Object

Representation ID: 43826

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

11. Proposed allocation:
11.1 interests relate to land at Aldridge School and land to the south of Bosty Lane. The site
can be considered in two parcels with land at Aldridge school (ref: SA-0188-WAL), comprising
approximately 11.5ha, and the remainder of the land located to the south of Bosty Lane (ref: SA-
0047-WAL), comprising approximately 46.8ha. The sites are assessed as a combined parcel under
reference: SA-0061-WAL. A site location and concept masterplan plan are provided at EP3.

11.2 The current school was built in the 1950s and requires extensive ongoing improvements and
modernisation to meet modern educational needs. The proposals present an opportunity to
deliver a new state-of-the-art educational facility, funded by the residential development at the
existing school site and the land south of Bosty Lane. Therefore, in addition to the residential
development, which is desperately needed and for which Green Belt release will be required in
any event, the proposals also offer a unique opportunity to enhance and secure the long-term
future of the school.
Proposed allocation
11.3 In total the site has capacity for approximately 650 dwellings and a replacement school of 7.5ha.
This is based on the following assumptions:

The 46.8ha within HIMOR could accommodate approximately 425 dwellings
across approximately 20ha of the site3, and 7.5ha for a new school. The remaining 19ha,
including large tracts of land to the south and east of the proposed development, would
accommodate an extensive network of recreational and ecological greenspace.

The 11.5 hectares of land at Aldridge School, if redeveloped for housing, has an
approximate capacity of 225 dwellings4.

11.4 An initial concept masterplan is provided at Appendix EP4. This illustrates how the proposed
quantum of development could be accommodated on site to deliver an attractive form of
development or a density which would integrate and sit conformably within the existing built form
of the surrounding area.

3 Based on a net developable area of 14.3ha and an average density of 29 dph
4 Based on a net developable area of 6.4ha and an average density of 35 dph


28

11.5 We are currently in the process of refining the proposals for the site. We intend to prepare and
submit a development framework document, including more detailed proposals for the
replacement school and the findings of additional technical information, in the coming months.
Exceptional circumstances
11.6 Exceptional circumstances at the strategic level are discussed in our response to Policy GB1. The
BCA accept the need to release land from the Green Belt to meet the need for development.

11.7 In addition, there significant site-specific benefits which amount to compelling exceptional
circumstances, namely the potential opportunity to secure the long-term future of Aldridge
school by delivering a new state of the art educational facility. In this regard we draw attention
to two recent Secretary of State appeal decisions:

The first is dated 21 March 2018, in respect of Effingham School in the borough of
Guildford (PINS ref: APP/Y3615/W/16/3151098). The proposed development involved the
erection of a replacement secondary school and 258 new dwellings in the Green Belt,
and the redevelopment of the existing school site for 37 dwellings. The Secretary of State
found that the provision of school buildings which meet modern educational and social
need; addressing the condition of the school; and meeting the need for school places
each carry very substantial weight, and furthermore that these comprised very special

Belt which had been identified. That appeal was allowed. A copy of the appeal
decision is provided at Appendix EP5.

The second is dated 22 April 2020, in respect of the Seashell Trust campus in the borough
of Stockport (PINS ref: APP/C4235/W/18/3205559). The proposed development involved
the erection of a new school and campus facilities, and 325 new dwellings in the Green
Belt. The Secretary of State concluded that the benefits of the development, in
particular the improved provision for special needs education, outweighed the harm to
the Green Belt, and so very special circumstances exist to justify this development in the
Green Belt. The Secretary of State gave only very limited weight to the emerging Greater
Manchester Spatial Framework allocation, which emphasises the significance of the
weight given to the educational benefits. A copy of the appeal decision is provided at
Appendix EP6.

29

11.8 There are further examples of where a new school, cross-subsidised by residential development
in the Green Belt, can comprise very special circumstances, such as Kings School in Macclesfield
which was approved by Cheshire East Council in 2017. In that instance the Secretary of State
reviewed the case and chose not to call-in the application.

11.9

to justify the release of land from the Green Belt through
the BCP. This would be a material consideration capable of comprising exceptional
circumstances in its own right, irrespective of the other exceptional circumstances which apply
in this case (i.e. the absolute housing need across the Black Country, the need to provide the
right types of housing in the right locations, and the need to ensure a deliverable supply of
housing land over the plan period, including the first 5-years of the plan).
Site Assessment Report
11.10 As discussed in Section 10 of this statement, we consider that the application of the site selection
methodology is flawed. Specifically, we object to the assessment of site at Bosty Lane,
Aldridge (parcels SA-0047-WAL & SA-0061-WAL). We hereby address each aspect of the site
assessment in turn.
Green Belt and Landscape Sensitivity Assessment
11.11 This is a key stage of the site selection process as, under stage 3 of the current site selection
methodology, sites Green Belt
and moderate- are automatically filtered out. We
consider that the assessment of parcels SA-0047-WAL & SA-0061-WAL against these criteria is
fundamentally flawed, for the reasons discussed below.

Green Belt considerations
11.12 fied as part of sub-parcel B93E within the Black
Country Green Belt Study (2019) as prepared by LUC. The study identifies the parcel of land as


30

11.13 The Stage 2 Assessment as contained within Appendix 3 of the document, does not provide a
detailed assessment of the sub-parcel, rather a single paragraph commentary is provided within



-parcel makes a strong contribution to preventing the sprawl of the
West Midlands conurbation, maintaining the separation of Walsall, Aldridge,
and Streetly (adjoining Sutton Coldfield) and preventing encroachment on the
countryside. The sub-parcel is contained to the north by the settlement edge
of Aldridge, which forms part of the West Midlands conurbation. Bosty Lane
bounding the north of the sub-parcel creates a strong distinction between the
inset settlement and land in the northern part of the sub-parcel. The expansion
of Aldridge southwards would result in a weaker boundary and narrowing of
the gap between Walsall, Aldridge, and Streetly (adjoining Sutton Coldfield),
and would potentially increase containment of adjacent Green Belt land. As
the adjoining sub-parcels B100A and B94A are fully developed, there would be
no justification in retaining their Green Belt status if adjacent open land were



11.14 Insufficient consideration is given to existing built infrastructure, and natural features which can
act as boundaries such as woodland. In this regard, the parcel is contained by permanent road

Dingle (areas of significant woodland belt) provide very strong natural boundaries to the south.
The sub-parcel features existing developments to the south of Bosty Lane, including Bosty Lane
Farm and Aldridge Lane Farm. Furthermore, there is existing ribbon development along
Longwood Road, which contains development to the east, and the proposed development
would not extend any further south than this existing housing. These are highly pertinent
considerations in assessing the contribution of the site to preventing encroachment and
unrestricted sprawl.

11.15 The development of the parcel (or parts thereof) would not result in any physical or perceived
merging between Aldridge, Walsall and/or Streetly. Any development would be contained by
the permanent features described above, with intervening land remaining between settlements
in any event.

11.16 The assessment refers to sub-parcels B100A and B94A, and indicates that the release of sub-parcel
B93E parcel would inevitably result in the release of those parcels, as they are already
permanently developed. However, the assessment fails to acknowledge that these permanent
developments (east and west of B93E) are highly pertinent to the contribution that the site makes


31

to the Green Belt purposes i.e., they provide a development context to the east and west, in
addition to the edge of the settlement to the north.

Landscape Sensitivity
11.17 The site forms part of parcels BL30 and BL31 in the Black Country Landscape Sensitivity Assessment
(LSA). Both parcels are assessed as being of moderate-high landscape sensitivity. This is reflected
in the BCA Site Assessment, where it is rated as moderate-high landscape sensitivity overall.

11.18 Parcels BL30 and BL31 cover far more extensive areas of land than the site being promoted. They
also include potentially sensitive features, such as areas of woodland, which would not form part
of the developable area for the site. The assessment also does not account for any specific
mitigation proposals. Therefore, whilst the document may be used in developing proposals for
site allocations, it should not have formed a determinative or binary part of the site selection
process (i.e. filtering sites based upon landscape sensitivity) in the way that it has.

11.19 Notwithstanding the negative assessment of the site in relation to these criteria, other draft
allocations receiving similar scorings still go on to be allocated (see Section 10 of this statement).
It is therefore not clear why such an approach is not applied to land at Bosty Lane, particularly
given the significant economic and social benefits that could be realise
development, namely:

the delivery of market and affordable housing to meet very significant levels of unmet
need;
economic benefits associated with the delivery of housing such as increased
household spending in the local area; and,
the very significant benefits associated with the delivery of a new educational facility
for Aldridge School.
Environmental, social and economic criteria
11.20 The Site Assessments addresses various other criteria under the above heading. We address
below the aspects of the assessment which we consider to be incorrect and/or flawed.

Biodiversity or Geodiversity
11.21 The assessment refers to the loss of trees requiring ecological assessment. However, the land
could be developed without any significant loss of trees. The comment is illogical and could

32

equally apply to any of the allocations if it is assumed that all trees will be cleared to facilitate
development.

11.22 Reference is made to the Ecological Evaluation of the Black Country Green Belt (2019) which
claims that the land is of
information to support the assessments of individual sites / areas, such as site proformas or the
results of walkover surveys. Our client has undertaken its own ecological survey works, the findings
of which are summarised in the attached letter at Appendix EP7. This demonstrates that:

Most of the site is of low ecological value, comprising improved grassland that is used
for agriculture and horse grazing.

Whilst certain features within the land are of higher ecological value, these primarily
relate to hedgerow and woodland around the site boundaries which could be retained
and enhanced through development.

SINC and the Dingle)
can be protected and potentiallyenhanced through development, with appropriate
buffer areas and long-term management provided.

The site can be developed whilst also achieving a net gain in biodiversity.

11.23 The assessment of parcel SA-0061-
assessment of parcel SA-0047-WAL does refer to it, and states that
whole site is a SLINC and mitigation and or compensation [sic] would be significant barriers to
. We respond as follows:

Firstly, we refer to our objections to Policy ENV1 and the identification of the site as a
SLINC in the BCP. There is no evidence for the proposed designation. The ecological
assessment provided at Appendix EP7 demonstrates that most of the proposed SLINC is
of demonstrably low ecological value and its development would be acceptable in
ecological terms. The conclusion that mitigation and/or compensation would be
significant barriers to development cannot be reconciled with the evidence.

33

Secondly, the presence of a SLINC across the entirety of a site has not been a constraint
to other proposed allocations (see Section 10 of this statement). The approach taken to
the Bosty Lane site is inconsistent with other sites.

Thirdly, ecological enhancements can be delivered through a proposed allocation,
including the management of the features which are of high ecological value. A no
development scenario would allow no assurances on future management and indeed
would likely maintain the status quo of agricultural and horse grazing led management.

11.24 We therefore strongly disagree with the scoring of a very substantial negative effect in this
category. This means that
. That conclusion
is not even remotely credible based on the evidence of the
use.
Heritage Assets
11.25 The assessment of parcel SA-0061-WAL accepts that the retention of the listed buildings within the
parcel would not be a significant barrier to development subject to design and layout respecting
the setting of the listed buildings. However, the assessment then claims that:

The site is designated an Area of High Historic Landscape Value due to the
above features and Earthwork ridge and furrow and parkland features present.
Development here would have a significant impact on the historic landscape


11.26 The assessment is illogical and flawed. The Historic Landscape Characterisation Study states that
the historic interest of the Area of High Historic Landscape Value (AHHLV) is derived from its links
with Aldridge Lodge and Bosty Lane Farmhouse. The conclusion, therefore, of a very substantial
which cannot be mitigated in relation to the AHHLV is incompatible with the
acceptance that the setting of the listed buildings can be preserved as part of a development.
The assessment also fails to have regard to the potential for aspects of the landscape to be
retained as part of a proposed development, and the potential benefits of improving,
maintaining and managing heritage assets moving forward.

34

Impact on visual amenity

11.27

amenity. The assessment states:

There are public rights of way and open space around the submission site and
within the site. The loss of this site to development would have a significant
negative local impact on the visual amenity enjoyed by occupiers of the
existing ribbon development and users of the public rights of way and open
space. The topography from the Southern part may also have a wider visual
impact from Sutton Road reducing the existing semi-rural character of the area.
The impact along Aldridge Road would not be significant due to the presence



11.28 In response, the Council has not undertaken a detailed Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
(LVIA)of a specific development proposal, and there is no detailed visual impact assessment to
justify the proposed comments. The loss of private views from adjacent housing is not a material
planning consideration. The site is relatively flat and any impact on footpaths would be localised,
and comparable with the development of most greenfield sites on the urban fringe, which by
their nature tend to adjoin existing housing and public footpaths. We note that on other sites
(such as SA-0052-WAL & SA-0214-WAL), the Site Assessment report identifies a significant impact
on in the
assessment. In the absence of a detailed LVIA the inconsistency is not explained.

11.29 The assessment of land at Bosty Lane also does not appear to factor in the potential for mitigation.
Development of this site would be landscape-led and it includes significant areas of green
infrastructure.
Viability
11.30 The assessment states: Whilst it is self-
evidently correct to say that the school cannot be viably developed in isolation without the
associated housing development, this is not the basis on which the site has been promoted, and
it does not justify the application of a assessment. HIMOR
has confirmed that the proposed development, including the new school, is viable. Assessing
the viability of the new school in isolation is illogical.

35

Accessibility
11.31 A number of negative scores are set out in relation to accessibility. Specifically, the assessment
alleges that the site is more than 15-minute walking distance of a Primary School, Health Centre
Area and a centre / foodstore. However, the assessment does not appear to be accurate. We
respond as follows:

Primary school The site is within 500m walking distance of Whetstone Primary School,
well within the specified 15-minute walking time.
GP The site is just over 1km walking distance to the Anchor Meadow Health Centre,
again well within the specified 15-minute walking time.
Centre / Foodstore The site is within 650m of the nearest convenience store on Walsall
Road (Tesco express), and just over 1km of Aldridge district centre. Again, these
distances are well within the specified 15-minute walking time.
11.32 In addition to the above, the site is also within 600m of local bus stops providing regular services
between Walsall and Sutton Coldfield, Walsall and Leighswood and Birmingham and Brownhills
and Birmingham and Walsall, and it is therefore well-served by public transport. Furthermore, a
development of this scale has the potential to deliver new facilities and/or measures to improve
accessibility, including improvements to pedestrian / cycle links and public transport.
Public Open Space
11.33 The assessment states that:

heme would result in the loss of some public open space. There would

11.34 In response,
school playing fields comprise open space, but the proposal is to provide a new school as part
of the development (including playing fields). Any open space within the proposed
development would either be retained or re-provided within the site, as part of a comprehensive
scheme which delivers significant enhancements to open space provision for new and existing
residents. This factor should attract a positive score.
Opportunities
11.35 The assessment fails to consider the wider benefits that could be achieved by delivering a
replacement education facility for Aldridge High School (as discussed above in relation to the

36

tor which should be accounted for the in the

assessment.
Other considerations
11.36 The Site Assessment report does not identify any significant harm in any other area, including
access, residential amenity, air quality, ground conditions or flood risk. We agree that these
factors do not present any constraints to the sustainable development of the site.
Conclusions
11.37 The overall conclusion of the BCA Site Assessment is as follows:

space required. Significant impact on the historic visual character of the area
which could also have a wider impact due to topography. Relocation of school
here would also have implications, however more scope for mitigation and
sympathetic design than for Housing or Employment development.
The landscape sensitivity assessment makes the distinction that "Employment
Development as large-scale built form" has a moderate-high sensitivity and
later explains that sensitivity is reduced by the presence of large-scale
commercial buildings and agricultural sheds. A school here would only require
a small portion of the site for buildings as there is a need for playing fields so
would not be large-scale so likely score moderate landscape sensitivity in
relation to a school with playing fields. However the need for housing to
facilitate the school or any mixed use within this parcel is a significant barrier to
bringing forward this site and the reason it is not allocated.
No access to a primary school, local health centre or food centre which would



11.38 To summarise our detailed responses to the Site Assessment, we consider that the conclusions are
erroneous for the following reasons:

The Green Belt and landscape assessments relate to a much wider parcel of land and
the conclusions cannot be attributed to the subject site, which would utilise existing
features to create permanent and defensible Green Belt boundaries as part of a
comprehensive, landscape-led development.

The alleged impacts on trees and ecology are over-stated and are not insurmountable
constraints to the development of the site. The area covered by the proposed SLINC is
predominately low value improved grassland, which is not worthy of ecological


37

protection. The site has the potential to achieve significant improvements to ecology,
delivery a net gain, and securing the long-term management.

The site is accessible to services and amenities, including being within walking distance
of a primary school, health centre and local convenience stores as well as Aldridge
district centre, and a development of this scale also has the potential to deliver new
facilities and/or measures to improve accessibility.

The assessment fails to consider the wider benefits that could be achieved by delivering
a replacement education facility for Aldridge High School. This is a significant factor
which should be accounted for the in the assessment.

11.39 The site represents a very logical choice for an allocation for development in the emerging plan.
It is deliverable and can contribute to meeting the identified development needs of the Black
Country in a highly accessible location. The site is capable of bringing about significant social
benefits in the form of:

A new, state-of-the-art replacement high school, which would benefit the wider local
community;

Market and affordable housing comprising approximately 650 dwellings, to meet very
significant identified shortfalls in provision;

Substantial areas of public open space and footpath linkages which can be used by
new and existing residents; and,

A green infrastructure led masterplan which delivers a net gain in biodiversity and links



11.40 Whilst HIMOR intends to continue to promote the site and their land through the emerging BCP it
should be noted that the opportunity to deliver a new school (funded by the wider residential
development) is viewed as a potential shorter-term opportunity, which could be brought forward
via a planning application if the Council indicates that it would support the proposals. As the
aforementioned appeal decisions demonstrate, the delivery of a new school can comprise the
very special circumstances necessary to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, such that planning
permission could be granted outside of the development plan process.

38