“Planning
for a Flourishing Albrighton and Local Area” – SUMMARY
Shropshire
Council (SC) issued a document “Planning for a flourishing Shropshire in the Albrighton
Area” which was a small part of a much larger set of papers dealing
not just with the other parts of Shropshire Council area, but also
with national and regional strategies and demands, and with a series
of “sustainability” issues developed in the Shropshire Local Plan. It is claimed to determine the future of the village and its locality for many
years to come .
Moreover,
we have an ageing population with only one small out-of-date residential
home, and no modern sheltered housing: yet we have over 300 No. 80+ year olds in the immediate area.
Responses
to this consultation should seek to address some of these problems. In the past the Parish Councils have sent papers and responses to the now defunct Bridgnorth DC and Shropshire Council.
In particular, they have regularly stated that the village needs
affordable housing for local people, modern sheltered housing
for our elderly, open space, and indoor sports facilities. We
need additional car parking to support our traders, and additional
employment, including hotel accommodation, to reduce out-commuting,
and provide local jobs for local people. We have emphasized the
problems for housing, trade, and employment which will inevitably
arise if the decision is confirmed to move the DCAE away from
Cosford, replacing it at a later date with army unit(s). It is
also necessary to correct false impressions of the village given
in the document. Some feel that the village at present is an unsustainable
community, and this should be pointed out forcefully to the Planners others feel that it should stay as it is with only very little
additional housing .
Facts
set out in the consultation papers for the period to 2026
East
Shropshire Shifnal Albrighton
New
homes requirement 1600 – 2100 500 - 1000 200 - 500
Previous
rate carried forward (20 years) 1688 410 182
Employment
land availability 13.5 ha 0.2 nil
Previous
rate carried forward (20 years) 8.6 ha 0.13 0.13
It
is not clear whether the figures for Albrighton include or exclude
either Donington or the rest of the LJC area.
One
issue which appears misleading is the map on page 10. It gives
the impression that all hatched areas are possible development
sites but at the 16th June 2010 public meeting of the LJC18 SC confirmed that, with the exception
of the land between Kingswood Rd/Shaw Lane/Railway Line which
was already agreed for development, these were in the green belt
and very unlikely to be developed except for very small boundary
changes and only for uses for public benefit.
An
associated paper titled “Site Allocations and Management of Development
DPD: Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal includes assessments
of the sustainability of each of the 18 criteria set out in the
LDF, in each of 100 homes increments. These give the following (summarized)
data;-
Option Minimum Little below
mid-range Little above mid-range Maximum
New
homes 200 300 400 500
Land
for employment minimal modest moderate plus maximum
Assessments ++
and+ 6 8 9 14
No
effect 6 3 1 1
Both
+ and - 6 7 9 9
Although
this summary suggests that the highest levels of development offer
the greatest benefit, the devil is in the detailed commentary on
each option, some of which are questionable eg the assumption that
“employment containment is high” depends entirely on DCAE Cosford
and its continuation. The effect on the employment aspect of the
assessment to take account of the probable move to an army barracks
would be to adversely affect the lower levels, and enhance the higher
two options.
Lower
levels of development are likely to have the least impact on historic
assets, should deliver the highest percentage of development on
previously developed land and my mean that drainage is easier
to manage. Growth in employment opportunities is likely to be
limited.