The Former Hope Village Church of England School, Hope, Minsterley Cornovii Developments Ltd

Planning Statement

“Demolition of existing buildings and the erection of 9 dwellings, with access, the extension of Hope Village Hall car park to provide 12 parking spaces, revised entrance to the Village Green and associated works”.

The Former Hope Village Church of England School,

Hope, Minsterley

Cornovii Developments Ltd.

Contents

1 Introduction 3

2 Site and Surrounding Context 5

3 Proposed Development 7

4 Planning History 8

- Statement of Community Involvement

- Pre-application Advice

5 Planning Policy 11

6 Planning Merits 15

7 Planning Balance and Conclusions 21

Appendices

Affordable Housing Statement

Open Space Statement

Introduction

BM3 Architecture Limited is instructed by Cornovii Developments Limited (‘Cornovii’) to prepare and submit a full planning application for the demolition and redevelopment of the former Hope Church of England Primary School, Minsterley, Shrewsbury, SY5 0JB.

Cornovii is a housing development company wholly owned by Shropshire Council. Cornovii builds houses, flats and bungalows for sale and rent within Shropshire. It aims to make the best use of the land available whilst delivering much needed homes, of the right type, size and layout for those that wish to reside in Shropshire.

The site is previously developed containing a former school building which will be demolished and replaced by dwellings. The size of dwellings contained in this application is a deliberate move away from the larger, executive housing that has been built locally during the plan period in order to cater for those that who wish to downsize and small/young families.

The description of development as found on the 1APP form is as follows:

“Demolition of existing buildings and the erection of 9 dwellings, with access, open space and Village Green, the extension of Hope Village Hall car park to provide 12 additional parking spaces, associated works”.

This Planning Statement (including Open Space Statement and Affordable Housing Statement) should be read in conjunction with other documents that together comprise supporting information for this full planning application. These documents include the following:  Design and Access Statement (BM3).  Topographical Survey.  Tree Survey and AIA.  Noise Survey.  Drainage Strategy.  Transport Statement.  Ecological Survey Phase 1 including Bat Survey.  Site Investigation.  You Said, We Did (Response to Comments from the Public Consultation Event).

Also accompanying the application is a full suite of drawings prepared by Baart Harries Newall Architects comprising the following:

 2735-D-001 Location Plan and Block Plan.  2735-D-002 Site Plan as Existing and Demolitions.  2735-D-003 Site Plan as Proposed.  2735-D-010 House Type A 2b4p House General Arrangements (plot 6 & 7).  2735-D-011 House Type A 2B4P House General Arrangements (PLOT 8).  2735-D-012 House Type C 2B3P Bungalow General Arrangements.  2735-D-12 House Type A 2B4P House General Arrangements (PLOT 9).  2735-D-013 House Type B 3B5P House General Arrangements.  2735-D-014 House Type C 2B3P Bungalow General Arrangements (PLOT 3, 4 & 5).  2735-D-020 Site Sections and Elevations.

The purpose of this planning statement is to assess the merits of the proposed development, having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations such as, government policy and relevant Supplementary Planning Documents.

In the sections that follow we describe the site and surrounding area; the planning history, public consultation activities and pre-application advice; the proposed development; the salient elements of the development plan and other material considerations relevant to the assessment of the proposals; and then examine the planning merits of the proposed development, concluding with observations on why planning permission should be granted in this instance. Open Space Statement and an Affordable Housing Statement are also included within the appendix.

Site and Surrounding Context

The application site is the former Hope Church of England School in Hope, a village within the administrative area of Shropshire Council. The site is approximately 18.33km to the south west of Shrewsbury and has an area of 0.51ha. Minsterley (5km away) is the closet large settlement.

The area surrounding the site is characterised by small clusters of development surrounded by fields in agricultural use including farm houses, dwellings and some services.

The Site itself is not within a conservation area and there are also no listed buildings on the site. The Site is within floodzone 1 and is located within the Shropshire Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The site is bounded by hedgerow and a number of trees. Short fencing and brick walling is visible in some limited areas of the site. The ground levels of the site fall away from the road towards the countryside. There is also a slight change in levels as the site falls from south to north by 3 meters.

The Site is adjacent to Hope Village Hall which is located to the northwest site boundary. It is set back from the road with hardstanding to the front. Save for the Village Hall, the Site is surrounded by fields on the remaining sides. To the south east of the Site is a drainage feature within a field. The Old Rectory and Hope Church are located beyond this, further to the south east.

The Site is previously developed (‘brownfield’) containing the former Hope Village Church of England School. The school has been closed for a number of years (approximately 3 year) and whilst the school buildings and playground remain, it is derelict and continues to fall into a state of disrepair from a lack of maintenance and has been subject to burglary and anti-social behaviour.

The school building itself comprises a one storey building, raising to one and a half storeys in the centre. The building is roughly square in shape, with a separate but connected small single storey extension to the rear and lean-to to the southern side. There is hardstanding to the front and side of the building used for access, both pedestrian and vehicular, and car parking. There is also hardstanding to the rear which was used as a playground. The remainder of the site, save for paths is grassed and accounts for circa 40% of the site area.

The Village Hall comprises a one storey building with pitched roof and an area of hardstanding used for car parking without any formal markings. The Village Hall and its car park share an access from the highway.

Whilst Hope Village has little by way of amenities, Minsterley and Pontesbury are close by and contain a wide range of facilities and employment opportunities. The Muller factory, a Co-op convenience store, Post Office, petrol station, public house and takeaways are located in Minsterley. Pontesbuury which is 6km away from the site contains additional amenities such as a library and health care.

Public transport is available by bus at stops located on the A488 to the south of the site. The bus services provide links to Bishops Castle, Pontesbury and Minsterley. The bus services run Monday to Saturday between the hours of 7am and 6pm with roughly two hour intervals.

Background to School Closure

The Hope Worthen Westbury Trinity – A Federation of CE Primary Schools was established in May 2016, bringing together the three schools under the leadership of a single governing body and an acting head teacher. The closure proposals were initiated by the federation’s governing body, based on support from the community.

All three schools had faced substantial challenges in recent years, including the recruitment and retention of head teachers for each school and other teaching staff. Ofsted inspection judgements concluded that two of the schools fell below the ‘good’ standards.

Whilst the Ofsted reports for the schools did improve, the three schools collectively lost 29 pupils between January 2016 and the annual school census in October 2016, down from 114 to 85 (down nearly a quarter). The fall in pupil numbers was in part due to the cohort sizes in the individual schools being so small, with parents citing this as their main reason for removing children. With pupil numbers being the key basis on which schools receive their annual funding, revenues were falling and budgets became increasingly difficult to balance.

Hope CE Primary School was designated by the Department for Education as a rural school and therefore any case for closure had to be strong and any proposal needed to be in the best interests of education in the area.

The governing body therefore took the decision to close Hope School, transferring provision to Worthen site. This decision was mirrored and accepted by Shropshire Council.

The school has been closed for approximately three years. The demand that existed for the school has now been transferred to other schools locally including Worthen. It is therefore determined that any demand for the school places is now catered for at other local schools.

Proposed Development

Cornovii seek planning permission for the demolition of the existing school buildings, removal of hardstanding that forms the carpark and playground, and the redevelopment of the site to provide 9 new residential dwellings, access and open space.

Alongside the above, the proposal includes the provision of 12 car parking spaces for the Village Hall and the restoration of the green field within the redline boundary to form a “village green” for the community.

It is envisaged that the village green will either be maintained by Shropshire Council, the Parish Council, a Management Company or the Village Hall Committee. A second area of green space is provided on the site between two dwellings, providing dedicated area of open space for residents.

The residential proposal comprise a mix of two storey dwellings and one storey bungalows. Two storey dwellings will contain two or three bedrooms and are generally located towards the access of the site. The bungalows, located to the rear of the site, will be two bedroom. Each dwelling comprise a living room, kitchen, WC and bathroom. The three bed dwellings have an en-suite whilst the bungalows do not have a WC. At least one bedroom will be designed to be office adaptable to allow for the increasing need to work from home. Dwellings are slightly set back from the road providing a front garden with a private garden to the rear.

The existing vehicle access to the school will be amended to provide a private access for the dwellings. The access will be arranged in a T-junction arrangement. It will extend into the site with a turning head, providing access to the dwellings. A footpath is provided around the access road and connects to the existing footpath adjacent to the Village Hall. No amendments are proposed to the access of the Village Hall car park. The new village green will be accessible via new car parking spaces.

Each dwelling will have two parking spaces in the form of a driveway, generally located to the gable end of the dwelling. Boundary treatments are a mix of timber board fencing with trellis at the top to a height of 1.8m to provide privacy to patio areas, with shorter post and rail fencing with laurel whips and hedgrow.

To accommodate the development, a number of retaining features will be required and these are indicated on the site plan.

Planning History The online planning history search reveals limited submitted or approved applications for the site dating back to the year 2000. However, two previous applications were uncovered. The first was for the formation of (additional) office and staff accommodation (ref: SS/1/02/13905). The application was approved on the 3rd December 2002.

A second planning permission, granted permission in 2012, allowed the construction of a biomass boiler to serve the school.

Although there are no online records, it is clear that the existing school building pre-dates the above applications. However, we are unable to indicate when the application for the erection of the school was submitted or approved.

Statement of Community Involvement and Pre-application Consultation Cornovii has undertaken early and continued consultation with the Parish Council and Local Member. Meetings were held with the Parish Council or local members on the following dates:

 9.7.20 – Meeting with Local Member  15.9.20 – Meeting with Local Member and parish Clerk  2.9.20 – Meeting with Parish Council and Local Member  13.10.2 - Meeting with Parish Council and Local Member  08.12.20 - Meeting with Parish Council and Local Member  23.02.21 - Meeting with Hope Village Hall committee  24.03.21 - Meeting with Parish Council and Local Member  29.03.21 - Meeting with Hope Village Hall committee

Additional conversations with individual Councillors and Members have been had following these meetings.

The points below where recorded during the meetings and are considered most relevant to the planning considerations:

• Boundary treatments – The Parish Council wished to see the close-boarded fence replaced with hedgerow or something more in keeping with the open surrounding area. • Vehicle driveways/parking – Expressed a view for the use of car ports to provide shelter to residents entering and existing vehicles. Requested amendments to the dedicated village hall parking spaces to provide increased space between cars. • Materials – preference for grey slate tiles instead of red. • Dwelling type and mix - Site plan including bungalows is preferred. • Existing school – building is subject to anti-social behaviour and has experienced a number of “break ins”. • Community wish to see the provision of smaller dwellings and no longer wish to see larger/ executive homes similar to those already built in the village. This is been decided by a vote. • Indications that there has already been significant development within the community cluster area of executive housing, leaving opportunity for only a further 2 dwellings to be considered under the community cluster. The parish council and local member have made it clear through consultation that they will support this community led scheme for 9 dwellings as it would be delivering much needed entry level and downsizing dwellings plus the village green and additional parking spaces for the Village Hall, even if this exceeds the allocated amount of dwellings in the Local Plan.

Public Consultation In addition to meetings with the Parish and Local Members, Cornovii has undertaken a virtual public consultation event via the internet. The event ran from Monday 1st March to Sunday 14th March. The consultation comprised a dedicated webpage (hosted at the following hyperlink: https://cornoviihomes.co.uk/development-consultation/hope-village/. It was publicised by the Parish Council through its Newsletter and the Village Hall website. We are informed that the newsletter is delivered to every dwelling within the parish.

The webpage contained the site layout, an explanation of the proposal and a questionnaire for respondents to fill in and submit. The information remains available but the questionnaire was open for responses for a period of 14 days.

The results of the public consultation show that of the 17 respondents, 80% believe the site is suitable for residential development.

Of the total respondents, 53% either strongly agree or agreed with the statement “I like the proposed layout for the Hope Village Development”. A further 41% either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. Of the respondents, just short of 6% neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement.

When presented with the statement “do you think we are building enough family homes?” 69% of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement. 25% neither agreed nor disagreed. A further 6% disagreed with the statement and no respondents answered strongly disagree.

The vast majority of respondents (92%) answered yes to the statement “do you think we are building enough 2 bedroom homes?”. When presented with the statement “do you think we are building enough 3 bedroom homes?” 92% of respondents answered yes. The remainder answered no to both statements. It should be noted that the total number of respondents to both questions was slightly reduced.

Finally, 71% of respondents indicated that they liked the proposed landscaping and the provision of a village green. 29% of respondents answered ‘no’ to the same question.

A section in the questionnaire was included for respondents to provide any other comments or suggestions. Below is a summary of the comments and topics that were frequently mentioned and those which we consider relevant to the planning application. Our response is shown in italics and bold below.

Concerns regarding access to the site, amenities and highway safety. A transport consultant has been instructed to design the access to the site. Details of which have been submitted with this application.

The number of car parking spaces is insufficient or the layout does not provide for visitor parking which will impact the access road. The number of parking spaces is in accordance with planning policy. The access road is wide enough to accommodate some on street, short term visitor parking if required.

The layout is cramped/there is not enough space on the site or between dwellings/ too many houses for the size of the site. The proposal seeks to make best and efficient use of this previously developed/brownfield site. It seeks to maximise the amount of family housing that can be provided with homes designed to National Described Space Standards. Open space is provided on side for residents. Bungalows have

9 been provided along the edge of the countryside and to vary the housing mix. The current design maximises open spaces and minimises tarmac which we believe is favourable in this location. The applicant has sought to find a balance between making an efficient use of the land and respecting its rural location.

Bungalows have larger rear gardens than the larger dwellings on site. Perhaps move larger dwellings to the rear of the site. Bungalows are positioned towards the rear of the site to reduce the impact of the proposal on the views into the AONB. Gardens are larger towards the rear of the site to help the transition from countryside to built development. The submitted layout has sought to reduce the width of some of the bungalows and create an area of on-site open space.

This site is unsuitable. Children will have to be bused to school - homes of this sort should be very near schools and leisure facilities. There are no shops in the area. The site is above the "snow line" causing problems for vehicles in the winter. As the site is previously developed, planning policy supports its reuse for development. Our local consultation with Councillors and the Parish indicates that there is a desire from local people for the provision of family housing rather than the executive homes built recently.

No details regarding foul or rainwater drainage/concerns regarding drainage and flooding. These details were not available at the time of the consultation but form part of the planning application. The site is in floodzone 1 and a sustainable drainage strategy has been prepared.

Concerns regarding affordability. The intension is to offer a policy compliant affordable housing provision subject to Officer Recommendations and vacant building credit which may reduce the total amount of affordable dwellings on the site.

Pre-application Advice Formal pre-application advice was received from Officers at Shropshire Council on the 9th March 2021 following submission on the 3rd February 2021.

The response concluded that there is a presumption against new open market residential development in the countryside in accordance with Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy and the NPPF. However, the provisions of policy MD1, CS4 and S.2.2 (viii) allow up to 15 dwellings to be built within Community Cluster Settlements, of which Hope is one.

The response notes that the guidance for up to 15 dwellings has been exceeded however, given the previously developed nature of the site, substantial weigh can be attached to its reuse in accordance with the NPPF subject to local support. Therefore, any planning application is likely to be supported in principle.

With regard to design and layout, Officers support the proposal for a village green but indicate that a public open space provision of 30sqm per person is required for residents. Officers also requested changes to the elevational detail of dwellings.

Finally, Officers indicated an importance to consider the residential amenity of residents given the location of the car park and late night use of the village hall adjacent to the dwellings.

Planning Policy

Core Strategy

The Core Strategy, adopted on the 24 February 2011, sets out the Council’s vision and objectives for the area. It states that the vision is for Shropshire to flourish with a significantly improved quality of life and Shropshire becoming a better place in which to live and work. It also sets out a development strategy identifying the level of development expected to take place in Shropshire (excluding the Borough of Telford and Wrekin) up until 2026.

The policies of particular relevance to the proposal are as follow:

 Policy CS1: Strategic Approach - Around 27,500 new homes will be required during the period of 2006-2026 of which 9,000 will be “affordable housing”. The rural areas will become more sustainable through a “rural rebalance” approach, accommodating around 35% of Shropshire’s residential development over the plan period.  Policy CS4: Community Hubs and Community Clusters - In the rural area, communities will become more sustainable by: Focusing private and public investment in the rural area into Community Hubs and Community Clusters, and not allowing development outside these settlements unless it meets policy CS5. Community Hubs and Community Clusters are identified in the SAMDev DPD.  Policy CS5: Countryside and Green Belt - New development will be strictly controlled in accordance with national planning policies protecting the countryside and Green Belt.  Policy CS6: Sustainable Development Principles – sets out the principles for sustainable design including – requiring proposals likely to generate significant levels of traffic to be located in accessible locations, ensuring adaptable, safe and accessible to all, and providing development that Protects, restores, conserves and enhances the natural, built and historic environment, inter alia.  Policy CS11: Type and Affordability of Housing – Seeks a 33% contribution towards affordable housing on sites of 5 or more dwellings. This will be updated as time progresses.  Policy CS17: Environmental Networks – Seeks the expansion and enhancement of Shropshire’s environmental assets. All developments must ensure that they protect and enhance the diversity, high quality and local character of Shropshire’s natural, built and historic environment, contributes to local distinctiveness, and does not have a significant adverse impact on Shropshire’s environmental assets. Financial contributions towards the creation of new, and improvement to existing, environmental sites and corridors maybe used to realise the above.

Site Allocations and Management of Development Plan

The Shropshire Council Site Allocations and Management of Development (SAMDev) Plan was adopted by Shropshire Council on 17 December 2015. The SAMDev sets out proposals for the use of land and policies to guide future development in order to help to deliver the vision and objectives of the Core Strategy for the period up to 2026.

The relevant policies of the SAMDev are as follows:

• MD1: Scale and Distribution of Development – States that sufficient land will be made available for the development of homes. Sustainable development will be supported in a number of areas including Community Cluster settlements where sustainable development is

proposed. Some 15,000 dwellings will be delivered within the plan period in rural areas. In the accompanying schedule MD1.1, Hope is shown as a Cluster Settlement in the Bishops Castle area. • MD2: Sustainable Design – reflects policy CS6 and states that for development to be acceptable it must respond to the local design aspirations, respect local distinctiveness, enhance opportunities for contemporary design solutions, incorporate sustainable drainage techniques and consider the design of landscaping and open space amongst other things. • MD3: Delivery of Housing Development – notes that in addition to supporting the development of the allocated housing sites set out in Settlement Policies S1-S18, planning permission will also be granted for other sustainable housing development having regard to the policies of the Local Plan, particularly Policies CS2, CS3, CS4, CS5, MD1 and MD7a.

Where development would result in the number of completions plus outstanding permissions providing more dwellings than the guideline, decisions will have regard to:

i. The increase in number of dwellings relative to the guideline; and ii. The likelihood of delivery of the outstanding permissions; and iii. The benefits arising from the development; and iv. The impacts of the development, including the cumulative impacts of a number of developments in a settlement; and v. The presumption in favour of sustainable development.

• MD7a: Managing Housing Development in the Countryside - new market housing will be strictly controlled outside of Shrewsbury, the Market Towns, Key Centres and Community Hubs and Community Clusters. Suitably designed and located exception site dwellings and residential conversions will be positively considered where they meet evidenced local housing needs and other relevant policy requirements. • S2 – Bishop’s Castle Area – Provides specific polices for growth within the area. S2.2 states that the settlements of Hope, Bentlawnt, Hopesgate, Hemford, Shelve, Gravels (including Gravels Bank), Pentervin, Bromlow, Middleton, Meadowtown and Lordstone within Worthen with Shelve Parish are a Community Cluster where development by infilling and conversions may be acceptable on suitable sites. The housing guideline for the Cluster is around 15 additional dwellings over the period to 2026.

Type and Affordability of Housing Supplementary Planning Document.

The Type and Affordability of Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was adopted in 2012. It is provides detailed guidance to assist in implementing a number of Core Strategy policies. The SPD helps to provide a mix of good quality, sustainable housing development of the right size, type, tenure and affordability to meet the housing requirements of all sections of the community.

It states that all new market housing developments are required to make a contribution towards the provision of affordable housing in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS11. Planning applications will be subject to one of three rates shown in the 'housing zones with parish boundaries map'. The following contributions are required across the three areas:  Area A 20% affordable housing contribution.  Area B 15% affordable housing contribution.  Area C 10% affordable housing contribution.

Hope falls within Area A.

Shropshire Hills AONB Management Plan 2019-2024

The Shropshire Hills AONB Management Plan was approved in July 2019. Whilst not a forming part of the local development framework, it contains policies on many issues that are material to planning decisions.

The vision for the AONB is stated below and follows the vision of the previous plan:

“The natural beauty of the Shropshire Hills landscape is conserved, enhanced and helped to adapt - by sympathetic land management, by co-ordinated action and by sustainable communities; and is valued for its richness of geology, wildlife and heritage, and its contribution to prosperity and wellbeing.”

Policies of particular relevance within the Management Plan are as follows:

 POLICY LM1 - Land Management Supporting Landscape and Natural Beauty  POLICY P1 - Protection of the AONB  POLICY P4 - Housing and Design of Development

The National Planning Policy Framework

The revised The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was updated on 19th February 2019 and is a material consideration in the preparation of planning policy and decision making. It sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. It also highlights the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of housing, and focuses on making effective use of land to meet the need for homes and other uses while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions.

While it does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision-making, it establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development (Paragraph 10). As set out at Paragraph 11, for decision taking this means:

 Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and  Where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission, unless: I. The application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, or II. 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.

The NPPF establishes a range of policy themes particularly relevant to the application including:

• Delivering a sufficient supply of homes, • Building a strong, competitive economy, • Promoting healthy and safe communities, • Promoting sustainable transport, • Making effective use of land, • Achieving well-designed places,

• Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change, • Conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and • Conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

Within these, the NPPF highlights that it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward to significantly boost the supply of homes (Paragraph 59).

Significant development should be focused on locations which are (or can be made) sustainable (Paragraph 103). Furthermore, the use of previously developed land attracts significant weight

Development that makes efficient use of land should be supported. Alongside this, planning policies and decisions should also support the creation of high quality buildings and places, and ensure that developments function well and add to the overall quality of the area; are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; are sympathetic to local character and history; establish or maintain a strong sense of place; and optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (Paragraphs 124 and 127).

Paragraph 119 states that Local planning authorities, should take a proactive role in identifying and helping to bring forward land that may be suitable for meeting development needs, including suitable sites on brownfield registers or held in public ownership.

There is also a need to conserve and enhance the historic environment, with the effect of a proposal on heritage assets being considered with regard to the significance of the asset, the scale of any harm as well as public benefits arising (Chapter 16).

Paragraph 48 to 50 sets out the weight that planning authorities may give to relevant policies in emerging plans. Chapter 5 outlines how Council’s should seek to deliver the supply of housing requires to significantly boost the supply.

Paragraph 67 states that strategic policy-making authorities should have a clear understanding of the land available in their area through the preparation of a strategic housing land availability assessment. From this, planning policies should identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites, taking into account their availability, suitability and likely economic viability. Paragraph 77 to 79 deals with rural housing. It states that planning policies and decisions should be responsive to local circumstances and support housing developments that reflect local needs.

Paragraph 117 states that Planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, particularly in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land. In doing so, planning authorities should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land, promote and support the development of under- utilised land and buildings.

Emerging Local Plan

Shropshire Council has embarked upon the process to update the Core Strategy. The new Local Plan is at an early stage, having completed the pre-submission consultation earlier this year. As a consequence and in accordance with the NPPF, only very less than great weight can be attached to its policies.

Planning Merits

The proposal for the site has been developed taking account of a wide range of factors to determine the most appropriate form of development including the site context and characteristics, making efficient use of land, the need for and type of new housing and the existing site or policy constraints.

Having set out a description of the site and its context; proposed development; and provided commentary on the planning policy position, the remainder of this statement sets out the case for redevelopment of the site.

Principle of Development

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan for Shropshire consists of the adopted Core Strategy and SAMDev.

The Core Strategy and SAMDev were both adopted prior to the latest revision of the NPPF. The NPPF makes clear that development plans should be reviewed every five years and that this is a legal requirement (Regulation 10A of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012). Both the Core Strategy and SAMDev were adopted beyond five years ago.

Nonetheless, policy CS4 of the Core Strategy and policies MD1, and S.2.2(vii) in the SAMDev are explicit in supporting investment within community clusters. Those policies recognise that housing development can provide a community benefit through a suitable mix of housing or through the provision of infrastructure, facilities or services.

Both CS4 and MD1 note that rural communities in community clusters will be more sustainable by allowing development that it is of a scale and design sympathetic to the character of the settlement and satisfies policy CS6. Hope is identified as a community cluster in policy S.2.2 (vii) of the SAMDev. Hope’s inclusion as part of Community Cluster under SAMDev Policies MD1 and S2 implies broadly that the location is sustainable, and carries significant weight, with the NPPF stating that proposals which accord with an up-to-date local plan should be approved without delay.

Policy S2 provides a housing delivery guideline of “around” fifteen additional dwellings across the Cluster by 2026 (our emphasis). The SAMDev Plan Inspector’s Report (October 2014) makes clear that the Plan allows flexibility around the housing guideline figure, and therefore is not a maxima. Shropshire Council’s Housing Land Supply suggests that there have been 13 completions with a potential 19 dwellings awaiting delivery. There is, therefore no doubt that fifteen dwellings is not a maxima and this cannot be a reason for refusal alone.

Policy MD3 confirms support for residential development in settlements listed in policies S1 to S18 provided they meet the design requirements of the Local Plan and include a mix of housing. In this case, the site is considered to be within the settlement of Hope, noting that community clusters lack defined boundaries, it negates the need for Consideration of MD3(3).

Where proposals trigger an assessment under MD3(2) due to the guideline being exceeded, wider considerations form part of the assessment of the suitability of the proposal against the policy provisions. It is therefore necessary to assess the proposal against policy MD3(2).

Within the Council’s housing land supply, it notes that the number of completions and permissions totals 32 dwellings in the cluster, if none of the permissions have lapsed. With this proposal the number of dwellings would equal 41 dwellings in total.

Policy MD3 explains that the settlement housing guidelines are not absolute maxima. Regard should also be had, amongst other things, to the aspirations of those communities. Therefore, unless this surpassing of the guidelines constitutes an evidenced harm permission should not be refused on the grounds of the proposal being above the guideline.

The Shropshire Homepoint data (Feb 2021) for Worthen and Shelve Paris also indicates that there were 15 households on the housing waiting list with a preference for a dwelling the Parish. This equated to a need of 6 x 1 bed, 3 x 3 bed and 2 x 2 bed dwellings (11 dwellings in total).

Housing Need Survey results from 2019 indicated that 19 people wish to move within the next two to five years. Of the 151 responses, 24% required a bungalow, 20% required a semi-detached dwelling. Furthermore, 23 respondents required a two bed property whilst 19 required a three bed property.

The proposal will deliver two 3 bed properties and seven 2 bed properties. The housing mix therefore accords with the housing need identified in the Shropshire Homepoint data and Housing Need Survey results. As Cornovii is wholly owned by Shropshire Council, subject to any unforeseen circumstances, the delivery of these dwellings is highly likely should planning permission be granted.

This statement later examines whether any other harm is identified as a result of the proposal. Having reviewed the sites with permission in the Housing Land Supply, it is evident that much of the housing development within the community cluster has taken place in other parts of the cluster, outside of Hope. A review of the Housing Land Supply indicates that there is currently only 1 permission within Hope itself for one dwelling.

The NPPF is a material consideration in decision making. Policies for rural housing in Paragraphs 77 to 79 make clear, in that in rural areas, planning policies and decisions should be responsive to local circumstances and support housing developments that reflect local needs. To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. As detailed above elsewhere in this statement point C of Paragraph 79 applies to the proposal.

Previously developed land (also known as "brownfield") is defined as land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure (NPPF, Annex 1). The definition continues by stating that it excludes land in built-up areas such as residential gardens.

The NPPF states that decisions should give substantial weight to the value of using brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs.

The Core Strategy defines brownfield land as land, or specific sites, that have been previously used for buildings or infrastructure. The SAMDev Plan explains at Para 3.18 (Delivery of Housing) that a key component of the housing land supply are sites allocated in the Plan specifically for that purpose. However, ‘Windfall’ development on other sites is also important, which includes brownfield land within settlements and in the countryside.

There is no policy in the Development Plan in favour of previously developed/brownfield land which overrides the presumption against new residential development in the countryside. Therefore, every application must be taken on its own merits giving appropriate weight to material considerations in the planning balance.

Approximately 60% of the application site is previously developed with the remainder falling within the curtilage of the school buildings and being used as a grassed area for the former school. The proposal intends to utilise the majority of the grassed area and provide it as the village green.

The community benefits that arise from this proposal are significant. The proposal will see the demolition and removal of the existing school building which the Parish Council indicate has been a target for anti-social behaviour. The reuse of previously developed/brownfield land is afforded significant weight in the NPPF.

In addition, the proposal will deliver a mix of housing that accords with the Homepoint data and Housing Need Survey. The provision of onsite public open space, a village green, improvements to the Village Hall car park are benefits that should be attributed weight. The proposal will also provide a contribution towards off-site affordable housing for which great weight should be attached.

Employment opportunities will be available during the construction phase of the development. The new residents will support the existing facilities and services nearby in surrounding settlements and provide a Council Tax receipt to Shropshire Council. These economic benefits should also be afforded weight.

Extensive consultation has been undertaken with the Parish Council. The Parish Council has indicated its support for the redevelopment of the former Hope C of E School and the provision of dwellings, open space, the village green and Village Hall car park.

Technical Considerations

Impact on the AONB

The AONB is characterised by a dispersed settlement pattern with a wide variety of different house types and styles. The proposal would sit comfortably in the landscape, contributing to this variety and providing a variety of house types on the site itself.

The site is previously developed and the proposal has been amended to provide natural boundaries that are reflective of its location in the AONB. The derelict school buildings which currently detracts from the AONB will be demolished and replaced by dwellings including bungalows.

The design of the dwelling is appropriate, reflecting elements of existing housing architecture in the design. It also reflects the vernacular tradition in that the dwellings are reasonably modest in design and footprint/floor space, with narrow gable ends. Overtime, the dwellings will be screened by the proposed hedges and landscaping.

In light of these issues there is no good reason to say that the development would be impact the character of the AONB or give rise to harm which is more significant that the existing derelict school building.

Design and Amenity

The NPPF at Chapter 12 seeks to achieve well-designed places. Additional weight is given to the protection of the AONB and landscape, as required by the NPPF, and also reflected in CS17, and MD12 specifically.

In particular CS6 seeks to ensure development respects and enhances local distinctiveness. CS6 also seeks to ensure that development is appropriate in scale, density, pattern and design, taking into account the local context and character, and those features which contribute to local character.

Further to CS6, MD2 requires development to contribute to and respect locally distinctive or valued character and existing amenity value by (in part), responding appropriately to the form and layout of existing development and the way it functions, including mixture of uses, streetscape, building heights and lines, scale, density, plot sizes and local patterns of movement.

The application proposes that each dwelling will be two or 3 bedroomed, of commensurate scale, and of conventional appearance to the location. Each dwelling meets the Nationally Described Space Standards. Existing boundary treatments will be retained where possible and new boundaries will be formed using hedgerow planting and a 1.2m post and rail fence. Kriblok walling will be used as a retaining structure to the rear of the site and between select dwellings. Within rear gardens, 1.2m close boarded fencing with 0.6m of trellis on top will be provided at the patio end to provide privacy before falling to a the 1.2m post and rail fence with hedgerow. Some tree planting is also proposed to the site boundaries but the majority will be planted within the new village green.

The settlement of Hope is characterised by dispersed development, with some dwellings, services and farm buildings grouped together. The highway that accesses the site is single track and has an enclosed character at the point of the site due to the existing school building and Village Hall. Continuing beyond the site, views into the countryside open up save for the junction at Dury Land which has two dwellings and a burial site. Neither are well screened and are visible as you travel along the road. Immediately opposite the application site are a number of farm buildings which are well screened due to the level changes in the landscape.

The application site has an almost uniform rectangular shape with levels falling away from the road. Whilst the layout of the site does not reflect the layout of dwellings locally, the applicant has chosen to concentrate development on land that previously contained school buildings in order to maximise open space. As the proposal will allow for the removal of the existing school building and the proposed dwellings will sit on land that was largely occupied by the school building and hardstanding, it is considered that 9 dwellings in this position would not harm or significantly interrupt the open character of the settlement any more than the existing building. Indeed it is considered that the dwellings will enhance the site allowing for new, previously hidden views into the countryside.

The houses are designed to Lifetime Homes and Nationally Described Space Standards. A fabric first approach has been taken for energy conservation with all dwellings proposed to achieve an EPC rating of B. The external materials of the houses take their cue from local dwellings and consultation and aim to avoid an overly sub-urban form.

Open Space

Policy MD2 of the SAMDev state that public open space (POS) should equate to 30sqm per person.

The proposal incorporates onsite public open space. This equates to an area of 258.67m2 without the inclusion of the village green. Whilst it is acknowledged that the village green, by its nature, may be used for wider events, the provision of the village green (circa 1,138.916m2 in area) is of significant

18 benefit to the local community and it is envisaged that residents will also use this space providing in excess of the required 30sqm per person.

Transport and Vehicle Parking

Vectos has been commissioned by Cornovii Development Ltd to provide traffic and transportation advice to support the planning application.

The report notes that the proposed development site formerly operated as Hope Primary School. The school ceased operating around 3 years ago, however, all school buildings along with vehicular access point remain at the site. Servicing of the former school site, including refuse collection, was previously undertaken on street. It also notes the position of the Village Hall.

The road adjacent to the site is subject to National Speed Limit. However, from a site inspection it was apparent that vehicle speeds passing the site would be dictated more by the geometric characteristics of the road than by the legal restrictions. A speed survey was undertaken on 22 October 2020 at the location of the proposed site access. The results of the speed survey are summarised in the report but it is noted that vehicle speeds were significantly below the speed limit. Accident data for the site also reveals no incidents in the last five years.

In addition, it notes the increased popularity of cycling and its effective use for short trips. The DfT’s Local Transport Note 2/08 ‘Cycle Infrastructure Design’ (2008) states that many utility cycle journeys are under 3 miles (approximately 5 kilometres) although for commuters a trip distance of over 5 miles is not uncommon. A 5 kilometre radius from the site will extend to include the town of Minsterley. The town includes a more comprehensive range of amenities, including convenience stores, a petrol station, a primary school, and primary care centre and employment opportunities.

The proposed development is forecast to generate only 4 two-way trips during the morning and evening peak hours. It is considered that such a level of traffic generation, equivalent to a vehicle movement every 15 minutes in each of the peak hour, will have an imperceptible impact on the safe and efficient operation of the surrounding highway network and can be easily accommodated within the capacity of the proposed site access junction.

There are no changes proposed to the Village Hall itself and therefore the trip generation of this use is not expected to change as a result of the development proposal.

A total of 18 spaces, with 2 spaces for each residence provided within the curtilage of the property. Shropshire Council do not currently have adopted parking spaces, instead considering sites on an Individual basis. Notwithstanding this, the level of car parking proposed is considered appropriate given the scale of development.

In addition to the residential parking, the development will also provide enhanced parking facilities for the adjacent village hall. An additional 12 parking spaces will be provided for the village hall on land to the rear of the existing site. At the time of the report, 16 parking spaces were proposed.

It is therefore concluded that the development site is appropriate given its rural location, and that the proposals would not have a detrimental impact upon either the operation or safety of the local highway network.

National Planning Policy Framework states that “Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe”.

The report has demonstrated that the proposed development would have no impact upon highway safety and that the residual cumulative impacts of the proposed development would not be severe. Therefore, it is considered there are no reasons why the planning application should be refused on highway or transportation grounds.

Trees Focus Environmental Consultants were commissioned to undertake an Aboricultural Survey and constraints report.

The report notes that there are no tree preservation orders on the site. It also notes that one Category A tree is on site. The proposal shows this tree as being retained. It notes that should trees be removed, tree planting should be incorporated into the landscape strategy.

It is proposed that that extensive tree planting takes place at the boundaries of the village green to mitigate any tree loss.

Noise Survey Nova Acoustics has undertaken an environmental noise survey and noise impact assessment.

Site-specific noise monitoring was conducted to establish a baseline. To ensure a robust assessment of the noise breaking into the site, this baseline will be compared with calculated traffic noise levels based on vehicle pass by data of the roads in the area to assess the potential difference in noise levels.

It does note, however, that due to the current travel and socialising restrictions, further analysis of the measured noise data on-site is required to assess whether the measured noise levels are representative.

A sound insulation scheme has been provided in Section 6.0, including glazing and an alternative ventilation strategy. These recommendations should be sufficient to achieve appropriate internal and external noise levels for the proposed development according to the BS8233:2014 criteria.

Ecology Betts Ecology and Estates have conducted a Phase 1 Ecology Survey and a Phase 1 habitat survey, daytime bat assessment, great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index.

It notes that two Statutory Designated Sites and one Non Designated Site are within 1km of the site. It notes that none of the hedgerows on site are notable and that trees on site cannot be described as notable or significant.

The survey found no sign of badger activity, other mustelid species, deer, hedgehog or shrews. But it was thought that other common mammals may utilise the site. It also found that there was no suitable habitat for otter, water vole, common or hazel dormouse, and reptiles.

A pond on the site has been assessed for Great Crested Newts. The report concludes that the pond has poor suitability for great Created Newts.

A licenced ecologist completed an inspection of the school building for evidence of bats. A digital bat- assessment procedure was also completed for the school building. No activity was found. It concluded that there was negligible potential to support bats which aligns with the observations of the site visit. Therefore, no further bat surveys are recommended.

Drainage

The drainage proposals have been designed by Couch Consulting. It proposes a connection to an existing 100mm surface water drain via an existing manhole prior to discharging into adjacent drainage ditch. A geocellular storage tank is proposed and located within the village green.

A Sewerage Treatment Plant to treat foul flows from 9 plots prior to connecting into the surface water network is also proposed and considered appropriate.

Calculators are provided and show that the site will not be subject to surface water flooding and surface water will be discharged at 5 l/s.

Planning Balance and Conclusion

The NPPF is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. The “presumption in favour of sustainable development” remains the central tenet of the NPPF. The NPPF is clear, in that where proposals accord with an up-to-date development plan, planning permission should be granted.

Central to the NPPF is the Government’s objective of “significantly boosting the supply of homes” in the first paragraph of Chapter 5, delivering a Sufficient Supply of Homes. This is also reflected in the approach that the NPPF takes with regard to brownfield land.

Paragraph 59 notes that boosting the supply of housing is a Government objective, and with regard to making effective use of land, paragraph 121 states that local planning authorities should take a positive approach to applications for alternative uses of land which is currently developed but not allocated for a specific purpose in the plan. It also promotes and supports the development of under- utilised land and buildings, especially if this would help to meet identified needs for housing.

With regard to rural housing, paragraph 78 tells authorities where housing should be “located”. The location is “where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities”. The concept of the “vitality” of such a community is wide, and undefined. The example given in the third sentence of the paragraph – “development in one village” that “may support services in a village nearby” – does not limit the notion of “vitality” to a consideration of “services” in its alone. But it does show that the policy sees a possible benefit of developing housing in a rural settlement with no, or relatively few, services of its own.

Crucially, point C of paragraph 79 allows the redevelopment of sites in the countryside that are previously developed where existing buildings are redundant and the redevelopment would enhance the immediate setting. Paragraph 118 makes clear that substantial weight should be attributed to the value of using suitable brownfield land for new housing.

It is therefore considered that the proposal meets the tests of NPPF.

There is support for the proposal contained in policy CS4 of the Core Strategy and policies MD1, and S.2.2(vii) of the SAMDev. The proposal therefore accord with the development plan in this regard.

Policy MD3 is an important local policy consideration. Whilst it is noted that the number of proposed and completed dwellings exceeds the development guidelines, the policy also makes clear that this is not a maxima, a point shared by the Inspector in her report. Furthermore, numerous inspectors on appeal have had significant regard to the delivery of housing in respect the planning balance, attaching significant weight.

The supporting reports submitted in support of the application clearly demonstrate that there will be no adverse impact arising from the proposal by way of ecology, drainage, transport, or noise.

The economic, social and environmental benefits arising from the proposal are considerable. These include:

 Economic - employment opportunities during the employment phase, council tax receipts to Shropshire Council and growing the rural economy by providing new residents to use facilities and services in surrounding settlements.

 Social – provision of a mix of dwelling and a contribution towards off-site affordable homes. The provision of a new village hall car parking spaces and a village green. The removal of the existing school building which has been subject to anti-social behaviour is also a benefit.

 Environmental - the demolition of the existing building, provision of new dwellings, open space, village green.

We therefore conclude, that any identified impact, in this case, an increase above the housing guideline, fails to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal, including the reuse of previously developed land. Consequently the planning balance is in favour of permitting the proposal.

APPENDIX 1 - Affordable Housing Statement

The Type and Affordability of Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was adopted in 2012. It provides detailed guidance to assist in implementing a number of Core Strategy policies. The SPD helps to provide a mix of good quality, sustainable housing development of the right size, type, tenure and affordability to meet the housing requirements of all sections of the community.

It states that all new market housing developments are required to make a contribution towards the provision of affordable housing in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS11.

Planning applications will be subject to one of three rates shown in the 'housing zones with parish boundaries map'. The following contributions are required across the three areas:  Area A 20% affordable housing contribution.  Area B 15% affordable housing contribution.  Area C 10% affordable housing contribution.

Hope falls within Area A. The applicant is committed to providing a policy compliant on site contribution towards affordable housing. Discussions have been had with the Affordable Housing Officer. This has led to a policy requirement for 1.8 of the dwellings to be affordable (one on site and a 0.8 as a financial contribution). However, as the site contains existing buildings, it is anticipated that the site is eligible for vacant buildings credit.

Should vacant building credit be applied, there would be a requirement for a financial contribution, given that the requirement is for 0.6 i.e. less than a whole unit. It has been agreed that this will take the form of a financial contribution to enable the delivery of off-site affordable homes if required.

APPENDIX 2 - Open Space Statement

Policy MD2 of the SAMDev state that public open space (POS) should equate to 30sqm per person.

The proposal incorporates onsite public open space. This equates to an area of 258.67m2 without the village green. Whilst it is acknowledged that the village green, by its nature, may be used for wider events, the provision of the village green is of significant benefit to the local community and it is envisaged that residents will also use this space on occasion increasing the total amount of open space to circa 1,400m2.

Should it be deemed necessary, a financial contribution can be provided for open space improvements.