Table 13 - Dudley Growth

Object

Representation ID: 23022

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: L Mcluckle

We the undersigned would like to submit our objection to the proposal that the plot of land bordering Butterfield Road and running along Severn Drive and the site known as Bryce Road be included in the Black Country Plan for housing developments.

The Severn Drive plot of land (SA-0199-DUD) is part of a recreational facility for the residents of Corbyns Hall Estate and is used regularly by children and adults alike. It is also used by residents who live on adjacent housing developments. Recreational facilities are few and far between in this area and losing this to yet more housing is not acceptable to the residents who have come to rely upon its existence.

Comber Drive is a very busy and dangerous main route through the estate. Many, many accidents occur on the corner just before it becomes Corbyns Hall Road. The residents live in fear that one day a car or van will career through their fences into their back gardens. The green space near to their homes therefore gives them respite both from the noise of the main throughfare and the fumes from passing cars but also gives them a peaceful and safe place for their children to play.

More traffic using Comber Drive will also give rise to yet more traffic accidents. Any development would also be overcrowded and unsightly.

The Bryce Road site (SA-0050-DUD) a much large site is also accessible from this route and would cause even more traffic to use the rat-run that is has become making the road even more dangerous.

Comment

Representation ID: 23080

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Bromsgrove District Council

1. Bromsgrove District Council (BDC) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft Black Country Plan (BCP). The BCP appears to be based around appropriate aims and objectives and provides a solid foundation on which to plan the future of the Black Country (BC) albeit BDC does have some reservations. BDC has reviewed the policies and proposals and has the following detailed comments to make.
Policy CSP1 – Development Strategy
2. The Council notes the development levels identified within policy CSP1 and the supporting text, in particular the 28,239 dwellings and 210 hectares of employment land to be accommodated outside of the plan area through the Duty to Cooperate.
3. The Council also note the comments made at para’s 3.23, 3.25 and 3.27 and would wish to make the following observations
3.23 National planning policy requires this unmet housing and employment land need to be provided for across the Housing Market Area, Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA) and other areas with which the Black Country has a physical or functional relationship.
3.25 The BCA recognise that this approach may only address a proportion of the housing and employment shortfall, as it is inappropriate and beyond the powers of the BCA to establish the limits of sustainable development in neighbouring authorities.
4. Whilst the requirements of the national guidance are acknowledged it is also accepted that the BCP cannot physically allocate development for the needs of the BC in other local authorities development plans. However the current strategy in the BCP appears to be a very hands off approach at this stage. It is accepted that para 3.24 identifies that the Black Country Authorities (BCA) have worked under the duty to cooperate and that para
3.26 commits the BCA to further engagement to find the most appropriate and sustainable locations for housing and employment growth. As it stands the draft plan provides no guidance to other local authorities on any requirement for accommodating unmet BC growth ,or any methodology for distributing the requirement between authorities, and only very limited information on where the growth should be located. To expect neighbouring authorities to consider whether its appropriate to provide growth for the BC with little or no guidance from the exporting authority falls short of what could be described as constructive engagement under the duty to cooperate.
5. Notwithstanding the above comments about the lack of direction the BCP plan gives on meeting the wider housing need at 3.25, para 3.27 then appears to suggest locations where the BCA are supportive of appropriate and sustainable locations for housing and employment growth which is suitable for the needs of the BC.
3.27 Reflecting the efforts of those neighbouring authorities who are supporting the delivery of the Black Country’s wider housing and employment land need, where it is shown to be desirable, appropriate, sustainable and deliverable the BCA will support their neighbours in bringing forward land for housing and employment that sits adjacent to the existing administrative boundaries, and will work in partnership to ensure infrastructure needs are met in full across administrative boundaries.’
6. BDC notes the findings of the various studies which form the evidence base supporting the BCP. In particular the findings of the Black Country Green Belt Study, Landscape Sensitivity Assessment and Historic Landscape Characterisation Study. The outcomes of these studies which BDC has reviewed and has no reason to dispute at this stage, have effectively ruled out development on the southern edge of the BC in Dudley Metropolitan Borough adjacent to Bromsgrove District, With the exception of sites DUH206,207 and 209. The ruling out of this land means that the administrative boundary between Bromsgrove and the BC is not able to accommodate appropriate, sustainable and deliverable development, therefore the ability of BDC to accommodate the needs of the BC is critically damaged. BDC will continue to engage with all local authorities under the Duty to Cooperate but the Council is now struggling to see how it can now help meet the needs of the BC other than in locations which are not supported by the draft Black Country Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 23082

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Bromsgrove District Council

1. Bromsgrove District Council (BDC) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft Black Country Plan (BCP). The BCP appears to be based around appropriate aims and objectives and provides a solid foundation on which to plan the future of the Black Country (BC) albeit BDC does have some reservations. BDC has reviewed the policies and proposals and has the following detailed comments to make.
Policy CSP1 – Development Strategy
2. The Council notes the development levels identified within policy CSP1 and the supporting text, in particular the 28,239 dwellings and 210 hectares of employment land to be accommodated outside of the plan area through the Duty to Cooperate.
3. The Council also note the comments made at para’s 3.23, 3.25 and 3.27 and would wish to make the following observations
3.23 National planning policy requires this unmet housing and employment land need to be provided for across the Housing Market Area, Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA) and other areas with which the Black Country has a physical or functional relationship.
3.25 The BCA recognise that this approach may only address a proportion of the housing and employment shortfall, as it is inappropriate and beyond the powers of the BCA to establish the limits of sustainable development in neighbouring authorities.
4. Whilst the requirements of the national guidance are acknowledged it is also accepted that the BCP cannot physically allocate development for the needs of the BC in other local authorities development plans. However the current strategy in the BCP appears to be a very hands off approach at this stage. It is accepted that para 3.24 identifies that the Black Country Authorities (BCA) have worked under the duty to cooperate and that para
3.26 commits the BCA to further engagement to find the most appropriate and sustainable locations for housing and employment growth. As it stands the draft plan provides no guidance to other local authorities on any requirement for accommodating unmet BC growth ,or any methodology for distributing the requirement between authorities, and only very limited information on where the growth should be located. To expect neighbouring authorities to consider whether its appropriate to provide growth for the BC with little or no guidance from the exporting authority falls short of what could be described as constructive engagement under the duty to cooperate.
5. Notwithstanding the above comments about the lack of direction the BCP plan gives on meeting the wider housing need at 3.25, para 3.27 then appears to suggest locations where the BCA are supportive of appropriate and sustainable locations for housing and employment growth which is suitable for the needs of the BC.
3.27 Reflecting the efforts of those neighbouring authorities who are supporting the delivery of the Black Country’s wider housing and employment land need, where it is shown to be desirable, appropriate, sustainable and deliverable the BCA will support their neighbours in bringing forward land for housing and employment that sits adjacent to the existing administrative boundaries, and will work in partnership to ensure infrastructure needs are met in full across administrative boundaries.’
6. BDC notes the findings of the various studies which form the evidence base supporting the BCP. In particular the findings of the Black Country Green Belt Study, Landscape Sensitivity Assessment and Historic Landscape Characterisation Study. The outcomes of these studies which BDC has reviewed and has no reason to dispute at this stage, have effectively ruled out development on the southern edge of the BC in Dudley Metropolitan Borough adjacent to Bromsgrove District, With the exception of sites DUH206,207 and 209. The ruling out of this land means that the administrative boundary between Bromsgrove and the BC is not able to accommodate appropriate, sustainable and deliverable development, therefore the ability of BDC to accommodate the needs of the BC is critically damaged. BDC will continue to engage with all local authorities under the Duty to Cooperate but the Council is now struggling to see how it can now help meet the needs of the BC other than in locations which are not supported by the draft Black Country Plan.
Policy HOU1 and CSP3
7. Sites DUH206, DUH207 and DUH209 are being proposed to be taken out of the green belt and allocated for development of 115 houses. This has been done irrespective of the fact that (DUH209) was rated as causing very high harm to the GB, and all three sites are found to be within an Area of High Historic Landscape Value. This development is in close proximity to the settlement of Hagley which is within Bromsgrove District. Table 14 indicates that policy CSP3 provides further information regarding these allocations. CSP3 provide little detail on how it is expected that this site will be developed, it not clear how these allocations relate to the requirements of CSP3. BDC is aware that there is a significant policy base by which this allocation will be determined should a planning application be submitted, subject to the site being allocated.
8.BDC has also reviewed the site assessment work (Appendix A pages 96-107) accompanying these three sites, and would wish to understand the full impact on the infrastructure in the surrounding area, before forming a view on the suitability of these sites for allocation.
9.It is noted that the sites have been ranked as follows with the following comments in relation highways access and transportation and impact on the wider road network.
Site Known as Highways access and transportation Impact on the wider road network
RAG Rating RAG Rating
SA-0010- DUD-A / DUH206 Worcester Lane North , Green , Access via Worcester Lane, Green Potential junction improvement Racecourse Lane / Worcester Lane to North. To south Park Rd/ Worcester Rd
SA- 0010- DUD-B / DUH207 Worcester Lane Central, Green Access via Worcester Lane, potential mitigation junction improvement Racecourse Lane / Worcester Lane to North, To south Park Rd/ Worcester Rd Green Further information would be required to assess this
SA- 0018- DUD-C / DUH209 Worcester Lane South, Green Access via Worcester Lane. Loss of hedgerow should be kept to a minimum. Green If developed with call for sites site to north (SA-0010-DUD A and B) potential junction improvements Racecourse Lane/Worcester Lane to the north and to the south Park Rd/ Worcester Rd.




10. For these sites to be ranked green, it is a requirement of the published methodology that they have for:
• highway access and transportation - No / negligible access constraint (Site Assessment Report – page 23)
• impact on the wider network - No / negligible impact (Site Assessment Report – page 24)
11. There is inconsistency in the narrative which accompanies these site assessments:
• Does the mitigation at the junctions north and south of the sites get assessed under the highways access and transportation section, or impact on the wider transport network section? At the moment this is not clear or consistent.
• Irrespective of the point above, for a potential mitigation scheme to be identified, that would suggest that there is some form impact under either of the categories which is more than negligible, and therefore an amber rating would be more suitable.
• For site DUH207/SA-0010-DUD-B it appears no assessment has been carried out of the impact of the wider network and still the site is ranked green, it is concerning that
this ranking can be determined without any assessment taking place.
12. BDC would suggest this assessment is re-run and the outcomes shared with BDC and other interested parties prior to the publication of the next stage of plan making.
13. Other elements of the infrastructure assessment also require clarification, the assessment of: Primary schools, Secondary Schools, GP/Health Centre/Walk in Centre, Strategic Centre/Employment areas, and Centre/Foodstore all refer to walk times which are achieved ‘following any viable mitigation’. BDC would like clarification on what this mitigation is and that it is in fact viable. Unviable mitigation is not considered to be appropriate mitigation.
14. These comments are officer only comments at this stage, BDC members will be considering the formal response at committee meetings following the deadline for submission of comments, should any additional comments be required officers will submit them following these meetings.
15. Bromsgrove District Council remains committed to successful plan making and will continue to engage with the BCA under the Duty to Cooperate. Upon receipt of these and any additional comments, officers will be happy to meet with BCA representatives to discuss all the points raised in further detail

Object

Representation ID: 23083

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Worcester Lane Resident's Group

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

On behalf of the Worcester Lane Resident’s Group, we are instructed to make a representation to the above plan. The concern of the group relates largely to sites DUH206, DUH207 and DUH209 which are proposed for a cumulative total of around 115 new homes during the next plan period:
Firstly, the residents do accept the need to plan for new housing over the course of the next plan period and that growth opportunities within the Borough are limited as many brownfield sites have already been redeveloped or viability remains a constraint.
However, the group are very much of the view that there are still a number of deliverable, previously developed sites within the Borough that have not been included as potential housing allocations, despite not being as constrained as the surrounding Green Belt which is some of the most protected type of land, in planning terms.
We consider the overall approach adopted by the Black Country authorities is flawed on the basis that many sites have been automatically ruled out on the grounds that they may have a local protective ecological designation – such as a SINC. We do not understand why the starting point to rule such sites out was not Footnote 7 (Framework paragraph 11), which are listed as follows: ‘The policies referred to are those in this Framework (rather than those in development plans) relating to: habitats sites (and those sites listed in paragraph 181) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a National Park (or within the Broads Authority) or defined as Heritage Coast; irreplaceable habitats; designated heritage assets (and other heritage assets of archaeological interest referred to in footnote 68); and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change’. Aligned to this, Paragraph 181 states that: ‘The following should be given the same protection as habitats sites: a) potential Special Protection Areas and possible Special Areas of Conservation; b) listed or proposed Ramsar sites; and c) sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on habitats sites, potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation, and listed or proposed Ramsar sites.’ These high-status designations are clearly of greatest importance and as a starting point normally development or change is either resisted or very carefully controlled.
We consider the Black Country authorities may have hampered their own efforts in searching for future housing sites within the existing urban areas, by ruling out sites that they have limited information about but have unfortunately assumed an awful lot. Indeed, we understand that around 62 potential sites have been ‘ruled out’ through the SHELAA process, and given the very binary assessments carried out, we consider that some reconsideration of ruled out sites needs to be undertaken again. Or we consider the council will have failed the exceptional circumstances case to release the Green Belt in this location.
By way of an example of such a site, the land at New Hawne Colliery, Hayseech Road, Halesowen is an entirely previously developed site (a colliery since the late 1800s, which was reopened in the 1970s), with an extensive area of potentially developable land, together with opportunities for management and improvement to the habitats within the site.
The residents are aware that the above site is being promoted for a residential allocation (DUH059) and that only part of the site is currently subject to an allocation for 15 dwellings which is focussed on the historic colliery buildings. Given the historic use of the site across a far wider expanse, it is considered that some of the land associated with the former colliery could be a potential housing allocation and that this has the capacity to directly offset the need to allocate in the Green Belt at Worcester Lane:

The wider site was not considered as it has a SINC designation. However, no full PEA has been undertaken on the site, nor a tree survey to confirm how valuable the site truly is in ecological terms. It was simply not considered.
You will be aware that paragraph 140 of the Framework (2021) states that:
‘Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified’. Further, paragraph 141 of the Framework is clear that: ‘Before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries, the strategic policy-making authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. This will be assessed through the examination of its strategic policies, which will take into account the preceding paragraph, and whether the strategy: a) makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land; b) optimises the density of development in line with the policies in
chapter 11 of this Framework, including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimum density standards in town and city centres and other locations well served by public transport; and c) has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground.’
In echoing this, the Black Country authorities will be aware of the outcome of the West of England Joint Spatial Plan1 (Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol City, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire) which was formally withdrawn in April 2020 as a result of the Inspector’s serious concerns over the soundness of the plan. The major issue was the four authorities were heavily criticised for trying to make evidence fit around their strategy for housing, jobs and infrastructure, rather than being led by it. Matters such as insufficient evidence to demonstrate the ‘exceptional circumstances’ needed to release Green Belt were at the heart of this.
11 https://www.westofengland-ca.gov.uk/west-of-england-strategic-planning/
The Inspectors Malcolm Rivett and Steven Lee recorded that ‘We conclude that robust evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that the 12 SDLs [Strategic Development Locations] proposed in the plan have been selected against reasonable alternatives on a robust, consistent and objective basis’. Further they stated that ‘Consequently, given that the SDLs are an integral part of the plan’s spatial strategy, we cannot conclude that the spatial strategy is itself sound.’
The residents consider that the Black Country authorities need to be very careful about their approach to this, and this leads directly on to how they work with neighbouring authorities such as South Staffordshire, who are being expected to take 4,000 new dwellings of unmet need from the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA. We cannot envisage South Staffordshire, Shropshire, Bromsgrove and Redditch, Lichfield, Stafford, Cannock Chase, Telford and Wrekin and Solihull being particularly supportive of a strategy by the Black Country where they have not adequately scrutinised their brownfield site opportunities before expecting to be able to export their need elsewhere.
Finally, Paragraph 142 of the Framework states that: ‘When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. Strategic policymaking authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary. Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously developed and/or is well-served by public transport. They should also set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land.’
The resident’s group do not consider that this has happened here. There are other opportunities within the urban area of the Borough which could come forward and need to be scrutinised further, before the Green Belt land at Worcester Lane is released (i.e. where exceptional circumstances are demonstrated).
Further matters of concern to the residents also include the following:
• The site is a valued landscape – its Green Belt function as an undeveloped break in the existing built form provides visual relief for many who live in the area. Paragraph 174 of the Framework reinforces the need to protect such sites where: ‘Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes…’
• The site is known to suffer from pluvial flooding – significant work would be required (together with significant land take from the site) to provide adequate volumetric storage for 1 in 100 flood events (plus 40% for climate change).
• It is understood that the site may suffer from geotechnical issues, where the railway embankments had to have extensive reinforcement works undertaken a short while ago. A ground investigation which looks closely at this should be required of the promoter in any event.
• The strategic nature of Green Belt should (if exceptional circumstances dictate) be released on a far larger scale than is being proposed with the land at Worcester Lane. As Green Belt is a designation which remains permanent and enduring beyond plan periods, the residents consider that a more holistic approach to planning for the loss of Green Belt should be undertaken, to underpin a more sustainable and well-planned result, rather than ‘nibbling’ at Green Belt to deliver smaller schemes that will not incorporate new community facilities. Larger schemes could include more facilities and services within major urban extensions such as schools; community centres; neighbourhood centres (including some shops, healthcare, etc).
• There appears to be no consideration of ‘compensatory’ open space being created within the site of any significance, this is not the expectation of local people, nor the relevant parts of the Framework.
• Given the location of the site relative to shops, services, local employment and railway services, the residents consider there to be far more sustainable alternatives than this site, where it is clear that very few future residents will walk or cycle anywhere in reality.
Yours sincerely

Comment

Representation ID: 44838

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ruskin Properties

Please see attached our completed form, along with representations into the above. In addition, there are a number of supporting documents that need to be read in conjunction with the representations. Due to the file size, these are shared below via a WeTransfer Link.
Please note that the supporting documents include:
1. NVC Report
2. Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
3. SLINC/SINC Report
4. Site Masterplan
5. Site Masterplan and Amended Housing Allocation
6. Design and Access Statement
7. Viability assessment (report and spreadsheet). This contains confidential information and is not for public consumption.
Housing Allocation DUH006
Background
The emerging BCP has rolled forward the previous housing designation relating to the above site from the current Development Plan (2011) and previous adopted Dudley UDP (2005).
In considering the allocation of the site for housing development at the Local Plan Inquiry inm2002, the Inspector concluded that the former sewage treatment works would not be remediated within the Plan period without the financial return from a residential development. The Inspector recommended that the site should be allocated for housing on this basis.
It is relevant that the allocated site for housing is now more than 19 years on from its inception as a housing allocation within a Development Plan having been rolled forward through two Development Plans and now into a third without having been delivered.
An outline planning application was submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration in 2001 (P01/2003) for the reclamation of the sewage works and associated land for residential redevelopment, public open space, riverside walk, and landscaping. The proposals resulted in an appeal being submitted against non-determination to be heard at a Public Inquiry. The appeal was withdrawn in 2004 with a subsequent outline planning application submitted for consideration (P04/1368).
The second outline application sought approval for the means of access into the site and was supported by indicative layout plans showing the erection of 69 houses on the western part of the site and 69 homes on the eastern part of the site, a total of 138 dwellings.
The 2004 planning application was presented to Development Control Committee at its meeting on the 20th of December 2005 where it was resolved to grant planning permission subject to the signing of a S106 Agreement. The Heads of Terms associated with the S106 were for the provision of on-site open space and children’s play facilities and affordable housing. The S106 did not progress with the Local Planning Authority disposing of the application in 2015.
Ruskin Properties Limited acquired the site in 2017. A full planning application is currently being considered by Dudley MBC for the redevelopment of the site (LPA Ref: P20/0734). These representations are supported by:
• Masterplan
• Design and Access Statement demonstrating how the site can be developed
• Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey prepared by Crestwood Environmental
• SLINC/SINC Report prepared by Crestwood Environmental
• National Vegetation Classification Survey prepared by Crestwood Environmental
• Viability Report prepared by Jackson Webb
Site Constraints
The abnormal costs associated with bringing the site forward for development are significant and it is this issue that has prevented development coming forward for many decades.
The former sewage treatment works comprises remnants of the STW infrastructure. This includes the original access road leading off Caledonia which runs southwards towards the river. Within the western part of the site, the former filter beds remain visible to the north-west of the former service road, along with above ground concrete valve structures, outflow pipes/structures and concrete retaining structures lying immediately adjacent to the river. The western part of the site contains an electricity sub-station and pumping station. These structures serve the live sewer network and will need to be retained on site along with a 5m wide vehicular access and turning areas provided to them (This is a legal requirement). A large above ground obsolete concrete pipe extends across the full length of the northern boundary of the eastern part of the site crossing the river before terminating within the northern part of the site. This large pipe also connects to former sluice gates that adjoin Dudley Road.
The site retains live sewers with associated easements running through the development land. These lead from Caledonia close to the existing vehicular entrance into the site falling southwards and connecting with other sewers running along the southern and western boundaries of the site. The sewers serve both foul and storm and with easements ranging in size from 5-10 metres. Figure 1. below shows the sewers and their associated easements:
Figure 1 - Easements
Untreated former mine workings and mine shafts affect the site. This is in terms of the need for the stabilisation of the land prior to development taking place and restricting the development of the site in terms of stand-off distances that will be required from recorded shafts. Figure 2 below shows the location of recorded mine shafts throughout the site:
Figure 2 - Mine shafts and services
The river corridor is also impacted by invasive species including extensive areas of Giant Hogweed, Japanese Knotweed and Himalyan Balsam. A five-year treatment programme is underway in these areas, but the re-growth is a threat and treatment a significant cost. The extent of the areas affected are shown in the image below (Figure 3).
Figure 3 - Invasive Species
The site also has a challenging topography. To deliver housing on the site, development platforms will need to be created through the completion of an earthworks exercise. This requires the need to utilise material from outside of the allocated site from the steepest parts of the site to allow the filling of the lower levels of the current allocated site to achieve suitable levels for adopted highways and the implementation of a suitable drainage strategy.
The site constraints listed above significantly reduce the overall developable area of the site. The draft plan envisages the delivery of 158 dwellings within the draft allocation. This is unrealistic and not achievable with yield likely to be significantly less, potentially in the region of 110 dwellings. A scheme of 158 dwellings on the draft allocated site would not achieve a well-designed development and would not reflect the physical constraints on the site posed by ecology, mine-shaft exclusion zones post treatment, flood risk and root protection areas associated with trees.
Viability
The principle of development on the allocated site is already established with the Local Planning Authority confirming through the retention of the allocation that the site is available and suitable for development.
The one aspect that has not been addressed fully since the original allocation in 2002 is the delivery of development on the site. For development to progress on the allocated site, the quantum of development needs to generate a sufficient return to incentivise a developer. In this case, Ruskin Properties Limited. To ensure that there is a workable and deliverable strategy in place to bring forward development on this site, the allocation must be increased to include an additional area measuring approximately 0.63 hectares to deliver a further 22 units. Whilst the proposed quantum of development still poses viability challenges as demonstrated by the submitted viability report, Ruskin Properties Limited, we will take a long- term view on the site based upon its business model of building good quality homes for market rent with development able to commence in 2024. A full viability report is submitted in support of these representations. This supports and fully justifies the need to increase the developable area of the site beyond the current allocation. The viability report is based upon a 132-unit scheme, which includes development within part of the existing SINC.
The viability report sets out the extent, nature and level of abnormal costs associated with bringing the site forward for development. The costs and impacts of these upon the developable area of the existing allocated site are such that a larger site needs to be allocated to bring forward a comprehensive development that will remediate the former sewage treatment works, stabilise the ground from former mine-workings, fund an adoptable vehicular bridge to access the eastern part of the site, support the costs of piled foundations to dwellings and achieve a scheme that enhances, restores and creates areas of nature conservation value using the River Stour as its main opportunity.
In the same way that the Inspector in 2002 acknowledged that the sewage treatment works would not be remediated without housing development, the improvement of the River Stour corridor including nature conservation enhancement, restoration and creation will not take place without residential development. The scale of residential development required to achieve a comprehensive development that will achieve all these objectives needs to include the loss of part of the greenfield part of the site for residential development. However, this will be fully compensated for in terms of a achieving at least a 10% Biodiversity Net Gain across the scheme overall despite the small loss of part of the site that has some nature conservation value.

Ecology
The 0.63 hectares of land to the west of the existing housing allocation is greenfield and is currently designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). These representations are supported by a suite of ecological information, including an extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, a SLINC/SINC Report and a National Classification Vegetation Survey.
The National Vegetation Classification (NVC) Report relates to the land known as Freehold Farm located immediately to the west of the current housing allocation. This survey was undertaken in August 2021. The report is included with this submission. The NVC survey also includes a local site selection assessment in accordance with the Birmingham and Black Country Local Site Selection 2018.
The overall quality and condition of the SINC has deteriorated from the more recent survey to the previous survey undertaken in 2012. The site comprises areas of scrub. This presents a continuous threat to the condition of the grassland, which will eventually scrub over and result in the loss of the grassland. This will result in a severe negative impact to the nature conservation value of the site.
Based on the results of the current NVC survey, as submitted, as a best-case, scenario, the extent of the SINC falling within the boundaries of what was previously known as Freehold Farm, meets the criteria as a Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINC). From the evidence submitted, the existing SINC designation should be removed from land falling within the boundaries of the former Freehold Farm and downgraded to SLINC.
In addition, the existing SLINC designation should be modified along the River Stour corridor to remove the designation within the northern part of the allocated site. This part of the site is now bare ground following the removal of trees to facilitate necessary site investigation works to inform a developable strategy of bringing forward development on the wider site. The Local Planning Authority has already agreed to this aspect as part of the negotiations in relation to the current submission.
Masterplan
In view of the representations submitted, it is respectfully requested that the housing allocation is extended westwards from the existing to ensure the delivery of sufficient unit numbers to allow the remediation of the previously developed part of the site and to deliver the long-term management of the wider site for the benefit of nature conservation. This will be to enhance and restore the river corridor.
Without the extent and scale of development proposed, the opportunities for a comprehensive development that will remediate a previously developed site as well as providing significant benefits in the form of enhancement, protection and the creation of new nature conservation value will not be achieved. Despite, the minor impact on the existing land to the west, which is at best, a SLINC, the proposals overall will achieve at least a 10% biodiversity net gain.
The comprehensive redevelopment of the site will retain an area of 1.37 hectares of the existing 2-hectare SINC, which will be protected and enhanced. The proposals will retain connectivity and stepping-stones through the north-western part of the site with the retention of lowland meadow and it will also significantly enhance the River Stour corridor for both its nature conservation and amenity value delivering a key objective of the BCP. Adjoining land to the west, which falls outside of the ownership of Ruskin Properties Limited, which lies within the existing SINC will remain unaffected with its lowland meadow retained. The proposals will not result in the total loss of lowland meadow, which is of value within the local area.
A summary of the strategy to deliver a comprehensive housing development underpinned by a robust strategy for nature conservation enhancement is set out below:
Retention:
• Broad-leaved woodland/River Stour corridor – enhanced via additional planting and removal of invasive non-native species.
• Coniferous woodland – enhanced via appropriate management.
• Scrub – enhanced via appropriate management; and
• Poor semi-improved grassland and semi-improved grassland – enhanced to create lowland meadow.
Creation:
• Broad-leaved woodland.
• Pond (for biodiversity only), marshy grassland, reedbed and SuDS Pond.
• Amenity grassland (as part of public open spaces).
• Birch scrub.
• Urban orchard; and
• Native species-rich hedgerow.
Management
The scheme will be the subject of a long-term Ecological Management Plan, which can be secured and delivered through conditions attached to a planning permission. Ruskin Properties Limited agrees to a 30-year management programme to include re-surveying the site to monitor mitigation targets against the Local Sites Selection Criteria.
The habitats described above are located on either side of the river and relate to the following landscape/ecological areas within the proposed masterplan.
Western part of the site
• Northern Woodland and northern extent of retained SINC (0.91ha)– enhancement of existing habitat.
• Western Green spine (0.19ha)– new habitat including orchard planting.
• Flood Meadows - River Stour (1.13ha) – enhancement of existing habitat (wildflower meadow) and the creation of new habitats including ecological pond and attenuation pond.
Eastern part of the site
• Northern Woodland (0.61ha) – enhancement and management and the creation of a swale.
• Southern boundary (0.12ha) – enhancement and management.
• East Central Green (0.13ha)– new habitat including tree planting. Site-wide measures
• Planting of 1,00m of native hedgerow throughout the site.
• River Corridor – (0.94ha) – enhancement and management
• Planting of 224 trees and 44 orchard trees.
The increased extent of the allocated site for housing with continued protection provided for the retained areas of nature conservation as SLINC, will achieve numerous social, economic, and environmental benefits that outweigh any perceived harm as follows:
Social Benefits
• Creation of good quality private rented properties meeting an identified need as set out within the draft BCP.
• Development of a well-designed scheme with access to significant areas of open space available for those living on the site and the wider community. The site lies within an area that comprises the least amount of green space in the Borough. The areas perform the worst in relation to the provision of natural and semi-natural green space and amenity space. The development will significantly boost the provision of green space within an area that will be managed and maintained for the long-term. This is a significant benefit when also balanced against BNG overall.
• Inclusion of future footpath and cycleway links to the east and south-west of the site to support connectivity.
• Sustainable form of development being within walking distances of local services and facilities and public transport (bus and train).
Economic Benefits
• Provision of 132 new homes meeting identified housing need delivered within the plan period.
• The delivery of new homes will result in an increase in revenue to the Local Authority through New Homes Bonus and Council Tax receipts.
• Construction and supply chain jobs (RPL employ direct labour who are local people and uses local suppliers where possible)
• Residents’ expenditure within the local area supporting the economy.
Environmental Benefits
• Reclamation of unstable land through the treatment of mine shafts and mine workings, this would not happen without the development.
• Removal and eradication of invasive species.
• Significant net gain in the biodiversity value of the site when compared to its existing value.
• Retention of trees where possible and significant new tree planting (268).
• The planting of 1,000m of native hedgerow.
• Provision of a new vehicular bridge with a raised soffit level to the existing bridge thereby improving flood risk.
• Long-term management and maintenance of the site by RPL.
A copy of the proposed Masterplan demonstrating how the site needs to come forward for development is set out below at Figure 4. This submission is also supported by a Design and Access Statement, which demonstrates how all the technical issues associated with bringing the site forward for development will be addressed to.
Figure 4 - Masterplan
Revisions to the existing housing allocation and nature conservation designations is denoted on Figure 5 below:
Figure 5 - Revisions to the boundary of DUH006 to include land to the west, removal of SLINC to the north and downgrading of SINC to SLINC to the north-west and south- west.

Object

Representation ID: 46207

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Maurice Kirkham

DUH221 (Standhills Open Space)

Re: DUH 203 M plan Quarry
We strongly object to using this pleasant piece of land to build on. Due to clearing of the land opposite Aldi, we have already lost Badgers, Owls, Bats and Foxes. Poeple complain of Badgers and foxes causing damage to gardens , but what other choice have these lovely creatures, if we constantly destroy their natural habitat? Young people meet up there causing no problems. Where will they go? People walk there to enjoy fresh air and walk their dogs, which is good for our mental health. On top of these issues what about the capacity of the roads? Congestion is already a problem. Doctors, schools etc will be under greater pressure. We cannot keep taking down trees and destroying our green spaces. Kingswinford has always been a lovely village, please don't turn it into a suburb of Birmingham!!