BCP Monitoring and Review

Comment

Representation ID: 11180

Received: 24/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Jack Richards

In order to support successful implementation the BCP should include a policy on planning conditions and obligations.

Comment

Representation ID: 21214

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Paragraph 13.1 - "The one obvious omission in considering
these factors is how the plan will relate to the shortfall in housing supply over the plan period which amounts to some 28,000 dwellings."

Comment

Representation ID: 23542

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Historic England comments on the SEA Report/SEA appendices Appendix 2

Given the length of the Plan and the associated environmental reports; we have focused our resource on commenting on the assessment of the proposed site allocations at this time.

Section 2 assesses the baseline for cultural heritage and it will be useful if the monitoring objectives link back to this assessment to understand how the Local Plan has affected the baseline over time and whether policies have been effective.

Section 5 has set out the SEA assessment for the sites; we have commented on this in more detail in relation to the information provided within the SEA appendices. It is disappointing to note that there are no positives or enhancement measures set out that have a positive effect for the historic environment.

As a general point to our assessment on the sites later in this document, we note that there are varied references to the potential harm to the setting of heritage assets. Can we direct you to Good Practice Advice Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets which includes detail on how to assess the setting and how to understand if the setting contributes to the significance of heritage assets. Link below:

https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/gpa3-setting-of-heritage-assets/

Section 7 on page 213 assesses the policies against the SA framework and as a result we do have some concerns based on the potential results. In particular, for the housing and employment policies the results are as yet unknown and we are concerned about this. Based on the information provided within the SEA appendices report we consider that there is likely to be a level of harm but we do require additional assessment to fully understand this. We consider that it is important that the SEA provides a detailed assessment rather than concluding that the result is unknown.

With respect to the WA polices relating to waste proposals in Policy W3 these are identified as unknown for the cultural heritage objective and as above we require further assessment to be undertaken and would anticipate the SEA to make a conclusion about the potential harm rather than stipulate unknown at this time.

With respect to the WSA policies these are all marked as ‘red’ in the assessment table and yet we do not have access to the assessment information to understand how the historic environment will be affected through these proposals. As they have been identified as ‘red’ we consider that it is essential to understand the implications before sites are allocated through this process.

Comments on the SEA Appendices Report July 2021

Paragraph C.1.2.2 under the section of Housing Options states that no effects are as yet known as it is unclear where the location of housing development will be at this time. However, there are a number of sites already identified for development within the Plan. Harm could occur for the historic environment in sites located within the Green Belt or outside of the Green Belt depending on how proposed development impacts the significance of heritage assets and their setting. It is also unclear how the quantum of development will make an impact without knowing the location of development and how these development sites are likely to impact on the significance of heritage assets, including their setting. We agree it is likely that a larger quantum of development will have more likelihood of affecting the historic environment but it is also possible that appropriate sites can be identified that will avoid or mitigate the harm to the significance of heritage assets and their setting.

The same comments are raised in paragraphs C.1.2.3, D.1.2.2, D.1.2.3.
Chapter E2 does raise some interesting commentary about the potential harm and mitigation for the historic environment which we appreciate. However, without any specific options it is difficult to assess what the harm may be. There are also only general mitigation measures discussed and whilst many of these are welcome, they would need to be included within site specific policies or area specific policies in order to ensure that they occurred within the development management process. Additionally, any assessment and mitigation measures would need to assess how the significance of heritage assets, including their setting were affected by any proposed policies or sites.

We note spatial options A, B, G and J are listed as ‘o’ as no impacts for heritage and yet it is possible that effects could occur for example a new garden village could be harmful for the historic environment depending on its location and context. We note that there are no green options for the historic environment or enhancement measures identified.

Dudley sites

F.2.2 we note that a number of sites have the potential to cause harm to the significance of heritage assets including their setting. At least 10 sites within Dudley are likely to have an effect for Grade II* heritage assets.

F.2.3 list over 26 sites that may have an effect on the significance of Grade II listed buildings through impacts to their setting.

F.2.4 .1 cites 15 sites with the potential to impact upon a conservation area. Further sites are listed as unlikely to ‘significantly’ effect conservation areas as they are separated by built form, however, it is possible that their setting will be impacted through additional issues such as noise, pollution, traffic levels etc. and we are unclear as to whether this has been assessed at this stage.

F.2.5.1 does raise concern for Historic England and at present we have not seen an assessment of the harm or any avoidance/ mitigation measures for Site 347. Additionally, F.2.5.2 raises a further three sites where harm could occur as well as the remaining sites which cite ‘build form’ being between the proposed site and any heritage assets but we are unclear on what assessment has been undertaken relating to setting and the relationship of heritage assets to one another within a landscape.

F.2.6.1. raises concerns for Hagley Hall Registered Park and Garden and Leasowes Registered Park and
Garden and other sites and states that a minor effect could arise based on distance assessment.

A further 30 plus sites have the potential to affect the significance of heritage assets and features as listed within section F7.2.7. 65 sites raise potential impacts for historic characterisation areas in section F7.2.8.

As a result of this, we are concerned that through the proposed development sites within Dudley that there are a significant number that may cause harm for the significance of the historic environment, heritage assets and their setting. We consider that the current level of detail is not enough for us to be specific about what concerns we may have and whether there are sites that Historic England would object to being proposed for allocation. Additionally, based on the information presented at this stage we are not able to offer advice on which sites may be suitable for development and whether there are appropriate mitigation and avoidance measures that could be incorporated into policy text. We suggest that the sites are subject to Heritage Impact Assessment, in line with HEAN 3 - link within our covering letter and once we have received sufficient information we will then be able to comment on whether we support or object to the proposed allocations within Dudley. Same comments apply as below to the other three local authority areas.
Sandwell sites

G.2.1.1 sets out the potential harm to 1 proposed allocation. It notes it is unlikely to harm the Grade I assets within Sandwell but we have not seen any assessment or understand where the Grade I assets are in relation to the proposed allocation sites or safeguarded areas.

Section G.2.2 states that there may be some harm through site 2371 and we would require assessment to understand how the significance of this heritage asset may be affected and if this is a suitable development site. The rest of the assessment states that there is likely to be little harm to heritage as Grade II* assets are not visually seen from proposed new development due to existing built form. Are there any implications for the setting of heritage assets that are not only affected visually? Is there a relationship between heritage assets in a historic landscape which could be affected by development? Are there any enhancement opportunities? Is there any heritage at risk that could be overcome? We require additional detail at this stage.

We have concerns about the assessment issues raised in paragraphs G.2.3.1 and G.2.3.2 as there are likely significant adverse effects for heritage assets through the development sites listed. The assessment states that there may be scope to overcome harm but this is not yet detailed. We would require this assessment prior to the allocation of sites through the local plan process.

G.2.3.3 sets out a further 23 sites that may be affected and require further assessment.

G.2.4.1 sets out a further six development sites that could harm conservation areas though there is little detail on what harm this could be and what level and how this could be overcome.

G.2.5.1 and G.2.5.2 sets out potential harm for scheduled monuments as a result of proposed development sites. Site 2371 is listed a number of times within the assessment as having the potential to harm a variety of heritage assets and we are concerned about this.

G.2.6.1. sets out the potential harm for registered parks and gardens in Sandwell. It is unclear based on the assessment currently how the levels of harm have been ascertained and whether they are accurate. We remain concerned about the impact to RPG and require additional detail.

We welcome the inclusion of assessment into archaeological priority areas and historic characterisation and consider that these would be useful tools to include within heritage impact assessment of the proposed allocations and safeguarded areas.

Walsall sites

H.2.2.1 states that there could be harm to Grade II* heritage assets as a result of eight proposed development allocations. It is unclear what the level of harm would be at this stage and additional detail is required.

H.2.3.1 sets out the potential for 68 proposed allocations to harm the historic environment, four of which are likely to have a significant effect for Grade II assets. We require further detail on the harm to heritage assets and whether there are mitigation measures that can overcome the harm. We remain concerned about the current approach.

H.2.4.1 sets out a potential 95 proposed allocation sites that could harm the historic environment and
40 of those wholly or partially within a conservation area. Development within a conservation area can be appropriate depending on its context and as such it is necessary to understand how the proposed allocations can affect the significance of heritage assets in order for us to understand
whether mitigation measures will be required and if so, what they are. It is also possible that after assessment has been undertaken Historic England may object to the proposed allocations.

H.2.5.1 sets out 23 potential allocations that are located within or near to scheduled monuments and have the potential to cause harm to the significance of these heritage assets. Historic England requires further assessment to understand what the potential harm may be and whether the proposed allocations are suitable.

H.2.6.1. sets out 16 potential allocations that are located within or near to registered parks and gardens and have the potential to cause harm to the significance of these heritage assets. Historic England requires further assessment to understand what the potential harm may be and whether the proposed allocations are suitable.

We welcome the inclusion of assessment into archaeological priority areas and historic characterisation and consider that these would be useful tools to include within heritage impact assessment of the proposed allocations and safeguarded areas. In particular H.2.7.1 sets out a significant number of proposed allocations that could cause harm to heritage assets within the archaeological priority areas and there also needs to be consideration of as yet unknown archaeology that could be of national importance.

Wolverhampton sites

I.2.1.1. sets out the potential for proposed allocations to harm the significance of Grade I assets within Wolverhampton. Further assessment is required to understand how the significance could be harmed and whether there are any mitigation measures suitable to overcome the harm anticipated.

I.2.2.1 sets out nine proposed allocation sites which could harm the significance of Grade II* heritage assets. Only the SEA site assessments are listed within the SEA Appendices Report and as such it is difficult to ascertain which proposed allocations these are. Notwithstanding this, additional assessment is required to ensure that these proposed allocations are suitable for development and whether reasonable alternatives are required or have been considered.

I.2.3.1 sets out 22 proposed allocations that could harm Grade II heritage assets with four of them having Grade II assets within their boundary. Further assessment is required to understand the potential harm and if there are mitigation measures to overcome this harm. We are not yet in a position to state if we object to allocations until we have the available assessment.

I.2.4.1 12 proposed allocations are located wholly or partially within Conservation Areas and a further
16 proposed allocations are located adjacent to Conservation Areas. Is there harm for the historic environment as a result of this? Will the significance of heritage assets be affected and are there design principles that could overcome the harm and ensure appropriate development?

I.2.5.1 Two sites are considered to have the potential to harm scheduled monuments though it is not clear as to what level of harm this will lead to and how the conclusion has been drawn. We will require additional information.

I.2.6.1 states that one site could potentially harm the significance of an RPG and is located 20m from the site which could affect key views and the setting. Further assessment is required to understand the level of harm for this asset and whether this can be overcome.

We welcome the inclusion of assessment into archaeological priority areas and historic characterisation and consider that these would be useful tools to include within heritage impact assessment of the proposed allocations and safeguarded areas.

Overall we remain concerned about the potential for harm to occur to the significance of the historic environment, heritage assets and their setting. The SEA assessment highlights there are a significant number of proposed allocations within the four areas of the Black Country that could harm the significance of heritage assets either directly or through changes in their setting. Without additional information it is not possible to draw conclusions about the level of harm and whether Historic England wishes to object to any of the proposed allocations. Additionally, it is not clear how the Councils aim to understand the risks for heritage and overcome potential harm in order to provide a positive strategy for the historic environment as required by Section 16 of the NPPF.

Historic England are keen to work with the Council and assist on the preparation of assessment methodology to assess the proposed allocations through the Local Plan and the SEA framework and then provide advice based on the results of these assessments.

Comment

Representation ID: 44913

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Cannock Chase Council

The inclusion at Appendix 2 of the draft Black Country Nature Recovery
Opportunities Map is noted. The plan currently does not include reference to the
strategic project to link Sutton Park to Cannock Chase.