Draft Black Country Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 22155

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Marlie Civils

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

This is a representation to the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan which is subject to consultation until ll October 2021. It is made on behalf of Marlie Civils, in respect of their land at New Hawne Colliery, Halesowen. The site entirely falls within Dudley Borough.

1.2. Some background work has been undertaken by Marlie, who are committed to the regeneration of the existing Colliery buildings, which are Grade II and II listed. The remainder of the site is currently affected by a Site of Interest for Nature Conservation {SINC) designation, and the site has had a blanket TPO designation, although there is no evidence that this continues to be the case.

1.3. Marlie have commissioned ecology and tree surveys, and following some early conversations with the council, some work will be undertaken to secure the listed buildings, and to lop or fell self-set trees which are threatening the listed buildings.

1.4. Marlie have also commissioned an architect to work up plans for a residential scheme to regenerate the colliery buildings site and will continue to maintain ongoing positive dialogue with the council over this.

1.5. Finally, Marlie have commissioned an intrusive ground conditions survey and this will be shared with the council as soon as it is available. A summary of findings has already been provided.

1.6. The following document covers a number of policies and paragraphs in the plan which are considered to be relevant to Marlie Civils and/or the site they are promoting. Marlie reserve the right make further representations in due course. It should be noted that not commenting on an aspect of the emerging plan does not mean they agree with that content.

Comment

Representation ID: 22157

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Marlie Civils

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

DUH059 - Former New Hawne Colliery
We consider that as a previously developed site, New Hawne Colliery presents a unique opportunity for new housing to be delivered as part of the regeneration of the listed buildings, and the landowners are seeking a further allocation on the adjacent former colliery land, where it would have the lowest impact in ecology and arboricultural terms.
Marlie Civils welcome the allocation of this part of the site for new housing, but would caution the council on the number of dwellings at 15, as this may not be possible for a number of reasons:

• We have yet to determine how the colliery buildings will 'convert' internally- given their unusual nature and shape, they may not lend themselves to being subdivided sufficiently to provide the sort of living space that the market would support.

• The remainder of the 'curtilage' surrounding the listed colliery buildings is, in part affected by the presence of mine shafts -where no new development can be built (with the exception of access roads). To that end, until we have been through the ground conditions report and explored how new development could work in this part of the site, this remains in doubt.

• Finally, the site also has a number of large trees around the periphery- many of the trees within the site (away from the boundary) are smaller and younger, but the trees on the boundary are generally larger more mature specimens which would be desirable to retain and conserve.

2.4. Either way, we plan to update the council on the progress on this site as plans are drawn up

We consider that there is a strong case to include some additional land at the New Hawne Colliery site as a residential allocation within the Black Country Plan. This is largely because of its highly sustainable location, it's previously developed nature and the need to cross-subsidise the costly regeneration of the important heritage assets, using new development elsewhere in appropriate less constrained locations within the site boundary.

4.2. The landowners have spent considerable sums looking at the ground conditions, ecology and trees already and this evidence will be shared with the council shortly. Following on from this, Marlie plan to prepare and submit a Vision Document which sets out how the site could deliver housing with significant benefits for the wider community in a sustainable way.

4.3. The site offers significant opportunities to add new open spaces that are properly managed and protected for future and existing residents, where access to the land is currently limited to a public rights of way along the bank of the River Stour. We urge the council to consider the site for additional housing, to deal with some of the unmet need within Dudley Borough. This would in turn, reduce the pressure on (for instance) areas of Green Belt on the periphery of the Borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 22158

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Marlie Civils

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

. We note that in Table 4, there has been a lapse rate allowance of 10% discounted to allow for some sites which may not come forward over the course of the plan. We would like to know whether this truly represents the historic lapse rate pattern, as we are aware of a substantial number of sites within Dudley Borough that have not come forward because of persistent viability problems associated with heritage, site contamination and other issues which include tensions between commercial/industrial land values being similar to those of residential (post• remediation). We are not clear whether this has been considered carefully enough.

Further, the BC authorities propose to 'export' 28,239 dwellings outside of its boundary- but as South Staffordshire Council have just publicised their preferred options Local Plan, it remains the case that they propose to take c.4,000 dwelling as (unmet need), but it is not clear whether this is unmet need from the GBSLEP area, or the Black Country. This needs clarification.

Object

Representation ID: 22159

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Marlie Civils

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

At 7,657 (Table 3), we consider the windfall allowance to be high - it represents around 16% of the total housing target for the plan period, which is a considerably proportion. Given the requirements of the NPPF, we consider the plan is at risk of not being 'positively prepared' given this (we feel) overreliance on unallocated housing in the emerging plan. Paragraph 71 of the NPPF sets this out clearly: 'Where an allowance is to be made for windfall sites as part of anticipated supply, there should be compelling evidence that they will provide a reliable source ofsupply. Any allowance should be realistic having regard to the strategic housing land availability assessment, historic windfall delivery rates and expected future trends. Plans should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development ofresidential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area.'

Comment

Representation ID: 22160

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Marlie Civils

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

This policy seeks to prevent development that would result in harm to 'footnote 8' nature conservation designations, which is aligned to the requirements of the NPPF as well as regional and locally designated sites.

2.10. It is noted that ENV1(3) sets out that 'exceptionally, the strategic benefits ofa development
clearly outweigh the importance ofa local nature conservation site, species, habitat or geological feature, damage must be minimised Any remaining impacts, including any reduction in area, must be fully mitigated. Compensation will only be accepted in exceptional circumstances. A mitigation strategy must accompany relevant planning applications'.

2.11. We consider that the above approach should have been taken where the council were seeking to release non previously developed land in the Green Belt in nearby Ped more (see representation made by the Worcester Lane Resident's Group). However, despite this, the council sought to avoid all such sites within the development boundary (whether previously developed or not) as a starting point, which we consider it incorrect. Instead, within the 'hierarchy' of constraints, we consider that Footnote 8 sites should be initially avoided, where exceptional circumstances should exist in order for them to be considered for allocation. This has, in our view not been followed when considering the additional land at New Hawne Colliery for allocation. The site is not a Site of Special Scientific Interest, it is not properly managed and is regularly subject to anti-social behaviour leading to damage to the site, including fly-tipping, fires, trespass and graffiti.

Surely, in this case, the better approach would be to pragmatically look at how the site would benefit from management and longer-term protection, as well as improved public access and improved and more diverse landscaping and planting, and the introduction of specific artificial habitats such as bat and bird boxes.

2.13. The council are aware that the colliery buildings are host to bats, and yet this has not prevented this part of the site being proposed for residential development. However, this starting point appears to have been 'preventative' for the remainder of the colliery to the north. To that end the landowners will be providing a more holistic ecological walkover survey to demonstrate where development could go within the site, whilst not significantly undermining its verdant character and quality, nor its habitat potential.

Comment

Representation ID: 22161

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Marlie Civils

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

We are aware that there are heritage-related consent regimes under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 that apply in the case of this site, given the Grade II and II* listed buildings present on site. We are also great weight should be given to the conservation of such assets. Paragraph 190 of the Framework states that 'Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This strategy should take into account: a} the desirability ofsustaining and enhancing the significance ofheritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; b} the wider social, cultural,
economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring; c}
the desirability ofnew development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and d} opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character ofa place.'

2.15. We consider that in light of this, more emphasis should be placed on flexible approaches to alternative uses (viable uses consistent with their conservation) within ENVS to take account of the above guidance.

2.16. Paragraphs 20l and 202 of the Framework require the decision maker to assess whether a proposal will lead to substantial or less than substantial harm to, or total loss of significance of, a designated heritage asset. If the harm is assessed as substantial or resulting in the total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset paragraph 20l confirms that consent should be refused unless there are substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss or all of the four criteria listed in the paragraph apply. If the harm is less than substantial, paragraph 202 requires this harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. It is our view, even at this early stage, that the conversion and regeneration of these buildings is capable of resulting in 'less than substantial' harm (lower end) and that the public benefits generated from the new development and securing the building long term from future damage are substantial public benefits.

Given that the proposals in the emerging plan would be to preserve the colliery buildings (those listed) in situ, it is clear that a conversion to residential use is most likely the most viable (and therefore optimum) use. This could be a requirement of any future development to be proposed on the adjacent land - and to make it clear that one would 'cross-subsidise' the other.

2.18. We would therefore like the council to reconsider their position on this.

Support

Representation ID: 22162

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Marlie Civils

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

We are broadly supportive of the densities proposed in the emerging plan, however we consider they are aspirational when it comes to the central areas of the main Black Country settlements, with the exception of perhaps Wolverhampton, because of viability (specifically build costs v likely sales values). Apartments continue to be difficult to sell in much of the Black Country and
it is hard to imagine how (post-covid) high density apartment schemes will, in reality, come forward on any great scale. We would urge the BC authorities to reconsider their expectations on this moving forwards.

2.20. We would seek some flexibility in the application of accessibility standards - particularly as a result of the move towards more sustainable personal travel modes, such as electric cars.

2.21. We would also seek flexibility in the application of housing mix standards, where evidence from the availability of second hand stock within the immediate area demonstrates an oversupply of a particular size of dwelling.

Support

Representation ID: 22163

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Marlie Civils

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

We are broadly supportive of the affordable housing policy but would suggest the policy is slightly reworded to make it absolutely clear that those minimum proportions should only be required where viability demonstrates it is deliverable. Setting minimum levels are laudable, but unlikely to make a difference in reality if viability is an issue (as is the case on many BC sites).

2.23. We are broadly supportive of the requirements to make more homes accessible for disabled people.

2.24. The 5% self-build requirement does raise some concerns, however - related to maintaining health and safety on large housing sites, as well as in relation to the ultimate control over phasing. Given the council's strong reliance on windfall sites - many of which are likely to be self or custom build, we cannot see why the council can justify requesting a proportion of self-build on large housing developments that are proposed for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 22164

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Marlie Civils

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

We are concerned about the proposal to require a decentralised energy network on sites of 10 dwellings or more. We remain unconvinced that decentralised energy is always appropriate in anything other than unconstrained, strategic level development sites {OOO's rather than OO's of dwellings), and certainly not for smaller schemes.

2.26. This is because of the limitations this can place on the ultimate consumer -where decentralised energy can limit consumer choice in terms of energy provider and where the consumer may wish to add further energy saving measures - such as solar power, heat pumps, etc.

2.27. It is not clear from this policy why it would be beneficial: district heating systems have had a mixed result, where residents have had to sign up for long term contracts of 25 years or more. Efficiencies tend to be a lot lower for small schemes, as the infrastructure costs can be the same, so the larger the scheme, the more viable it could be. The industry itself is not regulated in the same way and physical problems with a district heating system or decentralised energy system can often result in whole areas being without heating or hot water for period of time.

2.28. We would therefore urge the BC authorities to reconsider the wording of this policy to
'encourage' the use of such systems, but not to stipulate that they must be used.

Comment

Representation ID: 22165

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Marlie Civils

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

We consider that, linked to the above policy CC2, the aims of CC7 are laudable, it is clear that there is some duplication between this planning policy and Building Regulations, which are delivered in any case. There are therefore elements of this policy which are not particularly justified or necessary, insofar as they effectively repeat Building Regulations requirements.