Policy ENV 5 - Historic Character and Local Distinctiveness of the Black Country

Support

Representation ID: 23266

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Paragraph 10.82 - We are supportive of this paragraph and we recognise the risk that significant new development can pose for the area and how it is essential that this is well located and appropriately and sensitively designed.

Support

Representation ID: 23430

Received: 15/02/2022

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Barton Willmore

9.11 Draft Policy ENV5 (Historic Character and Local Distinctiveness of the Black Country) states that development proposals that would potentially have an impact on the significance of any designated heritage assets, including any contribution made by their setting, should be supported by evidence that the historic character and distinctiveness of the locality has been fully assessed and used to inform proposals. Clear and convincing justification should be provided, either in Design and Access Statements, Statements of Heritage Significance, or other appropriate reports. In some instances, local planning authorities will require developers to provide detailed Heritage Statements and/or Archaeological Desk-based Assessments to support their proposals.

9.12 We are supportive of Draft Policy ENV5, which accords with Paragraph 194 of the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 43879

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

11.15 Policy ENV5 refers to the historic character and local distinctiveness of the Black Country. It appears to take the position that all development within the Black Country is, in effect, part of the historic environment. Whilst in very general terms this would be considered accurate, it is clearly different to consider characteristics associated with a 1970s suburban residential development to one which is involving a Victorian street.
11.16 The Policy should distinguish between the historic environment which will consider statutory heritage assets and distinguish this from development that responds to local character. At present it is drafted where both aspects are confused.

Support

Representation ID: 43922

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Turley Associates

3.60 Barratt is supportive of the Council’s ambition to protect historic character and local distinctiveness where it is evidenced.
3.61 Turley’s Preliminary Heritage Assessment demonstrates that the significance of Park Hall Hotel is principally invested in its historic interest as an early 18th century country house, its later conversion into a Roman Catholic School and its associations with notable individuals. Its significance is also attributed to its architectural interest, principally the exterior of the principal house and the historic extensions to a lesser extent. The significance of the building has been diminished by widespread alterations to the interior and substantial extensions, to the extent that the legibility of the building as a former house is diminished and its legibility as a former school is very limited. The immediate setting is altered and appears to yield no evidence of the historic domestic or educational use of the building and site.
3.62 The character of the wider setting of the building has also changed and is now characterised in large part by modern residential development. We have found no evidence that the countryside setting of the building was instrumental to the decision to establish a school at Sedgley Park. It is however acknowledged that the land to the south does make a degree of contribution as a remaining part of the rural and countryside setting of the former country house. This has been considered as part of the masterplan presented in the accompanying Vision Document for land at Pennwood, including the retention of a view corridor to the south.

Comment

Representation ID: 43940

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley Assocs

Policy ENV5 (historic character and local distinctiveness of the Black Country
3.57 IM Land have no objections to policy ENV5 and its intention to protect the historic
character where it is evidenced and appropriate to do so. This is evident through the
approach taken in the preparation of the illustrative masterplan for land at Queslett
Road as detailed throughout the Vision Document and informed by the preparation of
a Heritage Technical Note (enclosed at Appendix 3).
3.58 The Heritage Technical Note identifies that the site has remained in agricultural use
throughout the 19th and 20th century. However growth and suburbanisation has
characterised its surroundings through the 20th and 21st century and it is situated in
an increasingly transitional area. By the mid-20th century, the land to the south of the
Site had been developed with residential dwellings, and the east, south and west
boundaries of the Site were largely enclosed by residential development by the 1990s.
3.59 The site is located within the Great Barr Conservation Area, adjacent to its eastern
boundary. The conservation area was designated in 1986 and expanded in 1996 (to
include the Site). A Draft Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (CAAMP)
is out for consultation until 11 October 2021 and this provides the first publicly
available assessment of the area since its designation (we have submitted
representations to this consultation separately). The character area within which the
site is located (D), is characterised by open farmland, with low architectural interest
and heavily influenced by its hard suburban edge, particularly along Aldridge Road.
3.60 Indeed the CAAMP identifies that the site comprises part of the largely agricultural land
in the north east of the conservation area and is in a transitional area, adjacent to
areas of suburban development. It is part of the ‘unremarkable’ Sub-Area D2 which is
‘of very little historic interest’ (para 5.129 of the CAAMP). Therefore its contribution to
the conservation area overall is considered to be low and accordingly Section 6 (the
Management Plan) of the CAAMP, proposes to exclude Area D from the Conservation
Area, which we support.

15

3.61 There are no listed buildings within the site. However, to the immediate south east of
the site, and adjoining the site boundary, on Doe Bank Lane are two listed buildings.
‘Doe Bank Farmhouse and farm buildings attached’ and ‘Barn adjoining at right angles’
(Nos.1 and 2) on Figure 1.1), are both grade II listed.
3.62 Walsall Council has published a local list of buildings considered by the council as
having local historic and architectural value. There are no buildings currently in or
adjacent to the site identified on the list, however, the Tin Tabernacle or Schoolhouse
on Aldridge Road, is highlighted for possible inclusion on the list in the Draft CAAMP.
3.63 The illustrative masterplan enclosed within the Vision Document (Appendix 1)
identifies how the site is able to appropriately respond and mitigate the impact of the
development of the site through design as well as providing an opportunity to bring the
Tin Tabernacle back into community use as recommended by the Heritage Technical
Note.

Support

Representation ID: 46069

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs & Mr KATHRYN & ADRIAN SKELSON-REECE

Number of people: 2

Black Country Plan - Corbett Meadow
Policy Number DSA4 Local Green Space (LGS) Page 432
Policy Number ENV5 Area of High Historic Landscape Value Page 230.


Policy ENV5 Area of High Historic Landscape Value :Corbett Meadow.This is such an important link to the history of Amblecote, being the last part of the John Corbett site left to the people of Stourbridge and still untouched.This would become part of the walking tours for the new Stourbridge Glass Museum and support the development of tourism in the area.

Comment

Representation ID: 46192

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

Supported is the general thrust of Policy ENV5 to sustain and enhance locally distinctive character, preserve and enhance local character and those aspects of the historic environment - together with their settings - that are recognised as being of special historic, archaeological, architectural, landscape or townscape quality, and achieve a locally responsive design.

Taking this to a more prescriptive level, policy ENV5 sets out that ‘The specific pattern of settlements (urban grain), local vernacular and other precedents that contribute to local character and distinctiveness should be used to inform the form, scale, appearance, details, and materials of new development’. A development plan document must be positively prepared (Framework, paragraph 35) providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the objectively assessed needs of an area. Whilst it is important to respect local character and distinctiveness, it is also true that the scale of development needed to address the housing and employment land requirements of the plan period means that there will almost certainly have to be higher density development that is in contrast with the form, scale and appearance of its immediate area. Policy ENV5 should be redrafted to reflect the position of policy HOU 2 in terms of the need for higher density development in the Strategic Centres and arguably also in the Core Regeneration Areas as well.

Comment

Representation ID: 47042

Received: 13/09/2022

Respondent: HIMOR

Agent: Turley Associates

HIMOR has no objections to policy ENV5 and its intention to protect the historic character where it is evidenced and appropriate to do so. This is evident through the approach taken in the preparation of the illustrative masterplan for land at Birmingham Road as detailed throughout the Vision Document and informed by Lanpro’s Heritage Technical Note (enclosed at Appendix 3), which is summarised below:

• There are no designated archaeological assets within the site. Beyond the site there are four grade II listed buildings and part of a Registered Park and Garden and Conservation Area to the north. There is intervening development or woodland between the site and all listed buildings and the registered park and garden. As such there will be no impact on these assets.

• There is potential for non-designated archaeological sub-surface remains at the south of the site, in close proximity to the former location of cropmarks. This area will remain undeveloped in both development options.

• Fragmentary archaeological sub-surface remains have been found to the east, evidence has indicated this to most likely be a medieval moated site. This area of the site is proposed for preservation and enhancement due to its historic and ecological interest.

• There is no evidence that the site contains archaeological remains greater than local importance.

The site is proposed for designation as an Area of High Historic Landscape Value (Peak House Farm Field System – 25). The Council’s Historic Landscape Characterisation Study (October 2019) clarifies this is because it represents an example of a ‘pre- enclosure field system’. Prehistoric finds have also been recovered in the area and crop marks indicate below-ground archaeological remains. The report considers this to be ‘rare’.

Our Heritage Technical Note demonstrates that there are no significant remains at the site. Any further remains will be largely preserved, this will be subject to further investigation. The historic field pattern will be incorporated into both proposed development options. So any proposals would accord with this draft policy.