Albrighton Civic Society

“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 .

Albrighton is not considered alone, but primarily as part of the LJC area, in the context of the Eastern Spacial Zone which includes Bridgnorth, Shifnal, Broseley, Highley, Much Wenlock and the rural areas surrounding these larger centres. The document sets out a range of housing and employment potential targets for the zone as a whole, and less precise figures for the individual centres including Albrighton Boningale, Donington-with-Boscobel and Tong. These are based on a pre-determined fraction of the required growth of Shropshire as a whole. The range of options for Albrighton and District is considered against each of 18 “sustainability objectives”. For East Shropshire, the paper raises the possibility of future development outside the current built envelope, in the green belt, provided that development is for “community benefit i.e. for public services, social housing, and employment. It ignores the probable effect on employment should Cosford become an army barracks.

In effect, the Planners are asking residents to state clearly their aspirations for the villages, by answering 14 specific questions in a standardized format .

The current situation. In living memory, Albrighton was all but self-sufficient. It had 3 building societies and two banks, a complete range of shops, a youth club building, a football team, and an active railway station whose future may be in doubt. Now we have one bank, very limited public social facilities, and no football or youth club. There are more empty shops now than ever, and the decline in trade of the remainder has caused them to join together in an attempt to attract tourist visitors in an attempt to boost trade. Our children go elsewhere to be educated, and the brighter ones do not come back because there are no jobs; it is very difficult for a young family to set up home here because property values are too high. There is almost no leisure area left.

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 16^th 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.

The concluding Summary for Albrighton sets out an overall rationale underlying some of the key issues for consideration by the Parish Councils decisions:-

“Higher levels of development are likely to offer the most resources for new and/or improved community and healthcare facilities, the positive management of natural and historic assets, and the provision of appropriate infrastructure. Greater efficiencies water and material resource use as well as better economies of scale in road transport, increased rail usage and an improved level of economic self-containment are possible, offsetting carbon emissions. A masterplan approach which enables good design and quality standards to be met also becomes more feasible. However, high development levels are likely to increase the demand for water and may increase the risk of adverse effect on soil quality.

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.

All levels of development should deliver open space, sport and recreational opportunities, be able to take advantage of renewable energy technologies and climate adaptation measures and be more energy efficient. The character of Albrighton’s built environment is also likely to be altered no matter what the scale of development, but this could be mitigated by the use of the Town Design Statement. All development levels have the potential to adversely affect the Local nature Reserve.”