Comment

Representation ID: 23065

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Savills

Policy ENV1 – Nature Conservation

Policy ENV1 states that Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINCs) will be protected from development proposals that could negatively impact them. Confirmation is requested on how SLINCs which are included within proposed strategic allocations will be approached by the Council and whether mitigation will be accepted as part of development proposals.
SLINCS are non-statutory sites identified by the Black Country Wildlife Trust (BCWT) and they are not defined or recognised within the NPPF or PPG as sites which should be afforded protection. Walsall Council’s website states that SLINCs should be given a lesser protection than SSSIs or SINCs, which are protected by national policy. The PPG references ‘Local Wildlife Sites’ which the Wildlife Trust has defined as including SINCs. The PPG also lists a range of criteria that LWS will be assessed against (Reference ID: 8-014-20190721). As the Council has not demonstrated that the proposed SLINCs meet the LWS criteria, we do not consider that they should be given the same protection as LWS / SINCs.
In light of the above, as part of the Council’s local plan process, a review of call for sites has been undertaken and as a result, the BCWT has designated additional SLINC’s across the BCA. Within proposed allocation Site WSA9, the northern part of our client’s land has been designated as a SLINC with land to the north (Site WAH 230). Our client’s land assessed by the BCWT, and subsequently allocated as a SLINC, is identified as ‘semi-improved grassland’ in the ‘Birmingham & Black Country Local Sites Assessment Report’ was under arable cultivation until as recently as April 2018. Therefore we question whether this habitat can be described as ‘semi-natural’ given it is at most 3 years old.
Additionally, the Site Assessment Report states that “Based on the values attributed against each of the criteria a judgment must be made as to whether a site merits Local Wildlife Site status. Those sites scoring mostly ‘Highs’ will tend to meet the threshold for SINC status whereas those scoring mostly ‘Mediums’ will tend to meet the threshold for SLINC status. Sites scoring mostly ‘Lows’ will tend not to meet the threshold for selection as a Local Wildlife Site” (page 2). We do not consider that the report’s scoring system (High, Medium, Low) against the various criteria is sound. For example, the site is given a ‘High’ score for ‘Size or Extent’, however this is based on the size of our client’s land to the east (included in site WSA9) and west (not included in WSA9) of Chester Road (total 23.92ha) whereas the area proposed for SLINC designation is only a fraction of this (less than 1.5ha in total). Similarly, the scores given for ‘Habitat Diversity’ and ‘Species Diversity’ refer to the range of habitats across the whole site rather than the few habitats proposed for designation.
In light of the above, we do not consider that there is sufficient justification to support the proposed SLINC on our client’s land or to afford SLINCs the same protection as SINCs. However, regardless of the SLINC designation, as part of future development proposals, these areas could be retained as far as possible within the green infrastructure of the development layout as part of good design, and if some loss is unavoidable, this could be mitigated elsewhere within the site.
It is considered that point 2 of the policy is negatively worded with “presumption against granting permission” which does not accord with the NPPF’s requirement that plans should be “prepared positively” (paragraph 16).