Comment

Representation ID: 22565

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: DNA Investment Holdings Ltd

Agent: Lavata Group Ltd

Policy ENV5 – Historic Character and Local Distinctiveness of the Black Country

As set out in our comments on Policy HOU2 – Housing Density, Type and Accessibility, we agree that the historic environment should be protected, but that this needs to be appropriately balanced with other objectives of the DBCP in accordance with national policy. This policy seeks to restrict development which in the LPA’s opinion would negatively impact on the historical landscape.
The policy makes no reference to the need to balance impacts the historical environment with the ability to bring forward sites for housing within both urban and rural areas of the Black Country. As discussed in our previous comments, land values across the Black Country are generally low, and therefor the ability for brownfield sites to come forward has often been slow or non-existent without significant public funding/investment due to viability. Often the only way to increase the viability of sites on brownfield land has been to increase densities which then means increasing heights. Also, as we have set out, density and heights do not take into account typography of the land or any existing footprints. The NPPF is clear in this regard at paragraph 124 when dealing with achieving appropriate densities.
Respecting the historic character of the Black Country doesn’t simply mean re-creating the same types of development; new development of different densities and material pallets can improve the historic character by focusing views on monuments and buildings of historical interest.
It is inevitable, the Strategic Centres where development is on existing elevated sites or sites with steep gradients near historical sites/buildings may have have some sort of ‘impact’; however, the policy reads to say that any impact is negative by simply having an impact. The policy refers to the need for developments to preserve and enhance aspects of the historic environment and achieve a locally response design. Developments need to assess views into, from, to or within historic environments/buildings. This requirement is too general and doesn’t make it clear what the hierarchy of views are; for example, if there are no impacts on the principal views/elevations of listed buildings, then would this then be acceptable in principle. Or does the policy mean that even if one view is impacted then the development is unacceptable?
The justification of the policy also appears to be short given the policy itself is so detailed. Paragraph 10.83 states “To ensure that heritage assets make a positive contribution towards the wider economic, social and environmental regeneration of the Black Country, it is important that they are not considered in isolation but are conserved and enhanced within their wider context. A holistic approach to the built and natural environment maximises opportunities to improve the overall image and quality of life in the Black Country by ensuring that historic context informs planning decisions and provides opportunities to link with other environmental infrastructure initiatives.” . We agree that a holistic approach is needed, but it needs to be clearer what this approach includes, as well as actually being explicit in the policy wording itself. This does not mention the need to look at physical site constraints, viability, the public benefits a development could bring or even a reference to developments being of high quality.
Paragraph 10.82 states in the last sentence “Whilst a legislative framework supported by national guidance exists to provide for the protection of statutorily designated heritage assets the key challenge for the future is to manage change in a way that realises the regeneration potential of the proud local heritage and distinctive character of the Black Country.” Historical assets at a national and statutory level already benefit from a high level of protection, and Policy ENV5 should seek to be more precise with regards to what needs to be demonstrated to allow developments which do impact on the historical environment acceptable.
Overall Policy ENV5 as drafted is overly restrictive and allows no flexibility for high density development to come forward in Strategic Centres where there are many listed buildings as well as well as historical environments/character.
The Site is located near the Grade II*Listed St Matthew’s Church and also adjacent to the Church Hill Conservation Area and other listed and non-listed buildings and parks. The typography of the site means that any development which increases the floorspace will be visible from a few viewpoints from the southwest of Walsall, however the principal view of the church from St Matthew’s Quarter will not be impacted, due to the elevation of the church. It should also be clear that the immediate area around the church in the core Town Centre has changed significantly over the last 20 years and the access to the Church cut by the creation of a main road (Peal Street/Upper Rushall Street), which effectively from a visual point of view, cuts off the Church from the Town Centre.
As mentioned, the development of the Site would bring a number of public benefits; much needed housing on a poor quality employment site with limited access (brownfield), regeneration of an area within a Strategic Centre with excellent access to different modes of public transport, the ability to create more critical mass/population to bring back in use the closed memorial gardens, as well as the community centre associated with the church, and also to help the viability and vitality of the Town Centre.
Paragraph 206 of the NPPF is clear “Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites, and within the setting of heritage assets, to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to the asset (or which better reveal its significance) should be treated favourably.” Policy ENV5 does not make it clear which elements of the setting of heritage assets are the most important, leaving this all down to interpretation. Given that this is the main policy with regards to protection of heritage assets, it is clear that the purpose of the policy is to make development which is located near or next to heritage assets more difficult, without having a clear, concise and positively prepared policy which is contrary to the NPPF. Unless the policy is able to be applied in a flexible holistic approach, it will not aid in the redevelopment of urban, brownfield land.
This is a direct contradiction to what the DBCP is trying to achieve overall, and which Walsall Town Centre sites should be actively supporting in accordance with the NPPF.