Land North of Penkridge Stafford Road Penkridge South Staffordshire

Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

17/01022/OUT Bloor Homes Ltd PENKRIDGE Councillor J Chapman

Land North Of Penkridge Stafford Road Penkridge South Staffordshire

Development of up to 200 dwellings (Use Class C3) together with an access roundabout on Stafford Road, public open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure.

1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY

1.1 Site Description

1.1.1 This application site is located off Stafford Road/A449, Penkridge. The site measures approximately 9.78ha and is a grassed field sub divided by hedgerows. It is situated towards the north western end of Penkridge, north of a residential estate and south of an open field/hedgerow boundaries.

1.1.2 The field is an irregular shape and is bound along the Stafford Road/A449 by a mixture of hedges, trees and an access gate. Through the southern part of the site runs an existing public footpath (Penkridge 31) that connects to the A449. The site is generally level and its surrounding landscape is broadly undulating in nature.

1.1.3 To the west is located the railway line and to the east the A449 and open fields. The application site is separated from the majority of these dwellings by buffer planting; however the most southern part of the site is separated by a larger gap due to land ownership.

1.1.4 The residential properties are accessed via Goods Station Lane, Nursery Drive, Cooke Close and Grocott Close.

1.2 No Planning History

1.3 Pre-applications have taken place

2. APPLICATION DETAILS

2.1 Proposal

2.1.1 Outline planning permission is sought for the development of an open countryside site for residential development for up to 200 dwellings (Use Class C3) together with an access roundabout on Stafford Road, public open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure.

Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

2.1.2. Permission is not sought for matters of appearance, landscaping, layout or scale as part of this application. This application includes an indicative site plan, with approval sought for the access (Sketch Masterplan DE.236_SK01 Rev C). 2.1.3 Whilst indicative the layout envisages the following market housing mix and affordable housing mix:

Market housing mix:

35% 2 beds 40% 3 beds 25% 4 beds

10% of the total market housing is to be provided as bungalows.

Affordable housing mix:

Social Rent:

22.5% 1 bed apartments 10% 2 bed bungalows 37.5% 2 bed houses 25% 3 bed houses 5% 4 bed houses

Intermediate Housing (i.e. shared ownership):

5% 2 bed bungalows 55% 2 bed houses 40% 3 bed houses

2.4 These housing mixes can be secured through planning condition, whilst affordable housing provision can be secured through Section 106. The agent and our legal officer have agreed to this approach.

2.2 Agents submission:

Arboricultural Assessment Archaeological Assessment Design and Access Statement Ecological Assessment - Confidential Flood Risk Assessment - Updated 16 April 2018 Hedgerow Mitigation Plan Landscape and Visual Appraisal Noise and Vibration Assessment Outline Planning Application Cover Letter Owner Notice Planning Statement Residential Travel Plan Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

Socio Economic Impact Report Soils and Agricultural Quality Report Statement of Community Involvement Tenant Notice Transport Assessment

3. POLICY CONTEXT

The application site is within the Open Countryside and on the edge of the Main Service Village of Penkridge.

The local and national planning policies relevant to the determination of this application are as follows:

Core Strategy Development Plan Document, December 2012:

National Policy 1 - The Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Core Policy 1 - The Spatial Strategy for South Staffordshire Core Policy 2 - Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Core Policy 3 - Sustainable Development and Climate Change Core Policy 5 - Infrastructure Delivery Core Policy 6 - Housing Delivery

OC1 - Development in the Open Countryside Beyond the West Midlands Green Belt EQ1 - Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets EQ2 - Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation EQ3 - Conservation, Preservation and Protection of Heritage Assets EQ4 - Protecting and Enhancing the Character and Appearance of the Landscape EQ5 - Sustainable Resources and Energy Efficiency EQ7 - Water Quality EQ8 - Waste EQ9 - Protecting Residential Amenity EQ11 - Wider Design Considerations EQ12 - Landscaping EQ13 - Development Contributions H1 - Achieving a Balanced Housing Market H2 - Provision of Affordable Housing H4 - Delivering Affordable Housing EV11 - Sustainable Travel EV12 - Parking Provision Housing Market Assessment (2017) Longer Term Balancing Market Housing Report

The Council has received a sound Inspector's Report in respect of the emerging Site Allocations Document (SAD). The SAD is a tier 2 plan and seeks to deliver the adopted Core Strategy (the tier 1 plan). Taken together, the 2 documents will comprise the development plan for South Staffordshire. It is anticipated that Council will be invited to adopt the SAD in Summer 2018. Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

South Staffordshire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and the Sustainable Development SPD adopted by Council on 26 June 2018. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), March 2012

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise (NPPF Paragraph 196).

The NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions (NPPF Paragraph 196) and sets out the national overarching aims for planning with a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Development that is sustainable should be favoured, without delay, and should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan- making and decision-taking.

Para 6-10: Achieving Sustainable Development Para 11-16: The Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Para 17: Core planning principles Para 47-55: Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes Para 79-92: Protecting Green Belt Land Para 109-125: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment Para 126 - 128 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Para 186-187: Decision-taking

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), 2013

4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES

No Councillor comments (expired 11.12.2017)

Penkridge Parish Council

Further to the above Planning Application placed before Council of their meeting of 14th December, Council write to object to the application on the grounds of:

1. Penkridge has already met its development targets up until 2028 and the proposed new site is not designated within the South Staffordshire core strategy.

2. lnfrastructure Amenities, especially the Medical Centre, are already overstretched with residents regularly experiencing difficulty obtaining appointments. The impact of the Lyne Hill development will further dilute services.

3. Design & Density The proposed development is a very ill-considered site it is not adding on to an existing housing estate or revamping an old industrial site, but on natural green/country side fields. There is not an existing settlement there already. The application is for a large housing estate with small open spaces and a small play Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 area. This green site at present has a Public Right of Way though and is used by many villagers for recreational and dog walking throughout the year. 4. Traffic The traffic noise and pollution again of all times of the day and night with an extra 200 families would have a detrimental effect on the surrounding properties. On the basis of on average of 3 cars per property would result in an additional 600 cars entering the Stafford Road each morning. The Stafford Road/A449 is already a heavily congested busy road and is often used as a bypass when there are issues on the motorway. This site would cause further traffic problems and create a safety hazard for other motorists regardless of the implementation of a traffic island. The proposed traffic island would cause more noise from traffic as lorries releasing air brakes and cars accelerating from off the roundabout.

5. Wildlife and Environment The proposed development would have a detrimental effect on the wildlife and environment with some of the wildlife being a protected species. The trees and hedges surrounding currently in the fields act as natural sound boundaries to the railway and main road, but they also more importantly give a natural habitat to the wildlife. Protection of the countryside and wildlife must be paramount. The loss of natural open country side would have a detrimental effect. Councillors asked that a letter be sent to SSC Planning supporting the residents' comments.

Local Plans

Development Plan Policies

The site lies within an area of Open Countryside adjacent to the northern edge of the Penkridge development boundary, in an area covered by Policy OC1 of the Core Strategy. Policy OC1 indicates that the Open Countryside will be protected for its own sake, particularly for its landscapes, areas of ecological, historic, archaeological, agricultural and recreational value. It also identifies a list of appropriate types of development which will normally be approved within the Open Countryside, which this proposal would not fall within. Therefore, the proposed development would conflict with this policy within the Core Strategy, by developing an area of Open Countryside that the policy indicates should be protected for its own sake. In the view of Local Plans there is also a limited degree of conflict with Policies EQ4 and EQ11 C (e) of the Core Strategy.

Consequentially, the starting point is that the proposal is in principle contrary to these development plan policies.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The NPPF is an important material consideration to be considered alongside the development plan. Paragraph 47 of the NPPF encourages local authorities to significantly boost the supply as housing, and this therefore supports the housing Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 provision provided by the application. Furthermore, as acknowledged in previous applications, the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply, and therefore paragraphs 49 and the relevant sections of paragraph 14 of the NPPF are engaged. These are as follows; where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted (NPPF paragraph 14)

At the present point in time, the Council can demonstrate a 4.39 year supply against its objectively assessed need [NB. this figure has reduced to 3.42 years following publication of new figure in May 2018], as set out in its recently published Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). This affects a 'tilted balance' in favour of granting approval, that may be restricted by specific policies in the NPPF, or by development plan policies to which the NPPF refers. Paragraph 17 bullet point 5 of the NPPF requires planning to take account of the different roles and character of different areas, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it. Therefore, there is still a requirement for development to take account of the character of different areas and to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, or else run contrary to the core planning principles of the NPPF. Furthermore, paragraph 58 requires schemes to, amongst other matters, respond to local character, be visually attractive and function well and add to the overall quality of the area. Therefore, Core Strategy policies which, in part, reflect these principles (such as EQ4, EQ11 and OC1) still gain weight from conformity to these elements of the NPPF. In judging the proposals merits against the NPPF, it is therefore important to consider whether any adverse impacts of granting the proposal, including those arising from effects on the character of the area, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the NPPF as a whole. Benefits of the scheme against which adverse impacts need to be considered include the schemes contribution to significantly boosting the supply of housing within the District, assisting in addressing unmet housing needs and the general economic benefits associated with such development. It will also be important to consider the scheme's ability to provide a range of property sizes and tenures which reflect local housing demand and the needs of specific housing groups, such as older people and those in need of affordable housing (NPPF para 50).

Affordable Housing

Policy H2 requires that sites of 10 or more units in Penkridge, a main service village, are required to make an affordable housing contribution. On greenfield sites, the Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 requirement is 40% affordable housing, and the applicant has confirmed that this will be provided. In addition, Policy H2 also requires that the affordable housing be split

50:50 between social rent and shared ownership. All of these requirements will need to be secured via a S106 agreement.

Housing Mix

Policy H1 confirms that proposals for new housing development should provide a mixture of housing sizes, types and tenures. It particularly encourages the provision of more 2 and 3 bedroom homes across all market areas of the district in order to better balance the housing market. Mix should also be informed by local need as identified in the housing market assessment. The 2017 HMA indicates that in this area, in terms of market housing, there is a large need for both 2 and 3 bedroom homes in particular. In relation to affordable housing, there is a need for all property sizes. This proposal is in outline, therefore a detailed housing mix has not been submitted at this stage with the application. However, discussions have taken place with the applicant in relation to the specific mix of property sizes for the market housing on the site. Agreement has been reached on the following market housing mix to be provided, and this should be secured via condition:

10% 2 bed bungalows 25% 2 bed houses 40% 3 bed houses 25% 4 bed houses

This mix complies with Policy H1 and accurately reflects the housing need identified in the SHMA. The provision of 10% bungalows within this mix is also welcomed, and strongly supported by Policy H1, which requires new housing developments to make a contribution to meeting the needs of the district's rapidly ageing population.

Landscape

The site itself lies within an area of grassed agricultural fields to the north of Penkridge. part of a wider area of piecemeal enclosure to the north of Penkridge between the A449 and West Coast Mainline. The site is bounded to the south-west by dwellings along Nursery Drive and Cooke Close, from which the site is clearly visible. To the south-east the site is separated from the residential area by a small landholding adjacent the A449. A Public Right of Way (PRoW) and two minor watercourses run through the site and the site is bounded by significant boundary vegetation, particularly at the north-eastern end of the site and along the A449. The wider landscape slopes uphill to the north towards an area of structurally intact irregular agricultural fields, which also contain another PRoW running between the A449, Levedale Road and a country lane to the west.

Views from PRoW on higher ground to the north of the site would not be significantly impacted by the proposal. The existing views are of a mixture of tree planting and Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 glimpses of residential development marking the northern edge of Penkridge. The Grade I listed church is also prominent on the skyline from this point. The proposed scheme, whilst moving the settlement edge further north, would retain these key characteristics, subject to satisfactory mitigation relating to building design, height and buffer planting. This would also ensure that the site could be satisfactorily screened from medium/long distance views along the A449 as the settlement is entered from the north, with the development only appearing prominent in immediate views along the site's frontage. It is also significant that the site avoids encroachment onto higher ground to the northwest, which sits more prominently in views from the surrounding area and where the piecemeal enclosure typical of the wider rural character of land outside of Penkridge appears in better condition.

There will inevitably be some harm to the landscape character of the site itself, given the nature of the application. However, land within the site boundary is not as typical of structural integrity of the field pattern which defines much of the agricultural landscape to the north of Penkridge, and existing tree and hedgerow planting can be retained within the site layout indicated on the applicant's Sketch Masterplan. Harm to the character of the area would also arise from the disjointed built frontage along the western side of the A449 and the removal of hedgerow planting along the site frontage to allow for the necessary transport works, although this effect can be partially mitigated over time with a satisfactory landscaping scheme. Views from within the site as experienced by users of the PRoW would also be affected, although these are largely localised to views experienced from within the site. Furthermore, impacts of the development on the recreational function of the PRoW will be reduced by its retention within the open space proposals indicated on the Sketch Masterplan. Therefore, the proposed scheme would inevitably result in a degree of localised harm to the existing landscape character of the site and short distance views experienced by users of the A449 immediately adjacent to the site frontage and from the PRoW running through the site's extent. To this extent, the proposal conflicts the Core Strategy, and in particular Policies OC1 and EQ4, to the extent that it would cause a detrimental effect to views experienced within the immediate environment of the site and would result in a loss of rural character from the application site itself. However, subject to appropriate mitigation being provided in any reserved matters application, it is important to note that the site's conflict with these policies and general effect on the intrinsic character of the area are predominantly localised to the immediate surrounds of the site. This is in part due to the adjacent transport corridors and the site's topography helping to contain any urbanising effects from the wider environment to the north, east and west. If the application is approved, mitigation should be secured through the provision of a landscaping scheme which addresses the matters set out in section 6.4 of the applicant's Landscape and Visual Appraisal.

Other matters

The site lies within the 0-15km zone of influence of the Cannock Chase SAC, and is also within the 0-8km zone around the SAC. Existing evidence suggests that development within these areas will have a significant effect on the SAC, and as such mitigation should be provided in accordance with the Council's Cannock Chase SAC - Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

Guidance to Mitigate the Impact of New Residential Development. As this is a windfall site which is not identified in levels of growth planned for in the Council's adopted Core Strategy, Natural England should be consulted to determine whether the standard contribution of £232 per net dwelling is appropriate in this instance. The submitted Sketch Masterplan sets out how formal play provision and public open space could be delivered on site. This indicates that the proposed development could deliver a level of open space which meets the requirements of emerging Policy SAD7, including the provision of a children's play area. If the application is approved, the Parish Council should be engaged to ensure an appropriate level of allotment provision is provided. To ensure any future open space provided can be maintained in future, a contribution towards the maintenance of open spaces provided would be expected at the rate of £65,190 per ha of open space provided, and this should be secured as part of any s106 agreement.

Conclusion

The proposal conflicts with Policy OC1 and there are also limited degrees of conflict with Policies EQ4 and EQ11 C (e) of the Core Strategy due to the localised impacts on the character of the surrounding area that would result from the granting of permission. However, the Council's lack of a five year housing land supply triggers paragraph 14 of the NPPF. Therefore, the proposal should be approved unless the adverse impacts of doing so clearly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when considered against specific provisions in the NPPF, or the provisions of the NPPF as a whole. This requires the localised impacts on character and conflict with the associated Core Strategy policies to be weighed against the benefits of the scheme. These benefits include the significant boost to affordable and market housing supply that would result from the proposal, its role in addressing a significant portion of the Council's five year supply shortfall and its role in providing a diverse range of property types to meet the District's identified needs for 2 and 3 bed properties and elderly persons accommodation. These benefits are given significant support by paragraphs 47, 49 and 50 of the NPPF. Consequentially, unless the case officer considers these benefits are significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the localised impact on the character of the surrounding area, the application should be approved.

Environmental Health Protection

I have no objections to this planning application, however I draw your attention to the noise and vibration report submitted with the application; should a full application be submitted the recommendations in this report would need to be conditioned in order to safeguard the amenity of the residents of the proposed dwellings. Please note, not all the mitigation measures required for the development have been detailed in the report as a full site design and layout has not been provided.

Arboricultural Officer

Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

No objections subject to appropriate conditions to protect trees and hedgerows and to ensure that suitable landscaping conditions are imposed in order to mitigate the impact of the development and secure appropriate ecological habitats for wildlife and suitable local environment for SUDs.

County Ecology Officer

The following species would be appropriate:

Hedgerow trees - oak Quercus robur, crab apple Malus sylvestris Hedgerow shrubs - hawthorn Crataegus monogyna 50% with the remainder made up of hazel Corylus avellana, holly Ilex aquifolium, field maple Acer campestre, blackthorn Prunus spinosa, and dog rose Rosa canina

1.0 Introduction

1.1 I have been commissioned by South Staffordshire Council to review the planning application documentation for 17/01022/OUT Development of up to 200 dwellings (Use Class C3) together with an access roundabout on Stafford Road, public open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure Land North Of Penkridge Stafford Road Penkridge. I have previously commented on a smaller application opposite this site (17/00317/OUT).

1.2 Documents and plans reviewed: o Ecological Assessment o Sketch Masterplan o Design & Access Statement o Flood Risk Assessment o Arboricultural Assessment

1.3 I have not visited the site but have viewed aerial photographs and application photographs.

2.0 Policy and Legislative context in relation to this application

2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework s.109 states: "The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment ….by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible. s.118 states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principle: if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.

2.2 In accordance with this, the South Staffordshire adopted Local Plan Core Strategy policy EQ1: Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets states that permission will be granted for development that would not cause significant harm to species that are protected or under threat and that wherever possible, development Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 proposals should build in biodiversity by incorporating ecologically sensitive design and features for biodiversity within the development scheme. 2.3 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); along with the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, provide the main legislative framework for protection of species. In addition to planning policy requirements, the LPA needs to be assured that this legislation will not be contravened due to planning consent. In addition to these provisions, section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 places a duty on all public authorities in England and Wales to have regard, in the exercise of their functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. Section 41 refers to a list of habitats and species of principal importance to which this duty applies.

2.4 Natural England Standing Advice which has the same status as a statutory planning response states that survey reports and mitigation plans are required for development projects that could affect protected species, as part of obtaining planning permission.

3.0 Assessment of Submitted Documents and Plans

3.1 The Ecological Appraisal and the surveys carried out are in general appropriate. The Sketch Masterplan indicates retention of most of the most valuable habitats on the site. It is recommended that a condition be applied requiring Reserved Matters applications to be in accordance with this plan. Should a different layout be proposed at Reserved Matters a re-assessment of ecological impacts would be required. Depending on the time elapsed this may need to be informed by re- surveys.

3.2 Judging from the Sketch Masterplan here will be hedgerow loss due to the development, mainly due to access arrangements, not a reserved matter. The hedgerows to be lost, in relation to the Sketch Masterplan, are not classified as Important (other hedgerows on site are). All hedgerows are classified as habitat of principal importance; however, therefore replacement planting is desirable to compensate for the losses. The Ecological Appraisal does not quantify hedgerow loss but this may be up to or over 300 metres. Some provision is shown on the Sketch Masterplan for hedgerow replacement planting though this would represent only partial compensation. The Ecological Appraisal s.6.4.1 notes that replacement hedgerow planting would be required for Local Plan policy compliance. It is recommended that detail of replacement planting be required prior to outline consent so that compensation can be assessed.

3.3 Detailed design should ensure that Important hedgerows do not become domestic property boundaries as this removes protection. In accordance with Ecological Appraisal s.5.2.29 recommendations a condition should be applied requiring submission and implementation of a tree and hedgerow protection plan in accordance with BS5837:2012.

3.4 The report indicates that hedgerows and some of the trees on site are of value for bats. Most, including all trees with potential to support bat roosts, are proposed Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 for retention in the Sketch Masterplan. Should this change reassessment will be required. I note that the Arboricultural Assessment recommends removal of some of the trees identified as likely to support bats. Survey of these trees will be required prior to felling and it is possible that a Natural England licence will be required and appropriate mitigation. It is recommended that a condition be applied requiring survey of any tree identified by the Ecological Appraisal as being of potential for bats prior to felling. It is also recommended that a condition requires submission of a lighting scheme that takes bats into account and avoids unnecessary lighting of trees and hedgerows.

3.5 Conditions are recommended for protection of species. The Ecological Appraisal may underestimate badger activity in the area as there have been numerous reports of badger road casualties on this stretch of the A449 in the last two decades. It is recommended that a condition be applied requiring re-survey for badgers prior to commencement of any phase of development. A standard condition for protection of breeding birds is recommended. I agree with the Ecological Appraisal that impacts on great crested newts and reptiles are unlikely.

3.6 The Ecological Appraisal suggests open space landscaping measures that would compensate for habitat loss. s.5.6 of the Design and Access Statement sets out Landscape Principles that include biodiversity protection and benefit. It is recommended that a condition be applied requiring submission of a landscape scheme that includes planting to compensate for hedgerow loss and for measures for biodiversity benefit, as recommended in s.5.0 of the Ecological Appraisal and s.5.6 of the Design and Access Statement, and detail of SuDS planting as well as long-term management arrangements.

3.7 The Flood Risk Assessment indicates that SuDs features that include permanent wetlands are proposed. This gives potential for ecological enhancement. It is recommended that these drainage features be planted with native aquatic and marginal vegetation (where wet) and sown with a native, species-rich grassland seed mixture (such as Emorsgate's Meadow Mixture for Wetland EM8 or other locally sourced seed) that is tolerant of wet or damp conditions (where dry).

3.8 Given the location of the site the policy regarding mitigation of impacts on Cannock Chase SAC will apply as the report states. A standard contribution to the Cannock Chase SAMMM would be appropriate for this site. There is no potential for on-site mitigation of impacts.

4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

4.1 The application site is not of high ecological value; hedgerows and trees and the main features that have importance, intrinsically and for bats and breeding birds. A requirement for detail of mitigation of hedgerow loss to access is recommended prior to consent.

4.2 Conditions are recommended for: o Compliance with the Sketch Masterplan Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 o Re-survey after 12 months have elapsed since the ecological report (after November 2018) o Re-survey for badgers prior to commencement of any phase o Survey of any tree identified by the Ecological Appraisal as being of potential for bats prior to felling o Submission and implementation of a tree and hedgerow protection plan o Submission and implementation of a lighting scheme that takes bats into account and avoids unnecessary lighting of trees and hedgerows o Protection of breeding birds o Submission and implementation of a landscape scheme that includes planting to compensate for hedgerow loss and for measures for biodiversity benefit, as recommended in s.5.0 of the Ecological Appraisal and s.5.6 of the Design and Access Statement, and detail of SuDS planting as well as long-term management arrangements.

4.3 A standard mitigation contribution would be required for Cannock Chase SAC.

Staffordshire County Council Flood Risk Management Team (28.06.2018)

Following my previous response a revised Flood Risk Assessment (Project No: 16124, Rev B, 16 April 2018) incorporating a hydraulic modelling report by Waterco (Ref: w3321-180412-HMR, April 2018) has been submitted to include assessment of the flood risk from the ordinary watercourses crossing the site.

The FRA (5.4.11) states that 'blockage scenarios were simulated at the Stafford Road culvert to assess the impact to the proposed development. It was concluded that at the unlikely event of the culvert blocking, the properties within the development will not be flood risk as a result.'

However the Hydraulic Modelling Report states that in this blockage scenario 'simulation results show that flood depths on site gradually increase with time until the water levels are high enough to overtop the Stafford Road embankment.' The Maximum Flood Depth Blockage Scenario (Plot: w3321-Q100CC1_Dev2_BL2-95_D) shows significant maximum flood depths (>1.2m) within some areas of the residential blocks.

Further correspondence confirmed that "blockage scenarios for the Stafford Road culvert have been assessed for the pre-development model (EXG BL2-95) and the post development model (DEV2 BL2-95.) The crest level for the existing road is 83.68m AOD. During the EXG BL2-95 model, the water levels exceed the crest at approximately 8.5 hours into the model, 4.0 hours after the peak flood arrives. During the DEV2 BL2-95 model, the water levels exceed the crest at approximately 7.25 hours into the model, 2.75 hours after the peak flood arrives." "Measures will be taken to minimise the risk of a blocked culvert. These will include the provision of trash screens to prevent large debris entering and potentially causing a blockage. An on-going maintenance schedule will be implemented to ensure the culvert of cleared of debris and inspected to ensure it is in an acceptable condition." Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

With only 2.75 hours from the peak flood arrival to water levels exceeding the crest of the Stafford Road embankment, I would be concerned about any homes located within the maximum flood extent and with floor levels not exceeding the crest level plus adequate freeboard. Even with ongoing maintenance it would be possible for this culvert to become blocked quite rapidly by debris blown / washed into the watercourse during a storm, and with water levels rapidly rising and little warning time it is likely to be difficult and dangerous to unblock in the predicted timescales The engineering consultant has confirmed that in order to mitigate the residual risk of culvert blockage coupled with an extreme storm, they would be prepared to accept a suitably worded condition that ensured that no dwelling is set below 83.70mAOD to ensure that flood flows would spill onto Stafford before any new properties are affected.

I would recommend that finished floor levels are set no lower than 83.830mAOD, which is 150mm above the crest level for the existing road.

Staffordshire County Council Flood Risk Management position The proposed development will only be acceptable if the following measures are secured by way of planning conditions on any planning permission.

Condition All finished floor levels must be set no lower than 83.830mAOD, which is 150mm above the crest level for the existing road.

Reason To reduce the flood risk to properties in the event of culvert blockage.

Condition No phase of development shall begin until a detailed surface water drainage design for that phase has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Lead Local Flood Authority. The design must be in accordance with the overall strategy and key design parameters set out in the Flood Risk Assessment (Project No: 16124, Rev B, 16 April 2018).

The design must demonstrate: o Surface water drainage system(s) designed in accordance with national and local standards, including the Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems (DEFRA, March 2015). o SuDS design to provide adequate water quality treatment, which can be demonstrated using the Simple Index Approach (CIRIA SuDS Manual 2015). o Limiting the discharge rate generated by all rainfall events up to the 100 year plus climate change critical rain storm to 43.0l/s to ensure that there will be no increase in flood risk downstream. o Detailed design (plans, network details and calculations) in support of any surface water drainage scheme, including details on any attenuation system, and the outfall arrangements. Calculations should demonstrate the performance of the Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 designed system for a range of return periods and storm durations inclusive of the 1 in 1 year, 1 in 30 year, 1 in 100 year and 1 in 100 year plus climate change return periods. o Plans illustrating flooded areas and flow paths in the event of exceedance of the drainage system. Site layout and levels should provide safe exceedance routes and adequate access for maintenance. o Provision of an acceptable management and maintenance plan for surface water drainage to ensure continued performance of the system for the lifetime of the development. This should include a schedule of required maintenance activities and frequencies, and contact details for the organisation responsible for carrying out these duties. Reason To reduce risk of surface water flooding to the development and properties downstream for the lifetime of the development.

Further Comments (21.05. 2018)

Thank you for consulting us on the amended Flood Risk Assessment for the application above. Could I ask for some clarification / additional information regarding the blockage scenario for the Stafford Road Culvert and the proposed residual risk mitigation?

Could you confirm the time-scales for levels to reach the crest of the Stafford Road embankment as shown in the blockage scenario results?

What is the crest height of the embankment?

Can you confirm the measures that will be taken to prevent blockage of the culvert, for example construction of a suitable screen at the inlet, arrangements for ongoing maintenance, inspection and clearance of the watercourse and culvert inlet. Can you confirm measures to mitigate the residual risk from blockage, for example is it possible to set floor levels above the crest level of the Stafford Road embankment, or locate all properties outside the maximum flood extent? Thank you for consulting us on this planning application, our response is as follows:

Initial Response 06.12. 2017 Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

The Flood Risk Assessment (Project No: 16124, Rev A, 26 October 2017) submitted does not provide sufficient information to fully assess the flood risk to the proposed development. We would recommend that planning permission should not be granted until this has been adequately addressed.

The Flood Risk Assessment identifies two ordinary watercourses crossing the site but concludes that the fluvial risk to the site is very low without sufficient evidence or analysis. The site lies within Flood Zone 1, however flood zones 2 and 3 have only been modelled for catchments greater than 3km2. The fluvial flood risk at this site is therefore not accurately represented by the fluvial flood zones. The surface water flood map indicates significant flow accumulations associated with the watercourses crossing the site, as well as potential ponding in the lowest areas of the site. This mapping does not precisely represent the fluvial flood risk and will not accurately take into account the culvert under Stafford Road. However it does indicate the need for a more detailed analysis that should be undertaken as part of the Flood Risk Assessment. The FRA should include: o Assessment of the catchments (area, potential flows for full range of return periods) of both watercourses o Survey of the culvert crossing Stafford Road to establish conveyance capacity, condition, and any improvement works required o Survey of watercourse channels to establish conveyance capacity o Assessment of flood risk based on the above, for a full range of return periods and potential blockage scenarios.

Any areas at risk from these sources of flooding will need to be clearly identified, with any mitigation or areas of exclusion clearly set out.

Regarding Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS): The FRA includes an outline drainage strategy that demonstrates that adequate attenuation storage can be provided on site. This will need to be reviewed in light of the additional flood risk assessment set out above. The drainage strategy would need to be developed in conjunction with the detailed site design, to include a suitable SuDS management train which can be assessed using the Simple Index Approach (CIRIA SuDS Manual).

School Organisation Team (Revised Response received 14/6/18)

Whilst drafting the S106 agreement for Stafford Road, Penkridge - 17/01022/OUT it has been discovered that there is a different number of RSL dwellings then originally advised on the application form that we responded to. I have attached both for ease. It states that there would be 80 RSL dwellings on the application form but there is only 40 (50%) on the S106 and 40 (50%) Intermediate dwellings on the S106. Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

As it states in our original response if the number of RSL dwellings reduce we will revise our education request. It means that the Middle School education request has changed. Can you please refer this to the Planning Officer so that they are aware. Our legal team will be amending the education request in accordance with the new RSL amount.

For your official use please see below the revised request in full: Planning Application for a Residential Development at Stafford Road, Land North of Penkridge (17/01022/OUT)

In response to the above planning application the School Organisation team has the following comments:

This development falls within the catchments of Marshbrook First School, Penkridge Middle School and Wolgarston High School.

The development is scheduled to provide 200 dwellings. Excluding the 40 RSL dwellings from years 7 & 8 at Middle and High Schools, a development of 200 houses including 40 RSLs could add 30 First School, 22 Middle School, 14 High School and 5 Post 16 aged pupils.

The First schools in Penkridge Town and Penkridge Middle School are projected to be full for the foreseeable future. There are plans to increase the capacity within one of the first schools in Penkridge and increase capacity at Penkridge Middle School in order for this development and other approved developments to be mitigated; options are currently being explored and considered

Wolgarston High School is projected to have sufficient space to accommodate the likely demand from pupils generated by the development and therefore no request will be made towards High School provision.

The education contribution for a development of this size would be as follows;

30 First School places (30 x £11,031 = £330,930) and 22 Middle School places (22 x £13,827 = £304,194). This gives a total request of £635,124 for up to 200 dwellings.

The above comments are based on a development providing 200 dwellings including 120 houses and 40 RSL houses. If the number of houses or total dwellings increases, or the number of RSL properties reduces, a revised contribution will be necessary.

The above contribution is based on the 2008/09 cost multipliers which are subject to change.

The above is based on current demographics; we would wish to be consulted on any further applications for this site.

Initial Response Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

This development falls within the catchments of Marshbrook First School, Penkridge Middle School and Wolgarston High School.

The development is scheduled to provide 200 dwellings. Excluding the 80 RSL dwellings from years 7 & 8 at Middle and High Schools, a development of 200 houses including 80 RSLs could add 30 First School, 19 Middle School, 11 High School and 4 Post 16 aged pupils.

The First Schools, within Penkridge Town Cluster, are expected to be full for the foreseeable future. Penkridge Middle School is also expected to be full for the foreseeable future.

The education contribution for a development of this size would be as follows;

30 First School places (30 x £11,031 = £330,930) and 19 Middle School places (19 x £13,827 = £262,713). This gives a total request of £593,643 for up to 200 dwellings.

The above comments are based on a development providing 200 dwellings including 120 houses and 80 RSL houses. If the number of houses or total dwellings increases, or the number of RSL properties reduces, a revised contribution will be necessary.

The above contribution is based on the 2008/09 cost multipliers which are subject to change.

The above is based on current demographics; we would wish to be consulted on any further applications for this site.

Please find attached the revised response to the above planning application to reflect the plans for additional education infrastructure in Penkridge.

The education contribution for a development of this size would be as follows;

30 First School places (30 x £11,031 = £330,930) and 19 Middle School places (19 x £13,827 = £262,713). This gives a total request of £593,643 for up to 200 dwellings. Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

The above contribution is based on the 2008/09 cost multipliers which are subject to change.

The above is based on current demographics; we would wish to be consulted on any further applications for this site.

County Planning

I refer to your consultation letter dated 14 November 2017, and write to confirm the observations of Staffordshire County Council, acting as the Mineral and Waste Planning Authority.

Background The proposal is for outline permission for up to 200 dwellings, with associated access works, public open space, landscaping and other infrastructure on a 9.8 ha site between the A449 and the railway, on the northern edge of Penkridge.

Observations The proposal site adjoins the northern edge of Penkridge, and straddles the edge of the Minerals Safeguarding Area (MSA) for superficial sand and gravel, with approximately half of the site falling within the MSA. There are no permitted or allocated mineral sites in the vicinity of the application site. Paragraph 144, of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and Policy 3 of the newly adopted Minerals Local Plan for Staffordshire (2015 - 2030), both aim to protect mineral resources from sterilisation by other forms of development. Policy 3.2 of the new Minerals Local Plan states that: Within a Mineral Safeguarding Area, non-mineral development except for those types of development set out in Appendix 6, should not be permitted until the prospective developer has produced evidence prior to determination of the planning application to demonstrate: a) the existence, the quantity, the quality and the value of the underlying or adjacent mineral resource; and b) that proposals for non-mineral development in the vicinity of permitted mineral sites or mineral site allocations would not unduly restrict the mineral operations.

The Planning Statement which accompanies the application correctly identifies the MSA and the relevant policies from the Minerals Local Plan. It also recognises that the part of the proposal site which falls within the MSA lies towards the western and, to an extent, the southern edges of the site where any attempt to recover the mineral would be constrained by other development in the form of the A449 and the northernmost houses in Penkridge. It would, therefore, be unlikely that any underlying mineral resource could be extracted in a manner that Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 was environmentally acceptable and/or economically viable. As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed development would not lead to the sterilisation of significant and otherwise recoverable, mineral resources.

Conclusions Therefore, under the powers contained in the 'Scheme of Delegation to Officers', this letter confirms that Staffordshire County Council, acting as Minerals and Waste Planning Authority has NO OBJECTION to the outline planning application for development of up to 200 dwellings (use class C3) together with an access roundabout on Stafford Road, public open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure on land north of Penkridge Stafford Road, Penkridge, Staffordshire.

I trust that Staffordshire County Council's observations will be taken into account in reaching a decision on the application.

Finally, I wish to take this opportunity to remind you of the policy requirement (as detailed in Policy 1.2 of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Local Plan, and as supported by paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy for Waste) to make better use of waste associated with non-waste related development. In accordance with Policy 1.2, all 'major development' proposals (as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, or any subsequent changes/revisions) should: i. Use / Address waste as a resource; ii. Minimise waste as far as possible; iii. Demonstrate the use of sustainable design and construction techniques, i.e.: resourceefficiency in terms of sourcing of materials, construction methods, and demolition; iv. Enable the building to be easily decommissioned or reused for a new purpose; and enable the future recycling of the building fabric to be used for its constituent material; v. Maximise on-site management of construction, demolition and excavation waste arising during construction; vi. Make provision for waste collection to facilitate, where practicable, separated waste collection systems; and, vii. Be supported by a site waste management plan.

County Highways (08.02.2018)

There are no objections on Highway grounds to the proposed development subject to the following conditions being included on any approval:-

This proposal is for a residential development of up to 200 dwellings on lands located on the western side of the A449 on the northern outskirts of Penkridge. The proposal is accompanied by a Transport Assessment (TA) which reports in detail on transport issues and the site's proposed access; a roundabout junction on the A449. Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

The TA considers the site's compliance with Transport policies and address whether the site is accessible via sustainable modes of travel. With the provision of a footway over the site frontage the site would be accessible on foot to facilities within the village which is important when trying to reduce car usage and further lessen the impact from the development. I would expect to see any subsequent detailed planning application to provide direct pedestrian access through the sites frontage on the A449.

The site would be accessed via the provision of a new roundabout junction of the A449. This proposal would not only provide access to the site it would also provide a 'gateway feature' to the village of Penkridge which would help to reduce vehicle speeds when entering the residential area.

The proposed roundabout junction would also require the relocation of the 30mph speed limit further north along the A449 with the speed limit enforced by this junction. Any relocation of the speed limit would need to replicate the current reductions which are stepped from 60mph to 40mph to 30mph. This will need to be covered in the condition for off-site highway works. The TA has also modelled the traffic impact generated by the proposed development. Whilst the development does generate traffic through the local junctions the level of impact would be negligible with queues and delays increasing slightly. I am in general agreement the conclusions of the TA and that information submitted demonstrates that the proposal would be acceptable in highway terms. Therefore I have no objection in principle to the proposal subject to the following conditions being attached;-

Prior to the commencement of any construction, including demolition, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved management plan shall include details relating to construction access, hours of construction, routing of HGV's, delivery times and the location of the contractors compounds, cabins, material storage areas and contractors parking and a scheme for the management and suppression of dust from construction activities including the provision of a vehicle wheel wash. It shall also include a method of demolition and restoration of the site. All site operations shall then be undertaken strictly in accordance with the approved CEMP for the duration of the construction programme.

No occupation of any dwelling shall take place until such time as the associated driveway has been surfaced in a bound material and sustainably drained, in accordance with details to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

No building shall be occupied until the vehicular access onto Stafford Road has been fully constructed in accordance with approved plans drawing SK13 REV A

Reasons: Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

To comply with the aims and objectives of the NPPF, the Local Plan and highway safety.

Note to Planning Officer The travel plan is to be secured via a legal agreement which will require a monitoring fee of £6,430 This consent will require approval under Section 7 of the Staffordshire Act 1983 and will require a Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980. Please contact Staffordshire County Council to ensure that approvals and agreements are secured before commencement of works. Any future development of the site will require to be designed in accordance with guidance in MfS 1 and 2 and Staffordshire County Design Guide, where appropriate. So the highways should all link through where there are opportunities to do so. Notwithstanding the submitted plans appropriate surface treatments will be decided through the adoption process and small element paving will not be acceptable in certain areas where there are likely to be turning movements. Any use of block paving and trees in the highway boundary will require a commuted sum. The conditions requiring off-site highway works shall require a Highway Works Agreement with Staffordshire County Council. The applicant is requested to contact Staffordshire County Council in order to secure the Agreement. The link below is to the Highway Works Information Pack including an application form. Please complete and send to the address indicated on the application form or email to ([email protected]). The applicant is advised to begin this process well in advance of any works taking place in order to meet any potential timescales.

Historic Environment Officer Archaeology

Thank you for your consultation regarding the above outline application for development of up to 200 dwellings (Use Class C3) together with an access roundabout on Stafford Road, public open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure on land north of Penkridge.

The application is supported by a robust Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment (ADBA) which has appropriately assessed the known and potential archaeological resource utilising information held by the Staffordshire Historic Environment Record (HER) and other appropriate documents. I concur with the conclusions of the ADBA that there is moderate to low potential for significant archaeological remains to be present within the development site. However, in order to appropriately assess the unknown archaeological potential, particularly relating to prehistoric activity which is currently poorly understood within the wider landscape, it is advised that further archaeological investigation is undertaken.

The archaeological investigation should take the form of a staged evaluation comprising geophysical survey followed by trial trenching which will aim to establish the survival, nature, extent, character and significance of archaeological remains within the application site. The evaluation should be undertaken sufficiently in advance of works commencing in order to allow the results of this work to inform the Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 need for and extent of any further archaeological mitigation. This approach is in line with NPPF paragraph 128, which requires applicants to describe the significance of any heritage assets and the potential impact of any proposed development upon them. It is also supported by NPPF paragraph 141 which states that '…they [Local Planning Authorities] should also require developers to record and advance understanding of significance of any heritage asset to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publically accessible'. The evaluation should be undertaken by a suitably experienced archaeologist(s) working to the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists 'Code of Conduct' and the relevant standards and guidance (2014).

This work would most appropriately be secured via a condition attached to any planning permission for the scheme stating:

'Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a written scheme of archaeological investigation ('the Scheme') shall be submitted for the written approval of the District Planning Authority. The Scheme shall provide details of the programme of archaeological works to be carried out within the site, including post- excavation reporting and appropriate publication. The Scheme shall thereafter be implemented in full in accordance with the approved details'.

The Sketch Masterplan which supports the application proposes to retain all of the significant extant hedgerows. The wider field pattern within which the proposal site is located has been defined by the Staffordshire Historic Landscape Character (HLC) as comprising 'Reorganised Piecemeal Enclosure' which suggests a degree of field boundary loss within the wider landscape during the 20th century. The field pattern originated in the post medieval period and is associated with the incremental enclosure of the medieval open fields associated with the historic town of Penkridge to the south. The ADBA identifies that the majority of the field boundaries within and encircling the development area were present by 1754 with some removal and relaying of boundaries occurring between this date and the mid to late 19th century. In contrast to what is suggested by the HLC within the wider landscape there has been very little change to the development site's field pattern in the period since the mid to late 19th century. Consequently the intention to retain these clearly historic field boundaries and the framework of the field pattern is to be welcomed.

County Countryside and Rights Of Way Officer

The application recognises Public Footpath No. 31 Penkridge Parish which crosses the development site from east to west. The plans within the Design and Access Statement show the route of the right of way on its correct alignment however the Masterplan changes the alignment of the footpath near its eastern end by putting a left and right hand bend in the route. The Residential Travel Plan also mentions the right of way in the Introduction (1.2.4) and elsewhere and comments that right of way would be incorporated into a proposed emergency access and be enhanced to provide an all-weather route.

Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

The attention of the developer should be drawn to the requirement that any planning permission given does not construe the right to divert, extinguish or obstruct any part of the public path network. If the path will needs diverting as part of these proposals the developer will need to apply to South Staffordshire District Council under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to divert the rights of way to allow the development to commence. The County Council will need to be formally consulted on any proposal to divert the rights of way.

It is important that users of the path network are still able to exercise their public rights safely and that the paths are reinstated if any damage to the surface occurs as a result of the proposed development.

The applicants should be reminded that the granting of planning permission does not constitute authority for interference with the rights of way or their closure or diversion. For further information the applicant should be advised to read section 7 of DEFRA's Rights of Way Circular (1/09), in particular the recommendation that:

"In considering potential revisions to an existing right of way that are necessary to accommodate planned development, but which are acceptable to the public, any alternative alignment should avoid the use of estate roads for the purpose wherever possible and preference should be given to the use of made up estate paths through landscaped or open space areas away from vehicular traffic".

We would ask that trees are not planted within 3 metres of the public rights of way unless the developer and any subsequent landowners are informed that the maintenance of the trees is their responsibility. It is also unlikely that any of the new "linking" footways created through this development will be included on the Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way. Alternative arrangements will need to be made to ensure their maintenance in the future either by the developer or subsequent landowners. It may be possible for these footways to be adopted under Section 38 Highways Act 1980 but this will be the responsibility of the developer.

The County Council has not received any application under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to add or modify the Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way, which affects the land in question. It should be noted, however, that this does not preclude the possibility of the existence of a right of way at common law, or by virtue of a presumed dedication under Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980. It may, therefore, be necessary to make further local enquiries and seek legal advice in respect of any physically evident route affecting the land, or the apparent exercise of a right of way by members of the public

Crime Prevention Design Advisor (CPDA)

In order to prevent crime and reduce the fear of crime I recommend that should this proposal go ahead that it attains Police Secured by Design (SBD) accreditation. There is no charge for my advice or for the Secured by Design award, and once awarded the Police SBD logo can be used on advertising material.

Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

Research shows that adopting SBD can reduce burglary by 50%, car crime and criminal damage by 25%, therefore the carbon costs of replacing door-sets and windows on SBD developments as a result of criminal activity is more than 50% less than on non SBD developments, the cost of installing SBD approved products equals 0.2% of the total build cost.

One of the most revealing elements of research into SBD is how much 'safer' residents feel if they occupy a dwelling on an accredited development, even if they are not aware of the award status. There are few other initiatives which can deliver a measurable reduction in fear like this.

SBD supports one of the Government's key planning objectives - the creation of safe, secure, quality places where people wish to live and work. SBD applies quality standards to a range of security measures and should be seen as a positive marketing opportunity.

SBD can contribute towards BREEAM assessments.

Staffordshire Police request that should this proposal be granted that they are consulted further when "reserved matters" are being decided.

Entrance to the Development I recommend that a rumble strip, change of road surface or brick pillars be incorporated at the road entrance of the site in order to create a symbolic barrier; this gives the impression that the area beyond the 'barrier' is private to the community. Wherever possible, footpaths into the development should be wide, clear of hiding places, well lit, and should follow a direct route.

Landscaping All shrubs and hedges specified adjacent buildings should have a maximum growth height of 1 metre, whilst all tree branches should be pruned up to a minimum height of 2.5metres, thereby maintaining a clear field of vision around the site.

Trees when mature shouldn't mask lighting columns or become climbing aids to scale boundary treatments.

Lighting External areas should offer Uniformity Values between 0.25 and 0.40, using lamps with a rating of at least 60 on the colour rendering index, and meet the relevant levels as recommended by BS5489:2013, this standard should include all communal parking areas and the bin and cycle store. It should be noted that 'bollard lighting is not compliant with BS5489:2013 because it does not project sufficient light at the right height and distorts the available light due to the 'up-lighting' effect; making it difficult to recognise facial features and as a result causes an increase in the fear of crime' Secured by Design Homes 2016 version 1; February 2016 pp 24, Para 18.3.

For internal areas such as the communal entrance, landings and stairwells of HMO's, 24 hour lighting (switched using a photoelectric cell) is recommended. To reduce Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 energy consumption, lighting systems that reduce light levels during quieter periods may be utilised. The implementation of low wattage lamps such as LED's, dusk to dawn lighting, vandal resistant luminaires, appropriate lighting values (5-10 Lux), mounting to a minimum height of 2.4 metres, and a good maintenance regime, is considered good practice when considering lighting design specification and values, good lighting design promotes the feeling safety in the environment and reduce the fear of crime. Lighting schemes should work together with landscaping to mitigate the effects of seasonal variations, both lighting and landscaping schemes should be well maintained as part of a maintenance schedule.

POS/LEAP It is important that the proposed play area should be located in full view of adjacent dwellings and the PROW, i.e. not hidden behind landscaping and that any landscaping is maintained at a low level to enhance natural surveillance and increase child safety in order to reduce crime and the fear of crime including abduction of a child and anti-social behaviour.

Play areas are vulnerable to crime and being damaged, the result of this abuse is that the investment in a play area, its use, and contribution to the quality of life in the community can be seriously eroded.

An evaluation of the needs of the community should be addressed prior to implementation of this area and it is important when carrying out a post implementation evaluation of crime or anti-social behaviour (ASB) of this facility to separate incidents around the play area i.e. roads, parking areas, drinking in the street, dwelling frontages, etc. from those which actually occur within it, part of any ASB evaluation should include how many perceived ASB incidents are attributed to estate families and incidents attributed to non-resident families.

I use the word "perceived" because when a play area is being used to play or otherwise engage a young person this usually generates a certain amount of noise, this by itself is not anti-social - its noise.

The following recommendations highlight design and management features which need to be included in the planning of the proposed play area, its design and construction which will help to block the opportunity for crime and anti-social behaviour.

Community Planning; o Be able to show clear intended use related to age group, this should be considered relative to other local play facilities or youth clubs for other age groups within the community - it is important in avoiding potential abuse that all age groups are recognised with appropriate facilities included in a positive way. o Provide adequate space for the proposed activity within the play area complete with a buffer zone between the activity and adjacent dwellings or other occupied buildings. Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 o Relate intended playing area use to immediate infrastructure e.g. allow adequate road, cycle/footpath access and secure parking or cycle storage nearby. o Locate the play area for young and very young children within the protection of the built community to ensure good natural surveillance and supervision. o Ensure that ownership and management of the proposed facility is in place with adequate resource available for maintenance and any improvements should they be required.

Play Area Design; o Boundaries should be clearly defined with features to prevent unauthorised motor vehicle/cycle access. o Boundary fences and landscaping should allow natural surveillance across the play area from public areas, roads and footpaths. o Lighting should be appropriate to facilitate natural surveillance at night and reduce fear of crime. o Public rights of way through the play area should be discouraged. o There should be controlled informal access to the play area to prevent dog fouling and littering from public areas. o Gable ends of houses overlooking grassed areas = football goal! Consider planting thorny plants in front of the wall in such cases. o No structure or landscape features should compromise boundary security providing points to climb over the perimeter fence. o Areas used for "adventure play" should have clear natural surveillance without potential "hiding" places or places for litter to collect. o Additional security measures necessary to address particular crime problems in the surrounding area. o Consider the design of a youth shelter to avoid gathering in adjacent streets rear parking courts etc.

Management o Regular maintenance routines should be "designed in" to prevent the facility becoming un-usable. o The facility should be regularly monitored and the community involved in any potential expansion. o Crime and anti-social behaviour patterns recorded and any appropriate action considered. o Any improvements or changes to prevent crime and encourage use should involve community consultation.

Car Parking

If communal parking areas are essential they must be in small groups, close and adjacent to the owners which they serve, should be well lit, open to natural surveillance and from regularly habitable rooms and have obvious pedestrian routes. BFL 12 recommends avoidance of; Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

Relying on a single parking treatment - a combination of car parking treatments nearly always creates more capacity, visual interest and a more successful place. Large rear parking courts. When parking courts are less private, they offer greater opportunity for thieves, vandals and those who should not be parking there - local experience shows they also provide the opportunity to generate anti-social behaviour and space for fly tipping and are hardly ever used for parking vehicles. Parking that is not well overlooked - local experience shows that if hidden from view these bays will generate crime and anti-social behaviour Not providing a clear and direct route between front doors and on-street parking or not balancing the amount of parking in front of plots with soft relief - local experience shows that residents want to see their cars from their home and park as close to the front door as possible to unload shopping and infants

Further information on Secured by Design and accredited security products can be found at www.securedbydesign.com

Staffordshire Fire and Rescue

FIRE MAINS, HYDRANTS AND VEHICLE ACCESS Appropriate supplies of water for firefighting and vehicle access should be provided at the site, as indicated in approved document B requirement B5, section 15 and 16. I would remind you that the roads and drives upon which appliances would have to travel in order to proceed to within 45 metres of any point within the property, should be capable of withstanding the weight of a Staffordshire firefighting appliance (G.V.W. of 17800 Kg).

AUTOMATIC WATER SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS (SPRINKLERS) I wish to draw to your attention Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service's stance regarding sprinklers.

In the interest of preventing deaths and injuries from fires within domestic dwellings Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service strongly recommend the provision of a sprinkler system to a relevant standard.

Early consultation with the Fire Service when designing buildings which incorporate sprinklers may have a significant impact on reducing fire deaths and injuries in domestic premises and financial implications for all stakeholders.

SFRS are fully committed to promoting Fire Protection Systems for both business and domestic premises. Support is offered to assist all in achieving a reduction of loss of life and the impact of fire on the wider community.

Early consultation with the Fire Service when designing buildings which incorporate sprinklers may have a significant impact on reducing financial implications for all stakeholders. If you require any further advice or assistance regarding the above please do not hesitate to contact me. Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

Further information can be found at www.basfa.org.uk The website of the British Automatic Fire Sprinklers Association Ltd.

Development and Waste Management Unit No Comments Received

Severn Trent Water Ltd

With Reference to the above planning application the company's observations regarding sewerage are as follows.

I can confirm that we have no objections to the proposals subject to the inclusion of the following condition: o The development hereby permitted should not commence until drainage plans for the disposal of foul and surface water flows have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and o The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use. This is to ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to prevent or to avoid exacerbating any flooding issues and to minimise the risk of pollution.

Environment Agency The Environment Agency have no comments to make on the application as the constraints fall outside our remit. We recommend you consult with Staffs CC for advice regarding the FRA and surface water drainage/flooding issues on site.

Natural England

No objection - subject to appropriate mitigation being secured We consider that without appropriate mitigation the application would have an adverse effect on the integrity of Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation

In order to mitigate these adverse effects and make the development acceptable, the following mitigation options should be secured:

Guidance set out in the Council's approach to delivering mitigation by means of the Strategic Access Management & Monitoring (SAMM) measures agreed by the SAC Partnership should be followed. These measures will facilitate sustainable residential development while safeguarding the SAC.

We advise that an appropriate planning condition or obligation is attached to any planning permission to secure these measures. Natural England's advice on other natural environment issues is set out below

Additional Information required The application site lies within 5.5km of Cannock Chase SAC. Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

Your Authority is a partner in the Cannock Chase SAC Partnership project. South Staffordshire District Council has recently published an evidence base, including recommendations on the mitigation of recreation related impacts on the Cannock Chase SAC. Review of this evidence base has shown that recreation associated with new housing development within 15km of this European site would have a significant effect on the SAC unless mitigation measures are put in place. The effects arising from recreation comprise the creation of new paths, path widening, erosion and nutrient enrichment. This evidence base is reflected in your local plan policy EQ2. This guidance sets out the Council's approach to delivering mitigation by means of the Strategic Access Management & Monitoring (SAMM) measures agreed by the SAC Partnership. These measures will facilitate sustainable residential development while safeguarding the SAC.

To ensure compliance with the Habitats Regulations, we consider that the LPA will need to demonstrate, in advance of granting permission for a development management application, that there is sufficient certainty of the required financial commitment to deliver the SAMM measures. If such security can be demonstrated the council should complete an HRA 'screening' record accordingly. Provided that the Council as competent authority is satisfied the proposal can be screened out of the HRA process, we do not need to be re-consulted. If the HRA screening process cannot demonstrate that the required financial contribution will be delivered then please consult us again.

Landscape advice The proposed development is for a site within or close to a nationally designated landscape namely Cannock Chase AONB. Natural England advises that the planning authority uses national and local policies, together with local landscape expertise and information to determine the proposal. The policy and statutory framework to guide your decision and the role of local advice are explained below.

Your decision should be guided by paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework which gives the highest status of protection for the 'landscape and scenic beauty' of AONBs and National Parks. For major development proposals paragraph 116 sets out criteria to determine whether the development should exceptionally be permitted within the designated landscape. Alongside national policy you should also apply landscape policies set out in your development plan, or appropriate saved policies. We also advise that you consult the relevant AONB Team. Their knowledge of the site and its wider landscape setting, together with the aims and objectives of the AONB's statutory management plan, will be a valuable contribution to the planning decision. Where available, a local Landscape Character Assessment can also be a helpful guide to the landscape's sensitivity to this type of development and its capacity to accommodate the proposed development.

The statutory purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the area's natural beauty. You should assess the application carefully as to whether the proposed development would have a significant impact on or harm that statutory purpose. Relevant to this is the duty on public bodies to 'have regard' for that statutory Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 purpose in carrying out their functions (S85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000). The Planning Practice Guidance confirms that this duty also applies to proposals outside the designated area but impacting on its natural beauty.

Green Infrastructure Natural England welcomes the provision of Green Infrastructure within this proposal particularly the open greenspace which surrounds the housing areas. We suggest that this area is designed with maximum benefit to biodiversity which allows linkage along green corridors throughout the application site and into the other open green spaces identified on the site masterplan. The linking of the green spaces through the site and into the wider locality would create benefits for both people and biodiversity. In order to secure a comprehensive scheme of green infrastructure creation, Natural England would advise the attaching of a suitably worded planning condition(s) which would allow further detail to be addressed through a subsequent full application. Multi-functional green infrastructure can perform a range of functions including improved flood risk management, provision of accessible green space, climate change adaptation and biodiversity enhancement. Additional evidence and case studies on green infrastructure, including the economic benefits of GI can be found on the gov.uk website (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/natural-environment)

Badger Conservation Group

Thank you for providing us with the ecological survey for this application, we are happy with the findings and recommendations and the only comment we have is that in view of the comment that "It is considered that the woodland and grassland areas of the site offer some foraging opportunities for Badgers, while the hedgerows offer some limited dispersal opportunities" it would be prudent to implement site management measures detailed below. o Ensure trenches and ditches have escape slopes built in or fitted at the end of each working day. o Drainage or sewage pipe-work 150mm diameter, or over, be blanked off at the end of each working day. o Workers on site are advised not to handle badgers that become trapped or fall victim to site conditions. Call out details of experienced badger rescue worker(s) included. (Such advice should form part of any site induction document

Campaign to Protect Rural England Staffordshire No comments received

Staffordshire Wildlife Trust No Comments Received

Cadent Gas Limited (formerly National Grid) No Comments Received

National Grid Transco No comments received

Network Rail No Comments Received

Open Spaces Society No Comments Received Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

Ramblers Association

There is a Public Right of Way, Footpath No 31 of Penkridge Parish that crosses the development site from east to west with access via a stile on the Stafford Road crossing the field to a footbridge over the railway.

I wish to advise the developer that this is a well used path by local residents and must be respected. Ideally it should be incorporated into the design of the development and treated sympathetically with green landscaping and a gravel path rather than tarmac. It should be easy and attractive for the public to use and not obstructed in any way. If this is adhered to The Ramblers' Association will have no objections to the proposed development.

Public Comments

There have been 58 comments from members of the general public [set out in full on Public Access - Council Website]. 33 of these public responses are objections and 25 are comments in support of the application.

Set out below are extracts taken from the 33 objection comments where I have aimed to capture the range of issues covered by the objectors (full comments available on Public Access - Council Website under Planning): -

-lf we carry on over developing Penkridge it will lose its appeal as a nice rural community to live in and be subjected to all the social issues larger towns face. About fairness to the people of Penkridge, why are all social housing needs falling on Penkridge, we never see the larger developments in the neighbouring villages except for the individual designer homes. I have included the key faxes from my previous letter as to my concerns to this continual developing of housing in Penkridge. Authorities across the country are required to build their quota of homes for their residents, and the Chancellor, Philip Hammond has announced in his 2017 budget that 300,000 homes per year are the government's target. Penkridge is fulfilling its obligation by building new homes on the south side of Penkridge by the contractors Persimmon Homes.

- Making sure there are good medical facilities where people choose to live are very important as public transport has been reduced and not everybody has the use of their own vehicle to attend alternative medical centres. Preserving the existing practice to a manageable proportion is imperative, and by expanding the population with more dwellings does not help.

-With no plans to increase our schools this could pose problems with families as to where to send their children, I am sure developers think they are trying to improve people's lives, but I ask them and South Staffordshire Planning Department to consider other areas that would be more beneficial than Penkridge.

-This land is classed as 'open countryside'. According to Policy OC1 Staffs Council document, countryside, landscapes, the diversity of wildlife and habitats are meant Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 to be protected, conserved and enhanced. It must be protected also because of its ecological and agricultural value. Important objectives in GB1, GB2, OC1 Support Policy, relate to both green belt and open countryside - to protect, maintain and reinforce countryside. I understand there is a requirement to maintain 'gaps' between settlements, e.g., Penkridge and Dunston/M6 area. If the proposed plans are approved, where will the border of Penkridge be situated in the future and how is the countryside being maintained and reinforced?

-Regardless of building design, the countryside would be damaged. Many species of wildlife live on this land, including animals, a variety of birds, old trees and hedgerow borders. Apparently, according to developers, this is not the case. Flooding is an issue on this land which is somewhat higher than the village centre. Where will the water from these fields be directed should planning be approved? Again, apparently the land is not prone to any kind of flooding. Perhaps the area might be investigated a little deeper

-As at 06/02/2018 there are 804 vacant residential properties both private and housing association in South Staffordshire. There are 80 properties for sale in Penkridge, including over 30% which are New Builds on the Persimmon Estate. These range from 2-4 bedroom properties and also include bungalows and shared ownership initiatives. There are also many established properties in the area, many of which have been for sale for a considerable amount of time and have had to have been reduced. 53 of the properties are £250,000 or less and 68% of these are less that £200,000. The properties include retirement homes, affordable accommodation, family homes and executive homes. The above demonstrates there is NOT a need for additional housing in Penkridge. The housing allocation has been met in Penkridge and this application is premature and speculative and unnecessary.

- We have a significant number of major concerns with the proposals for Bloor Homes and I wish to record objections based on the following: 1. 1. Impact on the distinct and historic identity of the Village of Penkridge 2. 2. Shows total disregard for South Staffordshire Council SAD, Strategy, Planning Policy and Documentation 3. 3. Prematurity - SAD is currently in the process of being reviewed. 4. 4. Staffordshire has already produced a local plan fulfilling Government house building objectives, and is currently completing new homes at twice the national rate 5. 5. Destruction of Open Countryside and of agricultural land (currently used for grazing), impact on wildlife etc. 6. 6. The village infrastructure will not be able to cope with a further influx of new homes a. Nursery Places b. Schools c. Medical d. Roads and Congestion 7. 7. The lack of demand for additional homes in Penkridge 8. 8. Security 9. 9. Privacy / Will be overlooked Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

10. This is a done deal - Bloor Homes are already advertising the housing development on their social media. 11. Biased Feedback process from Bloor Homes to try and 'prove a need'

-Traffic i) The increased traffic flow would be significant and would increase the risks to others using the A449 road. ii) The speed limits are largely ignored on the A449; there is no reason to believe the situation would improve following this development. iii) Pedestrian footfall will increase alongside the A449 into the village but the western side of that road does not have a footpath. Pedestrians will be faced with crossing the A449 on a bend, as vehicles are accelerating out of the speed limited area, a less-than-satisfactory situation. To gain access to the western side of the A449, say to visit the market, pedestrians will have to cross back over that road, then negotiate an awkward junction at Goods Station Lane, then cross Levedale Road on a bend with restricted lines of sight. The developers must be tasked with sorting that out, at their expense not that of the respective Councils. iv) The positioning of the roundabout on the plan is most alarming and demonstrates a deplorable understanding of traffic management. It must be rejected forthwith. North-South A449 traffic will approach the roundabout downhill so relatively quickly, and will be able to negotiate the roundabout with only minor steering movements and correspondingly quickly. Traffic entering the roundabout from the planned development and intending to turn south, or that intending to do a 'U' turn to return to the village, will be in conflict with southbound A449 vehicles. South - North A449 traffic will meet a significant chicane and will, naturally, reduce speed accordingly. Exiting the roundabout that traffic will be faced with a significant hill and no momentum to help carry them up it, the result will be slow vehicles accelerating hard to regain momentum, with corresponding noise and pollution. The intention of the developers to re-instate the hedgerow to the west at this point making claim that this will mitigate the noise from vehicles, especially heavy goods vehicles, in these circumstances again show a blatant disregard for the comfort and welfare of those living alongside.

-Our schools, doctors and local services are already overstretched. If there is a problem on the motorway the A449 and surrounding roads which are already heavily congested virtually come to a stand-still. The Lyne Hill estate is not yet finished and if the Gailey Freight Hub goes ahead I am worried that the village will not be able to cope with the extra demand. The land acts as a natural soakaway for excess rain water and if built on I am worried about the increased risk of flooding. The proposed site has an abundance of wildlife, we have many wonderful birds such as, herons, kestrels, buzzards, sparrow hawks, green finches, woodpeckers, tree creepers, long tail tits, gold finches, blue tits, great tits, sparrows and this year we saw the magnificent starling murmurations which were even commented on in the local media. These birds rest and nest in the hedges and trees on the proposed site. Please do not take away all of our green spaces, any new housing will take away the village feel and put even more pressure on local services

Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

Set out below are extracts taken from the 25 comments of support where I have aimed to capture the range of issues covered by the supporters (full comments available on Public Access - Council Website under Planning): -

-We feel that the village needs more housing to accommodate first time buyers and also people like ourselves who are looking to downsize. I don't believe that the new housing will have a detrimental effect on the village especially with the plans for a traffic island being proposed. In support of it because: 1. New housing stock is required within Penkridge. 2. The siting of a new island north of the village will help with speeding traffic through the village. 3. I don't believe that local amenities such as schools and the doctors will suffer as the problems with these are a national problem

-Looking to purchase a new property in Penkridge and see the proposed development as providing a good opportunity to do so -Currently living at home with my family. Myself and my partner are both wanting to move onto the property ladder within the next two to three years. The development plan located in Penkridge would be the perfect location as it fits well with both of our jobs. I support the development plan and think it would be a fantastic opportunity for first time buyers and families to get onto the ladder.

-I believe the new housing would be a great idea for Penkridge because as a first time buyer I would love to stay near to home. The development would suit my needs in terms of travelling to work and seeing family as they all live within the area. New housing and accommodation would bring more business to the village and students into the local schools building their own portfolio.

-This new development makes it exciting times for Penkridge it can only be good for the village. The local market should benefit and all the local shops. A lot of complaints will come from people who will be worried about doctors and schools, but this problem already exists. Penkridge is already desperate for another surgery so this can only help this decision happen sooner. Definitely gets my vote. As I said it can only be good for the village.

-We are from Penkridge originally but due to our family circumstances needed a large 4 bed bungalow so were forced to move outside Penkridge to a rural community. However we are very keen to move back to Penkridge and feel that Bloor Homes are very receptive to local community wishes and work with local residents to ensure their desires for the local area are taken into consideration. We were pleased that the development has open spaces and is not just shops and thus keeping the smaller local businesses alive in the village. Bloor Homes took the time to send a representative out to meet us and discuss our concerns which makes a more considerate developer than other more well-known builders in the area. I am sure that this development will also help further Penkridge's amenities eg another doctor surgery increase size of schools, increase trade at local shops which can only be of a bonus to the community.

Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

-I believe it to be essential that new houses are built. As a first time buyer I find that availability of houses limited and would so like to stay within this village I now call my home. New development and affordable housing will allow the village to develop, provide more custom for the local community and allow first time buyers, like myself, to stay in the village rather than seek housing elsewhere.

-As a business owner in Penkridge I hear often from customers that family and friends have had to move out of Penkridge for more affordable housing and more suitable housing for the elderly eg bungalows etc. I support an application for more affordable housing and meets the needs of Penkridge.

-Having recently moved into the new Persimmon Homes Lyne Hill Meadow development we feel there are several items lacking. We feel this new development will provide a better quality of home more in keeping with Penkridge as a village and offer more variety for existing home owners as well as new.

-I'd like to start by pointing out what a great opportunity this is to bring additional jobs, accommodation, people/residents and business to the village. Penkridge is a wonderful village and deserves to be appreciated by all. I am currently trying to save to buy my first property and would love to see some affordable housing available to the young people of the village. I feel this would be a credit to the village.

-The mix of properties being proposed will be welcomed as we have a high demand for not only first time buyer homes but also family and retirement homes too

-More affordable housing needs to be built in the village

Site notice – expired 15.12.2017 Newspaper advertisement – expired 12.12.2017

5. APPRAISAL

5.1 This application is being referred to the Planning Committee as the proposal is contrary to Policy OC1 (Development in the Open Countryside beyond the West Midlands Green Belt) of the adopted Core Strategy.

5.2 Key Issues

-Principle of development -Housing Delivery/5 Year Housing Land Supply -Encroachment into open countryside: -Impact upon landscape character -Cannock Chase SAC -Ecological Value -Historical Environment and Archaeological Value -Agricultural Value -Recreational Value -Sustainability of development Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

-Highways/transport -Flood risk and drainage -Residential amenity and design -Housing Market Area (HMA) - Unmet Housing Needs -Representations -Planning Obligations [Section 106] -Unilateral Undertaking (UU) for Cannock Chase SAC

5.3 Principle of development

5.3.1 Core Strategy Policy 1 (The Spatial Strategy for South Staffordshire) sets out the strategic approach to the delivery of new homes in the district over the plan period. Core Policy 1 defines the main service villages for the main focus for housing growth, employment development and service provision.

5.3.2 The site lies within the Open Countryside, on the edge of a Main Service Village. Main Service Villages are considered in our adopted Core Strategy to be the most sustainable locations in terms of the level of essential community facilities and services available, access to public transport and supporting infrastructure. Therefore the majority of development and service provision should be focused on the Main Service Villages. The application site is located just outside the Penkridge development boundary and is defined in the Core Strategy as Open Countryside (see Policy Inset Plan 41). Policy OC1 (Development in the Open Countryside Beyond the West Midlands Green Belt) states development within the Open Countryside will normally be permitted where the proposed development is for either of the categories listed (agriculture, forestry, small scale sport facilities etc.) This proposal does not fall within those categories and is therefore deemed contrary to policy OC1 of the Core Strategy. The application site is not an allocation for residential development within the Council's emerging Site Allocations Document (SAD).

5.3.3 However, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is based on a presumption in favour of sustainable development (known as the 'golden thread' running through the NPPF) when assessing and determining proposals [NPPF Paragraph 14]. One of the aims of NPPF is 'to boost significantly the supply of housing' in a sustainable way and to 'encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth'. To achieve this, paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires the Council to "identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years' worth of housing against their housing requirements…" It is also clear that the Core Strategy must meet "the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in the Framework…"

5.3.4 The Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 Year Supply of Housing Land [3.42 years as set out in the Council's Housing Supply Statement May 2018]. Accordingly, the housing policies in our adopted Core Strategy are now considered to be out-of- date - and therefore carry less weight in the planning balance. A decision handed down by the Supreme Court on 10 May 2017 (Suffolk Coastal DC v Hopkins Homes Ltd and SSCLG, Richborough Estates Partnership LLP and SSCLG v Cheshire East BC Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

[2017]), confirmed that in law this relates only to housing policies regarding the numbers/quantum of houses and their distribution/location.

5.3.5 In these circumstances the NPPF provides a clear direction that Paragraph 14 [the presumption in favour of sustainable development] applies. This has become known as 'the 'tilted balance' in favour of a grant of planning permission. In these circumstances planning permission should be granted unless the benefits of granting planning permission would be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the harm or if there are specific policies in the Framework that indicate that development should be restricted.

5.3.6 However, this does not mean that the simple presence of a housing land supply shortfall means that housing developments must automatically be granted planning permission. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise [NPPF Paragraph 196]. The NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions. Accordingly, this proposed development needs to be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, defined by the Framework as encompassing economic, social and environmental dimensions which give rise to corresponding roles for the planning system.

5.3.7 Therefore, as indicated above, this does not imply that Policy OC1 should be disregarded in determining the application in question; it is for the decision-taker to determine how much weight can be given to the policy in the planning balance of this specific application. The main issues for consideration therefore are whether, in the overall planning balance, the application can be considered as sustainable development in the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework, having particular regard to the key issues listed below.

5.4 Housing Delivery/5 Year Housing Land Supply

5.4.1 Core Policy 6 (Housing Delivery) sets out the level of housing growth proposed for each of the villages in the settlement hierarchy, defined in Core Policy 1. Penkridge has a housing target in Policy CP6 Housing Delivery, of a minimum of 370 dwellings up to 2028, although this figure has been exceeded through planning permissions the numbers identified in the table are labelled as a minimum and not a maximum figure. Furthermore supporting policy text goes on to say;

'In addition to the proposed housing development in the [above] table...should further housing be required during the Plan period to respond to changing circumstances this will be focused on the Main Service Villages that are identified in the table [above] and apportionment between settlements shall have regard to the factors set out in Para 8.8 of this Core Strategy DPD'.

5.4.2 Given that Penkridge is identified as a sustainable location within the settlement hierarchy (one of 9 Main Service Villages) the proposal would comply Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 with Core Policy 6 and the golden thread of presumption in favour of sustainable development and is therefore compliant with Para 14 of the NPPF. Therefore I attach significant weight to this consideration.

5.5 Encroachment into Open Countryside

5.5.1 Whilst the site abuts the edge of the Main Service village of Penkridge, it is located outside of the development boundary and is therefore in planning policy terms defined as open countryside. The site is rural in character, it's adjacent to agricultural fields and hedgerow boundaries therefore encroachment into the open countryside would result in a loss of agricultural land and incidental open space on the edge of the village.

5.5.2 Policy OC1 of the Core Strategy seeks to protect open land from this form of development. Therefore given the location of the site the proposed development is considered to be a departure from the development plan and the loss of this land [from development] could have an impact upon the character and amenity of the area contrary to Policy OC1.

5.5.3 However in light of the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) the current housing land supply position renders the development boundary, and those policies restricting development to within those boundaries, including OC1, as out of date, since they are relevant to the supply of housing. This is not to say that these policies are to be disregarded, they are to be given the weight they are due in light of the matters to be considered in this application by assessment of harm and benefits.

5.5.4 Core Policy OC1 offers protection to the open countryside for its landscapes, areas of ecological, historical, archaeological, agricultural and recreational value. Therefore in order to determine the amount of weight that should be afforded to this policy objection it is fundamental to establish the degree of harm the proposed development would have on this application site. In this report sections 5.6 to 5.10 describe the degree of harm to the open countryside. It is considered that the proposed development would not, in this case, have a significant adverse impact on the site's environmental value.

5.6 Impact upon Landscape Character

5.6.1 Policy EQ4 (Protecting and Enhancing Character and Appearance of the Landscape) and EQ12 (Landscaping) states the intrinsic character and local distinctiveness of the South Staffordshire landscape should be maintained and where possible enhanced. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets out 12 core land use planning principles, which amongst others; include the provision to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

5.6.2 The application site does not lie within, near to or form part of a Special Site of Scientific Interest (SSSI). A Public Right of Way (Penkridge 31) runs through the site, but the indicative layout confirms that this can be retained within the final scheme. Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

5.6.3 A Landscape Visual Impact Assessment has been submitted as part of the application that concludes, in summary, that any landscape and visual impacts would be localised to the immediate area surrounding the site. It concludes that any landscape impacts will only be slight in nature once mitigation (i.e. landscaping) is put in place, and that the only substantial adverse visual impact will be on users of the PRoW and as it runs through the site and immediately adjacent residential properties, with impacts on other views being less substantial once mitigation is provided.

5.6.4 It is accepted that the site is not subject of any specific planning policy, environmental or landscape designation and is not of such demonstrable value to be considered part of a 'valued landscape' (as referred to a paragraph 109 of the Framework). It is my view there would be some impact on the landscape character and views achieved from the A449 and nearby Public Rights of Way, however these impacts are mainly localised to the immediate vicinity of the site. Subsequently, there is limited conflict with policies EQ4 and EQ12 and paragraph 17 of the NPPF, which requires decisions to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

5.6.5 However given the points above, the residential curtilage set back from the A449, significant planting, hedgerow mitigation the creation of some open space site landscape planting I consider that the issue of landscape harm/conflict with policies EQ4 and EQ12 can only be afforded very limited weight.

5.6.6 Therefore it is my view that with the mitigation proposed the development would have a limited landscape and visual impact and would only have a minor degree of conflict with local plan landscape policies or the NPPF.

5.6.7 The application site is situated 6 km from the Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and therefore lies within the 15 km zone of influence identified around the SAC. This zone is estimated to encompass the area from which 75% of visits to the SAC are generated. Core Policy EQ2 (Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation) relates to the Cannock Chase SAC.

5.6.8 The Habitat Regulations place restrictions on the ability of a 'competent authority' to agree to a plan or project where it will adversely affect the integrity of the European site (such as the Cannock Chase SAC). The site lies within the Zone of Influence for the Cannock Chase SAC where evidence, supported by Natural England, clearly demonstrates that any net increase in housing will have an adverse effect on the SAC. 5.6.9 However, the Council has an agreed approach to mitigation with Natural England, which indicates that such impacts can usually be satisfactorily mitigated and avoided through the provision of a commuted sum of £232 per unit towards an agreed set of mitigation projects. This sum has been agreed and will be secured through a Unilateral Undertaking (UU) - see Section 5.18 below. This ensures that there are no adverse impacts on the Cannock Chase SAC arising from the development, meaning that, with the secured commuted sum, the Council has the legal authority to decide this planning application without acting outside of the scope of the Habitat Regulations. Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

5.7 Ecological Value

5.7.1 The NPPF seeks to minimise impacts and provide gains in biodiversity. This is echoed within Policy EQ1 (Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets) which states that permission will be granted for development that does not cause significant harm to sites or habitats of nature conservation. As part of the application several documents were provided to address ecological impact. The Ecologist has reviewed the documents submitted with the application and states the proposals are in accordance with NPPF and Local Policy for biodiversity and would provide a small scale contribution to Staffordshire Biodiversity Action Plan objectives. An additional hedgerow mitigation plan has been provided and the details pursuant to an outline consent shall be developed in accordance with the plan. No objections subject to conditions are confirmed.

5.7.2 The reports provided with the application along with their recommendations are deemed acceptable, subject to conditions complying with Policy EQ1 and the NPPF.

5.8 Historic Environment & Archaeological Value

5.8.1 The Historic Environment Officer Archaeology has recommended that a condition be imposed that requires site investigation/recording prior to commencement of development in accordance with national policy set out at NPPF (Paragraphs 128 & 141) and in accordance with Core Strategy EQ3 (Conservation, Preservation and Protection of Heritage Assets) and EQ4. An appropriate condition is set out at Condition 11.

5.8.2 The Historic Environment Officer Archaeology goes on to comment that the Sketch Masterplan which supports the application proposes to retain all of the significant extant hedgerows. The wider field pattern within which the proposal site is located has been defined by the Staffordshire Historic Landscape Character (HLC) as comprising 'Reorganised Piecemeal Enclosure' which suggests a degree of field boundary loss within the wider landscape during the 20th century. The field pattern originated in the post medieval period and is associated with the incremental enclosure of the medieval open fields associated with the historic town of Penkridge to the south. The ADBA identifies that the majority of the field boundaries within and encircling the development area were present by 1754 with some removal and relaying of boundaries occurring between this date and the mid to late 19th century. In contrast to what is suggested by the HLC within the wider landscape there has been very little change to the development site's field pattern in the period since the mid to late 19th century. Consequently the intention to retain these clearly historic field boundaries and the framework of the field pattern is to be welcomed.

5.9 Agricultural Value

5.9.1 Paragraphs 17 and 112 of the NPPF requires for local planning authorities take into account the economic and other benefits of best and most versatile agricultural Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 land and that areas of poorer quality should be used in preference to areas of higher quality.

5.9.2 The Agricultural Land Classification for the site is Grade 3. Therefore this site is consequently afforded a degree of protection from development but this would not prevent development taking place.

5.9.3 The Council recognises that Grades 1, 2 and 3a are classified as the 'Best and Most Versatile' (BMV) agricultural land category as defined in the NPPF. Significant areas of South Staffordshire lie within these areas therefore, in order to meet housing supply in this region, and provide the appropriate level of new residential development, the loss of some BMV land would be unavoidable.

5.9.4 Although the land will no longer be available for agricultural production the proposed scheme would include landscaped areas, formal and informal open space along with domestic gardens. Therefore the development in general will allow for some soil reuse. Providing these soils are handled when dry, they will retain a proportion of their structure and functional ability to provide benefits through ecosystem services.

5.9.5 Although it is required to account for economic benefits of BMV, the NPPF does not place a restriction to the development of BMV. In light of the above reasons I am of the view that the proposal does not involve a significant loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land and afford only limited weight to its loss [to development] and the proposed is therefore broadly consistent with the framework.

5.10 Recreational Value

5.10.1 The site is largely private green space albeit the public footpath; therefore limited weight can be afforded to its recreational value in this case.

5.11 Sustainability of Development

5.11.1 Sections 5.6 to 5.10 have considered the degree of harm to the open countryside - with regard to impact on landscape character, ecology, historic environment and archaeology, agricultural and recreational value. It is considered that the proposed development would not, in this case, have a significant adverse impact on the environmental value of this site.

5.11.2 Whilst located outside the development boundary of Penkridge, the site is located within a reasonable distance of the local services and facilities; these being a local convenience store, bank, children's nursery, St Michaels School, a railway station and wide range of shops. Many of these services are located between 550m and 900m from the site, most around a 6-12 minute walk.

5.11.3 A number of regular bus services (54, 75, 76 and 878) run via Penkridge on its route between Stafford, Cannock and Wolverhampton; Mondays - Saturdays. Additionally a rail service between Penkridge and Birmingham New Street operates Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 every 30minutes. In addition, Stafford Town can be accessed from Penkridge by train with a frequency of approximately one hour.

5.11.4 It can therefore be said that the application site is well served by public transport and is in a sustainable location. Public comments of objection have referred to the doctor's surgery being at full capacity and having to wait too long for an appointment. With regards to this point the agent approached the medical practice to see if there was any way of assisting. However it became apparent that the medical practice is failing to attract sufficient number of GPs hence the waiting time problem.

5.11.5 Public comments of objection have also referred to increased pressure on school places. County Education has commented that this development falls within the catchments of Marshbrook First School, Penkridge Middle School and Wolgarston High School. The development is scheduled to provide up to 200 dwellings. Excluding the 40 RSL dwellings from years 7 & 8 at Middle and High Schools, a development of 200 houses including 40 RSLs could add 30 First School, 22 Middle School, 14 High School and 5 Post 16 aged pupils.

5.11.6 The First schools in Penkridge Town and Penkridge Middle School are projected to be full for the foreseeable future. There are plans to increase the capacity within one of the first schools in Penkridge and increase capacity at Penkridge Middle School in order for this development and other approved developments to be mitigated; options are currently being explored and considered.

5.11.7 Wolgarston High School is projected to have sufficient space to accommodate the likely demand from pupils generated by the development and therefore no request will be made towards High School provision.

5.11.8 The education contribution for a development of this size would be as follows;

30 First School places (30 x £11,031 = £330,930) and 22 Middle School places (22 x £13,827 = £304,194). This gives a total request of £635,124 for up to 200 dwellings.

5.11.9 Economically, the construction and fitting out of the dwellings and creation of new road infrastructure would create employment and generate demand for services as well as for various plant and material. The increase in the population of Penkridge will potentially boost the spending power of the local economy to some extent. This economic benefit adds some weight in favour of the planning balance.

5.11.10 Socially, the proposed development would provide additional housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations with accessible local services that reflect the communities' needs and supports its health, social and cultural well-being. Although indicative, the development is proposing a relatively high proportion of bungalows that would help serve the district's ageing population.

Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

5.11.11 Environmentally, the development will not significantly harm the natural environment, it will help to improve biodiversity, minimise waste and pollution through mitigation measures.

5.11.12 The combination of these benefits would secure economic growth and boost the supply of housing compliant with the NPPF, and these are therefore sound arguments carrying considerable weight in favour of the proposed development.

5.12 Highways/Transport

5.12.1 County Highways has confirmed no objections subject to conditions. In the response County Highways comments that this proposal is accompanied by a Transport Assessment (TA) which reports in detail on transport issues and the site's proposed access; a roundabout junction on the A449. The TA considers the site's compliance with Transport policies and address whether the site is accessible via sustainable modes of travel. With the provision of a footway over the site frontage the site would be accessible on foot to facilities within the village which is important when trying to reduce car usage and further lessen the impact from the development. I would expect to see any subsequent detailed planning application to provide direct pedestrian access through the site's frontage on the A449.

5.12.2 The site would be accessed via the provision of a new roundabout junction on the A449. This proposal would not only provide access to the site it would also provide a 'gateway feature' to the village of Penkridge which would help to reduce vehicle speeds when entering the residential area.

5.12.3 The proposed roundabout junction would also require the relocation of the 30mph speed limit further north along the A449 with the speed limit enforced by this junction. Any relocation of the speed limit would need to replicate the current reductions which are stepped from 60mph to 40mph to 30mph. This will need to be covered in the condition for off-site highway works. The TA has also modelled the traffic impact generated by the proposed development.

5.12.4 County Highways conclude that whilst the development does generate traffic through the local junctions the level of impact would be negligible with queues and delays increasing slightly. They are in general agreement with the conclusions of the TA and that information submitted demonstrates that the proposal would be acceptable in highway terms

5.13 Flood risk and drainage

5.13.1 The site comprises of a watercourse that starts from the south east and finishes North West.

5.13.2 Originally the flood risk officer raised concerns with the application and sought additional information. There is a culvert crossing the site and its future maintenance is to be secured through a suitable planning condition. Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

5.13.3 The Flood Risk Officer concludes no objections conditions. The Environment Agency recommended that we consult with Staffordshire County Council for advice regarding Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and surface water drainage/flooding issues on site. There have been no objections from Severn Trent Water. In conclusion, I am satisfied the proposed development would accord with Policy CP3 (Sustainable Development & Climate Change) of the Core Strategy and NPPF.

5.14 Residential Amenity and Design

5.14.1 The application is in outline with details of access arrangements only to be agreed at this stage. All other matters (including layout, appearance, landscaping and scale) to be secured at reserved matters stage. The illustrative layout plan submitted with the application does demonstrate that suitable separation distances could be achieved, however condition 3 makes it clear that no indicative drawings are agreed at this stage.

5.14.2 To ensure the amenities of nearby residents are protected, in accordance with Policy EQ9 (Protecting Residential Amenity), a construction management plan will be conditioned (condition 8).

5.15 Housing Market Area (HMA) - Unmet Housing Needs

5.15.1 Planning law requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Framework [NPPF] is a material consideration in planning decisions (NPPF Paragraph 196). The achievement of sustainable development is the golden thread that runs through the Framework (NPPF Paragraph 14). To boost significantly the supply of housing is a principal policy driver in the Framework (NPPF Paragraph 47).

5.15.2 In March 2018 the Government consulted on a Revised NPPF. The introduction to the draft revised NPPF stated: -

'The country does not have enough homes. For decades the number of new homes has not kept pace with rising demand. That has created a market that fails to work for far too many families, resulting in sparing prices and rising rents. The Government is clear that the country needs radical, lasting reform that will allow more homes to be built.'

It is anticipated that Government will publish the revised NPPF during Summer 2018.

5.15.3 For these reasons, I consider that unmet housing needs within the Housing Market Area (HMA) is another material consideration that should be afforded significant weight in the 'planning balance' in considering the merits of this proposed development.

5.14.4 The Localism Act 2011 introduced local financial considerations as another material consideration in planning decisions. It is for the decision-taker to decide how much weight should be attributed in each specific case. Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

5.15.5 Accordingly, I shall assess the significance of these other material considerations under 3 headings: -

A) Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (GBHMA) - Housing Shortfall B) Local financial considerations C) Sustainability

A) Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (GBHMA) - Housing Shortfall

5.15.6 The Birmingham Development Plan 2011-2031 was adopted in January 2017 and commits Birmingham City Council to work with the 13 other local planning authorities within the GBHMA in order to address the housing shortfall within emerging local plans. Birmingham's objectively assessed housing needs (oan) were evidenced in the plan as 89,000 dwellings. The plan will deliver 51,100 dwellings and so this leaves a shortfall of 37,900 dwellings.

5.15.7 The 14 local planning authorities (Lpas) across the GBHMA have recently commissioned a Strategic Growth Study (SGS) to identify potential strategic locations for growth across the HMA. The GL Hearn/Wood SGS was published on 21 February 2018 and included an update on the housing shortfall (previously evidenced by the Peter Brett Study 2015).

5.15.8 The GL Hearn/Wood SGS 2018 found that the HMA shortfall to 2031 had reduced to 28,150 (partly because of local plan progress since consideration of the Birmingham Development Plan 2031). The Strategic Growth Study (SGS) has also suggested that around 13,000 dwellings from this shortfall could be accommodated through densification, without requiring identification of new sites. This would reduce the shortfall (up to 2031) to circa 15,000 dwellings. The SGS looks further ahead by 5 years (up to 2036) and finds that the shortfall is likely to increase to around 48,000 dwellings.

5.15.9 The Chancellor (in his Spring Statement 13 March 2018) announced a new Housing Deal for the West Midlands (Second Devolution Deal). The Government has committed £350 million towards housing delivery/infrastructure across the geography of the WMCA (constituent and non-constituent members). In return the WMCA (through the Mayor) has committed to deliver 215,000 homes by 2030/31 and local plans for constituent and non-constituent authorities are to be updated as necessary by the end of 2019 to deliver the 215,000 new homes by 2030/31. The geography of the constituent and non-constituent members comprises a total of 4 Housing Market Areas (HMAs) - Greater Birmingham & the Black Country HMA, the Coventry & Warwickshire HMA, Telford HMA and Shropshire HMA. This combined authority geography (constituent and non-constituent members) omits 4 local planning authorities who have plan-making functions - the district councils of Lichfield, Bromsgrove, South Staffordshire and Warwick.

5.15.10 The commitment to deliver 215,000 new homes by 2030/31 represents an increase in delivery to nearly 16,000 dwellings/annum (from an average of 12,000 dwellings/annum over the last 3 years) and significantly increases the amount of Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 land released for housing. This ambitious target is above the level proposed under the Government's Housing Needs Assessment set out in the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Draft NPPF (2018) is a consultation document which had a deadline of 10 May 2018 for receipt of comments.

5.15.11 The GL Hearn/Wood SGS 2018 is not a policy document. It is a body of evidence that the 14 local planning authorities across the Greater Birmingham HMA (including South Staffordshire Council) will be required to test through their emerging local plans. In April 2018 the Government amended Local Planning Regulations to make it a legal obligation on local planning authorities to review their local plans every 5 years. The Council's adopted Core Strategy (December 2012) is now more than 5 years old and the emerging Site Allocations Document (SAD) includes Policy SAD 1 (that commits the Council to an immediate local plan review). The SGS findings recommended that 11 (specified) strategic locations, across the Greater Birmingham HMA, be considered/tested (through local plan reviews) - for urban extensions (1500 to 7500 dwellings), employment-led strategic development (1500 to 7500 dwellings) or new settlements (10,000+ dwellings). For South Staffordshire, 2 strategic locations are recommended for consideration -North of Penkridge (urban extension) and North of Wolverhampton/i54 (employment-led strategic development).

5.15.12 The existence of an evidenced housing shortfall and the recommendation to consider urban extensions north of Penkridge, are matters for the plan-making process. However, there is currently no agreement as to how the evidenced housing shortfall across the Greater Birmingham HMA (up to 2031) will be apportioned across the 13 local planning authorities within the HMA [Birmingham excepted]. In addition north of Penkridge has been recommended as a sustainable location for housing growth (GL Hearn/Wood SGS 2018). These are other material considerations to which I attach significant weight in the 'planning balance' in the consideration of the merits of this proposed development.

B) Local financial considerations

6.15.13 The Localism Act 2011 brought about changes to primary planning legislation which means that local financial considerations are capable of being material considerations in the outcome of planning decisions. How much weight should be attached is for the decision-taker to decide based on the circumstances of the individual case. In this case it is considered that local financial consideration should carry moderate weight in favour of the proposed development. The local financial considerations are the generation of increased council tax payments, potential payment of New Homes Bonus, the construction and fitting out of the dwellings would financially be of benefit locally, together with employment creation, generating demand for materials and the increase in the population of Penkridge will contribute to the spending power of the local economy to some extent.

Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

C) Sustainability

5.15.14 The proposed development would deliver 40% affordable housing, a mix of market and affordable homes and apartments with care (C2), it would deliver a further choice of new homes in a sustainable location. This would boost South Staffordshire's existing housing supply and assist with accommodating the districts ageing population in accordance paragraphs 47, 50 of the NPPF and policy H1 of our adopted Core Strategy. The proposed housing mix includes a significant amount of bungalow development - 10% of the total market housing element would be bungalow, 10% of the social rent element of the affordable housing mix would be 2 bed bungalows and 5% of the intermediate housing (shared ownership) would be 2 bed bungalows.

5.15.15 Although the application is contrary to Policy OC1 and conflicts with Policy EQ4 the site is not of high recreational, landscape, historical, archaeological or ecological value and is very close to a main service village, within close walking distance of facilities and services. This will limit the extent of the conflict with Policy EQ4. Therefore whilst the proposal would not accord with Policy OC1, it would contribute to some of the strategic aims by creating sustainable development in terms of environmental, social and economic factors.

5.15.16 The access to this site is to be facilitated through the construction of a new roundabout. County Highways/Planning consider (and I agree) that this means of accessing this site will create a gateway feature to the village of Penkridge. This will force traffic to slow down as they enter/leave the village to the north and will represent a positive planning benefit.

5.16 Representations

5.16.1 There have been 33 public comments of objection and 25 public comments of support for this application. I have taken extracts from these public comments in an attempt to cover the range of comments made in respect of this application. These are set out above under Section 4 Consultation Responses (Public Comments). I have sought to address these concerns throughout the report.

5.17 Planning Contributions

5.17.1 Policy EQ13 (Development Contributions) states that contributions will be sought from developers where necessary to achieve sustainable development. Although the application is in outline form with all details reserved except for access, it is common practice to try and get the particulars that would require entering into a Section 106 Agreement secured at this (the outline) stage.

5.17.2 Policy H2 (Provision of Affordable Housing) seeks 40% affordable housing on greenfield land for 10 or more dwellings. Policy H4 states that affordable housing should be secured in perpetuity and set 50% social rental and 50% intermediate tenures. The draft S106 stipulates that 40% of the dwellings constructed will be affordable and comprise 50% social rented units and 50% intermediate housing Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 units. This is considered to be acceptable for when the final S106 is finalised, complying with policies EQ13, H1 (Housing Delivery), H2 (Provision of Affordable Housing) and H4 (Delivery of Affordable Housing).

5.17.3 The draft S106 states that an educational contribution is to be paid. There is also provision for the cost of the monitoring of the agreed Travel Plan.

5.17.4 The proposal includes the provision of green infrastructure including the provision of formal and informal open space. The Parks and Open space officer has commented and the applicant has agreed to the financial contribution. This would be secured as part of the S106 agreement.

5.The Heads of Terms (which will include financial contributions) to be agreed are as follows:

Affordable Housing - In terms of quantum of houses 40% affordable housing for residential dwellings.

Public Open Space (POS) - £65,190 per ha maintenance

Educational contribution - 30 First School places (30 x £11,031 = £330,930) and 22 Middle School places (22 x £13,827 = £304,194). This gives a total request of £635,124 for up to 200 dwellings.

-Travel Plan monitoring fee of £6430

5.18 SAC Unilateral Undertaking (UU)

5.18.1 The site lies within the Zone of Influence for the Cannock Chase SAC where evidence, supported by Natural England and set out in Policy EQ2 of the Core Strategy clearly demonstrates that any net increase in housing will have an adverse effect on the SAC. To assist in mitigating this impact a developer contribution of £232 per unit has been agreed and is considered acceptable provided this is secured through Unilateral Undertaking (UU).

5.18.2 In April 2018 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued what appears to be a landmark judgment [People over Wind and Sweetman Collite Teoranta] from the Irish Republic on habitats regulation assessment (HRA). Under the European Union (EU) habitats directive, local planning authorities are required to carry out these assessments to make sure plans or projects affecting sites in and around EU designated special areas of conservation (SACs) or special protection areas (SPAs) have no harmful effect on them. It is considered that the UU, which is supported by Natural England NE), will provide satisfactory mitigation for the effect of granting planning permission for up to 200 new homes north of Penkridge. Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

6. CONCLUSION

6.1The application site is not an allocation for residential development within the Council's emerging Site Allocations Document (SAD). However, the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land therefore the policies for the supply of housing (as set out in the development plan [adopted Core Strategy 2012]) cannot be considered to be up-to-date. In these circumstances the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies (NPPF Paragraph 14). This is referred to as 'the tilted balance' - where planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits (when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole) or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted.

6.2 Penkridge is a main service village with access to local services and facilities within walking distance and a regular bus and rail service that could be used; such are likely to be required by future occupiers on a daily basis. The site would deliver a range of economic, social and environmental benefits. It would secure some economic growth, contribute to the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (GBHMA) housing shortfall and boost significantly the supply of housing (which is compliant with the NPPF). Therefore, these are sound arguments to which I attribute significant weight in support of this planning application.

6.3 The proposed development is of a scale that is commensurate with the function and character of Penkridge. Policy OC1 is a policy that is out of date (adopted as policy more than 5 years ago) and therefore I attribute it less than full weight in the 'planning balance'. In this report it has been demonstrated that the adverse impact on the open countryside, north of Penkridge, would not be significant, having regard to impact on landscape, ecology, historic environment and archaeology, agricultural and recreational value. Neither is there significant harm to highway safety nor existing infrastructure (such as schools and the provision of doctors surgeries).

6.4 The construction of a roundabout to access the site will create a gateway feature that will force traffic to slow down to the north of the village and this would represent a planning benefit. Furthermore the proposal is a suitable use which will not cause harm to surrounding residential amenity. In this respect the proposal is considered to represent a sustainable form of development and accords with the NPPF.

6.5 Core Policy 6 (Housing Delivery) of the adopted Core Strategy relates to housing land supply and distribution. It is stated that 'should further housing development be required in the plan period to respond to changing circumstances this will be focused on the Main Service Villages and Local Service Villages…'. Penkridge is one of the Main Service Villages in the adopted Core Strategy.

6.6 I acknowledge that there would be some conflict with the development plan as a consequence of the localised harm arising from the loss of open countryside, the loss of BMV agricultural land, together with the impact on the existing landscape and local character. However, in the 'planning balance' this is not sufficient to Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018 significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of boosting the supply of open market and affordable housing. The proposed development would make an important contribution to the achievement of sustainable development in South Staffordshire (as defined in the NPPF).

7. RECOMMENDATION - Delegate APPROVAL to the Chief Planning Officer to issue the decision on completion of a satisfactory Section 106 Agreement and Unilateral Undertaking (UU).

Subject to the following condition(s):

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun no later than whichever is the later of the following dates: a. The expiration of three years from the date on which this permission is granted; b. The expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

2. Before the development commences, and within 3 years of the date of this permission, full details of the following reserved matters shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval: a. The Layout - The way in which buildings, routes and open spaces are to be provided within the development and their relationship to buildings and spaces in the vicinity of the site; b. The Scale - The height, width, length and overall appearance of each of the proposed buildings, including the proposed facing materials, and how they relate to their surroundings; c. The Appearance - The aspects of a building or place which determine the visual impression it makes; d. The Landscaping - The treatment of private and public space through the introduction of hard and soft landscaping.

3. This permission does not grant or imply consent for the indicative layout shown in the Planning Statement & Heads of Terms [October 2017 - 236 PS241017] and Sketch Master Plan DE 236 SK01 Rev D, nor does it grant or imply consent for any other indicative layout sketches/drawings included within the documentation submitted as part of this application.

4. Before the development commences a landscape scheme demonstrating enhancements for biodiversity and future management/maintenance shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full concurrently with the development and completed within 12 months of the completion of the development. The Local Planning Authority shall be notified when the Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

scheme has been completed. Any failures shall be replaced within the next available planting season and the scheme shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the submitted landscaping scheme must include planting to compensate for hedgerow loss and for measures for biodiversity benefit, as recommended in s.5.0 of the Ecological Appraisal and s.5.6 of the Design and Access Statement, and detail of SuDS planting as well as long-term management arrangements.

5. Before the development commences a lighting scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The submitted details shall seek to reduce the amount of light projecting on to hedgerows and trees that are identified as important habitats for bats and nesting birds. The agreed lighting scheme shall be implemented in full concurrently with the approved development.

6. The development hereby permitted shall not commence unless and until drainage plans for the disposal of foul and surface water flows have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and thereafter the agreed scheme shall be implemented in full in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use.

7. Prior to the commencement of any construction, including demolition, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved management plan shall include details relating to construction access, hours of construction, routing of HGV's, delivery times and the location of the contractor’s compounds, cabins, material storage areas and contractors parking and a scheme for the management and suppression of dust from construction activities including the provision of a vehicle wheel wash. It shall also include a method of demolition and restoration of the site. All site operations shall then be undertaken strictly in accordance with the approved CEMP for the duration of the construction programme.

8. No occupation of any dwelling shall take place until such time as the associated driveway has been surfaced in a bound material and sustainably drained, in accordance with details to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

9. No building shall be occupied until the vehicular access onto Stafford Road has been fully constructed in accordance with approved plans drawing SK14 A and until consequential off site works within the public highway have been completed. For the avoidance of doubt these works shall include the relocation of the 30mph speed limit further north along the A449 with the speed limit enforced by this junction. Any relocation of the speed limit would need to replicate the current reductions which are stepped from 60mph to 40mph to 30mph.

Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

10. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a written scheme of archaeological investigation ('the Scheme') shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The Scheme shall provide details of the programme of archaeological works to be carried out within the site, including post excavation reporting and appropriate publication. The Scheme shall thereafter be implemented in full in accordance with the approved details.

11. Before development commences details of the existing and proposed ground levels of the site (and finished floor levels of the buildings) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The development shall be carried out to the approved levels.

12. a) No development shall take place within the bird breeding season March- September inclusive unless preceded no more than 48 hours before by a breeding bird survey by a suitably qualified and experienced ornithologist or ecologist that demonstrates that no bird breeding (including ground nesting birds) will be affected or that works can be carried out while protecting breeding sites. The survey report should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority within two weeks of commencement of any works taking place; and

b) Felling of T1 should be carried out between November and February or be preceded by a resurvey for bat use, or that this be included in a revised CEMP.

13. The landscaping scheme to be submitted (as a requirement of condition 4 above) shall comply with the agreed Sketch Masterplan and Hedgerow Mitigation Plan and (if submitted for approval after November 2018) shall include a re-surveys for protected species (including badgers, bats, great crested newts and breeding birds) together with a plan showing how trees and hedgerows will be protected.

14. The details to be submitted pursuant to this outline planning permission shall include a phasing plan that demonstrates the time-frame within which the development shall be delivered. Prior to the commencement of each new phase of development there shall be a re-survey of badgers.

15. The details pursuant to this outline planning permission shall comprise the following housing mix:

Market housing mix:

35% 2 beds 40% 3 beds 25% 4 beds 10% of the total market housing is to be provided as bungalows.

Affordable housing mix: Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

Social Rent:

22.5% 1 bed apartments 10% 2 bed bungalows 37.5% 2 bed houses 25% 3 bed houses 5% 4 bed houses

Intermediate Housing (i.e. shared ownership):

5% 2 bed bungalows 55% 2 bed houses 40% 3 bed houses

16. All finished floor levels must be set no lower than 83.830mAOD, which is 150mm above the crest level for the existing road.

17. No phase of development shall begin until a detailed surface water drainage design for that phase has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Lead Local Flood Authority. The design must be in accordance with the overall strategy and key design parameters set out in the Flood Risk Assessment (Project No: 16124, Rev B, 16 April 2018).

The design must demonstrate:

Surface water drainage system(s) designed in accordance with national and local standards, including the Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems (DEFRA, March 2015). SuDS design to provide adequate water quality treatment, which can be demonstrated using the Simple Index Approach (CIRIA SuDS Manual 2015). Limiting the discharge rate generated by all rainfall events up to the 100 year plus climate change critical rain storm to 43.0l/s to ensure that there will be no increase in flood risk downstream. Detailed design (plans, network details and calculations) in support of any surface water drainage scheme, including details on any attenuation system, and the outfall arrangements. Calculations should demonstrate the performance of the designed system for a range of return periods and storm durations inclusive of the 1 in 1 year, 1 in 30 year, 1 in 100 year and 1 in 100 year plus climate change return periods. Plans illustrating flooded areas and flow paths in the event of exceedance of the drainage system. Site layout and levels should provide safe exceedance routes and adequate access for maintenance.

Provision of an acceptable management and maintenance plan for surface water drainage to ensure continued performance of the system for the lifetime of the development. This should include a schedule of required Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

maintenance activities and frequencies, and contact details for the organisation responsible for carrying out these duties.

Reasons

1. To define the permission.

2. In order to define the permission, to avoid doubt and to safeguard the amenity of the area.

3. To define the permission.

4. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 and EQ12 of the adopted Core Strategy.

5. To safeguard the amenity of the area and protect important habitats for bats and nesting birds in accordance with policies EQ1 and EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.

6. To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to prevent or to avoid exacerbating any flooding issues and to minimise the risk of pollution in accordance with policy EQ7 and Policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.

7. To comply with the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and in the interest of Highway safety and residential amenity in accordance with Core Strategy Policies EQ9 and EQ11.

8. To comply with the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and in the interest of Highway safety.

9. To comply with the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and in the interest of Highway safety.

10. In order to preserve and record any items of archaeological interest in accordance with policy EQ3 of the adopted Core Strategy.

11. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with Policies EQ4, EQ7 and EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.

12. In order to protect any protected species/biodiversity on the site in accordance with EQ1 of the adopted Core Strategy

13. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with Policies EQ4 and EQ12 of the adopted Core Strategy.

Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

14. To enable the local planning authority to monitor (and seek to achieve the timely delivery of) new homes in South Staffordshire in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (Paragraph 47-49)

15. To comply with Policy H1 of the adopted Core Strategy

16. To reduce the flood risk to properties in the event of culvert blockage.

17. To reduce risk of surface water flooding to the development and properties downstream for the lifetime of the development.

PROACTIVE STATEMENT

In dealing with the planning application the Local Planning Authority has worked in a positive and proactive manner by agreeing amendments to the application and in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

INFORMATIVES

County Highways

The travel plan is to be secured via a legal agreement which will require a monitoring fee of £6,430. This consent will require approval under Section 7 of the Staffordshire Act 1983 and will require a Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980. Please contact Staffordshire County Council to ensure that approvals and agreements are secured before commencement of works. Any future development of the site will require to be designed in accordance with guidance in MfS 1 and 2 and Staffordshire County Design Guide, where appropriate. So the highways should all link through where there are opportunities to do so. Notwithstanding the submitted plans appropriate surface treatments will be decided through the adoption process and small element paving will not be acceptable in certain areas where there are likely to be turning movements. Any use of block paving and trees in the highway boundary will require a commuted sum.

The conditions requiring off-site highway works shall require a Highway Works Agreement with Staffordshire County Council. The applicant is requested to contact Staffordshire County Council in order to secure the Agreement. The link below is to the Highway Works Information Pack including an application form. Please complete and send to the address indicated on the application form or email to ([email protected]). The applicant is advised to begin this process well in advance of any works taking place in order to meet any potential timescales.

Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

Biodiversity enhancements

This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that 'Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity'. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that 'conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat'.

Crime Prevention

In order to prevent crime and reduce the fear of crime I recommend that this development attains Police Secured by Design (SBD) accreditation. There is no charge for my advice or for the Secured by Design award, and once awarded the Police SBD logo can be used on advertising material.

SBD can contribute towards BREEAM assessments. Staffordshire Police request that should this proposal gain approval that they consulted further when "reserved matters" are discussed.

At this stage the only areas that requires comment is the proposed alleyway between plots 13 & 14; an 1800mm fence and gate, with anti-lift hinges and a lock, should be erected as close to the front elevation as possible; this removes a long, narrow, dark, alley between dwellings in which an offender Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

can hide and helps prevent unauthorized persons gaining access to the rear of properties where most burglaries take place.

All rear gardens should be secured with a robust fence or wall, without footholds, to a minimum height of either 2000mm or 1800mm with trellis. The rails of any timber fence should face the garden to prevent climbing access, the topography of the land should be taken into account when installation takes place to ensure that the height of the fence is maintained.

Timber fencing panels should be secured to the fence posts to prevent offenders lifting them to gain access to adjacent gardens.

The proposed trees lining the P.O.S. should not hinder or prevent natural surveillance into the P.O.S. in order to afford children playing there a measure of security particularly at the water’s edge.

'Smart' utility meters should be installed to prevent bogus caller sneak-in burglaries. Further information on Secured by Design and accredited products can be found at www.securedbydesign.com

Andrew Johnson: Chief Planning Officer - Planning Committee 17/07/2018

17/01022/OUT - Land North Of Penkridge Stafford Road Penkridge