Policy ENV1 – Nature Conservation

Object

Representation ID: 18896

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Dunphy

In general I support the increasing of the conservation area.
However I totally disagree with the removal of the held section opposite Penn Hill school.
This adds to its continued inclusion to the conservation area, how can it not. The views from its location are exceptional.
Having walked the route along Vicarage Road as a small child twice a day from the age of 5 attending St Bovt's primary, I would want the future Penn residents to be able to observe the views in the future.
I see the plan as providing the opportunity for development on two fields which I vehemently oppose.

Object

Representation ID: 19401

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Paragraph 10.2 - "It is not clear how development could similarly contribute towards improvements in geodiversity if the sites themselves had limited geological interest. The policy should be amended to make this more apparent."

Comment

Representation ID: 21267

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Redrow Homes Ltd

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 WSA2, two sections of our client’s land has been designated as SLINCs (Site WAH 238). Our client’s Ecologist has previously assessed our client’s land and identified that the two areas of land which have now been designated as SLINCs are areas of ‘poor semi-improved grassland’.
Further clarification is required as to why poor semi-improved grassland has been considered as having ecological importance which warrants protection as a SLINC.

Within the BCWT’s Site Assessment Report for our client’s land the site has only scored ‘high’ against the ‘Position & Connectivity’ criteria because BCWT consider that the site acts as a wildlife corridor between Jockey Fields SSSI, Grange Farm Wood SINC and Ford Brook SLINC. We do not consider that this should mean that parts of our client’s land are designated by a SLINC. As part of further development proposals, green infrastructure provided could bolster and improve any existing green infrastructure links.

Additionally one of the SLINC’s proposed within Site WSA2 (north western corner) comprises woodland. It is unclear why only the part of the woodland within the allocation boundary is proposed as a SLINC and not the wider woodland adjacent to the northern and eastern edge of the SLINC.

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 retain 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.

Comment

Representation ID: 21297

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Owl Homes

Agent: Barton Willmore

Draft Policy ENV1 – Nature Conservation
Draft Policy ENV1 seeks to safeguard and improve nature conservation within the Black Country, through a number of measures. This includes providing adequate information with planning applications for proposals that may affect any designated site or important habitat, species or geological feature.

In this regard, it is noted that a Local Sites Assessment Report has been undertaken in relation to the Site and has been published as part of the evidence base to the BCP. This provides further detail on the ecological status of the Site, which is considered to offer little intrinsic value other than the hedgerow running from the railway road bridge alongside Bosty Lane (B4154) to the corner with Middlemore Lane West. This is proposed to be retained as part of the development. The Daw End Railway Cutting SSSI borders the Site to the north. There are no existing buildings within the Site and the majority of landscaping, which is predominantly located on the peripheries of the Site is proposed to be retained. Therefore, it is anticipated that the proposal would have limited impact on ecology and through the enhancement of landscaping will provide opportunities for net gains to biodiversity. Further ecological survey work will be undertaken and provided as part of any future planning application at the Site.

Comment

Representation ID: 21311

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: The Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country

Nature Conservation - Spatial Objectives
10.8
Comment: WTBBC support the recognition in the BCP that the protection and improvement of the Black Country’s biodiversity and geodiversity will safeguard and improve the environmental attractiveness and value of the area for residents and visitors while at the same time improving the physical and natural sustainability of communities within the conurbation in the face of climate change. This paragraph should, however, make more detailed and explicit reference to the broad range of valuable ecosystem services that the natural environment provides the communities of the Black Country.

Object

Representation ID: 21313

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: The Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country

Policy ENV1 – Nature Conservation
1b
Object: WTBBC object strongly to the exclusion of Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINCs) from this point. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) does not distinguish between types of designated Local Wildlife Sites and there is therefore no planning justification for this approach being taken in the BCP. Furthermore, the NPPF states that Local Plans should identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity.
Object: WTBBC object strongly to the exclusion of Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation from this point. Defra Group guidance on the production of Local Nature Recovery Maps states that Local Wildlife Sites should be included in Core Areas, and that the focus in these areas is on improving the condition of habitats, restoring natural ecosystem function and expanding the area of sites. As per this guidance all locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity have been included in the Draft Black Country Local Nature Recovery Opportunity Map commissioned by the BCA and published as Appendix 18 in the BCP.

Comment

Representation ID: 21314

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: The Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country

Policy ENV1 – Nature Conservation
1b
Comment: WTBBC request that the wording ‘development is not permitted where it would harm’ should be changed to ‘development will not be permitted where it would, alone or in combination with other plans or projects, have an adverse impact on’. This change would recognise the negative impact that nearby land-use or other changes can have on sites of high biodiversity value.

Object

Representation ID: 21315

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: The Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country

Policy ENV1 – Nature Conservation
1c
Object: WTBBC object strongly to inclusion of Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation in this point. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) does not distinguish between types of designated Local Wildlife Sites and there is therefore no planning justification for this approach being taken in the BCP. SLINCs should be excluded from this point and included in 1b where their protection is provided by the assertion that development is not permitted where it would harm designated nature conservation sites.

Support

Representation ID: 21316

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: The Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country

Policy ENV1 – Nature Conservation
1d
Support: WTBBC support the that the movement of wildlife within the Black Country and its adjoining areas, through both linear habitats (e.g. wildlife corridors) and the wider urban matrix (e.g. stepping-stone sites) is not impeded by development. This point should, however, make explicit reference to the Draft Black Country Local Nature Recovery Opportunity Map and Strategy and the ecological network as identified in this.

Comment

Representation ID: 21317

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: The Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country

1e
Comment: Whilst supporting that species that are legally protected, in decline, are rare within the Black Country or that are covered by national, regional, or local Biodiversity Action Plans will be protected as far as possible when development occurs, WTBBC request that ‘where possible’ be removed and replaced by a statement making clear the expectation of development with regards the protection of species. This could be achieved through a commitment to reviewing relevant Supplementary Planning Documents.
2
Comment: Whilst supporting that adequate information must be submitted with planning applications for proposals that may affect any designated site or important habitat, species, or geological feature, WTBCC request that the policy clearly state that a Local Site Assessment must be undertaken and submitted to the Local Sites Partnership where development is likely to impact upon a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation or Potential Site of Importance.
Comment: Whilst supporting that adequate information must be submitted with planning applications for proposals that may affect any designated site or important habitat, species, or geological feature, WTBCC request that this point clearly states that supporting information must include a data search from the Local Environmental Records Centre for Birmingham and the Black Country (EcoRecord).
3
Comment: WTBBC request that clarification is provided in this point as to what would comprise strategic benefits of a development that clearly outweigh the importance of a local nature conservation site, species, habitat or geological feature. Furthermore, a clear statement that clarifies by what mechanism applications of this type will be assessed and what relevant stakeholders will be consulted should be provided.
4
Comment: WTBBC request that this point should clearly state that the Local Environmental Records Centre for Birmingham and the Black Country (EcoRecord) hold, collate and disseminate the definitive and up-to-date register of locally designated nature conservation sites on behalf of the BCA.
5
Comment: WTBBC request that an expectation that all canal and natural watercourse-side developments will deliver an improved and extended wildlife corridor for both wildlife and people be added to this point, and that this should be informed by the Black Country Local Nature Recovery Opportunity Map and Strategy as described in Policy ENV3.
6
Comment: WTBBC request that this point should clearly state that details of how improvements (appropriate to their location and scale) will contribute to the natural environment should be informed by the Black Country Local Nature Recovery Opportunity Map and Strategy as described in Policy ENV3, and that details of how this is to be achieved are provided in documents accompanying planning applications.

Comment

Representation ID: 21482

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Policy ENV1 – Nature Conservation

6.1. The aims of the Plan in seeking to safeguard nature conservation are supported in principle, however it is important that this is balanced with the need to deliver appropriate levels of

development within the Plan area. Where sites are recognised as being of value for nature conservation purposes, it is important that the protection afforded to them reflects the level of significance. This should not necessarily restrict the potential for any development to be accommodated in close proximity or within designated areas, if it can be suitably demonstrated through the site selection and/or planning application process that any harm to the protected site would be mitigated as part of the development.

6.2. In the case of land at Corbett Hospital, it is noted that the site is designated as a Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINC). However, the emerging Policy ENV1 does not seek to prevent entirely any development that may affect such designations, however seeks to protect such sites from development proposals that could negatively impact them. It is important therefore that when applying the policy, the authorities do not seek to restrict proposals that otherwise would deliver sustainable development, but instead works with applicants or developers in order to facilitate development that could deliver housing (or commercial uses) alongside potential enhancements to such features.

6.3. Policy ENV1 recognises that there may be circumstances where ‘strategic benefits of a development clearly outweigh the importance of a local nature conservation site… damage must be minimised’. It is considered that this should include recognition of the significant benefits that delivering housing development within the urban area would deliver, in particular where there would also be enhancements delivered to the designated site. This is particularly important due to the scale of housing shortfall anticipated, and the need therefore to ensure that all opportunities to deliver housing in appropriate locations can be realised.

Comment

Representation ID: 21493

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Policy ENV1 – Nature Conservation

6.1. The aims of the Plan in seeking to safeguard nature conservation are supported in principle, however it is important that this is balanced with the need to deliver appropriate levels of

development within the Plan area. Where sites are recognised as being of value for nature conservation purposes, it is important that the protection afforded to them reflects the level of significance. This should not necessarily restrict the potential for any development to be accommodated in close proximity or within designated areas, if it can be suitably demonstrated through the site selection and/or planning application process that any harm to the protected site would be mitigated as part of the development.

6.2. In the case of land at Corbett Hospital, it is noted that the site is designated as a Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINC). However, the emerging Policy ENV1 does not seek to prevent entirely any development that may affect such designations, however seeks to protect such sites from development proposals that could negatively impact them. It is important therefore that when applying the policy, the authorities do not seek to restrict proposals that otherwise would deliver sustainable development, but instead works with applicants or developers in order to facilitate development that could deliver housing (or commercial uses) alongside potential enhancements to such features.

6.3. Policy ENV1 recognises that there may be circumstances where ‘strategic benefits of a development clearly outweigh the importance of a local nature conservation site… damage must be minimised’. It is considered that this should include recognition of the significant benefits that delivering housing development within the urban area would deliver, in particular where there would also be enhancements delivered to the designated site. This is particularly important due to the scale of housing shortfall anticipated, and the need therefore to ensure that all opportunities to deliver housing in appropriate locations can be realised.

Comment

Representation ID: 22160

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Marlie Civils

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

This policy seeks to prevent development that would result in harm to 'footnote 8' nature conservation designations, which is aligned to the requirements of the NPPF as well as regional and locally designated sites.

2.10. It is noted that ENV1(3) sets out that 'exceptionally, the strategic benefits ofa development
clearly outweigh the importance ofa local nature conservation site, species, habitat or geological feature, damage must be minimised Any remaining impacts, including any reduction in area, must be fully mitigated. Compensation will only be accepted in exceptional circumstances. A mitigation strategy must accompany relevant planning applications'.

2.11. We consider that the above approach should have been taken where the council were seeking to release non previously developed land in the Green Belt in nearby Ped more (see representation made by the Worcester Lane Resident's Group). However, despite this, the council sought to avoid all such sites within the development boundary (whether previously developed or not) as a starting point, which we consider it incorrect. Instead, within the 'hierarchy' of constraints, we consider that Footnote 8 sites should be initially avoided, where exceptional circumstances should exist in order for them to be considered for allocation. This has, in our view not been followed when considering the additional land at New Hawne Colliery for allocation. The site is not a Site of Special Scientific Interest, it is not properly managed and is regularly subject to anti-social behaviour leading to damage to the site, including fly-tipping, fires, trespass and graffiti.

Surely, in this case, the better approach would be to pragmatically look at how the site would benefit from management and longer-term protection, as well as improved public access and improved and more diverse landscaping and planting, and the introduction of specific artificial habitats such as bat and bird boxes.

2.13. The council are aware that the colliery buildings are host to bats, and yet this has not prevented this part of the site being proposed for residential development. However, this starting point appears to have been 'preventative' for the remainder of the colliery to the north. To that end the landowners will be providing a more holistic ecological walkover survey to demonstrate where development could go within the site, whilst not significantly undermining its verdant character and quality, nor its habitat potential.

Comment

Representation ID: 22282

Received: 21/01/2022

Respondent: Miss Jodi Stokes

9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSFORMATION AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Nature Conservation

9.1 Draft Policy ENV1 (Nature Conservation) states that development within the Black Country will safeguard nature conservation, inside and outside its boundaries. Part 1 b) of draft Policy ENV1 sets out that “development is not permitted where it would harm nationally (Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Nature Reserves) or regionally (Local Nature Reserves and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation) designated nature conservation sites”. Part 3 of Policy EN1 states that “where, exceptionally, the strategic benefits of a development clearly outweigh the importance of a local nature conservation site, species, habitat or geological feature, damage must be minimised. Any remaining impacts, including any reduction in area, must be fully mitigated. Compensation will only be accepted in exceptional circumstances. A mitigation strategy must accompany relevant planning applications”.

Comment

Representation ID: 22355

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

The Trust welcomes the recognition of the importance of linear habitats within policy ENV1(1)(d).

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).

Comment

Representation ID: 23124

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 5.10 - The policy should be amended to identify which sites fall under which designation and then clearly differentiate the level of protection to be applied commensurate with the status of those sites in the hierarchy."

Object

Representation ID: 23126

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 5.11 - 5.15 - Criteria 1b of Policy ENV1 should be amended to ensure that the proper level of protection is applied commensurate with the sites status in the hierarchy.

Object

Representation ID: 23128

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 5.16-5.18 - The wording of criteria 1c seeks to apply a blanket level of protection to SLINCs that might be impacted on by new development, similar to that applied to protected sites. The criteria does not allow for circumstances where it might be acceptable, in planning terms, for development to have some impact on biodiversity where suitable mitigation measures can be taken to reduce or ameliorate that impact.

Comment

Representation ID: 23159

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Point 5a) the policy should be strengthened, to state:

a) Extending and improving the condition of nature conservation sites;

10.10 - The Black Country lies at the heart of the British mainland and therefore can play an important role in helping species migrate and adapt to climate change as their existing habitats are rendered unsuitable. It is therefore very important to increase the ability of landscapes and their ecosystems to adapt in response to changes in the climate by increasing the range, extent, and connectivity of habitats. In order to protect vulnerable species, the Nature Recovery Network process, which is taking place at a national level, will allow isolated nature conservation sites and wildlife/blue/green corridors to be protected, buffered, improved, and linked to others.

Support

Representation ID: 23427

Received: 15/02/2022

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Barton Willmore

9.1 Policy ENV1 (Nature Conservation) emphasises that development within the Black Country will safeguard nature conservation by ensuring that 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 affect them. The Black Country Authorities have undertaken ecological surveys and Local Sites Assessment Reports for the strategic allocations, including Yieldfields. In addition, Aspect Ecology undertook an ecological survey of Yieldfields in 2019 (included at Appendix 6) and have undertaken a high-level review of the Local Sites Assessment survey. It should be noted that the Local Sites Assessment survey was undertaken just four months following the Aspect Ecology survey in 2019 and covers the southern-most part of the red line boundary surveyed by Aspect Ecology

1.1 Therefore, L&Q Estates are supportive of Policy ENV1 and consider that locally designated nature conservation sites and important habitats can be protected from the development proposals for Yieldfields, in accordance with the policy.

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 43824

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

22

9. Policy ENV1 Nature Conservation
9.1 Part 1(c) of the policy seeks to ensure that locally designated nature conservation sites (Sites of
Local Importance for Nature Conservation, or SLINC), important habitats and geological features
are protected from development proposals that could negatively impact them. The proposed
policies map identifies SLINCs, including . These are discussed
below.

9.2 HIMOR objects to the identification of the proposed .
Paragraph 8-013 of the PPG provides:

How can plan-making bodies identify and safeguard Local Wildlife Sites and
Local Geological Sites?
areas
of substantive nature conservation value and make an important contribution
. They can also provide wider
benefits including public access (where agreed), climate mitigation and
helping to tackle air pollution. They can be in in rural, urban or coastal locations,
can vary considerably in size, and may comprise a number of separate sites.
National planning policy expects plans to identify and map these sites, and to
include policies that not only secure their protection from harm or loss but also
help to enhance them and their connection to wider ecological networks.
Local planning authorities can take a lead in establishing and maintaining
partnerships and systems to identify, manage, enhance and safeguard local
sites. The positive engagement and co-operation of land owners and their
representative bodies can contribute significantly to the success of these
partnerships.
All local sites partnerships need to use clear and locally defined site selection
criteria with measurable thresholds. For example, where a particular habitat is
especially scarce, it may be appropriate to adopt a lower threshold for
selection than would be appropriate for other natural areas so that a suitable
range of sites is protected. Selection criteria need to be developed with
reference to the standard criteria in the following question, with all sites that
meet the relevant criteria (informed by detailed ecological surveys and
expertise) then being selected.
9.3 Paragraph 8-013 of the PPG then sets out the standard selection criteria for Local Wildlife Sites.










23

9.4 ture

However, the BCP and the evidence base provides no justification for the identification
of the land south of Bosty Lane, Aldridge as a SLINC. It provides no evidence as to why the
proposed policy approach is suitable for this site, and no assessment against the selection criteria
as required by the PPG.

9.5 As far as we are aware, there has also been absolutely no consultation with the landowner on
the proposed designation
walkover survey work in 2019. On several occasions HIMOR has made requests to Walsall Council
to provide the survey results, but the information has not been provided. It is therefore impossible
to scrutinise the evidence underpinning the proposed designation (if indeed there is any
evidence at all). The approach of the Council is not transparent, and is directly contrary to
paragraph 61-002 of the PPG, which states:

plans and open data when publishing plans and the evidence base which



9.6 HIMOR therefore requests again that the evidence informing the designation is made available
for review and reserves the right to comment further once that evidence is provided.

9.7 Our client has undertaken its own ecological survey works, the findings of which are summarised
in the attached letter and plans provided at Appendix EP4. The letter concludes that certain
features within the land are of ecological value and therefore should be retained and protected.
These comprise the boundaries, linear woodland, scattered trees and the mosaic of wet scrub,
neutral grassland and tall ruderal vegetation to the south of the farm complex. Existing
designations on land to the south of the site (Cuckoo's Nook (SINC) and the Dingle Local Nature
Reserve (SSSI)) are not in dispute. However, the relatively limited proportion of positive features
do not justify the identification of a SLINC which covers a much wider area of land. Most of the
land designated as a SLINC is of low ecological value, comprising improved, species poor
grassland used for farming and grazing horses. This is shown on the Phase 1 Habitat Map and the
Areas of Ecological Value plan which accompany the letter at Appendix EP4. The designation
of the land as a SLINC is not reconcilable with the assessments undertaken and the current use
of the land.










24

9.8 We therefore consider that the site is not of any significant nature conservation value and its
designation as a SLINC is erroneous. The site is not worthy of receiving any special protection in
the BCP. The proposed designation is not justified and, in the absence of evidence, is not
consistent with national policy.
Policy approach to SLINCs
9.9 The proposed policy approach is inconsistent with paragraph 175 of the Framework. This requires
plans to distinguish between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites.
However, Policy ENV1 seeks to apply a similar level of protection to locally designated sites as
internationally, nationally and regionally designated nature conservation sites. The protection
afforded through Policy ENV1 should be considered in light of the value of the sites identified.
Moreover, previous Secretary of State decisions have made clear that protection afforded to
non-statutory sites (i.e. both SLINC and SINC sites) must be commensurate with the sites true
ecological value, notwithstanding the designation per-se. For the reasons set out above, the
, and much of the land is
of low ecological value.

9.10 Furthermore, development on SLINCs could achieve ecological benefits. Ecological
enhancements could be delivered, including the management of the features which are of high
ecological value and biodiversity net gains. A blanket restriction on development within SLINCs
would provide no assurances on future management and would likely maintain the status quo of
existing uses on sites, such as agriculture and grazing, which may well be detrimental to any
ecological interests.

9.11 The policy should therefore be reflective of the potential for development. To illustrate the point,
the presence of a SLINC across the entirety of a site has not been a constraint to the proposed
allocation of sites within the BCP, for example Oxley Park Golf Club (ref: WOH261 WTNA) and land
off Sutton Road, Longwood Lane, Walsall (ref: WHA231 / Policy WSA.6). This clearly demonstrates
that development on a SLINC can be acceptable, and therefore the approach needs to be far
more flexible than the current policy wording suggests.

Object

Representation ID: 43875

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

11.2 Policy ENV1 identifies a number of criteria which must be considered within development proposals in respect of nature conservation. Amongst other things, it states details of how improvements will contribute to the natural environment, and their ongoing management for the benefit of biodiversity and geodiversity will be expected to accompany planning applications. Whilst Taylor Wimpey supports the national objective for development to deliver an improvement in biodiversity, it is not clear how development could similarly contribute towards improvements in geodiversity if the sites themselves had limited geological interest. The Policy should be amended to make this more apparent.

Comment

Representation ID: 43939

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley Assocs

Environmental transformation and climate change
Policy ENV1 (nature conservation) and ENV3 (nature recovery and biodiversity net gain)
3.51 Policy ENV1 of the BCP seeks to ensure that development is not detrimental to the
natural environment, and outlines a series of measures / tests to ensure that any
development can have a measurable improvement to the natural environment.
3.52 The field parcels which make up Land at Queslett Road, are mainly used for agriculture
and are demarcated by low-trimmed hedgerows, mostly species-poor and dominated
by hawthorn. Over-grown hedgerows, with a higher diversity of shrubs, are locally
present (i.e. to the south of Doe Bank Farm). These comprise of ash and sycamore

14

trees. Along other boundaries hedgerows are absent or intermittent or are marked by
the planting of non-native tree species.
3.53 Mature trees are locally frequent within certain hedgerows and also occur to a lesser
extent in fields (former hedgelines). The tree species component is varied but mainly
comprises of ash, English oak, sycamore and holly.
3.54 Two small copses of mature trees are present within arable fields. The copses are
dominated by mature oak, beech and sycamore trees. In places tree cover is lower and
more open conditions prevail.
3.55 There are no ponds or watercourses within the site and the site is not designated as a
statutory or non-statutory designated ecological site.
3.56 The illustrative masterplan included in the Vision Document establishes a development
framework which seeks to maintain and bolster as much of the existing natural
features of the site as possible, including the provision of a robust open space network
through new planting and the creation of new wildlife areas within the site to deliver a
net gain in biodiversity value across the site.
6 Referenced at paragraph 7.7 of the Viability and Delivery Study (May 2021), paragraph 6.6 of the draft BCP,
specific site commentary in the SHLAAs, and paragraph 3.1.24 of the Black Country Urban Capacity Review Update
(May 2021)

Comment

Representation ID: 44845

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ruskin Properties

The principle of protecting nature conservation is supported by the draft policy but there are concerns that the policy as drafted does not sufficiently distinguish the hierarchy of national and locally designated sites with a disproportionate amount of protection afforded to non- statutory sites.
In terms of criteria 3), this states that where, exceptionally, the strategic benefits of a development outweigh the importance of a local nature site, that any remaining impacts, including any reduction in area, must be fully mitigated. No definition is given as to what the strategic benefits of a development would be with this policy lacking clarity in terms of how it is intended to be implemented.
The policy does should also add in a further criterion that acknowledges that to remediate degraded, derelict, or unstable site will often result in a negative impact upon nature conservation that is inevitable. In these circumstances, where this relates to a non-statutory site, development should be permitted if the benefits of the development outweigh harm when the development is taken as a whole and as evidenced through documents submitted in support of planning applications.

Support is given to the BCA updating its evidence on designated nature conservation sites in conjunction with its partners and with the amendment to existing designations in accordance with this evidence. This evidence has not been undertaken regularly during the current period of the Development Plan resulting in out-of-date evidence that does not correlate to the nature conservation value of sites within the plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 44946

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy ENV1 - Nature Conservation

17.1 Policy ENV1 seeks to safeguard nature conservation in the Black Country including locally designated nature conservation sites (Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation).

17.2 As noted in our response to Policy WSA.2, we would request further clarification in the BCP on the implications of the proposed SLINC on the Mob Lane site for development in this part of the site in order to inform future development proposals.

Comment

Representation ID: 44978

Received: 09/03/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy ENV1 Nature Conservation
policy ENVI seeks to safeguard nature conservation in the Black Country including locally
designated nature conservation sites (Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation).
As noted in our response to policy WSA.2, we would request further clarification in the BCp on
the implications of the proposed SLINC on the Mob Lane site for development in this part of the
site in order to inform future development proposals.

Comment

Representation ID: 47041

Received: 13/09/2022

Respondent: HIMOR

Agent: Turley Associates

Policy ENV1 of the BCP seeks to ensure that development is not detrimental to the natural environment, and outlines a series of measures / tests to ensure that any development can have a measurable improvement to the natural environment.

Ecology Solution’s Biodiversity Technical Note (Appendix 5) sets out that the ecology work undertaken to date identifies limited potential for protected species at the site, and that there are not any overriding ecological constraints to development. Indeed our proposals can achieve a biodiversity net gain. The note also demonstrates that the Council’s proposal to designate the entire site as a Site of Important Nature Conservation (SINC) is not justified. The proposals can therefore be delivered without unacceptable impacts on biodiversity. We discuss this father at Section 4.