Draft Black Country Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 17112

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Tarmac Trading Ltd (Sharne Sahajpal)

Agent: Heatons

The BCP acknowledges the Environment Bill, with particular regard to the requirement for 10% uplift in habitat quality where sites are being developed. Policy ENV3 of the BCP focuses on the plans ‘Nature Recovery Network and Biodiversity Net Gain’, stating in Point 2, the need for all development to deliver a minimum of 10% net gain in biodiversity value when measured against baseline site information. Point 5a and 7 of this policy is of particular pertinence to the purpose of this letter; they read:
“5) Biodiversity net gain shall be provided in line with the following principles:
a) A preference for on-site habitat provision / enhancement wherever practicable, followed by improvements to sites within the local area; and then other sites elsewhere within the Black Country;
7) Compensation will only be accepted in exceptional circumstances. Provision of off-site compensation should not replace or adversely impact on existing alternative / valuable habitats in those locations and should be provided prior to development”
THE SITE’S ROLE IN BIODIVERSITY BENEFITS
As stated above, the BCP aims to deliver 47,837 homes and 355Ha of employment land within the Black Country. The Sandwell Draft Policies Map and the Dudley Draft Policies Map illustrates the proposed housing allocations under Policy HOU1 of the BCP. From reviewing the BCP and the draft Policies Maps, we found that within a 2km radius from the centre of our client’s site, there are 11 housing allocations, stretched across the authorities of Sandwell and Dudley. These allocations total a potential housing delivery of 1095 homes across the plan period. The closest of these sites being the former Edwin Richards Quarry (SAH100) with capacity for 281 homes, and an indicative delivery timescale of 2026-2032.
Considering the emerging legislation in relation to biodiversity net gain, and the extensive level of growth required within the emerging plan period, it is considered reasonable to assume that there will be a requirement for off-site compensation to be achieved in coordination with new development.
A description of the site and its history is provided at the beginning of this letter. Our client seeks to promote this site for biodiversity off-setting in accordance with the emerging legislation set out above. Promotion of the site for biodiversity enhancement is considered to support the environmental objectives of the district and county council, particularly in relation to Policy ENV3 of the emerging BCP.

Comment

Representation ID: 22453

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Tarmac Trading Ltd (Sharne Sahajpal)

Agent: Heatons

Mineral Safeguarding

Policy MIN 2 sets out the Authority approach to mineral safeguarding. The identification of
mineral safeguarding areas defined by mineral resource is supported. We also welcome the
emphasis on safeguarding when assessing development which falls within a defined mineral
safeguarding area to ensure development does not compromise future or existing mineral
working (part 3 of Policy MIN2). However, the reference to economic value of mineral resource
(part 3b) should be removed. The NPPF paragraph 210d refers to prior extraction ‘where
practical and environmentally feasible’ if it is necessary for non-mineral development to take
place. There is no reference to the need to demonstrate economic value of mineral in national
policy or guidance as this will change over time dependent upon resource availability, markets
etc. It is essential that there is sufficient supply and therefore the best use of resource needs to be made to secure their long-term conservation.

Paragraph 12.32 in the justification text refers to mineral sterilisation only occurring in regard to
development sites in excess of 5 hectares in size and those developments being accompanied by
supporting information to demonstrate that mineral resources would be needlessly sterilised.
We do not agree with this view and that is contrary to the approach set out within Policy MIN2.
The criteria for supporting information where prior extraction is not considered feasible further
weakens the position. Again, reference to viability and economic value is not considered to be in
accordance with the NPPF approach. In addition, the judgement on mineral extraction having
detrimental impact on neighbouring uses predetermines the findings of environmental
assessment work that may accompany a mineral extraction scheme. The approach to
safeguarding needs to be consistent with the overall aims of securing indigenous supply of
resource.

As part of Policy MIN2 of the BCP, mineral infrastructure sites are identified, listed and included
on both the Minerals Key Diagram and Policies Map. These sites include Tarmacs operations
across the Black Country. Our client would like to express their support for Mineral Safeguarding,
particularly for paragraph 7 of Policy MIN2 protecting the Mineral Infrastructure Sites from
incompatible development, including a 150m buffer from the site.

Comment

Representation ID: 22454

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Tarmac Trading Ltd (Sharne Sahajpal)

Agent: Heatons

Preferred Area and Requirement to restore the former Aldridge Quarry

Policy MIN1 states that sufficient provision has been identified within the plan areas to enable
the Black Country to supply at least 25% of the 7-year landbank for the West Midlands
Metropolitan Area. This is a total of 6.2 million tonnes (made up of remaining permitted reserves
at Branton Hill Quarry, and from within the Preferred area identified at Birch Lane). It also notes
that other resource in the Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSAs) has the potential to contribute
towards future sand and gravel production. It is acknowledged that Walsall is the only authority
within the Black Country with sand and gravel resources capable of being worked, and Solihull is
the only other authority within the West Midlands Metropolitan Area with workable resource.
Solihull may see a high proportion of its 4 million tonnes of permitted mineral reserves sterilised
by HS2, therefore unlikely Solihull will be able to sustain its output, meaning the BCP needs to
provide for as much sand and gravel production as possible.

Comment

Representation ID: 22455

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Tarmac Trading Ltd (Sharne Sahajpal)

Agent: Heatons

Policy MIN3 of the emerging Black Country Plan identifies ‘Preferred Areas’ for mineral
development within the Black Country, as informed by the requirements for those minerals
outlined within MIN1 of the BCP, availability of resource and constraints. These ‘Preferred Areas’
for mineral development (remaining permitted reserves, site specific/preferred areas identified


3



at Birch Lane and other resource within the MSA’s) are supported in principle within Policy MIN3,
subject to development complying with requirements of Policy MIN4 (managing the effects of
mineral development) and other policies contained within the BCP. ‘Significant weight’ will be
given to the contribution these sites would make towards the sand and gravel supply
requirements identified in Policy MIN1.

The approach within Policy MIN3 to sand and gravel supply suggests that there is no
preference/hierarchy to sites coming forward for mineral extraction – i.e those within MSA’s
hold equal weight to the identified preferred areas, as it is recognised they will be required to
sustain aggregate supply – and this is supported. The justification text for the ‘Preferred Area’
for sand and gravel extraction at Birch Lane (land around the former Aldridge Quarry) states
that “As this site remains unrestored, any new sand and gravel extraction proposals in this area
will be expected to help facilitate the restoration of this site.” This is considered to be overly
onerous on operators, not justified and could ultimately constrain much needed mineral supply
for the both the West Midlands and further afield. Seeing resource come forward within the
authority is extremely important, and only emphasised further by the potential need for the
Black Country to pick up some of the potential shortfall from Solihull as they could see mineral
sterilised by HS2; a point which the Council is clearly aware of as it is referred to within
paragraphs 12.14 through 12.21 of the consultation plan.

The Council needs to be clear on their reasoning for requiring minerals development to
facilitate restoration of another site. It is our view that this approach is not positively prepared
in supporting minerals development to meet identified need. The fact that the site has
remained unrestored does not justify a requirement upon another operator to restore
additional land or previous working areas, this could be viewed as cost prohibitive to new
mineral development coming forward which makes it an ineffective strategy. We question the
justification and soundness of this requirement within the plan as it places a restrictive element
to policy which should be prepared with the objective of contributing to achieving sustainable
development, in line with paragraph 16a of the NPPF.

Comment

Representation ID: 22456

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Tarmac Trading Ltd (Sharne Sahajpal)

Agent: Heatons

Introduction

These comments are submitted on behalf of our client, Tarmac Trading Ltd, who have land and
mineral interests (both operational and prospect) across the Black Country Authorities. These
comments relate to the approach to mineral development and mineral safeguarding within the
Draft Black Country Plan (BCP).

Cross Boundary Working

The Sand and Gravel Mineral Safeguarding Area to the east of Walsall abuts the authority’s
boundary with Staffordshire. Figure 1 below is taken from the adopted Staffordshire Policies and
Proposals Map and shows the continuation of Mineral Safeguarding Areas into the Staffordshire
Authority along the Walsall border.

Figure 1 – Staffordshire Mineral Safeguarding Area [see attachment]

It is considered that acknowledgement of cross boundary resource and potential for supply to
the wider West Midlands area could be identified within the Plan We believe this would be
positive Plan preparation acknowledging that there may be a requirement for cross boundary
working and supply to meet anticipated need.

Object

Representation ID: 23125

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Tarmac Trading Ltd (Sharne Sahajpal)

Agent: David Lock Associates

Duty to Cooperate

Policy CSP1 of the BCP identifies a housing target of at least 47,837 dwellings against a housing need of 78,239 dwellings. Table 2 of the BCP sets out that the shortfall of 28,239 would be met through ‘Duty to Cooperate’ with other authorities in the housing market area. LDC has
‘offered’ a contribution of 2,665 dwellings to wider housing market needs, 2,000 of which would be towards Black Country needs.

Full evidence has not yet been prepared and made available by the Black Country authorities to demonstrate the Council has engaged constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with Lichfield District Council (LDC) with respect to the amount of housing proposed towards unmet housing needs in the wider housing market area.

LDC published and consulted on its Regulation 19 Plan earlier this year but has not published a Statement of Common Ground with the Black Country authorities. In addition, no specific evidence has been made available which demonstrates LDC has actively, constructively and on an ongoing basis engaged with the Black Country Authorities over the proposed 2,665 dwellings towards the wider housing market area, in the context of the scale of emerging unmet needs in the Black Country. DLA has reviewed the Black Country Duty to Cooperate Statement (July 2021). Whilst there is reference to a meeting on 19th January 2021 with LDC, at this stage the evidence base is insufficient to demonstrate that the Black Country Authorities and LDC are cooperating constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis.

Central to this this concern is whether the full range of options have been considered and there is agreement between LDC and the Black Country authorities over the extent of housing land in Lichfield that is available to contribute towards the substantial shortfall in the Black Country. Paragraph 7.7 of the Duty to Cooperate Statement (July 2021) states that the 2,665 dwellings (2,000 towards the Black Country) is “significantly less than set out in the previous stages of the plan (4,500)”.

The recent situation between Sevenoaks and Tonbridge and Malling districts is comparable. Both Sevenoaks Local Plan and Tonbridge and Malling Local Plan have been found to have failed on Duty to Cooperate by Inspectors. Similar to the BCP, the Sevenoaks Local Plan identified a housing target lower than the published need. The Inspector was not convinced that there was evidence that the authority had continued to engage with neighbouring authorities, including Tonbridge and Malling, over whether they could assist with housing target. In the case of Tonbridge and Malling, it was a matter of whether the Borough Council engaged with SDC at the point of their own Regulation 19 plan being prepared. Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (TMBC) argued that the figure was not yet agreed but the Inspector was clear that there was enough evidence for TMBC to have known there was likely to be unmet housing need and that this was a strategic matter to which Duty to Cooperate applies. Sevenoaks District Council challenged the decision on their plan in the Courts and were unsuccessful.

In summary, there is insufficient evidence that the Black Country Authorities have engaged on an active, constructive and ongoing basis with LDC with regards to the full amount of housing that LDC can contribute to the Black Country. It is suggested that discussion are held with LDC and the higher scenario of housing contribution of 4,500 dwellings to come from sites in Lichfield be included clearly in the next version of plan; and a clear evidence base is prepared, including Statement of Common Ground, outlining the active, constructive and on-going cooperation between the authorities.

Green Belt allocations

This objection relates to Policy GB1 Green Belt and related strategic allocations in Walsall (Policies WSA 2, WSA3, WSA4, and WSA5). In order to alter Green Belt boundaries, exceptional circumstances need to be “fully evidenced and justified” (NPPF paragraph 140). It is also clear in national policy (NPPF paragraph 141) that, before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist, the authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined all other reasonable options for meeting its need, including “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” (NPPF Paragraph 141 C).

In the light of the above concerns over Duty to Cooperate and housing numbers, it is essential to explore the full extent of housing that can be delivered in neighbouring authorities before allocating land in the Green Belt. A letter from LDC to Black Country authorities (18th September 2019) suggests the Black Country authorities need to consider all growth options, including Green Belt releases prior to seeking housing numbers from adjoining authorities. This approach is inconsistent with NPPF paragraph 141 which states such discussions should occur before Green Belt sites are released.

It is suggested the Black Country authorities re-asses the amount of land that is available in Lichfield outside of the Green Belt to contribute to wider needs before re-examining the necessity for and scale of any Green Belt releases in Walsall. In this context, it should be reiterated that Tarmac owns land at Alrewas Quarry, outside of the Green Belt and suitable on other regards, that could deliver housing to meet both LDC and Black Country authorities’ needs.