Policy DEL1 – Infrastructure Provision

Comment

Representation ID: 23057

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Savills

Policy DEL1 – Infrastructure Provision

Policy DEL1 states that all new developments should be supported by the necessary on and off-site infrastructure. It is currently unclear what level of infrastructure is required to support Strategic Allocation WSA9 and whether this is required on-site or as an off-site contribution. The Viability and Deliverability Study (May 2021) states that no health or education input has been received for Walsall. Point 3 of the policy states that further detail will be provided by the Councils to confirm what level of infrastructure should be provided. We consider that this is required in order to ascertain what level of contribution is required for Strategic Site WSA9.
Our client’s land to the east of Chester Road is included as part of ‘Walsall Cluster 9’ within the ‘Key Large Sites Viability and Deliverability Study’ (May 2021). Density assumptions made within this plan correspond with the densities proposed in Policy HOU2, which we have responded to separately. Page 36 of the report states that Walsall Cluster 9 will deliver 644 units. However, the proposed allocation is for 415 units. We consider that a scheme of 644+ units is more likely to be able to support increased infrastructure requirements if required. St Phillips have worked collaboratively with Taylor Wimpey (adjacent landowner to the south) to produce a combined masterplan to show the potential for community infrastructure delivery across a wider strategic development site, including the land to the west of Site WSA9 (Concept plan attached with this submission). This site has the potential to deliver circa 800 dwellings, land for a new school, local centre/health facility and significant public open space including a country park. This wider proposal may also be of a scale that could support a new/improved bus service on Chester Road which would enhance the sustainability credentials of the existing settlement. The scale of the combined proposals gives rise to a more comprehensive opportunity than the constrained and fragmented proposition contained in the draft plan at present and would allow for the inclusion of significant community infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 23118

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 5.1 - 5.2 - "Criteria 3 of the policy indicates that the type of infrastructure, and the prioritisation of resources to fund it, will be set out in Development Plan Documents, Infrastructure Delivery Plans, Supplementary Planning Documents, and where appropriate, masterplans." this deferment is contrary to the NPPF and unjustified.

Object

Representation ID: 23119

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 5.3 - 5.5 - No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that a site-specific viability assessment submitted within the BCP area should only be submitted in exceptional circumstances. Also the policy does not offer any support for proposals that can address barriers caused by inadequate infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 23143

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Policy DEL1 – Infrastructure Provision
1) This policy should be updated to include reference to Environment Agency Flood Risk Management schemes. These are schemes which are likely to benefit local development and contributions should be sought from developers to facilitate the delivery of these schemes to ensure that the development is sustainable and
contributes to the wider area. Please see Appendix 2 for details of Environment Agency schemes in development in the area:

Comment

Representation ID: 23146

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Black Country UNESCO Global Geopark Partnership

Agent: Black Country UNESCO Global Geopark Partnership

We see future transport to and within the Black Country as fundamental elements of the Geopark/visitor economy/environmental aspects of the plan. We acknowledge how quick technological change can be within this sector and that lifestyle shift through events such as the Covid 19 pandemic can rapidly influence future workstyles and requirements of intrastructure and transportation modes. In that context the Geopark has witnessed a substantial increase in the use of and value of its accessible greenspaces and active transport networks/ purchase and use of cycles etc.

We welcome and support the statements and policies in the plan supporting green infrastructure/accessible greenspaces and the further development of well-connected walking and cycle networks for the multiple health, wellbeing and environmental benefits that they offer.

Comment

Representation ID: 23238

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament

No proper thinking has underpinned education needs and the impact that the proposed sites in Aldridge-Brownhills would place on the already pressured school network. With large numbers of schools across the constituency already at capacity and the pressure of the additional number of homes being proposed, I am concerned as the Member of Parliament that schools would not be able to accommodate such an influx of new development.

Support

Representation ID: 23416

Received: 15/02/2022

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Barton Willmore

5.2 Draft Policy DEL1 (Infrastructure Provision) of the Draft Black Country Plan emphasises that all new developments should be supported by the necessary on and off-site infrastructure to serve its needs, mitigate its impacts on the environment and the local community and ensure that it is sustainable and contributes to the proper planning of the wider area. Therefore, we are supportive of this policy in principle, owing to its conformity with national planning policy.

5.3 We support the draft Plan’s assertion that allocated sites on the fringe of the urban area, which have been removed from the Green Belt, will be easier and quicker to deliver than sites within the urban area

5.4 In addition, we agree that some allocated sites will need to be supported by a range of new infrastructure, such as schools, shops and improved local transport infrastructure, due to their significant size.

5.5 Part 3 of Draft Policy DEL1 advises that the Black Country Authorities will set out in Development Plan Documents, Infrastructure Delivery Plans, Supplementary Planning Documents, and where appropriate, masterplans:

a. The infrastructure that is to be provided or supported;
b. The prioritisation of and resources for infrastructure provision;
c. The scale and form of obligation or levy to be applied to each type of infrastructure;
d. Guidance for integration with adjoining local authority areas;
e. The procedure for maintenance payments and charges for preparing agreements;
f. The defined circumstances and procedure for negotiation regarding infrastructure provision.

5.6 We strongly support this approach to address infrastructure requirements for proposed urban extensions, such as Yieldfields, and to review the needs of each area based on its size and location.

Object

Representation ID: 43858

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

5.5 Policy DEL1 (Infrastructure Provision) sets out that new developments should be supported by the necessary on and off site infrastructure to serve its needs and mitigate its impact. The policy goes to state that development will only be permitted if all necessary infrastructure is provided. Paragraph 57 of the NPPF makes clear the tests which must be met to deliver lawful planning obligations. Policy DEL1 should be revised to identify these key tests set out in national policy to ensure all obligations required by DEL1 are properly justified.
5.6 Similarly, Criterions 4 and 5 refer to viability assessments. These should also reflect paragraph 58 of NPPF which sets out national policy in regard to these matters and that particular circumstances can justify the need for a viability assessment at the application stage.

Comment

Representation ID: 43913

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Turley Associates

Infrastructure
3.26 At the current stage of draft BCP preparation it is acknowledged that the evidence base is still being prepared, and this is particularly true with regards to infrastructure.
3.27 Paragraph 4.9 states “Parts of the Black Country’s existing highway infrastructure, and the motorway network, suffer from congestion”. Development should therefore be located at the most sustainable and accessible locations. Land at Pennwood benefits from being located near to a variety of existing amenities and facilities that are within walking or cycling distance of the proposed development. Figure 2 ‘Facilities Plan’ of the accompanying Vision Document demonstrates this.
3.28 Paragraph 4.11 emphasises the need for infrastructure investment in order to support future development. Barratt are proposing to create extensive green infrastructure (over 50% of the total site area) within their site that is multi-functional through the delivery of biodiversity, amenity, aesthetic and drainage benefits. In addition, where development is planned between new areas of public open space and new woodland park, new footpaths, cycle routes and landscape corridors are proposed.

Policy DEL1 (infrastructure provision)
3.29 The Councils need to be cautious with their approach to viability given the scale of brownfield land in the proposed supply. The draft BCP is highly dependent upon development in the existing built-up area (40,117 dwellings) and brownfield sites (81%). The Black Country’s Viability & Delivery Study (September 2021) confirms that 65% of urban typologies tested are marginally viable (27%) or unviable (38%). The Councils must grapple with this matter as part of the plan and in identifying its proposed supply.

Comment

Representation ID: 43931

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley Assocs

Infrastructure
3.26 At the current stage of the preparation of the draft BCP, it is acknowledged that the
evidence base is still being prepared, and this is particularly true with regards to
infrastructure.

Policy DEL1 (infrastructure provision)
3.27 The Councils need to be cautious with their approach to viability given the scale of
brownfield land in the proposed supply. The draft BCP is highly dependent upon
development in the existing built-up area (40,117 dwellings) and brownfield sites
(81%). The Black Country’s Viability & Delivery Study (September 2021) confirms that
65% of urban typologies tested are marginally viable (27%) or unviable (38%). This
Councils must grapple with this matter as part of the plan and in identifying its
proposed supply.

Support

Representation ID: 44902

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Cannock Chase Council

Support the recognition that some of the infrastructure impacted will be cross
boundary and impacts will need to be mitigated, however this should not be limited to
waste water management (see para 4.24). Suggest reference to cross boundary is
moved to the end of the first sentence of this paragraph. CCDC is happy to work with
the BCA and other relevant partners to develop the site specific policies further and
identify the necessary mitigation where possible.

Object

Representation ID: 44925

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

6.1 Taylor Wimpey objects to Part 3 of Policy DEL1. Whilst the need to bring forward sufficient infrastructure to support new development is recognised, the proposed approach set out in the policy is considered to be flawed as it fails to clearly identify what the infrastructure requirements will be to deliver and fund the allocations.

6.2 The Financial Viability Assessment Report (May 2021) claims that it is a full viability assessment of the draft policies and proposed site allocations in the emerging Black Country Plan (BCP) (which will replace the Black Country Core Strategy (BCCS)). It states that the viability assessment is also sufficiently robust to be able to be used as the basis for a review of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) within each of the BCA areas with a view to future alignment (§1.6).

6.3 Part 3 of the policy states that:

“The BCA will set out in Development Plan Documents, Infrastructure Delivery Plans, Supplementary Planning Documents, and where appropriate, masterplans:
a. The infrastructure that is to be provided or supported;
b. The prioritisation of and resources for infrastructure provision;
c. The scale and form of obligation or levy to be applied to each type of infrastructure;
d. Guidance for integration with adjoining local authority areas;
e. The procedure for maintenance payments and charges for preparing agreements;
f. The defined circumstances and procedure for negotiation regarding infrastructure
provision”.

6.4 Taylor Wimpey considers that all of the above information and the associated costs need to be provided in the BCP at this stage. This is the only way to provide certainty on what is required and for the requirements to be tested through the viability evidence accompanying the plan to ensure that development within the plan area will be deliverable, in accordance with the Framework. It is also noted that a key requirement of the Framework [§11 a] requires that growth and infrastructure are aligned. As currently drafted the Plan fails to identify the infrastructure needed to deliver the plan and the funding mechanisms that will deliver them. This needs to be provided to ensure that the Plan can be found sound as it progresses. We are concerned that the CIL and any required financial contributions in combination could lead to developments being unviable. Certainty needs to be provided as to what will be provided through the Infrastructure Funding Statement so there is no double counting.

Comment

Representation ID: 45876

Received: 09/03/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

6.0 Policy DEL1 - Infrastructure Provision
6.1 Taylor Wimpey objects to Part 3 of Policy DEL1. Whilst the need to bring forward sufficient
infrastructure to support new development is recognised, the proposed approach set out in the
policy is considered to be flawed as it fails to clearly identify what the infrastructure
requirements will be to deliver and fund the allocations.
6.2 The Financial Viability Assessment Report (May 2021) claims that it is a full viability
assessment of the draft policies and proposed site allocations in the emerging Black Country
Plan (BCP) (which will replace the Black Country Core Strategy (BCCS)). It states that the
viability assessment is also sufficiently robust to be able to be used as the basis for a review of
the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) within each of the BCA areas with a view to future
alignment (§1.6).
6.3 Part 3 of the policy states that:
“The BCA will set out in Development Plan Documents, Infrastructure Delivery Plans,
Supplementary Planning Documents, and where appropriate, masterplans:
a. The infrastructure that is to be provided or supported;
b. The prioritisation of and resources for infrastructure provision;
c. The scale and form of obligation or levy to be applied to each type of infrastructure;
d. Guidance for integration with adjoining local authority areas;
e. The procedure for maintenance payments and charges for preparing agreements;
f. The defined circumstances and procedure for negotiation regarding infrastructure
provision”.
6.4 Taylor Wimpey considers that all of the above information and the associated costs need to be
provided in the BCP at this stage. This is the only way to provide certainty on what is required
and for the requirements to be tested through the viability evidence accompanying the plan to
ensure that development within the plan area will be deliverable, in accordance with the
Framework. It is also noted that a key requirement of the Framework [§11 a] requires that
growth and infrastructure are aligned. As currently drafted the Plan fails to identify the
infrastructure needed to deliver the plan and the funding mechanisms that will deliver them.
This needs to be provided to ensure that the Plan can be found sound as it progresses. We are
concerned that the CIL and any required financial contributions in combination could lead to
developments being unviable. Certainty needs to be provided as to what will be provided
through the Infrastructure Funding Statement so there is no double counting.

Support

Representation ID: 45886

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Transport for West Midlands

TfWM fully supports the use of planning obligations to generate contributions for local and sub-regional transport infrastructure. All the transport infrastructure identified in the statutory WM LTP (including our current delivery plan) should be clearly stated within this policy. Sustainable transport infrastructure should also be noted in paragraph 4.24 and fully prioritised across all new development.

Comment

Representation ID: 47034

Received: 13/09/2022

Respondent: HIMOR

Agent: Turley Associates

The Councils need to be cautious with their approach to viability given the scale of brownfield land in the proposed supply. The draft BCP is highly dependent upon development in the existing built-up area (40,117 dwellings) and brownfield sites (81%). The Black Country’s Viability & Delivery Study (September 2021) confirms that 65% of urban typologies tested are marginally viable (27%) or unviable (38%). The Councils must grapple with this matter as part of the plan and in identifying its proposed supply.