Draft Black Country Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 44933

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy HW3 - Health Impact Assessments

10.1 The justification text to Policy HW3 states that policy provides for the individual Black Country authorities to require Health Impact Assessments for development proposals, in line with locally determined criteria, to be set out in local development documents.

10.2 Part 2 of the policy states that where a development has significant negative impacts on health and wellbeing, the Council may require applicants to provide for mitigation.

10.3 As such impact assessments could be applicable to sites allocated in the BCP and may be needed to inform infrastructure provision on these sites, Taylor Wimpey considers that these criteria should be identified in the BCP rather than local development documents. This is the only way to ensure that the soundness of the policy can be properly tested and assessed through the
viability work which accompanies the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 44935

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy HOU1 - Delivering Sustainable
Housing Growth

11.1 For the reasons set out in our response to Policy CSP1 Taylor Wimpey objects to Policy HOU1 which states that sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 47,837 net new homes over the period 2020 – 2039.

11.2 Draft Policy HOU1 is unsound as the BCPs own identified unmet housing need has been deferred rather than dealt with, contrary to the Framework (§35(c)), and the Duty to Cooperate has not been fulfilled.

11.3 The BCP has failed to provide sufficient land to meet the minimum housing needs, as per the Framework §11(b), and it will need to ensure that additional housing land is provided through further Green Belt release and the allocation of additional housing sites. In order to ensure that the plan is sound is considered that the minimum housing target for each authority area needs to be increased accordingly.

Housing Land Supply

11.4 In accordance with the Framework (§68 and §76) the BCP should ensure the availability of a sufficient supply of deliverable and developable land to meet the housing needs, ensure the maintenance of 5 Years Housing Land Supply (YHLS) and achieve Housing Delivery Test (HDT) performance measurements.

11.5 Taylor Wimpey notes that the majority of housing growth (40,117 dwellings) will be located within the existing built-up area. The use of brownfield sites has been optimised and BCA have undertaken a densification of existing and new allocations. However, whilst 81% of supply is on brownfield land and only 19% of supply is on greenfield land, there is limited information available from which to assess the robustness of the BCA proposals for the densification of sites in Strategic Centres (over 1,300 dwellings) and on new allocations, and densities may be overly ambitious.

11.6 Table 3 of the Draft BCP suggests that the supply for the period 2022 to 2039 will include 4,973 dwellings on existing allocations in Strategic Centres. We note that these sites are not subject to review in the BCP and there needs to be some assurance that these dwellings are deliverable given that they have been allocated for some time. In this regard, we note the findings of the BCP Viability Study (§7.7) which casts doubt over their deliverability:

“The viability assessment above has however found that development there is unviable, even with zero developer contributions. Without grant support, therefore, it is likely that no housing – either market or affordable – would be delivered in the Strategic Centres”.

11.7 The BCP proposes that a total of 7,720 dwellings will be allocated on sites removed from the Green Belt, which are mainly located in the Neighbourhood Growth Areas and the remainder on smaller sites on the edge of the Towns and Neighbourhoods Areas in the form of rounding-off or through the redevelopment of previously developed land. Taylor Wimpey supports the release
of Green Belt land including that released to accommodate Strategic Allocation WSA.2.
However, additional Green Belt release is required for the reasons we have identified in these representations.

11.8 Taylor Wimpey considers it is critical that an accurate assessment of availability, suitability, deliverability, developability and viability is undertaken. The BCA assumptions on lead in times and delivery rates should be correct and supported by parties responsible for the delivery of housing on each individual site.

11.9 The Framework (§71) requires that 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 of supply. The windfall allowance of 7,651 dwellings should be robustly evidenced and there should be no double counting between windfall allowances, additional capacity and Wolverhampton upper floor conversions.

11.10 The discounts of 5% for other commitments and existing allocations, 10% for other BCP
allocations, and 10% & 15% for occupied employment land should also be robustly evidenced.

11.11Taylor Wimpey also considers that flexibility needs to be provided in the supply. At present, the supply matches the housing requirement of 47,837 dwelling identified in the Draft BCP. There is no headroom to account for slippage in anticipated delivery rates and additional flexibility needs to be provided in order to ensure that sufficient housing land is provided. The allocation of additional housing land, including Taylor Wimpey’s sites at Chester Road, Streetly and Clent View Road, Stourbridge, would contribute to providing this flexibility. As the BCP is highly dependent upon development in the existing built-up area (40,117 dwellings) and brownfield sites (81% of HLS) and the BCP Viability Study confirms that 65% typologies tested are marginally viable (27%) or unviable (38%), Taylor Wimpey considers that a significant flexibility
allowance is justified.

11.12 We are also concerned that insufficient detailed background information on each site has been provided to allow delivery assumptions to be transparently assessed. The Framework (§74) is clear that strategic policies should include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of housing delivery over the plan period and all plans should consider whether it is appropriate to set out the anticipated rate of development for specific sites.. The Housing Trajectories in Appendix 17 of the BCP show projected yearly completions but are not site specific. More detailed site specific evidence should be provided in order that deliverability can be robustly assessed.

11.13 The Framework (§68) requires planning policies to identify specific, deliverable sites to provide a 5 year housing land supply [5 YHLS]. A 5 YHLS Statement has not been provided by the BCA. and if a 5 YHLS cannot be demonstrated on adoption of the BCP and maintained throughout the plan period, the BCP should not be found sound. In addition, it is unclear whether the BCA are wishing to demonstrate 5 YHLS via adoption of the BCP as set out in the Framework (para 74b).

Viability and Deliverability

11.14 Viability will be central to determining the soundness of the BCP. The BCP Viability Study tests the cumulative impact of proposed policies on a representative sample of development site and scheme typologies. It notes that viability and delivery advice in respect of a portfolio of Key Large Sites is provided in a separate confidential report. Taylor Wimpey considers that this information should be provided as part of the BCP evidence base in order that the cost applied for such provision can be properly reviewed to ensure that it is sound.

11.15 The Viability Study concludes that of the total housing capacity tested 38% are assessed as unviable and 27% are assessed as marginally viable based on the original target rates of affordable housing contributions of 30% for greenfield sites and 25% for brownfield sites. In accordance with the Framework (§34), the contributions expected from development including the level & types of affordable housing provision required and other infrastructure for education, health, transport, flood & water management, open space, digital communication, etc. should be set out in the BCP , and development should not be subject to such a scale of obligations that the deliverability of the BCP is threatened. If a robust approach is not undertaken, the BCP will be unsound. Landowners and developers will have to submit site- specific assessments to challenge assumptions in the Black Country Viability & Delivery Study and such negotiations at planning application stage causes uncertainty for both the BCA and developers, which may result in significant delay to housing delivery or even non-delivery.

11.16 We have provided further commentary on viability issues in our representations to individual policies in this report. Further commentary on the BCP Viability Study has been prepared by Bruton Knowles on behalf of Taylor Wimpey and is attached at Appendix 5.

11.17 Before the pre-submission BCP consultation, further viability work should be undertaken to address the concerns raised.

Part 4
11.18 Part 4 of the policy states that Masterplans and Supplementary Planning Documents will be produced, where appropriate, to provide detailed guidance on the development of strategic allocations. Taylor Wimpey considers that this guidance would best be provided in the BCP in order to ensure that sites are genuinely deliverable and the viability implications of any infrastructure provision etc. can be properly considered at examination prior to the adoption of
the plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 44936

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy HOU2 - Housing Density, Type and
Accessibility

12.1 Part (3) of policy HOU2 states that developments of ten homes or more should provide a range of house types and sizes that will meet the accommodation needs of both existing and future residents, in line with the most recently available information. Taylor Wimpey considers that the source of information should be confirmed in the policy (e.g. it should state that this will be the latest version of the SHMA if this is the case) so it is clear to developers what evidence they need to consider in order to address policy requirements.

12.2 Part (4) of the Policy sets out density requirements for new development based on different accessibility standards and Part 5 of the policy states that Chapter 13 provides details of the appropriate density and, where appropriate, house type mix, to be sought on each housing allocation site. However, it’s is not clear how the requirements of the policy and the density requirements for allocated sites align. For example, Policy WSA.2 suggests that densities of at least 35 dph will apply on the allocation but there is no equivalent density requirement in Policy HOU2. The policy should be amended to clarify this matter.

12.3 Part 5 of the policy also states that further details of design requirements for housing developments may be set out in Supplementary Planning Documents. If such a document is to be produced, it is essential that it is prepared in parallel with the BCP so that any cost implications can be properly viability tested in conjunction with other policy requirements to
ensure that it will not have any detrimental impact upon scheme delivery.

Comment

Representation ID: 44940

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy HOU3 - Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build / Custom Build Housing

Part 2
Part 2 of the Policy states that all developments of ten homes or more should provide a proportion of affordable housing, where this is financially viable. It advises that the minimum proportion of affordable housing that should be provided is:
a On all sites in lower value zones and brownfield sites in medium value zones: 10% affordable housing;
b On greenfield sites in medium value zones: 20% affordable housing;
c On all sites in higher value zones: 30% affordable housing.

13.2 The 2021 Strategic Housing Market Assessment [SHMA] notes the following:
“The total annual affordable housing need in the Black Country of 867 per year (as set out in Chapter 6) represents 21.6% of the annual dwelling growth of 4,019 in the housing market area as assessed using the revised Standard Method. It would be reasonable to expect this proportion of new housing as affordable to be delivered on a large housing site in the Black Country, where a figure of 25% would be plausible (subject to viability). The Councils can therefore be confident that the affordable housing need identified in the model will be addressed by the dwelling growth identified by the Standard Method and no adjustment is required to this figure”.

13.3 Whilst TW supports a differentiated approach to the provision of affordable housing to reflect different value zones in principle, we note that the proposed percentages set out in Policy HOU3 are above the recommendations of the BCP Viability Study.

13.4 We would note that any affordable housing policy requirement needs to be tested though the Viability evidence on an ongoing basis as the BCP progresses to ensure that it accounts for any changes to policy requirements which may have a subsequent impact upon site viability.

13.5 It is also noted that the type and tenure of affordable housing sought is ambiguous. The Framework (§16d) states that policies should be clearly written so that a decision maker knows how to react to a development proposal. To be effective, the BCA should provide further clarification of its requirements, which should be justified by supporting evidence.

Part 4
13.6 Part 4 of Policy HOU3 states that all developments of ten homes or more should provide a proportion of wheelchair accessible housing, where this is financially viable. The stated minimum proportion that should be provided on greenfield sites in medium or higher value zones is 15% of homes to meet the optional Building Regulations Requirement M4(3): Wheelchair User Dwellings and all remaining homes to meet the optional Building Regulations Requirement M4(2): Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings.

13.7 Whilst Taylor Wimpey generally supports the provision of homes that are suitable to meet the needs of older people and disabled people in principle, we object to Part 4 of the policy as we are concerned that the standards proposed are not fully justified and do not accord with the Practice Guidance. The evidence on future need provided in the 2021 SHMA does not support the proportions identified in the policy.

13.8 For M4(3): Wheelchair User Dwellings, the SHMA26 indicates that 1,674 dwellings are required in 2039. It states that 1,456 should be in the general housing stock and 217 in supported accommodation. It indicates that by the end of the plan period, around about 0.3% of the total stock should be available to meet this criteria. However, there is no clear explanation as to how a 15% policy requirement has been derived from this identified need. In addition, it provides no information on the availability of existing stock to meet this need and does not consider the potential for the conversion of existing properties either. The actual likely requirement is therefore likely to be significantly lower than this.

13.9 The evidence does not identify any local circumstances, which demonstrate that the needs of the Black Country differ substantially to those across the West Midlands or England. If the Government had intended that evidence of an ageing population alone justified adoption of optional standards, then such standards would have been incorporated as mandatory in the Building Regulations, which is not currently the case.

13.10 The evidence provided does not therefore justify the 15% requirement identified. In addition, we note that the policy identifies no requirement for the provision of M4(3) dwellings in lower value zones. This does not make any sense as the need for these properties will inevitably be spread through all parts of the BCP area, not just the higher value areas.

13.11 Taylor Wimpey considers that the most effective way to provide sufficient housing to meet M4(3) category requirements in the correct locations would be to increase the proportion of this type of accommodation in specialist housing for older people. This could involve the allocation of specific sites to help meet this need. We recognise that not all wheelchair housing will be provided through such specialist housing and consider that any requirements for M4(3) dwellings on market housing sites could be based on assessments of local need at the time of a planning application.

13.12 For M4(2): Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings, the SHMA identifies that in total 17,866 accessible and adaptable homes are required in 2039 across the Black Country. However, limited evidence has been provided on the size, location, and quality of dwellings needed to address the need identified and it is not therefore clear what requirements are and how they differ across the different authority areas.

13.13 Taylor Wimpey is also concerned that the suitability of existing housing stock has not been properly assessed against the future requirements identified. In this regard, the SHMA notes27 that there is not a detailed profile of the current stock from which to derive a net requirement. In addition, the SHMA28 recognises that the Councils help people to remain in their current home and any adaptions to dwellings provided through this mechanism could reduce the requirement for new homes meeting the M4(2) standard. Improvements to existing homes
funded through Disabled Facilities Grants will inevitably contribute towards this uplift, reducing the need for provision in new housing stock.

13.14 The requirement in Policy HOU3 for all remaining homes to meet the optional Building
Regulations Requirement M4(2) is therefore completely unjustified.

13.15 It is important to note that not all health issues affect housing needs. Many older people already live in the Black Country and are unlikely to move home. No evidence is presented to suggest that households already housed would be prepared to leave their existing homes to move into new dwellings constructed to M4(2) and / or M4(3) standards. Adaption of existing stock will form an important part of the solution.

13.16 For the above reasons, we consider that the percentage provisions for M4(2) housing and M4(3)
housing have not been fully justified and cannot be sought through Part 4 of the policy.

Part 6
13.17 Part 6 of the policy states that on developments of 100 homes or more, where there is currently
a need for self-build and custom build plots identified in the self-build and custom build register for the local authority where the site is located, at least 5% of plots should be made available for self-build or custom build, or sufficient to match the current number on the register if lower. Whilst it is accepted that new development should contribute to achieving an appropriate mix of housing, Taylor Wimpey objects to Part 6 for a number of reasons.

13.18 Councils have a legal obligation to grant sufficient planning permissions to meet the demand for self and custom build properties. Taylor Wimpey considers the current policy approach to be ineffective because it would not guarantee that the Council’s obligation to ensure enough self and custom build properties have been provided to meet demand. It cannot be known what
level of provision will be achieved on schemes by market housing developers and when; and
therefore, the Council cannot rely on these sites as their supply for self-build and custom-build housing.

13.19 The evidence provided in the SHMA also indicates that demand is low across the Black Country with only 32 individuals on the self-build register in Walsall and 8 in Dudley. Data from the Self Build Portal also indicates that demand is lower than average. There is therefore no clear justification for the 5% requirement identified.

13.20 Market Housing development and Self or custom build rarely work together. Providing self or custom build on market housing sites is unlikely to work and will severely impact upon a scheme layout. It will also create issues with the apportionment of planning obligations between the housing market area and self -build plots. In addition, it is unlikely that self and custom build serviced plots on residential sites of more than 100 dwellings will appeal to those wishing to build their own home. No justification has been provided for the 10 dwelling threshold identified either.

13.21 In addition, the impact of this policy requirement on scheme viability does not appear to have been considered in the BCP Viability Study.

13.22 Taylor Wimpey therefore considers that this policy requirement should be deleted and the Councils should identify stand alone sites which are specifically allocated to meet the local demand for self and custom build dwellings.

Parts 7 and 8
The option to provide to provide financial viability assessments where affordable housing or wheelchair accessibility requirements can be demonstrated to make the development unviable, is welcomed. However, the BCP authorities should ensure that this situation is avoided where possible by ensuring the requirements of the policy are properly justified and tested through the
viability evidence informing the BCP.

Object

Representation ID: 44943

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy HOU5 - Education Facilities

14.1 Part 2 of Policy HOU5 states that where a housing development of ten or more homes would increase the need for education facilities to the extent that new or improved facilities would be required to meet this need, planning obligations or Community Infrastructure Levy will be secured sufficient to meet the need, where this is financially viable. For strategic allocations, it states that the likely requirement for on-site provision of new schools is set out in Chapter 13. In this regard we note that Policy WSA.2 suggests that a new primary school will be required on the allocation.

14.2 Whilst Taylor Wimpey recognises the need to provide sufficient education facilities to support new development where there is an identified shortfall, we object to the policy as it does not currently appear to be supported by any evidence to identify the impact of future development on current provision and the subsequent needs for additional school places.

14.3 It is vital that this evidence is produced as part of the preparation of the BCP. The need for education facilities should be established now as this is the only way that the policy requirements for strategic allocations and future contribution from sites where on-site provision is not being made can be transparently and accurately assessed.

14.4 With regard to these policy requirements, the BCP Viability Study29 states the following for generic typologies and Key Large Sites [KLS]:

“For both the generic Typologies and the KLS we have included the sum of £4,471.40 per home, unless there is a site-specific assumption for the cost of a new school to be provided to serve a KLS.

Notwithstanding these allowances, the policy is specifically stated to be ‘subject to viability’”

14.5 The BCP Viability Study provides no explanation as to how this £4,471.40 cost has been derived so it is not clear whether it is justified and whether it would be effective in providing sufficient mitigation. Further information needs to be provided to clearly explain how this cost has been derived and why this amount is sought.

14.6 In addition, the Viability Study30 states that a separate confidential report provides viability and delivery advice in respect of the portfolio of KLSs so this information is not available for review and cannot therefore be assessed on this basis. Taylor Wimpey considers that this information should be provided as part of the BCP evidence base in order that the cost applied for such provision can be properly reviewed to ensure that it is sound.

14.7 The justification text to Policy HOU5 [§6.50] states that depending on the extent of other planning obligations required, this provision may not be viable on some sites. This appears to be inconsistent with §4.21 of the Draft BCP which states that greenfield sites and most brownfield sites will be able to sustain the full range of planning obligations required. It is therefore essential that clarity is provided on any education contributions required and their associated costs.

Support

Representation ID: 44944

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy CEN1 – The Black Country Centres

15.1 Taylor Wimpey supports the identification of Stourbridge as a Tier 2 Centre in Table 7 of the Draft BDP given the district centre function it plays in serving the needs of development in the area. We consider that the allocation of land at Clent View Road would support this role by helping to ensure its future vitality and viability, and to meet needs in the most accessible and sustainable way by providing new development with access to the centre via sustainable transport options.

15.2 We also note that Streetly is identified as a Local Centre in the emerging BCP. Therefore, the provision of housing to maintain its role in the settlement hierarchy of Walsall and the wider Black Country is important. The development of the Chester Road site would support Streetly as a Local Centre by contributing to local convenience and comparison retail, services,
community facilities and other amenities.

Comment

Representation ID: 44945

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy TRAN8 - Planning for Low Emission
Vehicles

16.1 Policy TRAN8 states that proposals for low emission vehicles will be supported by ensuring that new developments include adequate provision for charging infrastructure.

16.2 The Viability and Delivery Study does not appear to apply any cost to this policy requirement
but does cover electric vehicle charging points under Policy CC4. It notes that the current policy is for one electric vehicle charging point required for each home, where feasible and viable, as
set out in Black Country Air Quality SPD and states:

“For the purposes of our viability assessment, we have included £800 per unit for EV charging (and £5,000 for a multi-charging point for every 4 x flats). This is based on the Wolverhampton average cost”.

16.3 Typically, the provision of car charging points will require higher voltage cabling to be installed throughout the site, resulting in higher on-site infrastructure costs. The policy requirement as drafted is also onerous given that there can be varying requirements for the provision of car charging points across developments with some LPAs requiring the necessary infrastructure to be in place and others to deliver the actual charging point.

16.4 It is also possible that capacity for such voltage will not be available on the current network and therefore the costs to upgrade the network can be significant, requiring on site substations or off-site primary substation upgrades. These costs are extremely difficult to quantify and can exceed hundreds of thousands of pounds dependent on site size and current service capacity. This scenario is untested in the Viability and Delivery Study and should be considered further, particularly as the expectation to have usable and fit for purpose EVCPs is going to increase.

16.5 We also understand that the Government is proposing to introduce requirements for charging points under Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010, which are expected to come into force in 2022. This will introduce a nationwide standardised approach to the provision of charging points in new buildings. It is therefore questionable whether this Policy is required as it will duplicate national policy. It is also considered that the £800 per unit under-estimates the actual cost for providing a charging point. The Government Electric Vehicle Charging in Residential & Non-Residential Buildings consultation estimated a cost of £1,000 per EVCP plus an automatic levy for upgrading networks capped at £3,600.

16.6 The Government’s intention is to ensure that the introduction of this requirement does not add such a burden on developers that certain developments become unviable.

Comment

Representation ID: 44946

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy ENV1 - Nature Conservation

17.1 Policy ENV1 seeks to safeguard nature conservation in the Black Country including locally designated nature conservation sites (Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation).

17.2 As noted in our response to Policy WSA.2, we would request further clarification in the BCP on the implications of the proposed SLINC on the Mob Lane site for development in this part of the site in order to inform future development proposals.

Comment

Representation ID: 44949

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy ENV2 - Development Affecting
Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)

18.1Taylor Wimpey’s Mob Lane site lies within the 15km Zone of Influence for the Cannock Chase
SAC, shown in Figure 11 of the Draft BCP.

18.2 Policy ENV2 states that an appropriate assessment will be carried out for any development that leads to a net increase in homes or creates visitor accommodation within 15km of the boundary of the SAC. If the appropriate assessment determines that the development is likely to have an adverse impact upon the integrity of the SAC, then the developer will be required to demonstrate that sufficient measures can be provided to either avoid or mitigate the impact. The policy notes that acceptable mitigation measures will include proportionate financial contributions towards the current agreed Cannock Chase SAC Partnership Site Access Management and Monitoring Measures (SAMMM).

18.3 The Black Country Plan Interim Regulation 18 HRA Report31 notes that appropriate assessment will now be undertaken and a HRA Report will then be prepared at the Regulation 19 stage of the plan making process.

18.4 Taylor Wimpey considers that any adverse impacts on the SAC and the measures required to mitigate impact need to be clearly identified in the appropriate assessment so it is clear to developers what the implications will be and any associated costs can be factored into the BCP viability work.

18.5 Any guidance produced to set out the detailed procedure and the level of financial contributions required needs to be consulted upon as part of the emerging BCP and should not be produced following the adoption of the Plan as this will not allow the viability implications to be properly considered through the BCP.

Object

Representation ID: 44950

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy ENV3 - Nature Recovery Network and Biodiversity Net Gain

19.1 Taylor Wimpey objects to Part 1 of Policy ENV3 which requires all development to deliver the Local Nature Recovery Network Strategy. Taylor Wimpey notes that locally developed Nature Recovery Network Strategies are due to be introduced through the Environment Bill which has yet to achieve Royal Assent (as set out in further detail below). The precise detail of the requirements cannot therefore be confirmed at this stage.

19.2 The justification text to the policy notes that the Black Country Authorities have commenced work on a Local Nature Recovery Network Strategy. However, a copy of the document is not available for review and comment as part of the consultation on the Draft BCP so it is not possible to ascertain what the implications of the document will be for individual sites and respond accordingly. Taylor Wimpey therefore considers that the inclusion of this requirement in the policy is not justified at this stage.

19.3 Taylor Wimpey objects to Part 2 of the policy which requires development to deliver a minimum 10% net gain in biodiversity value when measured against baseline site information. Taylor Wimpey is concerned with the timing of this policy as it precedes the introduction of the relevant legislation on Biodiversity Net Gain [BNG].

19.4 The Environment Bill, within which the legislation in relation to BNG is enshrined is still making its passage through Parliament and has yet to reach Royal Assent. At this point it is not therefore confirmed what the final content of the legislation will be.

19.5 In addition, once the Environment Bill achieves Royal Assent, there may be a transition period and it is likely that secondary legislation and national policy will set out transitional provisions in relation to local plans and applications that fall between the old regime and the new BNG requirements under the Bill.

19.6 The secondary legislation will deal with a significant amount of detail and powers will be available to the Secretary of State to make regulations including to amend the 10% net gain objective currently identified in the legislation and to amend the type of developments which will be required to deliver net gain. It may also be the case that regulations concerning other matters are introduced. This could include matters such as the procedure for approving a biodiversity gain plan, and factors to be taken into account when determining whether to approve a plan, and how to submit and who may submit a plan, and any further matters the plan needs to address.

19.7 With regard to this matter the BCP Viability Study32 states:

“For the purposes of our plan viability assessment a 10% net biodiversity net gain/habitats charge has been explicitly included in our appraisals. We have included a Net gain delivery cost of £1,003 per housing unit for greenfield development and £268 per housing unit for brownfield development. This is based upon the West Midlands regional cost (central estimate) in the Net gain delivery cost tables (Tables 16 and 17) from the DEFRA Biodiversity net gain and local nature recovery strategies Impact Assessment 15/10/2019”.

19.8 However, in the absence of the relevant legislation at the current time , it is not clear whether the costs applied provide an accurate assessment on the likely cost of BNG. Taylor Wimpey is concerned that this cost may be too low and may not reflect the situation ‘on the ground’ on sites in the Black Country.

19.9 Part 7 of the policy states that compensation will only be accepted in exceptional circumstances and should be provided prior to development. Taylor Wimpey considers that the provision of compensation prior to development is not likely to be practicable in all instances as it may be necessary to use receipts from the sale of dwellings on the site in order to fund this compensation. This funding would not therefore be available prior to development and would start to come forward during the development process as dwellings are completed and released for sale. It is therefore considered that a better approach would be to allow for the timing of payments to be secured through legal agreements and the policy wording should be amended to allow for this approach.