Draft Black Country Plan

Support

Representation ID: 44898

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Cannock Chase Council

Support the general approach of utilising land efficiently and focussing growth and
regeneration into the Growth network, however the approach taken to identifying
sites for release within the Green Belt is inconsistent with the policy and has resulted
in a larger than necessary number of net new homes stated in Table 2 being sought
to be exported through the Duty to Cooperate to neighbouring authorities.

Comment

Representation ID: 44899

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Cannock Chase Council

Paragraph 3.24 -3.25 Agree it is beyond the powers of the BCA to establish the limits
of sustainable development in neighbouring authorities. However, the methodologies
utilised to identify sufficient strategic sites to meet the needs arising are currently
inconsistent between all the HMA authorities. A mechanism should be included
within the Plan to enable a consistent and fair approach to be taken to address the
longer term needs once the final shortfalls are understood.

Comment

Representation ID: 44900

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Cannock Chase Council

Sub para e) and g) paragraph 3.49 should recognise that some of the impacts or
opportunities may cross administrative boundaries.

Support

Representation ID: 44901

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Cannock Chase Council

Support the recognition that compensatory improvements will be required to the
environmental quality and accessibility of remaining green belt. Support the use of
masterplan especially where these are cross boundary. The policy should include
reference to that some of the impacts or opportunities may cross administrative
boundaries.

Support

Representation ID: 44902

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Cannock Chase Council

Support the recognition that some of the infrastructure impacted will be cross
boundary and impacts will need to be mitigated, however this should not be limited to
waste water management (see para 4.24). Suggest reference to cross boundary is
moved to the end of the first sentence of this paragraph. CCDC is happy to work with
the BCA and other relevant partners to develop the site specific policies further and
identify the necessary mitigation where possible.

Support

Representation ID: 44903

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Cannock Chase Council

Support paragraph 6.8 that BCP recognises that additional capacity may exist within
the strategic centres and through windfall sites and support a review of this evidence
following the adoption of the BCP.

Comment

Representation ID: 44904

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Cannock Chase Council

Note the proposed allocation of 300+ dwellings adjacent to the CCDC administrative
boundary. Comments are made at Policy WSA5 Land at Yorks Bridge, Lichfield
Road, Pelsall in relation to the site.

Support

Representation ID: 44905

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Cannock Chase Council

Support. The commentary indicates that there are sufficient sites to meet the needs
identified. Cannock Chase currently has a shortfall of sites and would welcome
further discussions regarding this matter.

Comment

Representation ID: 44906

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Cannock Chase Council

Paragraph 7.12 It is noted that the document states that unmet need should be
exported. Cannock Chase Council do not have sufficient land to meet their own
needs without removing land from the Green Belt. We welcome discussions
regarding this.

Support

Representation ID: 44907

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Cannock Chase Council

Support the inclusion of the policy however suggest alteration of reference to
SAMMM in paragraph 3) and 10.20 be amended to reflect potential future mitigation
strategies which may be adopted by the SAC Partnership.
Paragraph 10.18 refers to other SAC which may be affected and this is supported
however this should be relocated as Policy ENV2 currently only refers to the
Cannock Chase SAC.
Paragraph 10.19 Support the membership of Walsall and Wolverhampton Councils
to the SAC Partnership.
Paragraph 10.22 Whilst it is acknowledged that it is up to individual authorities to
determine the mechanism for the funding of the required mitigation, it should be
recognised that each dwelling or other type of development which has a significant
impact upon the Cannock Chase SAC will need to mitigate its full impact not just
those developments which relate to developments of 10 dwellings or more. The
means of mitigating for all the portion of development which lies within the 15km
zone of influence and how the full cost of the mitigation is to be met ‘not just a
reasonable minimum level of contribution’ needs further explanation.
Monitoring
Support the monitoring of ENV2 p260