Object

Representation ID: 23592

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Planning & Design Group (UK) Limited

5.12 Notwithstanding WDL’s objection to the designation, it would further object to the wording of Policy ENV1 which deals with such sites. It states:
1. Development within the Black Country will safeguard nature conservation, inside and outside its boundaries by ensuring that:
c) locally designated nature conservation sites (Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation), important habitats and geological features are protected from development proposals that could negatively impact them;
5.13 Part 1 of the policy shows no real differentiation between Internationally designated to locally designated sites as although worded slightly differently, the policy still seeks to preclude any development on these sites with no reference to any mitigation or compensation.
5.14 The policy does go on to state at Part 2 that adequate information must be submitted with planning applications that affect designated sites to ensure the likely impacts of the proposal can be fully assessed.
5.15 Although seemingly acknowledging the need for appropriate assessments this again does not mention mitigation or compensation and does not allow for development to take place, it merely requests information on the impacts.
5.16 Part 3 of the policy does allow development on nature conservation sites but states;

where exceptionally the strategic benefits of a development clearly outweigh the importance of a nature conservation site damage must be minimised and impacts fully mitigated against. (our emphasis)
5.17 Therefore, this policy as currently worded only allows development on designated nature conservation sites (including non-statutory SLINC’s) in exceptional circumstances where the strategic benefits clearly outweigh the conservation importance.
5.18 WDL does not think this is the intention of the policy, in fact it states in the evidence base ‘Site Assessment Appendix C Walsall’ in respect of site WAS6;
Some constraints could impact on the developable area, the existing pattern of development and arboricultural features could be used to mitigate any significant harm. A strategy for impact on the SLINC would need to consider mitigation and or compensation. Residential uses compatible with existing character.
5.19 It is therefore clear that although designating the entirety of the site as a SLINC the Council does consider that the site is developable, and the impacts can be mitigated and/or compensated for.
5.20 This was also the finding of WDL’s Phase I Ecology Survey which concluded that;
Any loss of grassland habitat will be mitigated for within the landscaping scheme via the creation of smaller areas of more species-diverse native grassland within the retained green corridor along the western boundary. A network of residential garden and tree and shrub planting within the site green infrastructure will provide further ecological enhancements and the implementation of such mitigation would ensure no net loss to biodiversity as required by NPPF
5.21 WDL therefore requests that if the designation as discussed above is retained, the wording is amended at Part 1 criterion b) to state:
development is not permitted where it would harm Local Nature Reserves and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation unless it can be demonstrated that the need for the development outweighs any harm caused by the development and that adequate mitigation or compensatory measures are put in place.