From: Megan Wilson Sent: 04 September 2024 13:17 To: Lynn Parker Cc: Dean Trowbridge; Shruti Trivedi - Devello Strategic; Anna Meer; Kurt Hardy; Tabitha Lythe; Charlotte Morrison; Sarah MacPherson; Phoebe Conway; Joe Ctori Subject: RE: Planning Application Ref: 24/02108/OUT - Proposed Residential Development, Patshull Road, Albrighton Attachments: P24-0225 Albrighton LVIA Clarification Note_280824.pdf; Palmer.pdf Good Afternoon Lynn, I hope this email finds you well. In the absence again of the Highways comments, expected on the basis that the LHA confirmed they were prepared and ready for issue last week, please note the below update and queries pertaining to the above listed planning applications. Some of the below, I have already? outlined in separate emails, but for ease, I have provided a comprehensive update. Firstly, the applicant and I would like to thank the Council and the statutory consultees who have responded to date for their consideration of the application and would like to reaffirm our commitment to working with the Council to address any matters, or issues, raised within the statutory consultee comments and commend the Council for their commitment to working positively and creatively with the applicant, as required by paragraph 38 of the NPPF to reasonably address matters throughout the application process, particularly noting that the applicant did engage in pre-application discussions where input from areas of the Council, particularly highways, was at best limited, if not entirely absent. Public Consultation The deadline for public consultation ended on the 29th August (we have been advised that this was extended multiple times owing to stated system constraints that triggered an extension to the public consultation when additional time was required for statutory responses). It is noted that comments are still being uploaded and submitted to the Council, but clearly there needs to be a point at which the applicant provides a thorough response and as such, I can confirm that a response to comments received up until the 29th August is being prepared. Clearly the application has generated significant objection, but as per my confirmation email of 3rd September 2024, Boningale Homes are working with Just Build Homes to draw out and assist residents within the locality who have not, for various reasons, likely however linked with the reported intimidatory tactics of the Albrighton Village Action Group (AVAG), submitted or confirmed their support for the application. Turning to the submissions made by and on behalf of AVAG, the full consultant team, alongside legal representation comprising Chris Young KC and Shruti Trivedi are preparing responses to comments of the Action Group, only, however, where said comments are material considerations and not where the Action Group have raised unsubstantiated and inflammatory comments. Given the scale of objection and the applicants need to respond robustly, it is expected that a concise, but thorough response will be provided to the Council by the end of September. It is also interesting to note that despite the 13-week determination deadline being the 7th October, AVAG appear to be publicly stating that the application will go before the 22nd October 2024 committee. This aligns with what was tentatively discussed during our meeting last week, but clearly isn’t something that is or should be a matter of public record thus far (noting that I return to address timings associated with the committee date below). Planning Policy We have disregarded the original statutory consultee comments issued by the planning policy team given the erroneous reference to the site being allocated and repeated reference to a pre-application request. I have reviewed the comments dated 12th August. The Policy comments indicate that on the basis that the Council can demonstrate a supply (a position that the applicant contests) the policies of the adopted Development Plan remain up to date. However we remind the Council that, as confirmed in case law ([2014] EWHC 754 (Admin), [2017] PTSR 1283 & [2019] WLR(D) 48, [2019] PTSR 1302, [2019] EWHC 127 (Admin)), out of date either means (a) deemed out of date thorough no 5 year housing land supply or failure of HDT (see NPPF footnote 8), or (b) policies which are “overtaken by events that have happened since it was adopted, either on the ground or in some change in national policy, or for some other reason. The comments from the Policy team, noting the misapplication of the concept of out-of-date, fails to consider the weight to be afforded to the policies contained within the adopted Development Plan. The submitted Planning Statement meticulously considers each policy within the adopted Development Plan, it’s consistency with the Framework and events which have superseded said policy. When considering the adopted Development Plan as a whole, the submitted Planning Statement concludes that the basket of most important policies are out-of-date (in addition to the Local Plan being considerably time-expired). We concur with the conclusions of the comments prepared by the Policy team in regard to the limited weight to be afforded to the policies contained within the emerging Local Plan. The Local Plan Review is still subject to a number of outstanding and significant objections and notwithstanding the applicants clearly stated position in regard to the ability of the Plan as submitted to be found sound, if the Plan were to progress, adoption is unlikely for at least another 9+ months. The applicant has taken care to robustly demonstrate and articulate the Very Special Circumstances that would support development of this particular Green Belt site. These are set out in detail in the Planning Statement, and have been informed by recent appeal decisions and Counsel advise. As confirmed in our discussion last week, I look forward to any further comments from the Planning Policy team further to the letter submitted obo the applicant with regard to the application and implications of the proposed planning reforms. Flood Risk & Drainage Comments from the SUDs team and STW have been noted. The applicants’ team are reviewing these in detail and have made contact with Seven Trent Water to discuss the application in detail. As discussed, we are concerned that some of the level of detail being requested is not appropriate given the outline nature of the application, but our team are considering where additional investigations can address some of the concerns raised. With regard to the holding objection from Seven Trent, we are surprised that they have added the site to their modelling tracker. Again, it is curious that a site subject to an outline application only, is being held up by modelling and it is further noted that in a response between STW and our consultant team, that specific reference is made to the site and application having been discussed by STW with local residents and the local authority. It is our experience that STW will only seek to commit to the costs of modelling a site when it is essentially a committed development. As such, we have asked that the holding objection is revoked. It should also be noted that as the stator provider, STW have an obligation to provide outfall and we would not expect that the application is held up or development is prevented from coming forward within this context. Landscape ESP Ltd (on behalf of Shropshire Council) undertook a review in August 2024 of the Pegasus Group LVIA submitted alongside the application. A Clarification Note, responding to the ESP Ltd review, has been prepared by the co-author of the original Pegasus Group LVIA and is attached for review. The Note addressed each of the points raised by ESP in turn and either provides additional detail, reference to the LVIA where matters raised have already been addressed, or requests additional clarification from the Council with regard to the comments received. Affordable Housing The Affordable Housing comments state that Core Strategy Policy CS11 requires market residential schemes to deliver affordable housing at the prevailing housing target rate at the time of Reserved Matters application. The level of contribution would need to accord with the requirements of the SPD Type and Affordability of Housing. The applicant does not consider that this is an appropriate or justified approach to securing affordable housing. The adopted Development Plan sets out an evidenced affordable housing requirement, based on whole plan viability testing, as does the emerging Local Plan Review. It is not reasonable that the Council require developers to enter into a Section 106 agreement, where the contribution in terms of affordable housing provision is unknown or subject to change. As the Council are aware viability is an important element of understanding the development potential of a site and the infrastructure that a site is capable of accommodating/delivering. Such an assessment cannot be reasonably made or relied upon where a affordable housing requirements could theoretically change considerably between the preparation of an outline planning application and the preparation of a reserved matters application. The approach being taken by the Council here could very realistically result in sustainable development opportunities not being put before the Council for consideration, a position considered by Sheffield City Council, who have confirmed the approach is unjustified further to detailed consideration. As is detailed within the submission, Boningale Homes are willing to enter into a Section 106 legal agreement that will secure the provision of affordable housing at a policy compliant level at the time of the grant of an outline planning application. SC Learning Boningale Homes are willing to enter into a Section 106 agreement to secure planning obligations, where said obligations meet the statutory tests set out in regulation 122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, including obligations to provide contributions for additional school places. However, as per my email of the 23rd June 2024, which we are awaiting a response to, the applicant has requested some additional information from the LEA in regard to the pupil yield ratio, multiplier and existing capacity calculations that have informed the request of contributions. If this information is made available to the applicant, we can review and revert back promptly. Aligned with this, we remain very keen to engage with the LEA further with regard to the provision of a Secondary School and again invite the Council and the LEA to discuss the application either at an in-person meeting or indeed, via a teams meeting. SC Conservation It is noted that the Conservation Officer agrees with the conclusions of the submitted Heritage Statement. We have attached the Palmer judgement ([2016] WLR(D) 584, [2016] EWCA Civ 1061, [2017] 1 WLR 411, [2017] WLR 411) for ease, but with particular reference to the agreed position that great weight should be given to the any designated heritage asset’s conservation. However, we remind the Council that as set out at paragraph 34 of the above cited and attached judgement, the amount of harm should be taken into consideration, something not set out within the Conservation Officers comments; ‘The desirability of avoiding a great harm must be greater than that of avoiding a small one.’ (para 34) As is set out in the submitted Heritage Statement, the degree of harm to the identified Heritage assets should be taken into consideration. This is not set out within the consultee response provided by the consultee. Notwithstanding this, the degree of harm identified and accepted by Pegasus is significantly outweighed by wider community benefits. SC Green Infrastructure Advisor The comments of the Green Infrastructure Advisor are noted. The application before the Council is in outline however and the submitted illustrative framework plan, is illustrative only. The provision of, location of and orientation of GI, including formal recreation space, will need to be considered at the Reserved Matters stage and importantly, will need to reflect a comprehensive audit of available provision across the wider locality. SC Leisure The comments of the Leisure Advisor are noted. It will be for the Council to address the recipients of any funding secured through CIL and Section 106 contributions, notwithstanding the fact that the site is capable of accommodating a range of leisure facilities that will benefit the wider community, including the proposed provision of a MUGA associated with the school, which, subject to planning, could be lit to provide after school opportunities for use by existing sports clubs across Albrighton and the wider area. SC Archeaology Further to receipt of the Council’s comments, a geophysical survey has been scheduled. We will provide the Council with an update on timings in this regard in due course. Sports England UK It is unclear if the contribution requested from Sports England takes into consideration the provision of land for sports pitches to be provided as part of the Secondary School proposed as part of the site. Clarification from Sports England in regard to this would be of assistance to the applicant. Were it to be the case that regard has not been had to the provision of a compliant level or sports pitches as part of the Secondary School, we would request that the consultee comments are revisited and recognise that the calculation should be adjusted to note the significant contribution and betterment on current provision that the application will deliver. SC Trees As previously raised, it appears that the Council’s Tree Team have missed the submitted AIA and had regard only to the tree survey and retention plan as part of their comments. An AIA has been prepared and submitted to the Council as part of the application package and has been live on the portal since the 22nd July. Once the Tree Team have reviewed this, we will revert with anything else required by the Council. SC Regulatory Services The applicant has reviewed the comments submitted by the Regulatory Services and query the need for the preparation of a noise impact assessment at this stage. We would suggest that it is appropriate to condition the provision of a noise impact assessment and require that a report is submitted to the Council prior to a or the first Reserved Matters application. This will ensure that the outcome of the assessment, which could be subject to change in the intervening period between now and Reserved Matters, can be reflect in the design principles to be submitted to the Council. Given the outline nature of the site and the potential for change in the suggested use of land, there is insufficient detail available to assess elements of the proposed uses that will be most sensitive. As is indicatively set out on the submitted landscaping masterplan and detailed within the LVIA, substantial buffers are proposed around the site perimeters, and notably along the southern boundary. These buffers will act as natural noise mitigation and ensure that sensitive uses, such as housing, are suitable buffered from any potential noise sources. Shropshire Fire and Rescue The applicant thanks the Fire and Rescue service for their comments which will be addressed at Reserved Matters stage. SC Waste Management The comments of the Watse Management team are noted. The application before the Council has been submitted in outline. Refuse tracking, bin storage and wider waste matters will be addressed at the Reserved Matters stage. SC Ecologist The County Ecologist has requested that the applicant provides a metric showing the proposed interventions to demonstrate how the development will achieve 10% net gain. The application before the Council is submitted in outline. The applicant is willing to enter into a Section 106 legal agreement which secures a minimum of 10% net gain in BNG, making provision for any shortfall in what can be achieved onsite, against the assessed baseline but given that the principles of the layout and design are reserved for future determination it is not possible to provide a comprehensive metric setting out proposed interventions. This is recognised in Planning Guidance; “For some planning applications (for instance, applications for outline planning permission where landscaping and layout are reserved matters), the implications for existing onsite habitats and the contribution to onsite gains may be uncertain at the time of the determination of the application”. (Paragraph: 019 Reference ID: 74-019-20240214). Implementing biodiversity net gain can be secured via a planning condition requiring the submission of a ‘Biodiversity Gain Plan’ which reflects the habitats to be created and enhanced to achieve a net gain along with a 30-year management and maintenance programme. Indeed the PPG (Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 74-001-20240214) is clear in stating that once planning permission has been granted, a Biodiversity Gain Plan must be submitted and approved by the planning authority before commencement of the development. Given the scale of the proposed development, this principled of ‘phased development’ for the purposes of biodiversity net gain will need taken into consideration. The Biodiversity Gain (Town and Country Planning) (Modifications and Amendments) (England) Regulations 2024 modifies the general biodiversity condition for planning permissions which are phased development. Instead of the standard approach for the Biodiversity Gain Plan: * an Overall Biodiversity Gain Plan must be submitted to and approved by the planning authority before any development can begin; and * a Phase Biodiversity Gain Plan for each phase must be submitted to and approved by the planning authority before the development of that phase can begin. In recognition that phased development can often be implemented over a long period of time, the purpose of the Overall Biodiversity Gain Plan is to confirm that there is a clear upfront framework for how the biodiversity gain objective of at least a 10% gain is expected to be met across the entire development. Each Phase Biodiversity Gain Plan will subsequently set out a phase’s contribution to biodiversity net gain and confirm progress towards the overall biodiversity gain objective for the development once clear proposals for each phase have been developed. (PPG Paragraph 054 Reference ID: 74-054-20240214). Additionally, the Ecologist requests to be reconsulted upon receipt of detailed surveys. The Council will be aware that the provision of detailed survey outcomes is something which they have and continue to condition, again noting that the time lapse between this point and Reserved Matters could render any surveys submitted now – out-of-date, You will note however from the submitted PEA that the presence of any protected or other species is not expected to result in anything beyond minor design mitigation – a matter which again is reserved for future determination. Highways Aligned with our meeting with the Council’s Highways team last week, we were anticipating/expecting Highways comments at the end of last week as promised by the Highways Officer. These are still outstanding as are comments from National Highways in relation to impact on the Strategic Road Network (J3 & J4 of the M54). We would be appreciative of any comments being provided as promptly as possible, especially given that regrettably, the Council’s Highways team repeatedly declined the opportunity to engage through the pre-application stage. It was our understanding from the meeting that there are no in principle highways concerns and subject to some trip generation amendments and further junction capacity assessments, the approach taken by our consultant team is considered acceptable. Once comments have been received from the LHA, our team will prepare a comprehensive response addressing comments from Active Travel England and Staffordshire Highways alongside those from Shropshire Highways. Clearly the additional modelling that our team have been unable to complete whilst awaiting engagement from the LHA, will take some time to prepare, but it is essential that this work is completed. It is unclear if we are expecting any further statutory consultee comments beyond those listed above, but Boningale Homes are committed to robustly addressing issues as they are raised. Clearly therefore, so as to allow the applicant the opportunity to address outstanding matters, as is very much advocated in Policy SP4 of the emerging Local Plan Review, and to allow for additional and updated comments (highways, policy, tree team), the applicant is willing to agree an appropriate Extension of Time. Given the delay in statutory consultee comments and numerous errors in those received, the applicant cannot before the 26th September (which as we understand it would be the date the application would need to be considered for committee inclusion), respond adequately to the identified outstanding areas of concern. The applicant very robustly considers that all of the objections raised, either through clarification or some additional supporting evidence, can be addressed. I would welcome your thoughts on the above and again extend an invitation to discuss the application with you further, The applicant and consultant team appreciate all of the hard work of the Council in regard to the Albrighton South application and it goes without saying that if you require anything further, please do not hesitate to contact us at any stage. Many thanks, Megan Wilson BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI CIHCM Planning Director D 0114 478 6599 M 07977 762 222 E megan.wilson@marrons.co.uk Marrons Omega Court, 360 Cemetery Road, Sheffield, S11 8FT DX 701873 Sheffield 5