessarily be any amendment to the Green Belt, potentially in significant harm in meeting the need within the location suggested in paragraph 7.11. or on the edge of the village. The Despite the relatively poor ‘performance’ on ‘sustainability’ considerations taken by sustainability issues in the RSSS and themselves suggest that any development although future needs or aspirations for should be of a very limited scale. development are yet to emerge, in the light of the very limited possibilities for 7.18 Character and Constraints: The development within the existing village Historic Environment Character Appraisal boundary, it is considered that Drayton prepared by Staffordshire County Council Bassett should be identified in the Local Plan notes that Hammerwich is thought to have Strategy as a settlement where there may developed from three medieval hamlets, but be a need to make minor amendments to there is no significant conservation interest the Green Belt boundary. in the settlement as its exists today. Although linear in parts, there is Hammerwich development in depth in some more recent parts of the village. The ‘knoll’ of higher 7.16 Sustainability: Hammerwich is ground known as ‘Hammerwich Square’ has located immediately to the east of the built been an important influence in the form of up area of Burntwood. It is a village of the village and although in distance, the unusual form, which may relate to its origins eastern edge of Burntwood lies close to the as three different hamlets, but also to the village, landform as a whole tends to landform of the area. At around 320 re-enforce the separateness of the village dwellings Hammerwich is of a mid-size in from the town. The location of Hammerwich the group of smaller Inset villages, but has between Burntwood and some of the main

July 2012 33 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

commuter destinations within the West Local Plan has led to a major local campaign Midlands has resulted in some ‘rat run’ traffic against this scale and location of issues that have been addressed through development. Whilst this review is not traffic management measures within the considering development of this scale, the village. issue of potential for coalescence with Burntwood is nevertheless relevant to 7.19 At the northern end of the village small-scale development and is a major there is a flood risk area, which includes the factor against locations that would extend relatively modern triangular area of housing the village to the west. between Overton Lane, Pingle Lane and Burntwood Road. This area extends in an 7.23 Beyond the eastern edge of the east-west band across the fields in this village in the Hall Lane/Church Lane area, northern part of the village. It coincides with there are a number of potential locations for an area that has been identified as having small-scale development, should there be some historic landscape interest in the small a future requirement. These locations are fields around Appletree Farm, with the fields shown on the village Context Plan (see also being of some ecological interest. separate Appendix document). None of these have come forward through the 7.20 The relatively narrow lanes in the SHLAA process and they would need to be south of the village, the presence of some investigated in detail to establish individual significant slopes and roadside banks, all constraints. However this general location contribute to the character of the village, but for small-scale development is likely to have also limit suitable development options, even less impact overall, taking account of the for small scale development. There are factors elsewhere, including the potential for therefore a number of significant local coalescence. constraints within and on the edges of Hammerwich that would need to be taken 7.24 Scale: The ‘sustainability’ account of in considering any future considerations assessed through the RSSS development. suggest that any development of Hammerwich should be very limited in scale. 7.21 Development needs and potential Sites for a small number of dwellings on the sites: Within the village there are few edge of the existing village may, however, spaces that could provide options to meet be possible, to meet a locally identified need any small-scale development needs without or aspiration. The potential sites that may redevelopment of existing property. Two be suitable suggest that development should small-scale areas of open land near the be limited in scale to around 10 dwellings. Burntwood Lane/Pingle Lane junction may have flood risk issues. 7.25 Recommendations for the Green Belt: No specific local needs are currently 7.22 There has been significant developer identified in the village; indeed there remains interest in sites to the west of Hammerwich, a local campaign of opposition to Green Belt which lie between it and the eastern edge development related to strategic sites. If of Burntwood. The size of these sites is future small-scale needs or aspirations for strategic in scale, with a total capacity development emerge within Hammerwich amounting to over 500 dwellings. Their the potential of any small infill or development would have a major impact on redevelopment opportunities would first the physical separation of Hammerwich from need to be fully explored, although none are Burntwood. The promotion and apparent at present. Dependent upon the consideration of these sites through the outcome of this process, then development

34 July 2012 of a limited scale at the eastern edge of the Sustainability Study. In relation to facilities village in the Hall Lane/Church Lane area Hopwas was a mid-range scoring village is likely to be the most acceptable village and in relation to accessibility it was a high extension option compatible with village form scoring village. The latter is related to the in this area, although care would be needed frequency of service on the bus route in the definition of boundaries. between Lichfield and Tamworth. The village has a range of facilities to support local 7.26 It is difficult to identify ‘exceptional community life, in particular a primary circumstances’ at present that would justify school, two churches, a small recreation any change to the existing Green Belt ground with some modern facilities, two boundary. If a local affordable housing need pubs and a Club. The village has however, is identified in future this could potentially lost its Post Office and shop. be dealt with through an ‘exceptions site’ policy, since this approach has been 7.28 There are no current indications that retained within the National Planning Policy there are identified local housing or other Framework. If a need or aspiration for a development needs or aspirations. It should more ‘mixed,’ mostly market housing be noted that no developer interest has been development is identified, for example identified through the Strategic Housing involving both open market and affordable Land Availability process, other than on 3 housing, then options for development within infill plots, for 1 or 2 dwellings, within the the village would need to be more fully village boundary, which are now completed. explored. If there are no suitable sites available, this may amount to ‘exceptional 7.29 Despite the lack of a village store, circumstances’ justifying a minor the range of facilities present within the amendment to the Green Belt, potentially in village provides the framework for a vibrant the locations suggested. Despite the community life for residents. Although there relatively poor ‘performance’ on is reliance on the shopping and other sustainability issues in the RSSS and facilities of nearby Tamworth, the although future needs or aspirations for combination of the range of local facilities development are yet to emerge, in the light and good accessibility suggests that some of the very limited possibilities for small-scale development of the village could development within the existing village be sustainable in the rural context of boundary, it is considered that Hammerwich Lichfield District. should be identified in the Local Plan Strategy as a settlement where there may 7.30 Character and Constraints: be a need to make minor amendments to Hopwas is an example of a relatively well the Green Belt boundary. preserved rural village, which is largely linear in form. The older part of the village is Hopwas aligned north – south along Hints Road and School Lane. This area is the historic core 7.27 Sustainability: Hopwas lies to the of Hopwas and is a designated Conservation west of Tamworth, but separated from it by Area. It sits just above the flood plain of the the valley of the River Tame. Hopwas is at River Tame and its linear form is parallel to a river crossing point and today lies on the the river. More recent parts of the village lie A51 route between Lichfield and Tamworth. both sides of the A51, which rises up from At around 265 dwellings Hopwas is relatively the river on a hill that reaches to the small, but nevertheless scored the best of heathland plateau of Whittington Heath to the group of smaller Green Belt ‘Inset’ villages in the Rural Settlements

July 2012 35 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

the west. This area mainly comprises 7.34 Options outside the village boundary frontage development plots most of which that may have some potential to meet future are detached and have large deep gardens. needs lie in the south-west part of the village, between Plantation Lane and 7.31 Seen from the south and east the Nursery Lane. These are shown on the village has a dramatic setting as it rises up village Context Plan (see separate Appendix from the river valley, particularly because it document). These include the site of the also has the backcloth of Hopwas Woods nursery itself, where the existing nursery that reaches to the edge of the village. This buildings and glasshouses are largely ancient woodland and site of biological derelict, and the field (divided into two by a interest effectively limits the growth of the fence) between the end of Plantation Lane village northwards. and Nursery Lane. As indicated above, access to this area from Nursery Lane has 7.32 The character of Hopwas is the difficulty of the canal bridge and poor enhanced by the presence of the Fazeley width and this would need careful canal, which as well as providing a local consideration to determine whether an tourist attraction, impacts upon the quality acceptable access could be achieved. The of access particularly because of the three alternative of accessing this area from hump-backed bridges on the A51 Lichfield Plantation Lane appears preferable, Road, Nursery Lane and Hints Road. As however it would potentially have the effect well as the obvious constraint of the River of limiting the integration of any development Tame flood plain to the east, these bridges with the core of the village. and the narrowness of the lanes within the village, are limiting factors in relation to the 7.35 Scale: The consideration of the size potential for future development. of the village suggests that a local need, if any, would be small. However the 7.33 Development needs and potential sustainability assessment suggests that sites: Within the village boundary there are some limited growth of the village might be few spaces that could provide options to acceptable. The site availability meet any small-scale development needs. considerations indicate no effective capacity One potential option would be an area of within the village. Options that have potential former orchard off Church Drive that fronts are located on the south side of the village, Lichfield Road, however it is positioned where effective limits to development could adjacent to St. Chad’s church, which is listed be established. These limits suggest that a building. This open land forms part of the choice of development sites could be setting of the church and it is considered considered ranging from in the order of 5 that development would be harmful to this dwellings to 15 dwellings. setting. There are small fields adjacent to the southern edge of the village on Hints 7.36 Recommendations for the Green Road. These however lie within the Belt: At present there are no identified Conservation Area and form part of its development requirements established that setting on the approach to the heart of the are specific to Hopwas and no developer village from the south. The combination of interest. In terms of the implications for the the impact on the Conservation Area and Green Belt therefore, it is difficult to identify poor road access make this area unsuitable ‘exceptional circumstances’ at present that for consideration as a development option. would justify any change to the existing Green Belt boundary. If a local need or aspiration for development is established for the village, there is no identified capacity

36 July 2012 that would not be harmful to conservation 7.39 The range of facilities present in the interests. However, the sustainability village suggests that it has the potential to assessment suggests that Hopwas could support a limited level of development. The be a village where some limited growth opportunities for social and recreational might be acceptable. The likely preferred activities available and the publicity apparent option sites to the south of the village lie within the village through notices and within the Green Belt. In the light of this posters suggest a vibrant local community. combination of factors consideration should Despite the limitations of public transport, in be given to whether the Local Plan Strategy overall terms Longdon could be a should identify Hopwas as one of the sustainable location for limited rural villages where a minor amendment to the development that meets a local need or existing Green Belt boundaries might be aspiration. necessary to facilitate local/neighbourhood planning in the future. 7.40 Character and Constraints: Longdon is an attractive village with Longdon significant charm at its heart along Brook End, although there is no Conservation 7.37 Sustainability: The village of Area. It is set within the shallow valley of Longdon has less than 250 dwellings, with Shropshire Brook, which flows through the a population of around 550 people. There centre of the village on its route from the are however a number of hamlets nearby, edge of to the mainly west of the A51 Lichfield Road, that to the east. There is some flood risk arising are close to the village and help to support from the presence of the brook, although its facilities and services, for example Upper this is restricted close to the brook course. Longdon, Stockings Lane and at Longdon Flood risk would however have the potential Green. There is a relatively wide range of to have an impact on some potential facilities for the size of the village and these development options. As well as the brook include a primary school, church, pub, shop course, landform has an important role in and Post Office, Village Hall, social club, the character and setting of the village. and small W.I. Hall. One of the facilities There are some significant slopes to the east lacking within the village however, is a public that add to the setting of the village but also recreation ground to provide for play and have an impact on development options in informal activity. The village lies against the that direction. North of the village above the A51 at its western edge where it forms part slope of the valley, the land is flatter, but is of the settlement boundary. Although it relatively high ground. The A51 creates a therefore has excellent road access, the bus barrier to any westward expansion of the service has a relatively low frequency, since village. through services from Stafford to Lichfield take the alternative route through Armitage 7.41 Development needs and potential with Handsacre, which lies some two miles sites: Like most of the Inset villages, the to the north east. settlement boundary for Longdon is drawn tightly against existing development, so 7.38 For these reasons the village scores there are limited opportunities for infill among the mid range of villages for facilities development. The current village boundary within the Rural Settlement Sustainability is shown on the village Context Plan (see Study, but scores among the low range separate Appendix document). There are villages for accessibility to other services however two potential opportunities for and facilities by public transport. development of undeveloped land within the settlement boundary. The first is at the end

July 2012 37 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

of Hawcroft and to the rear of the Swan with range from 93 dwellings to 150 dwellings. It Two Necks and is allocated for public open is considered that any one of these sites space in the adopted district Local Plan, to would be an inappropriate scale of address the local shortage. The second development in terms of its impact and the possibility is land to the rear of the ‘Club’, ability to assimilate such a level of growth. although the land is used for club activities As indicated earlier, much of the area to the and access to it could only be achieved east and north of the village is on rising through the club access – it is otherwise ground and development would additionally lined by residential properties to the north have significant landscape impact. This, and south. However, there is no indication combined with access difficulties and small that the club land would be available for areas of flood risk, lead to the conclusion development and for these reasons does that only limited development areas to the not appear to be a viable option. north of the village are appropriate and should be considered. 7.42 The land allocated for public open space is therefore likely to be the only 7.45 Scale: Both the size of the village reasonable or viable option within the village and the sustainability considerations suggest boundary, although it is understood that no that any future development in Longdon agreement has been able to be made to should be quite limited in scale. The bring the land into public use. The land has potential acceptable development options been allocated for open space since 1980 considered above could each potentially and is presently used as paddock land. deliver new housing in the order of 10 to 15 Despite the current Local Plan allocation, dwellings, or less, depending on the nature there is the potential to consider future of development. This scale of development development of all or part of the site, which is likely to be more successful in terms of amounts to about 0.4 hectares, provided the ‘organic’ development of the village and that the objective of meeting an open space assimilation into the community whilst shortage could also be achieved. A Local potentially helping to support local services. Plan, Parish Plan or Neighbourhood Plan could for example consider options for this 7.46 Recommendations for the Green area. Belt: At present there are no firmly established local development requirements 7.43 Beyond options that lie within the that are specific to Longdon, although there village boundary, a further option for limited is considerable developer interest in the development could be the consideration of village. There is, however, a longstanding land north of Swan Close where there is a shortage of public open space and play limited area of flatter higher land, presently facilities that is currently not resolved. There used as a paddock. Limited development in are no infill options that are apparent in the this area may provide an alternative if the village that might meet a future local need, open space land is unavailable as an option. because of the compact and largely modern nature of development. However there are 7.44 There is considerable market and opportunities for a limited scale of growth to developer interest in development at the north of the village that could potentially Longdon, and all of the land to the east and be acceptable in form and design. If a local the north of the village has been submitted need is established then two options are as potential development sites through the possible, although the option of development Strategic Housing Land Availability within the village boundary should be fully Assessment. The full capacity of these sites is around 340 dwellings and individually they

38 July 2012 explored before an alternative is considered housing, although this is not yet because this would not require any alteration implemented. There is a bus service through to the established Green Belt boundary. the village between Lichfield and Walsall, but this is infrequent. 7.47 Amendment to the Adopted Local Plan allocation could offer the opportunity 7.50 As a result of the range of facilities to achieve open space alongside the present in Stonnall, it was included within provision of limited development. The the mid range of villages within the Rural potential to achieve local need and Settlement Sustainability Assessment in aspirations, both for limited growth and open relation to facilities present. It was however space provision, might be considered to included in the ‘low’ category in terms of its amount to ‘exceptional circumstances’ accessibility to facilities and services outside needed to make a minor adjustment to the the village. Green Belt boundary. However, provision of open space on a revised site could be 7.51 The range of facilities and services made without any Green Belt amendment present in the village suggests that the and potentially affordable housing need settlement could be appropriate for limited could be met through the ‘exceptions’ policy development, where a local need or mechanism without any Green Belt aspiration is identified. Such growth should amendment. be limited in scale however in view of the restricted accessibility by public transport. 7.48 In the light of this combination of factors consideration should be given to 7.52 Character and Constraints: whether the Local Plan Strategy should Stonnall was originally a small linear identify Longdon as one of the villages settlement, together with a hamlet located where a minor amendment to the existing around Lazy Hill close to what is now the Green Belt boundaries might be necessary A452 Road. It is now consolidated to facilitate local/neighbourhood planning in into a single village, containing a number of the future. small modern estates and additional linear growth. Stonnall has a higher proportion of Stonnall bungalow development than seen in most other villages within Lichfield District. It lies 7.49 Sustainability: Stonnall is the largest at the boundary of Lichfield District, with of the group of smaller ‘Inset’ Green Belt areas of Aldridge and Brownhills close by villages, with a population of around 1,300 to the west. Whilst some parts of the village people and around 570 dwellings. The have an older character, the village is village has a good range of facilities and predominantly 1960’s to 1980’s development services for its size, including a primary and there is no Conservation Area. Much of school, church, surgery, a small group of the village is set at the low point of a gently purpose built shops, youth centre, village undulating landscape although there are hall and 2 pubs. The shops include a rises to the west and south of the village that newsagent, fish and chip shop and add to its setting and would be relevant to restaurant although one of the units is considering suitable directions for any currently empty. It is likely that people from growth. other nearby communities use Stonnall shops and facilities including residents of Lower Stonnall, Lynn and Hilton. One of the two public houses has been granted planning permission for redevelopment for

July 2012 39 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

7.53 The number of flatter fields located and may provide some housing. The local between the properties on Main Street and community proposes to further assess the Church Road, and fields to the west of Main viability of a project for this area. Street are generally large with few significant areas of trees or hedgerow boundaries. 7.56 Development needs and potential sites: There is a current planning permission 7.54 Overall whilst Stonnall is a pleasant for the redevelopment of one of the village’s village, with a largely commuter function, public houses, the Royal Oak. This lies there are few constraints to future within the existing village boundary and development, in terms of the need to would provide for 12 dwellings. Because of preserve Conservation Area interest, the nature of previous development in the ecological or landscape features. The village there are likely to be few other Surface Water Management Plan identifies opportunities for infill or redevelopment 135 properties in Stonnall at risk of surface within the village boundary. water flooding, although this is understood to be largely related to highway flooding and 7.57 There has been significant developer would not provide a major constraint to interest in Stonnall, indicated through the considering potential development options. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. Submissions have been made 7.55 Neighbourhood Planning: The for consideration of 6 sites outside the Stonnall community is preparing a village boundary, ranging from a single plot Neighbourhood Plan, with funding from the to sites of between 20 dwellings to 565 Neighbourhood Planning Front Runner dwellings. All of the submissions lie within Scheme. Extensive work has already taken the Green Belt. The larger site would infill place to identify the main challenges for the the area between Main Street and Church village and the key elements of a Road if fully developed and would be Neighbourhood Plan. The community has strategic in the context of Lichfield District. identified factors including high house Such a scale of development is considered prices, low turnover of housing and an ‘older inappropriate both in terms of developing a demography’, that suggest a need for some sustainable strategy for growth and in the additional affordable housing provision in context of its potential impact on the village. the village. It has identified a need for both However smaller development options of housing for the elderly and to enable around 20 to 40 dwellings lying east of the younger people to stay in the village, village on Church Road, would be more potentially requiring family housing. appropriate in terms of scale, provided a Proposals are being developed through the need or aspiration for growth is identified. Neighbourhood Plan to meet identified The sites are shown on the village Context needs through two schemes, each able to Plan (see separate Appendix document) deliver about 12 dwelling units. Sites for the and are capable of being developed with schemes are being sought, preferably on limited impact, although improved land that is already developed and pedestrian/cycle connections through to potentially involving redevelopment of the Main Street would be desirable. existing shop units. The main aim of shop unit redevelopment is to regenerate the 7.58 Scale: The sustainability ‘retail offer’ in the village, but it is considered considerations of the Rural Settlements that it could also provide environmental Sustainability Study (RSSS) suggest that benefits by incorporating a ‘village green’ Stonnall could be appropriate for some limited growth. At present there is no definitive level of identified requirement for

40 July 2012 development in the village, although there combination of factors consideration should are locally identified housing issues that the be given to whether the Local Plan Strategy proposed Village Plan will seek to address. should identify Stonnall as one of the There is a range of potential sizes of villages where a minor amendment to the development site identified through the existing Green Belt boundaries might be SHLAA, including sites of 20, 40, 50+ and necessary to facilitate local/neighbourhood 60+ dwellings. The larger sites would be planning in the future. likely to have a significant impact both physically and in terms of assimilation into Upper Longdon the community. It is considered that the two smaller sites, identified on the village 7.60 Sustainability: Upper Longdon is Context Plan, would be more suitable sites situated on the edge of Cannock Chase in in terms of their integration within the village the western part of Lichfield District, with the both in physical and social terms. Taking town of Rugeley some two miles to the account of the existing potential within the north. It is the smallest of the villages that village boundary, the limited possibility of are Inset into the Lichfield District Green additional capacity within the boundary, and Belt, with only 175 dwellings and a the potential impact of larger sites, it is population of around 400 people. It also has considered that additional potential should the most limited facilities, with these being be limited to the consideration of the two restricted to a public house, and it has no sites identified. school or shop. An infrequent bus service operates for the village. 7.59 Recommendations for the Green Belt: At present the Evidence Base has not 7.61 The Rural Settlement Sustainability established development requirements that Study assesses the village in the ‘low’ are specific to Stonnall, although the local category for both the availability of services community has identified housing and other and for its accessibility by public transport redevelopment needs through the to services and facilities outside the village. Neighbourhood Plan process. There is some The lack of local services and poor access identified housing capacity within the village, by public transport suggests that Upper alongside significant developer interest in Longdon has few sustainability factors and larger scale housing than that which is being that there would be little merit in considering considered by the local community. In terms growth of the village. of the implications for the Green Belt, it is 7.62 Character and Constraints: Upper difficult to identify ‘exceptional Longdon lies on a minor road that leads into circumstances’ at present that would justify Cannock Chase and has a calm and tranquil any change to the existing Green Belt setting. Most of the village lies within the boundary. If a local need or the local boundary of the Cannock Chase Area of aspiration for development is established Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and for the village, it is not clear whether there the designation is reflective of the general would be sufficient capacity within the village character of the village. The area of AONB boundary. The sustainability assessment is shown on the village Context Plan (see (RSSS) however suggests that Stonnall separate Appendix document).Whilst the could be a village where some limited growth village is of no particular conservation might be acceptable. The suggested option interest, it nevertheless has an attractive sites on Church Lane, from which a future character brought about through the local choice might be made if required, lie within the Green Belt. In the light of this

July 2012 41 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

predominance of detached dwellings in large 7.66 Recommendations for the Green plots that allow substantial planting giving a Belt: It is considered that the limited facilities green appearance to the village. and poor accessibility of Upper Longdon lead to the view that it is inappropriate to 7.63 The form of the village is unusual consider further growth of the village. It is and developed on a significant south-facing not considered necessary therefore to slope. This has led to housing being identify Upper Longdon as a location where developed essentially on three parallel levels there may need to be any minor amendment and on two parallel roads linked by the to the Green Belt boundary. Any local need steeply sloping lanes of Huntsman’s Hill, established within this area is likely to be Grange Hill and Shaver’s Lane, names that better met at the settlement of Longdon. reflect it’s location within Cannock Chase forest. The village road network is very narrow except for Upper Way. The approaches to the village from the west, south and east are also along narrow lanes with poor alignment. Although there are no flooding issues or local Sites of Biological Interest, slope and access issues would be important to the consideration of any development potential.

7.64 Development needs and potential sites: There are very few opportunities for development within the existing village other than very limited potential for 1 or 2 dwellings arising within larger plots. There are two planning permissions for such development within the village, amounting to 4 dwellings. There has been some limited interest in development that has been submitted through the SHLAA process. The larger of these sites has potential for around 20 dwellings and the smaller for 8 dwellings or less. Both sites however, have slope and access issues.

7.65 Scale: The potential for harm to the character of a village set within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the poor level of facilities and the poor quality of access (both within and on the approaches to the village), support the view that Upper Longdon is not an appropriate location for growth. Any development should be very limited in scale and confined within the existing village boundary.

42 July 2012 8 Other Villages and Hamlets extension or alteration of a building provided within the Green Belt it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the 8.1 There are a number of other small original building; the replacement of a settlements within Lichfield District that are building, provided the new building is in the located within the Green Belt, including same use and not materially larger than the established villages, hamlets and other one it replaces; and, limited infilling in loose groups of dwellings. The more villages, and limited affordable housing for significant of these are Chorley, Farewell, local community needs under policies set Gentleshaw, Hints, Shenstone Wood End out in the local plan. and Wall. All of these villages and remaining 8.3 The main issue arising from the NPPF settlements are ‘washed over’ by a Green statement on Green Belt ‘exceptions’ is the Belt designation, so that Green Belt policies need to consider whether the advice that apply to development proposals that are infilling in villages is appropriate, leads to a either within what is recognised as the need to define villages where it is village, or outside it. None of these considered to allow some infilling. The settlements have any designated settlement former advice in PPG2 was that ‘washed boundary, except for Chorley, which is an over’ villages where infilling would be anomaly considered below. None of these allowed, should be listed in the Development settlements have anything significant in Plan. There are several villages within the terms of local facilities, although some have Lichfield Green Belt that are loosely pubs or village halls and none were included structured settlements with extensive gaps within the Rural Settlement Sustainability between buildings. Gentleshaw is a prime Study. It is considered that these settlements example of this type of settlement. Others, are not appropriate for the consideration of such as Chorley, are more compact with few any growth and that there is no need to gaps. There might also be arguments create any new Green Belt Inset villages whether some settlements should be from among these settlements, since this considered to be villages. would not sit well with the sustainable development strategy proposed by the Local 8.4 The key consideration is preserving Plan Strategy. the openness of the Green Belt. The NPPF advises (paragraph 86) that where the 8.2 Green Belt policies will therefore openness of the character of a village makes continue to set the framework for the an important contribution to the character of consideration of development within these the Green Belt and it is therefore necessary settlements. The policies for Green Belt to prevent development, then it should be within the National Planning Policy ‘washed over’. On the other hand if the Framework include the identification of character of a village needs to be protected exceptions to the normal rule that the for other reasons, the village should be construction of new buildings in the Green excluded from the Green Belt. Belt is inappropriate. These exceptions are based upon the former definitions included 8.5 Several of the washed over villages within the cancelled Planning Policy within Lichfield District’s Green Belt are Guidance Note 2: Green Belts, although compact in character and have very little former references to the extension, alteration openness within them. In other words they or replacement of dwellings, now refer to contribute little to the openness of the Green buildings. New buildings that are not Belt. The application of the advice in inappropriate in the Green Belt include: the paragraph 86 would therefore lead to the

July 2012 43 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

view that several villages currently ‘washed 8.9 It is appropriate to note however that over’ by Green Belt, should in fact be this Green Belt review has been prepared excluded. Those most needing consideration at a time when significant changes are being for the creation of new Insets would be made to the planning system within England. Chorley, Hints, Wall and Shenstone Wood This is intended to simplify the system and End. Chorley already has a defined includes a short National Planning Policy settlement boundary. Following the Framework policy statement from the approach suggested by paragraph 86 may Government that replaces many former however lead to issues and dispute over the guidance notes and policy statements. The definition of boundaries that would need to changes also provide for empowering local be taken through the 'Allocations' part of the communities through the Localism Act, to Local Plan. play a greater role in determining the future of their areas, for example through the 8.6 The alternative approach previously preparation of Neighbourhood Plans. It referred to in PPG2, that of listing villages remains to be seen how local communities where infill would be considered in the within Lichfield District will wish to exercise Development Plan would be a simpler the potential given to them through the new approach, which should be considered. This planning structure, but it is a relevant would avoid the creation of new Insets to an consideration for the Green Belt Review that established Green Belt, but has the potential the Local Plan Strategy needs to take this to require boundary definitions for any into account in framing its policies to allow village listed in order to define where infilling more decisions about the future of their could be permitted and avoid disputes in the areas to be taken by individual communities development management process. within parts of the District.

8.7 It is the approach of listing those 8.10 The recommendations contained in villages where infilling would be allowed this Review do not suggest any strategic which is recommended. It is recommended changes to the Green Belt, with the that the settlements identified should be exception of the issue of the permanence Chorley, Hints, Wall and Shenstone Wood of the Green Belt boundary around Lichfield. End, on the basis that these settlements They do however suggest that the Local contribute little to the openness of the Green Plan Strategy should identify those Belt. Consideration of the need to define settlements where minor changes to Green appropriate ‘infill’ boundaries would be a Belt boundaries may be appropriate, in matter for the 'Allocations' stage of the Local particular to meet local housing needs or Plan. aspirations and to facilitate local and neighbourhood planning in the future. Summary of Conclusions in relation to Green Belt settlements 8.11 The indicators of future housing need for Lichfield District have not been defined 8.8 The analysis of settlements situated at the level of individual settlements, but for within the Lichfield District Green Belt has rural areas they are at a housing market drawn a number of conclusions relating to sub-area level. All of the indicators suggest the two principal urban areas through the that there is a rural housing need, for various main rural settlements, smaller villages and types of housing and tenures. The spatial hamlets. The main recommendations on strategy for the District to be included within settlements are summarised below. the Local Plan Strategy seeks to accommodate both housing and other development needs in a sustainable way

44 July 2012 and has identified how urban areas and ‘key’ Settlement Potential Summary rural settlements may play a role in this. This need for reasons does not mean however that smaller minor communities do not have a role in Green Belt maintaining the vibrancy of their amendment communities, perhaps through more minor capacity from development and seeking to maintain and non-green belt improve their local facilities. options

8.12 The assessment of settlements Whittington Yes Sustainable contained within the Green Belt Review has settlement with drawn upon considerations of individual very limited and uncertain settlements in terms of their potential capacity and capacity to accommodate growth or change, potential for the size and location of potential sites and decline community views, where available. For rural settlements the analysis has sought to Small 'Inset' Villages identify the potential effect of these Drayton Yes To provide considerations upon the level of growth that Bassett opportunity to might be appropriate for individual some meet local needs villages, so that the potential need for minor in a community changes to the Green Belt can be assessed. with facilities and A generalised summary of where such very little capacity changes might be appropriate, to be defined Hammerwich Yes To provide in detail later, is included in the Table below: opportunity to meet local needs Settlement Potential Summary in a community need for reasons with facilities and minor very little capacity Green Belt Hopwas Yes To provide amendment opportunity to 'Key' Settlements meet local needs in a community Armitage with Yes Sustainable with facilities but Handsacre settlement with limited capacity limited and options uncertain capacity Longdon Yes To provide opportunity to Fazeley No Has capacity. meet local needs Coalescence in a community issues important with facilities but limited capacity Little Aston No Not a ‘key’ options settlement in strategy, urban Stonnall Yes To provide sprawl a vital opportunity to issue meet local needs in a community Shenstone No Sustainable with facilities but settlement with

July 2012 45 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

Settlement Potential Summary need for reasons minor Green Belt amendment

limited capacity options

Upper No An inappropriate Longdon location for limited growth

'Washed No Inappropriate over' Villages locations for growth and impact on openness. Infill in villages allowed for in national green belt policy

Table 8.1

8.13 The site analysis for each village contains guidance on what might be considered to be appropriate sites for development. These have been considered against the general background of the spatial development strategy, the idea of ‘organic’ growth of villages as opposed to the development of larger estates, village constraints and the potential impact of sites or directions of growth on the character of villages and their landscape. For the smaller Green Belt ‘Inset villages, taking account of this analysis, the recommendations for each village tend to suggest that options might be preferable that range from less than 10 dwellings to around 20/40 dwellings in the case of Stonnall, which is the largest of this group of villages.

8.14 Comparing the suggested village options with the existing sizes of the villages, gives a range of potential acceptable levels of growth of between 2% and 7.5%

46 July 2012 Employment & Other Land Uses Outside Settlements

July 2012 47 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

9 Developed Sites in the Green Sir Hospital, Mile Oak Belt Whittington Barracks Background: 9.4 The Local Plan defines boundaries for 9.1 The main land use across the Green these sites and applies a policy that provides Belt area is agriculture and Lichfield District for infilling and redevelopment subject to has significant areas of good quality specific criteria that restricts impact upon agricultural land, allowing a wide variety of the openness of the Green Belt, including agricultural uses. There are however several footprint, and height. The Local Plan policy more or less freestanding non-residential was a re-statement of national policy set out developed sites in the Green Belt, of varying within the former Planning Policy Guidance sizes and functions, but all having a level of Note 2: Green Belts, which has now been built development that potentially makes an cancelled, to be superseded by policy within impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. the NPPF. Since the adoption of the Local For the control of development within these Plan the St. Matthews Hospital site has been sites, the adopted Local Plan either applies redeveloped for housing. the general Green Belt policies, E.4 and E.5, to restrict new development, or a specific 9.5 Other developed sites of some policy, Emp.5 for certain major developed significance within the Green Belt operating sites. within normal Green Belt policies, are: Little Aston Hospital, Prison, three private 9.2 Land use policy for the Green Belt has schools, the ‘Heart of the Country’ craft recently been re-stated within the National centre, Buzzards Valley vineyard, the Forest Planning Policy Framework and it is an of Mercia Centre and workshops at appropriate time to consider policy for the Chasewater, and garden centres, for employment sites in this revised context, example at Shenstone. Whilst these all have including whether any special policy a level of built development of significance designations are necessary or appropriate. in the immediate locality, none of them has employment as their main function. The 9.3 The principal developed sites within more recently developed ‘Lichfield South’ the Green Belt are a number of sites that complex, based upon a former brick and provide employment at a significant scale, pipe works, whilst being a mixed although for the most part that is not their development including major recreation and main function. The adopted Local Plan leisure facilities, has a significant area where defines a number of sites for which a specific it functions as an employment site, with Local Plan policy applies, of ‘Major significant office floorspace. The Lichfield Developed Sites’ (Policy Emp. 5). The South site is considered in more detail in Adopted Local Plan ‘MDS’ sites are: paragraphs 9.10 to 9.21 below.

Drayton Manor Theme Park 9.6 Taken together, the developed sites contribute significantly to the economy of Drayton Manor Business Park (formerly Lichfield District through the provision of Foseco) employment, but also contribute to health, recreation, education and to a more limited St. Matthews Hospital, Burntwood extent, retail, needs. It is important therefore that they are encouraged to thrive,

48 July 2012 functioning successfully and effectively specific site based policy within the Local within the overall context of maintaining the Plan. It could provide for example, a basis openness of the Green Belt. for considering a new ‘ride’ at Drayton Manor Theme Park, or an extension or replacement The National Planning Policy building for Sir Robert Peel Hospital. It is Framework also not clear whether any site-based policy (such as the former MDS policy) would be 9.7 The NPPF does not include any consistent with the NPPF and the potential separate policies for ‘Major Developed proliferation of policy would certainly be Sites’. It does, however, list development contrary to its approach. types (paragraph 89) that are identified as exceptions to the normal Green Belt ‘rule’ 9.9 It is considered therefore that the most that the construction of new buildings is appropriate approach for the Local Plan is ‘inappropriate’. These include: the extension not to define any site boundaries for or alteration of a building provided that it developed sites in the Green Belt, but to does not result in disproportionate additions allow the functioning of existing sites through over and above the size of the original the operation of the framework provided by building, and; the replacement of a building, the NPPF. What is apparent, however is that provided the new building is in the same use there will be a continued and perhaps and not materially larger than the one it greater need for the interpretation of these replaces. These two exceptions may be policies for specific proposals – particularly relevant to the functioning of the range of in relation to the impact on the openness of developed sites within the District identified the Green Belt, for example where siting and above. There is a specific exception that is scale of new buildings are concerned. It is key to the future functioning of the existing also notable that the references to previously sites. This is defined as: limited infilling or developed sites give no advice in relation to the partial or complete redevelopment of the uses of land in relation to complete previously developed sites (brownfield land), redevelopment. The NPPF does however whether redundant or in continuing use provide elsewhere a context for (excluding temporary buildings), which redevelopment in terms of sustainable would not have a greater impact on the development, core planning principles and openness of the Green Belt and the purpose supporting a prosperous rural economy. of including land within it than the existing development. Lichfield South

9.8 This ‘framework’ of permitting 9.10 Lichfield South is the marketing name extension, alteration, replacement, limited for the site at the junction of the A5 Trunk infilling and redevelopment of previously Road with the A5127 Birmingham Road. It developed sites, subject to meeting the lies some 3 miles south of Lichfield city criteria identified, has some differences with centre and now includes an indoor leisure previous policy and in some instances is centre with outdoor tennis courts, an hotel, less specific. For example the former major fast food outlets and some 5,000 sq. metres developed sites policy included specific of office floorspace. It is a relatively recent limitations on height of buildings. It is development and the subject of a specific however considered to provide a policy policy in the adopted Local Plan – policy SA. basis within which the existing sites can 5 (Shenstone Brick and Pipe Works). This develop and modernise their existing was a derelict brickworks site, part of which operations without the need to include

July 2012 49 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

had been used as a refuse tip and the focus promoters argue that Lichfield South is the of the local plan policy was on the provision only location within Lichfield District that can of leisure and tourist facilities. provide large footplate, ‘Grade A’ office floorspace in a location to attract inward 9.11 Lichfield South is considered investment and the site is therefore essential separately here since the nature of the site to the future employment ‘portfolio’ for the has changed in recent years to include a District. The arguments against this relate specific employment function, unlike the both to the harm to the Green Belt principles other larger developed sites within the and to the sustainability of the location. In Lichfield Green Belt, and there is developer other words the site is not in a city centre, pressure to expand that aspect of its function edge of centre or even edge of urban through the provision of additional office location, so that its accessibility and floorspace by further development of the relationship with other uses and facilities is site. There is available derelict land on the much poorer than would normally be site amounting to some 4.4 hectares, on expected of an office location. which there is an existing planning permission for a golf driving range. 9.15 The NPPF provides, within its Core Principles, that “every effort should be made 9.12 While the NPPF provides policies to objectively to identify then meet the housing, consider the future functioning of existing business and other development needs of developed sites in the Green Belt, this does an area”. (paragraph 17) and to “set out a not provide for the expansion of existing clear strategy for allocating sufficient land sites. The potential land for the expansion which is suitable for development in their of Lichfield South, whilst derelict brownfield area, taking account of the needs of the land, was the site of a tip and not former residential and business communities”. Its buildings and its development would clearly specific advice on building a strong and have an impact in terms of the openness of competitive economy provides that in the Green Belt in this area. drawing up Local Plans, local planning authorities should “set criteria, or identify 9.13 In the light of the developer pressure strategic sites, for local inward investment for expansion of this area which may lead to match the strategy and to meet to either a planning application and anticipated needs over the plan period”. representations on the Local Plan There is clearly therefore a role for the Local preparation, the District Council will in any Plan to identify the employment needs for event need to consider whether, in terms of Lichfield District and then provide a strategy national Green Belt policy, either ‘very for meeting those needs. special circumstances’ exist that outweigh the general rule that such ‘inappropriate 9.16 The District Council has recently development’ should not be permitted, or updated its evidence on employment needs whether the ‘exceptional circumstances’ within the District through the Employment exist that justify an amendment to the Green Land Review 2012, prepared by consultants Belt boundary in this location. The latter GVA. Whilst in overall terms there is an would mean creating an ‘Inset’ in the Green oversupply of employment land within Belt at this location through the Local Plan. Lichfield District, the GVA Report identifies a specific issue of an under-supply of land 9.14 Since this is a Green Belt site, the for office accommodation. For a range of key questions in relation to Lichfield South scenarios tested, there was a deficit in the are whether there is a need for development committed supply of office accommodation that can only be met in this location. The site compared to the forecast demand. In relation

50 July 2012 to the preferred scenarios considered, of 9.19 The GVA Report does not, however, housing provision of 8,000 dwellings, the consider the issue of the Green Belt location undersupply of land for office of the site, nor the requirement for accommodation amounted to 3.77 hectares. ‘exceptional circumstances’ in relation to its The Report recommends that the Local Plan recommendation to allocate the site. The should seek to allocate land to meet this NPPF directs planning authorities to allocate level of deficit for offices. a range of sites to meet the scale and type of identified town centre requirements and 9.17 The GVA Report considers the also to undertake an assessment of the growth of the centres of Lichfield and need to expand town centres to ensure a Burntwood and identifies particularly that sufficient supply of suitable sites. It retains the eight sites identified within Lichfield city a sequential test for main town centre uses, centre would only accommodate around firstly locations within centres and then edge 11,000 sq. metres of office floorspace. of centre, before considering out of centre Although the GVA Report does not prepare locations. its own assessment of city and town centre future office floorspace requirements, it 9.20 It is considered that whilst the Local refers to the estimates prepared for the West Plan Strategy should identify the level of Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy, which office accommodation to be sought within identified a requirement 30,000 sq. metres Lichfield and Burntwood town centres to fully for Lichfield city centre for to period up to meet identified need, there needs to be a 2026. The GVA Report notes that unless particular exercise that establishes whether accommodation of around 30,000 sq. metres there are options that fall within the in Lichfield and 5,000 sq. metres in sequential test process, including the Burntwood is met, there will be additional expansion of Lichfield town centre, to meet requirements for accommodation outside the forecasts of office floorspace needed. the centres. Taking account of the There is also a site quality issue to be conclusions in the GVA Report on the need considered within this process, since it is for and potential supply of office recognised that sites need to be able to accommodation within Lichfield, there is a provide accommodation that is attractive to clear issue to be addressed within the Local the market. Plan of providing for the identified need for office accommodation within Lichfield city 9.21 This exercise should form part of the centre. Local Plan Allocations process where options could be considered. If such an 9.18 The GVA Report specifically refers exercise shows that there are insufficient to the Lichfield South site and estimates it’s options to meet the need in terms of quantity floorspace capacity at around 15,000 sq. or quality, then it may be considered that metres, noting that it is one of the few readily the ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist to available office sites within the District. The justify the provision of new office floorspace Report does not specifically identify any in the freestanding Green Belt location at other potential locations in its conclusions Lichfield South in the absence of other and recommends that the Lichfield South sequentially preferable and available land be allocated for office development to locations. ensure its development in the short to medium term.

July 2012 51 The Permanence of Green Belt Boundaries

July 2012 52 10 Looking Beyond the Plan could the need be met within existing Period settlements or beyond the Green Belt? if there is a need to provide for longer 10.1 The National Planning Policy term needs within existing Green Belt, Framework notes that the essential what are the most appropriate locations characteristics of Green Belts are their to accommodate it? openness and their permanence. It indicates, at paragraph 83, that when preparing or review their Local Plans, 10.3 Looking ahead at development authorities should consider the Green Belt needs beyond 2028 is a difficult exercise boundaries “having regard to their intended and it needs to be recognised that present permanence in the long term, so that they projections or forecasts for that far ahead should be capable of enduring beyond the will be superseded many times over before plan period.” To assist in the consideration then. Nevertheless any judgements now of long term permanence of Green Belts the must be based upon the best information NPPF guidance (paragraph 85) further says available. Two published national sources that local planning authorities should satisfy of projections are available, the latest being themselves that Green Belt boundaries will the Office for National Statistics not need to be altered at the end of the Sub-National Population Projections 2012, development plan period. They should also which give population projections at Local not include land which it is unnecessary to Authority and regional levels up to 2035. keep permanently open and where The CLG publishes Sub-National Household necessary identify areas of ‘safeguarded Projections; the latest of these was land’ between the urban area and the Green published in 2010, providing household Belt in order to meet longer-term projections to 2033. The household development needs “stretching well beyond projections have been usefully summarised the plan period.” For the purposes of the in a Staffordshire County Council Briefing Green Belt Review it has been taken that Paper. Both of these sets of projections are consideration of the potential needs of the based upon trends and therefore reflect next Local Plan period after the current Local recent population and household changes. Plan period of 2028, would meet the needs of the term ‘well beyond’ the plan period. 10.4 As part of the Local Plan Evidence Base Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners has 10.2 There are a number of questions to prepared a Southern Staffordshire Districts address in relation to the issue of what might Housing Needs Study, 2012. This includes be required to ensure that the Green Belt consideration of a range of 12 different boundary for Lichfield District endures in the scenarios for the future, mainly based upon longer term. These are: differing demographic, economic and housing modelling scenarios. This includes will there be a continuing need for population and household forecasts up to development beyond 2028? 2031, based upon each scenario. This work therefore represents consideration of varying what might be the scale of any need, future policy, as opposed to simply if need is likely? projecting trends, although its consideration is only a short way into the next plan period.

July 2012 53 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

10.5 Both the population and household 10.8 One approach that could be taken projections show a continuing growth within to considering the longer-term impact of Lichfield District beyond 2028. The potential growth upon the current Green Belt population projections give a general boundaries is to consider if there are options indication of an expectation of significant available within the District to cater for an growth nationally, regionally and locally uncertain level of development needs during the period from 2010 to 2035, beyond 2028, assuming that the including the period between 2028 and development proposed within the emerging 2033. For 2028 to 2035 population increase Local Plan Strategy is implemented. There for Lichfield District is projected to be some would in effect remain similar options, in 4,000 people. The household projections principle, as those considered through the show growth of some 2,000 households for preparation of the Local Plan Strategy. the period 2028 to 2033. These would be, the extent to which there is urban capacity derived from 10.6 In the NLP Report nearly all of the redevelopment, principally within Lichfield scenarios considered result in continuing and Burntwood, the potential to develop in population, household and labour force settlements lying beyond the outer edge of growth for 2028 to 2031, although for some the Green Belt, the expansion of the two scenarios there is a reduction in the labour main sustainable urban areas of Lichfield force. For all scenarios except for ‘zero net and Burntwood, and the role of villages. migration’ (see NLP Report), the number of households continues to rise, partly as a 10.9 Lichfield and Burntwood are consequence of the continuing trend for recognised as the two most sustainable smaller household sizes. For some separate settlements within the District scenarios there is a significant labour force context. As significant urban areas there increase, which would require policy may continue to be redevelopment consideration of the extent to which this opportunities within them in the longer term, would need to be addressed within Lichfield for example from employment locations or District. as part of town centre development or redevelopment. Taking account of past 10.7 The limited evidence, considered changes there is no reason to conclude that above, suggests that it is most likely that there will be no opportunities for ‘urban there will be a continuing need for capacity’ within the next plan period. development within Lichfield District for the next Plan period, beyond 2028. This is most 10.10 The outward expansion of likely to be for housing development, but Burntwood is constrained by a number of could potentially also be for employment. factors that will remain in the longer term. The evidence also suggests however that it These include physical and environmental is most difficult to assess now, the scale of constraints, such as the presence of need that might arise over a full plan period. Chasewater and its the SSSI’s, an Area of It depends upon so many variables and Outstanding Natural Beauty to the north and future strategies that might be developed to flood risk for some areas. In addition there address any growth issues. One policy are strong coalescence issues that account element that is missing is the absence of for the current boundaries of the Green Belt any national or regional development and are fundamental to its purpose in this strategies, which if developed in the future, area. This relates not only to the outward could impact upon need within the District. spread of the West Midlands conurbation, but also the proximity of villages such as Hammerwich. It is considered that all of the

54 July 2012 constraints at Burntwood are long-term and safeguarded land should be considered it would not be possible to identify ‘land during the 'Allocations' phase of the Local which it is unnecessary to keep permanently Plan preparation. open’. Therefore in terms of the options for growth beyond the current plan period, the 10.13 The guidance within the NPPF on identification of ‘safeguarded’ land on the considering ‘safeguarded land’ continues edge of Burntwood is not considered a past Planning Policy Guidance advice in reasonable one. referring to land ‘between the urban area and the Green Belt’. It is considered that the 10.11 For Lichfield, the situation is slightly issue does not require to be considered in different, in that the city is not entirely relation to villages. Further it is considered surrounded by Green Belt. Unlike Burntwood that ‘safeguarded land’ is not appropriate it is located at the outer edge of the West within Lichfield District at the inner edge of Midlands Green Belt. This means that there the Green Belt, where it abuts the West are areas that abut the north-east of the city, Midlands conurbation, since this would beyond the West Coast railway line, that lie undermine the fundamental aim of Green beyond the Green Belt. Options for Lichfield Belt policy in the West Midlands to prevent growth of housing and employment not urban sprawl, by opening up to possibility affecting Green Belt, could therefore be of the outward expansion of the conurbation. urban capacity and expansion north-east. However Lichfield is also different to 10.14 There is one other longer term Burntwood in being the main District centre, Green Belt situation that does require the focus for town centre and cultural consideration however, which is whether facilities, transport connections and there are any implications on the Lichfield administration. It is regarded as the most District Green Belt of longer term growth of sustainable location, and has long been the neighbouring freestanding towns, in focus of market interest. This gives rise to particular of Tamworth and Rugeley for the question of whether the limited options which the Lichfield District Local PLan for long-term growth indicated above would makes provision within this Plan period unduly constrain the options for the without recourse to Green Belt land. sustainable development of the District, and Considering Tamworth, which has a limiting of the city, in the longer term. To an extent local authority area, there remain some that depends upon the scale of growth options within the Borough following the needed, which is uncertain, however, it is implementation of its proposed Local Plan, considered that there is some weight to the although some may include its Green Belt view that future options for Lichfield should land. In addition there are potential not be limited to one direction for future development options beyond the Green Belt growth. This would in effect pre-judge issues within both Lichfield District and North of sustainability now that should be areas that could be considered at a later date. considered. Consideration of Green Belt areas lying within Lichfield District abutting 10.12 It is therefore considered that the the Tamworth boundary would give rise to Local Plan should consider the safeguarding fundamental issues of coalescence, in this of land between the Lichfield urban area and case with Fazeley/Mile Oak and Hopwas. It the Green Belt, which should be protected is considered therefore that because of the during the Plan period, but whose future combination of the potential options for should be considered in a review of the Tamworth and the implications for Local Plan. The options for the location of

July 2012 55 Lichfield District Strategic Green Belt Review

coalescence, identifying ‘safeguarded land’ within Lichfield District to meet Tamworth’s needs is neither necessary nor desirable.

10.15 In relation to Rugeley, which is a significantly smaller town than Tamworth, it also lies at the outer edge of the Green Belt. Its location at the edge of the Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Area for Conservation may be limiting factors in relation to future growth, but it is one of two main settlements within . There are potential non-green belt options for future growth, together with Green Belt options that lie within the Cannock Chase Borough area. Options for ‘safeguarded land’ within Lichfield District to meet any longer term need arising from Rugeley would potentially give rise to coalescence issues with Armitage with Handsacre. Taking account of these factors it is therefore again considered both unnecessary and undesirable to identify any ‘safeguarded land.’

10.16 It is concluded therefore that for Lichfield District, the only situation where the amendment to existing Green Belt boundaries needs to be considered through the identification of ‘safeguarded land’ is in the case of Lichfield city, where potential options for such amendment to the Green Belt should be considered through the process of Land Allocations as part of the Local Plan.

56 July 2012 Appendices

July 2012 57