CANNOCK CHASE COUNCIL

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK - CORE STRATEGY

REVIEW OF GREEN BELT BOUNDARIES IN CHASE DISTRICT

MAY 2010

www.cannockchasedc.gov.uk Review of Green Belt Boundaries in District

1. Scope of Review

This review has been undertaken by Council, to help inform the decision making process for the LDF Core Strategy by: ¾ Providing a rationale for considering the review of Green Belt boundaries where exceptional circumstances may apply; ¾ Taking account of National and Regional policy; ¾ Assessing identified sites/locations against PPG2 criteria and the Cannock Chase District Landscape Character Assessment 2009; ¾ Providing recommendations for Green Belt boundaries against these assessments; and ¾ Assessing the balance of Green Belt land adjustments if the recommendations are followed.

The review does not however; ¾ Assess Green Belt boundaries against the District’s biodiversity evidence base in the form of the Habitat Regulations Assessments of the Cannock Chase Special area of Conservation (SAC) and Cannock Extension Canal SAC the Cannock Chase to Sutton Park Biodiversity Enhancement Area report or the Cannock Chase District Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey. (Considerations arising from these studies will need to be balanced against the Green Belt review before final boundaries are decided); and ¾ Provide management prescriptions for the positive use of the Green Belt.

2. National Guidance – PPG2

The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The purposes of Green Belt policy and the related development control policies set out in 1955 are still valid, their current iteration being Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts published in January 1995 (Amended March 2001). PPG2: • states the general intentions of Green Belt policy, including its contribution to sustainable development objectives; • reaffirms the specific purposes of including land in Green Belts, with slight modifications; • gives policy a more positive thrust by specifying for the first time objectives for the use of land in Green Belts; • confirms that Green Belts must be protected as far as can be seen ahead, advises on defining boundaries and on safeguarding land for longer-term development needs; and • maintains the presumption against inappropriate development within Green Belts and refines the categories of appropriate development, including making provision for the future of major existing developed sites and revising policy on the re-use of buildings.

1 The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Green Belts can shape patterns of urban development at sub-regional and regional scale, and help to ensure that development occurs in locations allocated in development plans. They help to protect the countryside and can assist in moving towards more sustainable patterns of urban development. The essential characteristic of Green Belts is their permanence. Their protection must be maintained as far as can be seen ahead.

Regional and strategic planning guidance set the framework for Green Belt policy and settlement policy, including the direction of long-term development.

Up-to-date approved boundaries are essential, to provide certainty as to where Green Belt policies do and do not apply and to enable the proper consideration of future development options. The mandatory requirement for district-wide local plans, introduced by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, ensured definition of detailed boundaries.

Once the general extent of a Green Belt has been approved it should be altered only in exceptional circumstances. If such an alteration is proposed the Secretary of State will wish to be satisfied that the authority has considered opportunities for development within the urban areas contained by and beyond the Green Belt. Similarly, detailed Green Belt boundaries defined in adopted local plans or earlier approved development plans should be altered only exceptionally. Detailed boundaries should not be altered or development allowed merely because the land has become derelict.

Where existing local plans are being revised and updated, existing Green Belt boundaries should not be changed unless alterations to the structure plan have been approved, or other exceptional circumstances exist, which necessitate such revision. (Note: Local Plans and Structure Plans are now superseded).

Wherever practicable a Green Belt should be several miles wide, so as to ensure an appreciable open zone all round the built-up area concerned. Boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. Well-defined long-term Green Belt boundaries help to ensure the future agricultural, recreational and amenity value of Green Belt land, whereas less secure boundaries would make it more difficult for farmers and other landowners to maintain and improve their land.

When drawing Green Belt boundaries in development plans local planning authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. They should consider the consequences for sustainable development (for example in terms of the effects on car travel) of channeling development towards urban areas inside the inner Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt, or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary.

2

When local planning authorities prepare new or revised structure and local plans (now the Local Development Framework), any proposals affecting Green Belts should be related to a time-scale which is longer than that normally adopted for other aspects of the plan. They should satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the plan period. In order to ensure protection of Green Belts within this longer timescale, this will in some cases mean safeguarding land between the urban area and the Green Belt which may be required to meet longer-term development needs. Regional/strategic guidance should provide a strategic framework for considering this issue. In preparing and reviewing their development plans authorities should address the possible need to provide safeguarded land. They should consider the broad location of anticipated development beyond the plan period, its effects on urban areas contained by the Green Belt and on areas beyond it, and its implications for sustainable development.

Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) sets ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ as the core principle underpinning planning. Planning should facilitate and promote sustainable and inclusive patterns of urban and rural development by: • Making suitable land available for development in line with economic, social and environmental objectives to improve people’s quality of life; • Contributing to sustainable economic development; • Protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment, the quality and character of the countryside, and existing communities; • Ensuring high quality development through good and inclusive design, and the efficient use of resources; and, • Ensuring that development supports existing communities and contributes to the creation of safe, sustainable, liveable and mixed communities with good access to jobs and key services for all members of the community.

PPS1 clearly states that development plan policies should take account of environmental issues including the protection of the wider countryside and the impact of development on landscape quality, and that plan policies and planning decisions should be based on up-to- date information on the environmental characteristics of the area.

A partial review of the Green Belt in Cannock Chase District as part of the emerging Local Development Framework is consistent with this overall planning policy.

3 3. Regional Policy

The Regional Spatial Strategy Phase Two Revision is a partial revision which builds on and aims to develop further the existing Green Belt strategy. The Phase Two Revision is not a fundamental review of the strategy or key principles, including the overall approach to Green Belt. Instead, the general approach in the Phase Two Revision is to retain Green Belt as this will continue to be an important component of the strategy, particularly its role in avoiding the coalescence of settlements and in supporting urban renaissance. However, it is recognised that, in exceptional cases and in specific sub-regional circumstances, an adjustment of boundaries could be appropriate if necessary to allow for the most sustainable form of development. This is reflected in the revised Spatial Strategy Objective ‘to retain the Green Belt but to allow an adjustment of boundaries, where exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated, either to support urban regeneration or to allow for the most sustainable form of development to deliver the specific housing proposals referred to within the sub-regional implications of the strategy.

In relation to the sequencing of housing development, Policy CF4 E. specifies that ‘The development of any greenbelt sites should generally be phased late in the plan period and after further investigation as to whether they constitute the most sustainable form of development in the local area and represent exceptional circumstances’. The Preferred Option sets out the specific circumstances in which an adjustment of boundaries could be made. In addition to these strategic adjustments of Green Belt boundaries, the Preferred Option also provides guidance to Local Planning Authorities for local adjustments through the LDF process. Paragraph 6.25 states that ‘In determining the most sustainable form of new development, local authorities, in their LDDs, should consider whether the release of Greenbelt land (within the context of policies CF1 and CF2) would provide a more appropriate option than other forms of development. Following an Examination in Public the Panel Report has endorsed this approach and the Government response is awaited later in 2010.

Green Belt is also a matter which was going to be addressed via the third revision of the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy. Despite identifying conflicting representations about the need for a Green Belt review as opposed to maintaining the current position, the issue was not developed into options for consultation. Options relating to positive use of Green Belt were however put forward. Phase Three considered the need for additional regional policy guidance relating to the positive use and enhancement of Green Belts in the West Midlands. PPG2 includes a presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It also makes the case that the Green Belt has a much broader positive purpose and that is a potent policy instrument against the potential urban sprawl of major urban areas into the surrounding hinterland. However, the national policy does not cover the positive use or enhancement of the Green Belt. Phase Three was therefore seeking to develop a stronger strategic approach to the whole of the area which could help to deliver more positive social, economic and environmental benefits, such as access, amenity value, recreation, health and protection for sensitive sites. The Phase Three Revision was not to involve a review of Green Belt boundaries. The adjustment of Green Belt boundaries is covered in the adopted WMRSS (especially para 3.14), with amendments being proposed as part of the Phase Two Revision.

4

In July 2007, the Government published a Sub-National Review of Economic Development and Regeneration. Among other things, the Government proposes to bring together the Regional Spatial Strategies and the Regional Economic Strategies into a single Regional Strategy for each of the English regions. In the light of these legislative changes, there was a West Midlands “stocktake” meeting in September 2009 involving officers from the Assembly, Government Office West Midlands (GOWM) and Advantage West Midlands to consider how the WMRSS Phase Three could be taken forward in the most effective way. It was agreed at that meeting that the Phase Three issues should be progressed through the new Regional Strategy process rather than through the WMRSS Phase Three Revision.

Phase Three Revision work will therefore be “banked” and counted as part of the preparation process for the new Regional Strategy. The approach of formulating Policy Statements and Policy Recommendations has now been agreed as the way forward. Positive Uses of Green Belts will take the form of a policy recommendation. Final signoff is planned for 3 March 2010. Policy Statements and Policy Recommendations will be tested through relevant appraisal and assessment processes (Sustainability Appraisal, Habitats Regulations Assessment and Rural Proofing). There will be technical consultation with Local Authorities and WMRSS Reference Groups in the preparation of the Policy Statements and Policy Recommendations.

5 4. History of the Green Belt in Cannock Chase District

After the 1955 West Midlands Green Belt was declared, it appeared on the Town Maps for Cannock Urban DC and Urban DC forming part of the Southern portion of the West Midlands Green Belt. The only Local Plans prepared in Cannock Chase District before the first district-wide local plan in 1997, was for in 1984 and Bridgtown in 1989. The former made some changes to the Green Belt at the time to facilitate future development and formally designate some areas of interim Green Belt, to prevent coalescence with .

The Cannock Chase Local Plan 1997 dealt with Green Belt boundary review via Proposal CP1 which defined the current Green Belt boundary on the Local Plans Proposals Map and made additions to the Green Belt, deletions from the Green Belt and identified land for development beyond 2001 (so called C7 sites* – see below). Adjustments made at this time sought to relate the boundary more closely to physical features on the ground and where land was deleted from the Green Belt to facilitate development requirements.

One strategic adjustment of particular note for the current review occurred on land at Churchbridge, Cannock – This identified the new 36ha Kingswood Lakeside employment area and stated: ‘The Green Belt Boundary now proposed relates to physical features which exist on the ground. It will, together with the proposed boundary revision around the Poplars Landfill Site to the north, provide a rational, comprehensive and easily recognisable boundary which will satisfy the criteria required for such a boundary for the foreseeable future’.

Longer term potential development sites were identified in policy C7 below taking land out of the Green Belt in the process.

*Policy C7 Land for Development Beyond the Plan Period

The sites listed in Proposal CP1 (C) –

(i) land to the west of Pye Green Road, Hednesford (ii) land to the east of Wimblebury Road, Heath Hayes (iii) land between Norton Canes and the proposed Northern Relief Road

have been identified for long term development, consequently development will not be permitted in advance of the sites allocated in the Local Plan and in any case before 2001.

6 As part of the justification for policy C7 it is stated that: ‘…the position with respect to the land will be reviewed and assessed further as part of any Local Plan monitoring exercise and in any case, development will not be permitted in advance of the other sites allocated in the Local Plan or prior to 2001’. At June 2009 not all other sites allocated in the Local Plan had been advanced. Additionally in developing consideration of broad locations/strategic sites for housing and employment development the LDF Core Strategy effectively monitors the case for these sites taking account of new information, particularly brought forward via Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment.

5. Review Considerations and Assessment

Review of the Green Belt boundary is required to: • Satisfy the requirements of PPG2, • Satisfy the requirements of the Structure Plan (in effect now covered by the Regional Spatial Strategy). The requirements of PPG2 fall into four categories:

i. Purpose Land designated as Green Belt should meet one of the five purposes for inclusion as set out in PPG 2 paragraph 1.5. These are: • to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; • to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; • to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; • to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and • to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

ii. Clear definition of boundaries The boundaries should be ‘clearly defined using recognisable features’ (PPG2 paragraph 2.9)

iii. Boundaries to built up areas The boundaries should not be drawn ‘excessively tightly around built up areas’ (PPG2 paragraph 2.8)

iv. Secure beyond plan period No further review of the boundary should be required ‘at the end of the plan period’ (PPG 2 paragraph 2.12) The policy guidance contained in PPG2 is affected by the introduction in 2004 of the new forward planning system based on Regional Spatial

7 Strategies and Local Development Frameworks. Satisfying the requirements of the Structure Plan is now effectively replaced by satisfying the requirements of the Regional Spatial Strategy. In reviewing the boundary, sites may either be added to or taken out of the Green Belt. Given that the third review of the Regional Spatial Strategy does not intend to raise options for a review of Green Belt, it is considered that at the local level in Cannock Chase District a partial review of the Green Belt boundary can be justified by ‘exceptional circumstances’ applying at specific locations, in relation to assessing options for further development. For housing these are: 1. Land south east of Norton Canes (current status - Green Belt) 2. Land south west of Norton Canes (current status – Local Plan C7 policy) 3. Land south of Heath Hayes (current status - Green Belt) 4. Land east of Wimblebury Road (current status – part Green Belt/part Local Plan C7 policy) 5. Land west of Pye Green Road (current status – Local Plan C7 policy) 6. Land east of Brereton (current status - Green Belt) 7. Land at Longford Farm (current status - Green Belt)

A further 3 sites linked to the possible expansion of the Kingswood Lakeside employment area are also considered in connection with longer term provision of employment land. These are: (add photos) 8. Site between A5 and M6 Toll (current status - Green Belt) 9. Kingswood Lakeside Extension (east) (current status - Green Belt) 10. Kingswood Lakeside Extension (north-east) (current status - Green Belt)

Further land is considered in the context of the proposed new super school at Rugeley: 11. Land at Hagley Park (current status – part Green Belt/part white land)

Finally two further locations are assessed. Site 9 represents an important area of heathland and is being considered for inclusion within the AONB and the adjacent site 10 is valued by the local communities of Rawnsley and Hazelslade as important to the setting of these communities. 12. Hednesford Hills (current status Green Space Network) 13. Land at Hazelslade/Rawnsley (current status - AONB (part))

These locations are identified in the following maps and the exceptional circumstances are described where applicable in the table below:

8 Table 1 Reasons for Green Belt Review

Location Site Area (ha) Reason for consideration Exceptional Circumstances

1. Land south east of 10.3 Green Belt land south east of Norton Canes and bordering the District Boundary near Chasewater - Recent construction of M6 Toll Road Norton Canes no longer believed to perform a Green Belt function Predominantly brownfield land 2. Land south west of 26.5 Local Plan C7 site – continued appropriateness for housing in LDF to be assessed against other RSS Housing Allocation Norton Canes options 3. Land south of 37.5 Land identified for possible consideration for housing development within Preferred Options RSS Housing Allocation Heath Hayes consultation based on developer interest. 4. Land east of 18.7 Justification for safeguarded land forming part of site no longer applies. Land identified for possible Five-ways relief road project deleted. Wimblebury Road consideration for housing development within Preferred Options consultation based on developer RSS Housing Allocation interest. 5. Land west of Pye 66.2 Local Plan C7 site - continued appropriateness for housing in LDF to be assessed against other HRA/SA/Evidence. Green Road options - part of site may not be sustainable for housing development under HRA/SA/LCA RSS Housing Allocation 6. Land east of 1.4 Land contained between Brereton and Lea Hall Way no longer performs Green Belt function Recent construction of Lea Hall Way Brereton 7. Land at Longford 32.6 Land identified for possible consideration for housing development based on developer interest. RSS Housing Allocation Farm 8. Site between A5 9.4 Possible location for future employment land RSS Employment Allocation and M6 Toll 9. Kingswood 10.2 Possible location for future employment land RSS Employment Allocation Lakeside Extension (east) 10. Kingswood 12.0 Possible location for future employment land RSS Employment Allocation Lakeside Extension (north-east) 11. Land at Hagley 10.2 Potential location for new super school Building Schools for the Future Park 12. Hednesford Hills 136.5 Considered for inclusion within the AONB. Also non-urban role. AONB extension.

13. Land at 7.4 Considered important to the setting of these communities and linked to site 12. Strong local representation as part of Hazelslade/Rawnsley LDF consultation

9

The first stage of the partial review for these sites is assessment against PPG2 criteria set out in table 2 below. All sites are assessed for Green Belt inclusion without reference to their current Green Belt status in order to provide a fairer assessment as to how well they would meet the criteria. The criteria have been interpreted as follows:

a. Would area check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas? All sites would play a role in restricting urban growth if included within the Green Belt, however checking unrestricted sprawl is interpreted as meaning inclusion in the Green Belt is considered necessary, as limits to further outward expansion of development are not strongly defined. b. Would area help prevent towns from merging into one another? This assessment is a judgement on the role the site would play as part of the wider Green Belt in preventing coalescence of settlements. Sites are likely to help towns from merging if the Green Belt is particularly narrow at that point. c. Would area assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment? There will be potential encroachment into the countryside where a sites essential rural characteristics, for instance in agriculture, heathland or woodland, would be eroded or lost. d. Would area preserve the setting and special character of a historic town? This is only considered to be the case where the site lies near to a historic town area, such as a Conservation Area.. e. Would area assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict/other urban land? Given the combination of the legacy of derelict or other brownfield land in the urban areas of Cannock Chase District and the District’s relatively small geographical size all sites are considered to have such a role. f. Would inclusion provide clear definition of boundaries? A site scores positively if there is considered to be a better Green Belt boundary definition by virtue of inclusion. g. Would inclusion allow space for expansion? A positive score is gained if by including the site in the Green Belt, there is still room for expansion. However, in all cases inclusion would mean boundaries being tightly drawn to existing edges of development meaning (locally) no space for expansion. h. If included would boundary be secure beyond plan period? A site is considered to be secure beyond the plan period where the existing boundary is clearly defined and there is not considered to be an equally strong or stronger boundary provided at the outer edge of the site. i. Summary – is the areas inclusion in the Green Belt fully supported when assessed against PPG2 criteria? A greater number of positive responses to criteria suggests a site would be better placed within the Green Belt.

24 Table 2 Assessment against PPG2 criteria

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Site Kings- Kings- Land Hedne- Land south south south east of west east of at betw- wood wood at sford at east of west of Wimbl- of Pye Brere- Long- een A5 Lake- Lake- Hagley Hills Hazel- Norton of Heath ebury Green ton ford and side side Park slade/ Canes Norton Hayes Road Road farm M6 Exten- Exten- Rawn- Canes Toll sion sion sley (east) (ne) a. Would area check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas? X X √ X X X X X √ √ X √ √ b. Would area help prevent towns from merging into one another? √ X √ X √ X X √ √ √ X X X c. Would area assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment? X √ √ √ √ X X X X X X √ √ d. Would area preserve the setting and special character of a historic town? X X X X X X X X X X √ X X e. Would area assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict/other √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ urban land? f. Would inclusion provide clear definition of boundaries? X X √ √ √ X X √ √ √ √ √ √ g. Would inclusion allow space for expansion? X X X X X X X X X X X X X h. If included would boundary be secure beyond plan period? X X √ X X X X √ X X √ √ √ i. Summary – is the areas inclusion in the Green Belt fully supported when assessed X X √ X incon- X X incon- incon- incon- incon- √ √ against PPG2 criteria? clusive clusive clusive clusive clusive

25 The second stage of review is advised by Landscape Character Assessment. Ashmead Price, Landscape Planning and Design Consultants were commissioned by Cannock Chase Council to produce a Landscape Character Assessment of Cannock Chase District (excluding the majority of the Cannock Chase AONB). They reported in March 2009. Their assessment reviewed and updated the County level Landscape Description Units (LDUs) and identified six landscape character types with an overall strategy for each. Three of these landscape character types are relevant to the review sites:

Table 3 Review Sites and Landscape Character Type

Landscape Character Type Review sites Strength of Character Overall Strategy

Sandstone Hills and Heaths Land west of Pye Green Road Strong Conserve Hednesford Hills Land at Hazelslade/Rawnsley Settled Farmlands Land East of Brereton Moderate Conserve and Strengthen Land at Longford Farm (adjacent area) Planned Coalfield Farmlands Land south east of Norton Canes Moderate Conserve and Strengthen Land south west of Norton Canes Land south of Heath Hayes Land east of Wimblebury Road Site between A5 and M6 Toll Kingswood Lakeside Extension (east) Kingswood Lakeside Extension (north-east) Wooded Estatelands Land at Hagley Park (part) Moderate Conserve and Enhance Urban Land at Longford Farm Not assessed Not assessed Land at Hagley Park (part) Not assessed Not assessed

From table 3 it can be seen that sites within the Sandstone Hills and Heaths landscape type have strong character, the overall emphasis for which is conservation. Other sites fall within landscape types of more moderate character with opportunities to strengthen character.

The Landscape Character Assessment breaks areas of land down to a smaller assessment level called Land Cover Parcels (LCPs). These are sub- units of LDUs derived from the County Councils Historic Landscape Characterisation, farm census information, 1:25,000 OS base maps and parish boundaries. These units provide a better scale to most appropriately assess condition and capacity. Table 4 (below) assess each site within the context of its own particular LCP and summarises key aspects of condition and evidence of change and for change at that location.

26 Table 4 Landscape characteristics, condition and forces for change

1. 2 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 8. 9. Kings- 10. Kings- 11. 12. 13. Land Land Land Land Land west of Pye Land Land at Site wood Lake- wood Lake- Land at Hednes- Land at south south south of east of Green Road east of Longford between side side Hagley ford Hills Hazelslade/ east of west of Heath Wimble- Brereton Farm – A5 and Extension Extension Park – Rawnsley Norton Norton Hayes bury adjacent M6 Toll (east) (north-east) assessed Canes Canes. Road area part

LDU Ref Planned Planned Planned Planned South – North – Settled Settled Planned Planned Planned Wooded South – South - Coalfield Coalfield Coalfield Coalfield Sand- Sand- Farmland Farmland Coalfield Coalfield Coalfield Estate- Sand- Sandstone Farmland Farmland Farmland Farmland stone Hills stone Hills 15a 29c Farmland Farmland Farmland lands stone Hills Hills and 22e 24b 21l 21g and and 21n 21n 21n 7b and Heaths 01 Heaths Heaths Heaths 01 01e 01f Visual Low High Low Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Low Impact

Habitat Strong Declining Low Declining Weak Declining Declining Declining Weak Weak Weak Weak Strong Declining Network

Cultural Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining Intact Declining Relic Relic Relic Declining Intact Declining pattern

Functional Strong Weak Weak Moderate Weak Moderate Moderate Moderate Weak Weak Weak Weak Strong Moderate Integrity

Overall Good Poor Moderate Good Moderate Good Good Good Poor Poor Poor Poor Good Good Condition

27 1. Land 2. Land 3. Land 4. Land 5. Land west of Pye 6. Land 7. 8. Site 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. south south south of east of Green Road east of Land at between Kingswood Kingswood Land at Hednes- Land at east of west of Heath Wimble- Brereton Longford A5 and Lakeside Lakeside Hagley ford Hills Hazelslade/ Norton Norton Hayes bury Farm M6 Toll Extension Extension Park Rawnsley Canes Canes Road adjacent (east) (north-east) area Notes A relic of A Arable Woodland Common Mixed Strong A well A large A large scale A large scale Valuable Locally A valued from the traditional landscape intensif- belts Farm is a manage- rural managed scale restored restored green valued green LCA small- where the ication screen feature. ment character landscape restored opencast opencast corridor heathland corridor holding pattern has the edge Shelter- practices with a well of hedged opencast landscape landscape linkage to with providing a land with has removed of Heath belt and on horse defined fields in landscape containing containing Cannock extensive buffer to new grazing degraded hedges Hayes ridge paddocks edge to the valley containing modern modern Chase. public development animals due to and from the separates Brereton. bottom. modern distribution distribution Horne access . Potential and brick intensify- results in wider the land Former The A5 is distrib- sheds and sheds and Pool is a managed for built cation of an open restored from mineral a ution development development feature. as recreational cottage. arable feature- landscape Hunting- line is significant sheds and infrastructure infrastructure Chase country- route along Else- product- less . Amenity ton. used as a influence. develop- . This is a . This is a Heritage side. High former where a ion and landscape land is a Visually linear ment vacant vacant Trail impact of mineral line. modified removal compared feature of enclosed recreation infra- landscape landscape linear new landscape of with the the area by route. structure. with no with no recreation housing in with hedges. adjacent including develop- This is a settlement settlement al route. adjacent extensive Could areas. allotments ment. vacant horse urban absorb Develop- . Oppor- landscape paddocks influences develop- ment tunity for with no and ment if could be well sited settlement pressure relic accomm- develop- for features odated ment with additional are providing links to a new retained that a new well develop- and new landscape planned ment landscape frame- open frame- work is space and work of created access woodland with network. belts is access to imple- Newlands mented. Lane.

28 Table 4 may be summarised as follows:

• Land west of Pye Green Road falls within two Land Cover Parcels reflecting the north and south of the site. • All sites are characterised by having low visual impact other than Hagley Park and potential employment locations near Kingswood Lakeside which are moderate and land south west of Norton Canes which is high. • The habitat network at all sites is low, weak or declining with the exception of land south east of Norton Canes and Hednesford Hills which are strong. • The area’s cultural patterns are declining with the exception of the locations near Kingswood Lakeside which are characterised as relics and the Hednesford Hills and land east of Brereton which are shown to be intact. This however needs to be qualified by the fact that LCP 15a covers a much larger area than the land under review which has been heavily influenced by the recent construction of Lea Hall Way. • Functional integrity of sites is moderate or weak at all locations except the Hednesford Hills and land south east of Norton Canes which retain strong functional integrity. • Overall condition of sites is assessed as poor at the Kingswood Lakeside sites, south west of Norton Canes and at Hagley Park. Land south of Heath Hayes and the southern part of land west of Pye Green Road are considered moderate. The condition of other sites is considered to be good.

In summary the use of Landscape Character Assessment provides an alternative approach which helps supplement the criteria based assessment under PPG2 and provides a more rounded consideration of sustainability. It is much more locally based and provides a framework for more qualitative judgements.

Under LCA land south of Heath Hayes, land east of Wimblebury Road, the southern part of the land west of Pye Green Road and land east of Brereton all have the potential to accommodate new development providing that measures are taken to create new landscape frameworks which can help absorb them.

The northern part of land west of Pye Green Road has greater sensitivity than the southern part of the site and the overall context is a strong landscape character type with a strong sense of character.

Land at Longford Farm is urban and therefore not assessed. The adjacent area (LDU Ref 29c) is assessed as being a well managed landscape in overall good condition.

Land south east of Norton Canes, whilst being within a landscape character type with a moderate strength of character does contain a strong habitat network and strong functional integrity, both of which would require mitigation should sites in this area be put forward to accommodate new development. Conversely the overall condition of land south west of Norton Canes is assessed as poor and with appropriate consideration and enhancement of relic features in the landscape could accommodate development.

29 Whilst Hagley Park provides an important green wedge into Rugeley its overall condition is considered poor and the area could therefore be both enhanced and reconfigured in order to accommodate new school building and playing fields. The urban part of land under consideration lies adjacent to both the assessed area LDU Ref 7b and unassessed area Ref 7c. Area 7c is summarised as a landscape in decline with neglected features and urban influences. Sports fields are a feature in the landscape. Localised moderate visual impact of Fair Oak School and housing to perimeters. The super school proposal may provide an opportunity to address elements of decline and provide a stronger urban edge at this location.

Hednesford Hills and to a lesser extent land at Hazleslade/Rawnsley are greatly valued locally and retain a countryside character in overall good condition.

The three potential employment areas all fall within a large Land Cover Parcel which takes in both the Kingswood Lakeside employment site and the Green Belt area around it stretching towards Norton Canes. The overall condition of the parcel is assessed as poor.

6. Assessment Recommendations

Table 5 brings together the assessment of sites against PPG2 criteria and landscape character assessment and develops a recommendation as to whether sites should be included within the Green Belt or form part of the adjacent urban area with scope for development as part of delivering the LDF Core Strategy.

The assessment against PPG2 criteria is taken as the primary consideration. Therefore where the assessment is supportive of inclusion in the Green Belt this will be the recommendation.

Where this assessment does not fully support inclusion in the Green Belt but the LCA does, the recommendation is in favour of either removal from/retention outside the Green Belt but it will be important to put in place mitigating measures to deal with considerations identified via LCA particularly where the implication is for the area to be developed.

30 Table 5 Recommended Areas for Green Belt Review

Site Is the areas inclusion in the Is the areas inclusion in Comments Recommendation for Green Green Belt fully supported the Green Belt fully Belt review when assessed against supported via PPG2? interpretation of the LCA? 1. Land south east of X √ PPG2 criteria not fully met Remove from Green Belt – Norton Canes suggesting removal from Green potential urban extension of Belt but ensuring careful Norton Canes subject to mitigation to deal with appropriate mitigation habitat/functional integrity. 2. Land south west of X X Both PPG2 criteria and LCA No change Norton Canes suggest this area is able to accommodate a well designed urban extension. 3. Land south of Heath √ X Retention in Green Belt No change - retain in Green Hayes supported by PPG2 criteria. Belt 4. Land east of X X Both PPG2 criteria and LCA Exclude complete site from Wimblebury Road suggest this area is able to Green Belt - potential urban accommodate a well designed extension of Heath Hayes urban extension. 5. Land west of Pye Green inconclusive X PPG2 criteria are not Retain outside Green Belt- Road - south conclusive - Whilst within a potential urban extension of strong landscape character Pye Green type, the lower level LCP does not rule out appropriate development. 5. Land west of Pye Green inconclusive √ PPG2 criteria not conclusive – Consider low intensity green Road - north LCA identifies stronger space use – potential to return landscape character attributes to Green Belt than south of site.

31 6. Land at Longford Farm X Not assessed PPG2 criteria not fully met Exclude site from Green Belt suggesting removal from Green Belt. Considered urban in LCA. 7. Land east of Brereton X √ PPG2 criteria and LCA suggest Remove from Green Belt – this area able to accommodate include within residential area well designed development. of Brereton 8. Site between A5 and inconclusive X Retention in Green Belt is Possible future release M6 Toll inconclusive against PPG2 subject to employment land criteria. LCA recognises the need. Balance consideration poor condition of this against sites 9 and 10 landscape. 9. Kingswood Lakeside inconclusive X Retention in Green Belt is Possible future release Extension (east) inconclusive against PPG2 subject to employment land criteria. LCA recognises poor need. Balance consideration condition of this landscape against sites 8 and 10 10. Kingswood Lakeside inconclusive X Retention in Green Belt is Priority for future release Extension (north-east) inconclusive against PPG2 based on employment land criteria. LCA recognises poor need. Balance consideration condition of this landscape against sites 8 and 9 11. Land at Hagley Park inconclusive √ Valuable green wedge, Scope for reconfiguration of although in poor condition. Green Belt boundary and enhancement linked to new super school proposal 12. Hednesford Hills √ √ Addition to Green Belt Add to Green Belt supported by both PPG2 criteria and LCA. 13. Land at Hazelslade/ √ √ Addition to Green Belt Add to Green Belt Rawnsley supported by both PPG2 criteria and LCA.

32 7. Other considerations

Change in extent of Green Belt

The net effect of the recommendations on the overall area of Green Belt land is achieved by considering the balance of sites removed from/added to the Green Belt.

Additions Area (ha) Removals Area (ha) 11. Land at Hagley Park 5.3 1. Land south east of Norton Canes 10.3 12. Hednesford Hills 136.5 4. Land east of Wimblebury Road (part) 12.5 13. Land at Hazelslade/ Rawnsley 7.4 6. Land at Longford Farm 32.6 7. Land East of Brereton 1.4 10. Kingswood Lakeside Extension (north-east) 17.8 11. Land at Hagley Park 4.9 Total 149.2 Total 79.5

Overall, by following the recommendations of the assessment there would be 79.5ha of land removed from the Green Belt balanced by an addition of 149.2ha making a net addition of 69.7ha. Additionally the assessment considers there may be scope to add the northern extent of site 5 (Land west of Pye Green Road) to the Green Belt.

Other Studies

Cannock Chase District is abundant in biodiversity interest and there are implications arising from this, due to the positive role Green Belt land can play in providing habitats and supporting species that will further influence Green Belt boundary review. In addition to this study therefore Green Belt boundaries will need to be further considered against the Districts biodiversity evidence base in the form of the Habitat Regulations Assessments of the Cannock Chase SAC and Cannock Extension Canal SAC, the Cannock Chase to Sutton Park Biodiversity Enhancement Area report or the Cannock Chase District Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey.

33