Draft Black Country Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 23124

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 5.10 - The policy should be amended to identify which sites fall under which designation and then clearly differentiate the level of protection to be applied commensurate with the status of those sites in the hierarchy."

Object

Representation ID: 23126

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 5.11 - 5.15 - Criteria 1b of Policy ENV1 should be amended to ensure that the proper level of protection is applied commensurate with the sites status in the hierarchy.

Object

Representation ID: 23128

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 5.16-5.18 - The wording of criteria 1c seeks to apply a blanket level of protection to SLINCs that might be impacted on by new development, similar to that applied to protected sites. The criteria does not allow for circumstances where it might be acceptable, in planning terms, for development to have some impact on biodiversity where suitable mitigation measures can be taken to reduce or ameliorate that impact.

Comment

Representation ID: 23129

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 5.19 - 5.23 - Objection to criteria 1 and 11. ENV4 is contrary to the NPPF paragraph 180c which states: “…development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists..." (RPS emphasis)."

Object

Representation ID: 23130

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 5.24 - 5.27 - "RPS contends that the evidence presented in the dBCP is insufficient to justify the need for internal space standards as proposed in criteria 4 of Policy ENV9"

Comment

Representation ID: 23131

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 5.29 - 5.33 - The policy does not link to the site allocations and should set out how the criterion would be applied. Disputes the requirement for sites in an MSA to consider future extraction potential. The policy is worded so that there is a presumption for extraction contrary to the NPPF which seeks to safeguard whilst not creating the presumption that the resources defined will be worked. Criteria 4 doesn't take account of permitted development due to the reference to "other forms of development".

Comment

Representation ID: 23133

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraphs 6.1 - 6.4 - Not clear whether these are policy requirements, if they are they are not evidenced or justified or just supporting text.

Comment

Representation ID: 23134

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 6.7 - "While RPS supports the principle of provide a new primary school on the Site, it is unclear whether this is to be single-form and multi-form entry facility. In order to remedy this uncertainty, more detail is required in the policy."

Comment

Representation ID: 23135

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 6.8 - "The Site spans two local planning areas and so raises a strategic matter to be addressed under the duty to cooperate. It is unclear, at present, what engagement has occurred between Walsall MBC, Cannock DC and Staffordshire CC (for example, with respect to education provision)."

Comment

Representation ID: 23136

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 6.9 - "The draft wording does not clarify the preferred method or approach to managing the SLINC as part of the development of the Site."