Site Allocations Publication Plan Response Form Part A: Your Details (Please Print) Please ensure that we have an up to date email wherever possible, or postal address at which we can contact you. Your Details Agent’s Details (if applicable) Title Mr First Name Chris Last Name Lambart E-mail Address [email protected] Job Title Planning Adviser (if applicable) Organisation National Trust National Trust (if applicable) Address Moseley Old Hall Attingham Consultancy Office Moseley Old Hall Lane Attingham Park Fordhouses Atcham Wolverhampton Shrewsbury Post Code WV10 7HY SY4 4TP Telephone Number 01902 782808 01743 708171 Please note the following: • Representations cannot be kept confidential and will be available for public scrutiny, however your contact details will not be published. • Your details will be added to our Local Plans Consultation database. All comments made at the Preferred Options stage have been taken into account in the production of the Publication Plan and will be submitted to the Inspector. The Publication Plan is a regulatory stage and any representations should relate to the legal compliance and soundness of the document. Please note your representation should cover succinctly all the information, evidence and supporting information necessary to support/justify the representation and the suggested change as there will not normally be a subsequent opportunity to make further representations. After this stage, further submissions will be only at the request of the Inspector, based on the matters and issues he/she identifies for examination. Part B: Please use a separate sheet for each representation Please complete a new form for each representation you wish to make. 1. To which part of the Site Allocations (SAD) Publication Plan does this representation relate? Paragraph Policy SAD5 Proposals Map Maps contained in appendix 3 2. Do you consider the Site Allocations Publication Plan is Legally Compliant? Yes No Please give reasons for your answer. Please be as precise as possible: Our representation on legal compliance is set out separately. 3a. Do you consider the Site Allocations Publication Plan to be Sound? Yes No 3b. Do you consider the Publication Plan to be unsound, because it is not: Tick Positively Prepared: The plan should be prepared based on a strategy, which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements. Justified: The plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. Effective: The plan should be deliverable. Consistent with national policy: The plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies of the NPPF. Please give reasons for your answer. Please be as precise as possible: (Our other representations on the soundness of the plan are set out separately. This representation relates to access to the ROF Featherstone Site. Our February 2017 “Response to ROF Featherstone Highways Consultation Document” is appended to and forms part of this representation. ) We consider that the plan is unsound because it provides policy support for option 9 as a possible access road for the ROF Featherstone Site. (Option 9 is shown in Appendix 3, which is referred to by policy SAD5 and its supporting text.) Option 9 would harm the setting of grade II* listed Moseley Old Hall, other heritage assets and the greenbelt countryside between the M54 and the edge of Wolverhampton. We consider that this harm is unjustified and not consistent with national policy. National policy and guidance NPPF paragraph 152 states, “Local planning authorities should seek opportunities to achieve each of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, and net gains across all three. Significant adverse impacts on any of these dimensions should be avoided and, wherever possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued. Where adverse impacts are unavoidable, measures to mitigate the impact should be considered. Where adequate mitigation measures are not possible, compensatory measures may be appropriate.” Heritage issues NPPF paragraph 126 states, “Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance. In developing this strategy, local planning authorities should take into account: ● the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; ● the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring; ● the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and ● opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place.” Paragraph 132 states, “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.” Paragraph 157 states, “Crucially, Local Plans should:… identify land where development would be inappropriate, for instance because of its environmental or historic significance;…” Annex 2 of the NPPF includes the following definitions: • Significance (for heritage policy): The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting. • Setting of a heritage asset: The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral. The great weight which the NPPF requires to be given to the conservation of heritage assets is reinforced by the requirements of s66 of the Planning Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act 1990 which requires special regard to be had to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their settings. Planning Practice Guidance states, “Any decisions relating to listed buildings and their settings and conservation areas must address the statutory considerations of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (see in particular sections 16, 66 and 72) as well as satisfying the relevant policies within the National Planning Policy Framework and the Local Plan.” (Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 18a-002- 20140306) Further guidance has been published by the government in Planning Practice Guidance and by Historic England (previously English Heritage), notably in its Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance (2008), Good Practice Advice 1 – Local Plan Making (2015); Good Practice Advice 2 – Managing Significance in Decision Taking in the Historic Environment (2015) and Good Practice Advice 3 – Settings and Views (2015, currently under review). In particular they explain that setting is not limited to considerations of inter-visibility but that a holistic approach to the experience of a heritage asset is required. Green belt NPPF paragraphs 79-81, 87 and 88 state: “79. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. 80. Green Belt serves five purposes: ● to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; ● to prevent neighbouring towns 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. 81. Once Green Belts have been defined, local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land. 87. As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 88. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.” Paragraph 90 states that local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a green belt location is not inappropriate