North Warwickshire Local Plan Examination Hearings Position Statement Matter 9: Allocations and supply of land for development requirements Prepared for: Client: Mr R Arnold and Mrs R Bell Site: Land south of Shuttington Village Hall, Shuttington Date: March 2019 1. Introduction 1.1. This Statement has been prepared by Fisher German on behalf of Mr Ralph Arnold & Mrs Rosemary Bell, landowners of proposed housing allocation site H25 (Land south of Shuttington Village Hall). A site location plan is enclosed at Appendix 1. 1.2. As previously advised in our Hearing Statement for Matter 4, positive pre-application advice was obtained from the Council in respect of residential development on the site. Since the first phase of Examination Hearings in 2018, an outline planning application (with all matters reserved except for access) has been submitted (Ref: PAP/2019/0022). This is currently being determined by the Council. 1.3. Planning application documents and consultee comments that are relevant to the questions raised by the Inspector have been appended to this Position Statement. 1.4. An updated Hearing Matters, Issues and Questions document has been prepared by the Inspector, now including questions in respect of Matter 9: Allocations and supply of land for development requirements. This Statement will focus specifically on issues/questions 9.8 (b) and 9.37 (a) and (b). PAGE 2 2. Site Allocations – Overarching Issues 9.8 Are the categorisations of settlements in policy LP2 appropriate with regard to the updated Settlement Sustainability Assessment (‘SSA’) [CD6/3C]? (b) Should certain ‘category 5’ settlements be re-assigned based on their current scoring in CD6/3C?26 26 It appears that category 5 settlements of Corley, Middleton and Furnace End score more favourably in terms of accessibility of services and facilities than some category 4 settlements (Shustoke and Shuttington). 2.1. As previously detailed in our Hearing Statement to Matter 4 (please see Appendix 2), we support the identification of Shuttington as a Category 4 Settlement (Other Settlement with a Development Boundary), Shuttington benefits from the following services and facilities: • Village Hall & Playing Field • Village Supermarket/Convenience Store • Public House • Place of Worship • Auto Repair/MOT Garage • School Bus Services to Newton Regis Primary School and Polesworth School • Regular bus service to Tamworth Town Centre 2.2. Whilst the updated SSA [CD6/3C] has reduced Shuttington’s score by 1, this is only due to the loss of the infrequent (Thursdays only) Flexibus 224 service. Notwithstanding this, the village still continues to be served by the regular 785/786 bus service to Tamworth. New development in Shuttington is crucial as this will ensure the continued viability of the village’s services and facilities. 2.3. It is noted that Corley, Middleton and Furnace End score more favourably in the updated SSA, in terms of accessibility to services and facilities than Shuttington and Shutstoke. However, the difference in scores is very marginal in the case of Furnace End (1 point more than Shuttington). In the case of Corley (3 points more), we believe the score of 2 attributed to the Corley Centre – a Secondary School only for children with complex social and communication difficulties, has been artificially inflated because by nature the school will serve a very wide catchment and not a large section of the local community, as a non-specialised Secondary School would. In the case of Middleton (4 points more), we note that 4 points have been attributed to local employers which are located in close association with the village. However, we consider this scoring to unfairly penalise settlements such as Shuttington which not only benefit from their own employment opportunities, but also from a close relationship with larger settlements (i.e. Tamworth), which provide more significant employment opportunities for the village’s population. 2.4. As detailed in paragraphs 6.5 and 6.8 of the SAA, Corley, Middleton and Furnace End are located within the Green Belt. The Council have chosen to not upgrade Corley, Middleton and Furnace PAGE 3 End in the Hierarchy, as this would mean taking them out of the Green Belt. The Council do not believe there is a need to release these villages from the Green Belt and do not consider it possible to do so as most of the settlements are dispersed in nature. Shuttington on the other hand is compact in nature and development will integrate with the existing pattern of development. 2.5. Paragraph 83 of the NPPF 2012 is clear that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered “in exceptional circumstances”. Considering the availability of land in sustainable locations such as Shuttington, we do not consider there is sufficient justification to raise the status of these locations, nor take them out of the Green Belt. 2.6. The Council’s decision to allocate land in non-Green Belt villages such as Shuttington is supported and reflects the NPPF. Releasing land from the Green Belt in villages such as Corley, Middleton and Furnace End is unnecessary and unjustified. 3. Category 3 & 4 settlement allocations and policy LP2 in respect of land outside of settlements 9.37 Allocation H25, Land south of Shuttington Village Hall (a) is the scale of the allocation, for 24 homes compared to a threshold of 10 indicated in Local Plan policy LP2, justified?45 45 Noting the representation of Alvecote & Shuttington Parish Council, SLP301. 3.1. Representation SLP301 from the Alvecote & Shuttington Parish Council states the following: “The Core Strategy did much more to protect Category 4 settlements like Shuttington and Alvecote so that settlement sites were normally no larger than 10 units. We have seen our site increased to 24 units. The only relevant comment being that services are limited. So there is no justification to more than double the housing allocation”. 3.2. In respect of the Category 4 Settlements, Policy LP2 Settlement Hierarchy does not set a threshold of 10 dwellings. The Policy is clear that “development will be limited to that identified in this Plan…” which in the case of Shuttington, is land to the south of Shuttington Village Hall for 24 dwellings. 3.3. Policy LP2 goes on to state that “It will cater for windfall housing development usually of no more than 10 units at any one time depending on viability”. Where reference is made to 10 dwellings, this is not set as a maximum threshold as reflected in the use of the word “usually”. Furthermore, the reference relates to windfall housing developments, not those identified in the Plan. 3.4. Similarly reference to sites of 10 dwellings in Category 4 settlements in the Core Strategy advised that sites would “normally” be no larger than 10 units at any one time. It did not set 10 dwellings as a maximum limit to growth in these settlements. PAGE 4 3.5. The scale of the allocation for 24 dwellings is considered to be in full accordance with Policy LP2. 3.6. As set out in our response to the Inspector’s question 9.8 b) 26), Shuttington benefits from a number of services and facilities which can support a development of 24 dwellings. 3.7. We have previously highlighted in our Hearing Statement for Matter 4, that we consider that the allocation of the land at Shuttington for 24 dwellings is in conformity with Paragraph 55 of the NPPF 2012 which states that “to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby”. 3.8. In terms of Shuttington, development here would have the benefit of enhancing and maintaining the vitality of the village. In addition to having a good number of existing day to day services and facilities within the village itself, Shuttington also benefits from a functional relationship with services in nearby villages (and indeed with Tamworth). As such, the proposed allocation of the land south of Shuttington Village Hall is considered to be a positive action towards supporting Shuttington and other nearby villages to thrive. 3.9. As detailed previously, an outline planning application has now been submitted for the development of 24 dwellings on land to the south of Shuttington Village Hall. The table below summarises the position of the responses received from the statutory consultees to date. It is clear from the responses received to date that there is no reason to suggest that 24 dwellings is unsustainable, or will have unacceptable detrimental impacts. A further update on the outstanding responses will be provided to the Inspector at the Hearing Session for this Matter. Consultee Status Warwickshire County Council (WCC) Flood Risk No Objection Management The Coal Authority (TCA) No Objection Warwickshire County Council (WCC) Planning No Objection Archaeologist Warwickshire County Council (WCC) Ecology No Objection Services North Warwickshire DC Environmental Health No Objection Officer Warwickshire County Council (WCC) Local No Objection Highway Authority Warwickshire Police – Designing Out Crime No Objection Officer PAGE 5 Warwickshire Fire Authority No Objection North Warwickshire Borough Council – Waste No Objection and Transport Manager North Warwickshire Borough Council – Housing No Objection Strategy and Development Officer Warwickshire County Council – Rights of Way No Objection GIS and Access Information Officer North Warwickshire Pollution Control Officer No Objection Alvecote & Shuttington Parish Council Concern Expressed 3.10. Finally, allowing schemes over 10 dwellings to come forward on sites such as the land to the south of Shuttington ensures that developer contributions can be gained which otherwise would not have been obtained. The land south of Shuttington Village Hall will also be able to provide affordable housing for the village which may not otherwise have been delivered by smaller schemes (of up to 10 dwellings) as per the Planning Practice Guidance.