Draft Black Country Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 23536

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Historic England

We have concerns about the approach set out in this policy and the potential impacts for the historic environment. For example, what assessment has been undertaken to consider the potential harm to the significance of the historic environment, heritage assets and their setting. Many of the safeguarded areas appear to consider extensions to existing quarry sites,
however, it cannot be assumed that additional development in an existing area will be suitable and without harm for the historic
environment. By listing areas it is difficult for us to assess what the potential implications may be and we require additional information relating to these areas/ potential sites in order to provide detailed advice.

Comment

Representation ID: 23537

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Our preferred approach is for the allocation of appropriate minerals sites that are accompanied by site specific policies that detail the relevant considerations per site and any avoidance and mitigation measures based on heritage impact assessment information. Each proposed site allocation should then be accompanied with detail relating to specific and appropriate restoration principles on a site by site basis. We consider clause 9b to be insufficient.

Comment

Representation ID: 23538

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome reference to the Brierley Hill HAZ within the Plan and welcome consideration of whether the aims and projects of the HAZ need any specific reference within the Plan. For example, how Paragraph A16 clause e could be further developed.

Comment

Representation ID: 23539

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Section A further expands upon the relationship of this Plan to other development plan documents within Dudley and sets out the rationale for a spatial strategy and growth distribution in the wider area. Historic England is not clear at this stage how the historic environment has been considered in relation to the distribution and scale of growth. We are keen to understand what heritage impact assessment has been undertaken in respect of proposed site allocations for growth, what the impacts are for the historic environment and whether these impacts can be overcome. At this stage we consider there is a lack of available information but we are keen to work with the Councils to ensure that the historic environment is fully considered within the process. Our comments are the same for the four Council areas at this stage.

Comment

Representation ID: 23540

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Historic England

This section of the Plan contains several tables that set out potential site allocations for development within the four Council areas of the Black Country. The tables include newly proposed site allocations as well as site allocations that have been carried through from existing development plan documents, as well as sites with planning permission and in some cases under construction. The Council have confirmed that all proposed allocations are available for consultation at this time.

Within the ‘further information’ column of the tables in this section of the Plan, there is rarely a reference to whether the significance of any heritage assets may be affected as a result of the proposed development. Occasionally, this is referenced but there does not appear to be a system with which this is the case. As a result it is difficult to ascertain whether the potential
harm to the historic environment has been considered in line with Section 16 of the NPPF.

Further, in the Plan there is a section which details site specific policies. For example, Paragraph A65 sets out that there is harm for the historic environment in Policy DSA1 and that any impact will be a material planning consideration. Applicants are also required to support their proposals with a Statement of Significance. We welcome a reference within this policy to the historic environment, however, we are unclear about what is meant by any impacts will be a material planning consideration and that applicants will need to support their proposals with a Statement of Significance. Is this material anticipated to be available at the next stage of the Local Plan consultation or is there an expectation that this information will be available during the development management stage? Historic England are keen to ensure that all sites are assessed at the Local Plan stage to ensure that the ‘in principle’ allocation of sites is acceptable and that any avoidance/mitigation/enhancement measures are set out at the outset within site specific policies. We do not support an approach that leaves the detail to the development management stage; however, it is unclear as to what is meant within the Local Plan currently. This site used as an example has the potential to affect a Grade II* asset and we need to be clear what the harm is and whether this can be overcome or not, in order to make an informed judgement and offer appropriate advice to the Council.

Paragraph A90 and A91 relating to Policy DSA2 uses the same language as above and sets out that there could be harm for the historic environment but relates that it will be a material planning considerations and applications are required to submit a Statement of Significance. Our comments can be reiterated for above and whilst we welcome the inclusion of a section for the
historic environment it is not yet clear how the impacts have been assessed and how any harm can be avoided or overcome or whether the site is suitable in principle.

Policy DSA3 contains more detail about the potential mitigation measures that could be appropriate but there is no requirement for a Statement of Significance to be attached to this proposed application. It is not yet clear what heritage assessment has
been undertaken and whether the mitigation measures identified are the most appropriate and whether development is suitable for this site.

There are four site allocation site specific policies included for Dudley within this stage but we are not aware of site specific policies for all potential allocations listed in the tables.

Within the Sandwell section we could not find any site specific policies or detail as to how the historic environment has been assessed.

Within the Section on Walsall the site specific policy details are written in a different way. For example, Policy WSA4 states that there is a Grade II heritage asset within the site boundary of the proposed allocation. The design principles set out the need for the heritage asset to be conserved and enhanced and must be informed by a ‘detailed heritage character assessment for the proposal’. Historic England requires an assessment to be undertaken to inform the Local Plan allocation and to assess whether allocating this site for new development is appropriate, through understanding the harm to the significance of the heritage asset and whether there are any suitable avoidance/ mitigation measures. The requirement for a detailed heritage character assessment is different to the requirement for a statement of significance requested within the proposed Dudley allocations. Further, Policy WSA8 for example is wholly within a Conservation Area yet there is no reference within the policy text to whether there is harm for the Conservation Area and whether development in this location is appropriate. How has this been assessed? There is a note that there is a listed building adjacent to the site but we have no understanding of how this heritage asset may be affected and the policy requires an assessment to be submitted with a future proposal only. It is possible that Historic England will wish to object to specific proposed allocations but it is not possible to raise specific issues given the lack of information available at this stage. There are not site specific policies available for all of the sites listed in the tables referenced to Walsall.

When considering the proposed allocations Wolverhampton presents a differing approach. For example, Policy CSA1 sets out which heritage sites may be affected within a wider setting than the previous approaches have demonstrated. Paragraph D43 sets out a list of heritage assets including landscape areas and designations that could be affected. However, in this case there is no requirement for a specific assessment to be accompanied by a proposal. What is the impact for the heritage assets listed? Is their harm to the significance of these heritage assets, including their setting as a result of proposed development and as such is this a suitable site allocation? We require the assessment to be undertaken at this stage in order to be able to make an informed judgement about each proposed allocation and offer the Council’s detailed advice. There are not site specific policies available for all of the sites listed within the tables.

Additionally, for all of the areas within this section there is also listed information about potential waste facilities yet this is not accompanied by any assessment data or site specific policies.

Based on the information provided currently we have concerns about the proposed site allocations and whether they are
suitable for development. Given the lack of available heritage assessment at this time we are unable to raise detailed comments on all of the proposed site allocations in order to ascertain which proposed site allocations we may object to or not. As a result of this we are concerned about the overall approach to assessing heritage and seek a meeting with each of the four Council’s to go through all of the proposed site allocations individually and consider how the Council can best assess the proposed site allocations that may harm the historic environment and whether all reasonable alternatives have been considered at the outset.

Further, we are aware that the Strategic Environmental Assessment/ Sustainability Appraisal (SEA/SA) has considered the historic environment within its assessment. However, the site references contained within the Plan are different to the site references contained within the SEA/SA assessment. There is one table that lists the SEA/SA site references and the site addresses but it is too time consuming for us as a statutory consultee to navigate the table assessments in the SEA/SA to understand the reference numbers linked to site addresses and then to locate the site addresses within the Plan and then locate the site number which is then located under a different policy number within the Plan. We have spent a considerable time
trying to understand what assessment has been undertaken and what the implications are for the historic environment at this stage but we have a limited resource given our regional responsibility. It would be helpful if at the next iteration of the Plan there was a transparent way of linking the SEA/SA assessment with the proposed site allocations within the Plan. Please see separate comments on the SEA/SA.

Comment

Representation ID: 23541

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The Plan references HS2 a few times within the consultation document. How does the Plan assess the impacts of any HS2 proposals that are safeguarded/ protected through the Plan? Are there any implications for the historic environment that need to be assessed? We have made comments to previous transport strategies for the area, how are these comments being incorporated? We note that the main vehicle for delivery will be the West Midlands Strategic Transport Plan and we are available for comment if there are any forthcoming consultations.

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.