Draft Black Country Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 21348

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

POLICY TRAN8 – PLANNING FOR LOW EMISSION VEHICLES
Policy TRAN8 states that proposals for low emissions vehicles will be supported by ensuring that new developments “include adequate provision for charging infrastructure e.g. electric vehicle charging points in car parks, measures to encourage LEV use through travel plans and other initiatives.”

Whilst the intention of this policy is recognised, it is considered more suitable for any requirement for electric vehicle charging points to be left to future updates to the Government’s Building Regulations, and for the policy to refer to that. Indeed, the Government’s ‘Electric Vehicle Charging in Residential & Non-Residential Buildings’ consultation set out the Government’s intention to implement a nationally standardised approach to EV charging through a new functional requirement under Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010, with further guidance expected in late 2021. As such, Policy TRAN8 should not seek to pre-empt those requirements, which would be contrary to the Government’s desire to create a rationalised, streamlined system led by the Building Regulations rather than local requirements.

With that said, should Policy TRAN8 continue to pursue a policy requirement in relation to electric charging provision rather than referring to the Building Regulations, it is important that the policy clearly specifies what that requirement is (expressed as a percentage of dwellings) based upon evidence of need and reflective of current uptake. Should that approach be taken, the level of charging provision should be taken into account in a Viability Assessment that demonstrates that “the total cumulative cost of all relevant policies will not undermine deliverability of the plan” (Ref. 10-002-20190509). That assessment should take into account that electric vehicle charging can often be costly; particularly where residential plots are served by remote parking or where additional capacity is required in the local electricity grid to accommodate charging points. That matter should be considered carefully by the BCAs should they pursue a requirement.

Comment

Representation ID: 21349

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

POLICY ENV3 – NATURE RECOVERY NETWORK AND BIODIVERSITY NET GAIN
WDH notes that Policy ENV3 requires new developments to deliver a 10% biodiversity net gain. Whilst the intention of that policy is understood, a 10% net gain is not yet required by national policy or legislation (given that the Environment Bill has not yet been passed), and as such that requirement will need to be evidenced and justified. Rather, it would be more suitable for Policy ENV3 to require a biodiversity net gain “in accordance with the most up-to-date national policy or legislation” both to ensure consistency with national guidance and to future-proof the policy.
Policy ENV3 states that off-site compensation is only to be accepted in “exceptional circumstances.” That is too high of a threshold for such a policy (and is to be used for matters such as Green Belt release) and that, notwithstanding that, further guidance in relation to the mechanism for delivering biodiversity compensation should be included in the policy or supporting text to provide developers with certainty on that process.

Comment

Representation ID: 21350

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

POLICY ENV4 – PROVISION, RETENTION AND PROTECTION OF TREES, WOODLANDS AND HEDGEROWS
Whilst the intention of Policy ENV4 to provide, retain and protect trees, woodlands and hedgerows is recognised, it is noted that the policy is particularly lengthy. It would instead be more suitable for this guidance to be included in a Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) or an appendix to the plan. Indeed, that would align with the Government’s PPG on plan-making that specifies that SPDs “should build upon and provide more detailed advice or guidance on policies in an adopted local plan.”

Notwithstanding that, it is suggested that more flexibility be built into the policy. In particular, whilst the overarching aim to retain existing vegetation is recognised, in some cases small-scale removal of trees and hedgerows subject to arboricultural considerations is necessary – for example to facilitate access on greenfield sites. As such, it is suggested that the policy should be amended to require that trees and hedgerows are retained “wherever possible”, which would be a more sensible approach to protecting existing vegetation whilst not restricting development.

Comment

Representation ID: 21351

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

POLICY ENV5 – HISTORIC CHARACTER AND LOCAL DISTINCTIVENESS OF THE BLACK COUNTRY
Whilst the scope of Policy ENV5 is recognised by WDH, the policy requirements go above and beyond the requirements of the NPPF in some cases. For example, the policy requires developments to “sustain and enhance the locally distinctive character of the area”, “preserve and enhance local character”, “retain, and wherever possible, enhance” physical assets that contribute to local character and respect their settings, be designed to make a “positive” contribution to local character and distinctiveness, and “sustain and reinforce” special character and “conserve” the historic aspects of locally distinctive areas of the Black Country.

Whilst it is not desirable to have any impact on heritage assets, NPPF paragraph 202 states that development proposals should be permitted where they have less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, so long as the harm is outweighed by the public benefit; and as such, those policy requirements go over and above the requirements of the NPPF and are contrary to the NPPF in that regard.

The policy should therefore be revised with reference to NPPF paragraph 202 in particular.

Comment

Representation ID: 21352

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

POLICY ENV6 – GEODIVERSITY AND THE BLACK COUNTRY UNESCO GLOBAL NETWORK
WDH recognise the intention of Policy ENV6, and recognise the requirement for developments to make a positive contribution to the protection and enhancement of geodiversity, “particularly within the boundaries of the Black Country UNESCO Global Geopark.” To provide clarity in that regard, it would be useful for the boundaries of the Black Country UNESCO Global Geopark to be defined within the policy’s supporting text.

Comment

Representation ID: 21353

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

POLICY ENV8 – OPEN SPACE, SPORTS AND RECREATION
WDH recognises the importance of developments providing or contributing towards public open space, sports and recreation facilities to support the needs of future residents. In that regard, WDH welcomes the reference within Policy ENV8 that open space requirements will be informed by “up-to-date local open space, sport and recreation standards for each local authority, in terms of quantity, quality and access.”

WDH would, however, welcome additional flexibility within the policy to allow open space provision to respond to existing provision (including oversupply and shortfall) in the immediate locality, to ensure that the quantum and type of open space provision meets the evidenced need.

Comment

Representation ID: 21354

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

POLICY ENV9 – DESIGN QUALITY
As an advocate of the importance of good design, WDH support the intention of Policy ENV9, with the policy requirements set out in the policy reflective of what WDH considers to be the principles of good urban design. WDH’s response to HOU1 sets out the manner in which the development of Bromwich Lane, Pedmore would adhere to those principles, and indeed would be in accordance with the plan as a whole.

With that said, it is noted that Policy ENV9 merely repeats the requirements of the Building Regulations in places. As such, it is not considered suitable to make reference to those requirements.

Furthermore, whilst WDH support the provision of high-quality, well-designed housing as an integral part of meeting the area’s identified housing needs, the inclusion of a requirement for all dwellings to demonstrate accordance with the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS) must be robustly justified; which currently is not the case. Moreover, the BCAs must consider the inevitable impact of that required on development capacity and viability to ensure that the plan is deliverable.

Comment

Representation ID: 21355

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

POLICY CC1 – INCREASING EFFICIENCY AND RESILIENCE
The intention of Policy CC1 is recognised by WDH, who has adopted a holistic fabric-first approach in their house type design that seeks to reduce each dwelling’s inherent energy demand and aims to reduce energy waste and CO2 emissions by increasing energy efficiency. With that said, limb e of the policy requires developments to incorporate “grey water recycling and rainwater collection” where possible. Whilst that requirement is recognised, it should be made clear that the use of grey water recycling should only be applied where viable and appropriate.

Comment

Representation ID: 21356

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

POLICY CC2 – ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE
The intention of Policy CC2 is recognised by WDH. However, it is noted that the requirement for sites of 10 or more dwellings to “include opportunities for decentralised energy provision within the site” is not required by national policy and has not been justified based on proportionate evidence (in accordance with NPPF paragraph 35b).

Moreover, whilst the reference to any provision being subject to suitability, feasibility and viability is welcomed, it is important that the BCAs take that requirement into account in a full viability assessment should they proceed with including that policy requirement (if it is fully justified).

Comment

Representation ID: 21357

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

POLICY CC7 – RENEWABLE AND LOW CARBON ENERGY AND BREEAM STANDARDS
The intention of Policy CC7 is recognised by WDH, who has adopted a holistic fabric-first approach in their house type design that seeks to reduce each dwelling’s inherent energy demand and aims to reduce energy waste and CO2 emissions by increasing energy efficiency.

However, as currently drafted the policy is not “clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals” in accordance with NPPF paragraph 16d. For example, policy requirement 3a states that developments of 10 or more homes should “achieve a 19% carbon reduction improvement upon the requirements within Building Regulations Approved Document, Part L 2013, or achieve any higher standards than this that is required under new national planning policy or building regulations.” From that, however, it is not clear whether, at the point that the new national standards have been adopted, a 19% carbon reduction improvement will still be required, and whether a “higher standard” will then be required above that.

Notwithstanding that lack of clarity, requirements that go over and above the Government’s approved Building Regulations must be justified based on proportionate evidence, and should be taken into account in a Viability Assessment to ensure that the policy requirement, alongside the cumulative cost of other policy requirements, do not render developments unviable.

As such, it is suggested that Policy CC7 should not seek an uplift over and above the current Building Regulations given the lack of justification given, and also should not pre-empt any future Building Regulations requirements. Rather, it would be more suitable to seek adherence to “the Government’s latest Building Regulations”, which will ensure that the policy is not quickly rendered out-of-date or is not undeliverable.