Draft Black Country Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 21258

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Redrow Homes Ltd

Agent: Savills

Policy CSP3 – Towns and Neighbourhood Areas and the Green Belt
A network of new Neighbourhood Growth Areas are proposed to provide 6,792 dwellings in highly sustainable locations on the edge of the Urban Area. We support the allocation of Redrow Homes’ site as part of strategic allocation WSA2.

Paragraph 3.48 states that it is important that “neighbourhood Growth Areas are master-planned together, regardless of ownership” and phasing plans will be required to set out triggers for the provision of required infrastructure. In order for strategic sites to accord with this requirement, the Council must ensure that all land allocated is available before being included within the allocation boundary and any joint masterplans prepared should only be expected to be high level concept plans to allow for flexibility.

Comment

Representation ID: 21259

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Redrow Homes Ltd

Agent: Savills

Policy GB1 – The Black Country Green Belt
Alterations to the Green Belt require exceptional circumstances in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’) paragraph 140. Given the scale of housing need and an identified shortage of brownfield land to meet the need (Urban Capacity Report 2021), we agree with the Black County Authorities (‘BCA’) that there are exceptional circumstances to justify the release of Green Belt.

The policy states that compensatory improvements will be required to offset the impact of removing land from the Green Belt. The Viability and Deliverability Study (May 2021) has allowed for a compensatory contribution of £1,000 per dwelling. No details have been provided on the projects this contribution will fund nor whether improvements could be made on site or on other land within the same ownership/control in lieu of paying the contribution. We request further information and justification for this proposed contribution before commenting further.

Comment

Representation ID: 21260

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Redrow Homes Ltd

Agent: Savills

Policy DEL1 – Infrastructure Provision
Policy DEL1 states that all new developments should be supported by the necessary on and off-site infrastructure. It is currently unclear what level of infrastructure is required to support Strategic Allocation WSA2 and whether this is required on-site or as an off-site contribution. The Viability and Deliverability Study (May 2021) states that no health or education input has been received for Walsall. Point 3 of the policy states that further detail will be provided by the BCA to confirm what level of infrastructure should be provided. We consider that this is required in order to ascertain what level of contribution is required for Strategic Site WSA2.

Comment

Representation ID: 21261

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Redrow Homes Ltd

Agent: Savills

Policy HW2 – Healthcare Infrastructure
The policy requires that major developments must be assessed against the capacity of existing healthcare facilities and where the development would have unacceptable impacts upon capacity then developers will be required to contribute to the provision or improvement of such facilities. Policy WSA2 states that appropriate local facilities, including local health facilities, should be delivered to support new residents and the existing area. Further clarity is required to confirm capacity of local facilities and whether existing facilities can be expanded or a new centre is required. If it is the latter, then further clarity if required to confirm the impact of providing a healthcare facility on site WSA2 to the net developable area. The wider implications of reducing the developable area of strategic sites will inevitably result in more housing being required to meet the needs of the BCA.

Comment

Representation ID: 21262

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Redrow Homes Ltd

Agent: Savills

Policy HOU2 – Housing Density, Type and Accessibility
The policy sets out criteria that housing mix for development sites will be based on which includes being in line with the most recently available information. Paragraph 124 of the NPPF sets out the importance of planning policies to make efficient use of land taking into account: the identified need for different types of housing, local market conditions and viability, the availability and capacity of infrastructure, the desirability of maintaining an area’s character and setting and the importance of securing well-designed and attractive places [Savills emphasis].

The housing mix set out under paragraph 6.20 of the plan sets out the housing needs identified in the BCA Housing Market Assessment (2021). Market demand changes so this ‘latest’ evidence may not be representative of need when planning applications are submitted in the future. As developers and national housebuilders have vested interests in building products that are deliverable and meet market needs, the BCA should not have a fixed size and type guidance, as this could affect development viability, lead to inflexibility and result in obstructing development. We consider that the Housing Market Assessment figures should be used as guidance only and housing mix should be determined on a site by site basis based on market evidence at the time of application submission.

Although we support the Council’s ambition to make the most efficient use of land (NPPF paragraph 125), we do not support the proposed approach to calculating density requirements within this policy. Policy HOU2 has based its proposed density requirements on Table 5, which assesses accessibility through the proximity of the site to local centres, health facilities, shops and education. The Planning Practice Guidance (‘PPG’) sets out a range of considerations which should be taken into account when considering densities for a site or area which includes accessibility to services, as the BCA have assessed but also characterisation studies (urban form and historic character), environmental and infrastructure capacity and market/site viability which the plan has not considered (Reference ID: 66-004-20190722). Additionally, the PPG also states that it is “important to consider how housing needs, local character and appropriate building forms relate to the density measures being used” (Reference ID: 66-005-20190722). We consider that it is important that density is considered on a site by site basis, particularly for proposed allocations which are adjacent to lower density housing such as Site WSA2.

Paragraph 6.18 states that investment will be sought to improve any facilities where there is an identified gap in service provision. We understand that Walsall Council has not received input from health or Education to date to confirm their requirements. Health and education requirements for each site should be confirmed and addressed accordingly within the plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 21263

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Redrow Homes Ltd

Agent: Savills

Policy HOU3 – Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build/ Custom Build Housing
Policy HOU3 requires 20% affordable housing to be delivered on major greenfield sites in medium value zones. We support reference to viability within the policy and that the tenure and type of affordable homes sought will be determined on a site by site basis.

The Policy requires greenfield sites in medium value zones to deliver 15% of their homes in accordance with M4(3) regulations and all remaining homes should meet M4(2) regulations. The PPG states that Councils have the option to “set additional technical requirements exceeding the minimum standards required by Building Regulations in respect of access” where there is a justified need for this requirement (Reference ID: 56-002-20160519). The NPPF also requires all policies to underpinned by relevant and up to date evidence which should be adequate, proportionate and focused on supporting and justifying planning policies (paragraph 31). The PPG (Reference ID: 56-005- 20150327 to 56-011-20150327) sets out the evidence necessary to justifying a policy requirement for optional standards which includes:
• the likely future need;
• the size, location, type and quality of dwellings needed;
• the accessibility and adaptability of the existing stock;
• variations in needs across different housing tenures: and
• viability.

The PPG does not state what level of requirement should be required within Local Plan policies. It is considered that in requiring all new dwellings to be built to the Category M4(2) standards, it will result in larger dwellings and in turn less dwellings being delivered on sites. The NPPF is clear that planning policies should support development that makes efficient use of land (Paragraph 124). Furthermore, the BCA is constrained by Green Belt with limited brownfield redevelopment opportunities (Urban Capacity Report 2021) and the BCA is claiming that it cannot meet its own housing needs (NPPF Paragraph 125). The Council should be making the most efficient use of land on the Green Belt sites proposed to be released in order to avoid significant Green Belt release in future Local Plan Reviews. We therefore consider that the requirement to build all dwellings to Category M4(2) standards is not consistent with national planning policy.

The Policy also requires that on sites of 100+ dwellings, where there is a need for self-build and custom build plots on the Council’s register, 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. We object to this requirement and do not consider that the Council has provided sufficient evidence to support this approach or requirement. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (Reference ID: 57-025-201760728) sets out ways in which the Council should consider supporting self and custom build which includes: developing policies in their Local Plan for self-build and custom housebuilding and “engaging with landowners who own sites that are suitable for housing and encouraging them to consider self-build and custom housebuilding” [Savills emphasis]. There is no requirement in the PPG for self or custom build plots to be provided as part of allocations and landowners should only be ‘encouraged to consider’ promoting their land for self and custom build housing.

Paragraph 6.29 states that there is a total of 32 individuals registered on Walsall’s self-build register. The register may provide an indication of the level of interest, but this needs to be analysed in further detail to uncover the specific requirements of respondents (e.g. type of property and location desired). Additionally, if all strategic sites proposed in Walsall are delivered (5,418 dwellings) and they all provide 5% self-build plots, this would equate to 271 self-build plots which is significantly greater than the number on Walsall’s housing register.

Furthermore, this register does not test whether people have the means to acquire the land and privately construct their own property. Furthermore, there are also practical issues to consider in providing self and custom building housing plots on an allocated site. For example, the day to day operation of such sites and consideration of potential health and safety issues of having multiple individual construction sites within one development. Other considerations are where a site being brought forward by a national housebuilder is the subject of a design code, what approach in the Council expecting self-build projects to take?

The provision of self or custom build plots should be the subject of discussion with those who have expressed an interest, and once the Council has an understanding of the type and range of sites that are sought allocations (for example in the form of clusters) should be identified and allocated as self and custom build opportunities around the BCA. Further clarity is request on whether the Council in its call for sites exercise sought to identify landowners willing to bring their land forward for small scale development (e.g. less than 10 dwellings) where bespoke self and custom build housing could be better delivered than simply sought through a blanket 5% request from major sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 21264

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Redrow Homes Ltd

Agent: Savills

Policy HOU5 – Education Facilities
The Policy states that where a scheme of more than 10 dwellings increases the need for education facilities, planning obligations will be required to meet the increase need. We understand that the Education team have not yet confirmed education requirements. This needs to be confirmed so that we can better understand what level of contribution is required from development sites to meet education needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 21266

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Redrow Homes Ltd

Agent: Savills

Policy TRAN8 – Planning for Low Emission Vehicles
This policy requires that new developments should include adequate provision for charging infrastructure but there are no specific requirements noted. However, the Viability and Delivery Study (May 2021) has assumed £800 per dwelling for electric vehicle charging points therefore clarity is sought on whether a specific percentage of electric charging points are being sought on sites. The policy should only require provision of infrastructure to fit EV points rather than the points themselves and should include reference to ‘where possible’ given there may be viability or practicality constraints.

Comment

Representation ID: 21267

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Redrow Homes Ltd

Agent: Savills

Policy ENV1 – Nature Conservation
Policy ENV1 states that Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINCs) will be protected from development proposals that could negatively impact them. Confirmation is requested on how SLINCs which are included within proposed strategic allocations will be approached by the Council and whether mitigation will be accepted as part of development proposals.

SLINCS are non-statutory sites identified by the Black Country Wildlife Trust (BCWT) and they are not defined or recognised within the NPPF or PPG as sites which should be afforded protection. Walsall Council’s website states that SLINCs should be given a lesser protection than SSSIs or SINCs which are protected by national policy. The PPG references ‘Local Wildlife Sites’ which the Wildlife Trust has defined as including SINCs. The PPG also lists a range of criteria that LWS will be assessed against (Reference ID: 8-014-20190721). As the Council has not demonstrated that the proposed SLINCs meet the LWS criteria, we do not consider that they should be given the same protection as LWS / SINCs.

In light of the above, as part of the Council’s local plan process, a review of call for sites has been undertaken and as a result, the BCWT has designated additional SLINC’s across the BCA. Within proposed allocation Site WSA2, two sections of our client’s land has been designated as SLINCs (Site WAH 238). Our client’s Ecologist has previously assessed our client’s land and identified that the two areas of land which have now been designated as SLINCs are areas of ‘poor semi-improved grassland’.
Further clarification is required as to why poor semi-improved grassland has been considered as having ecological importance which warrants protection as a SLINC.

Within the BCWT’s Site Assessment Report for our client’s land the site has only scored ‘high’ against the ‘Position & Connectivity’ criteria because BCWT consider that the site acts as a wildlife corridor between Jockey Fields SSSI, Grange Farm Wood SINC and Ford Brook SLINC. We do not consider that this should mean that parts of our client’s land are designated by a SLINC. As part of further development proposals, green infrastructure provided could bolster and improve any existing green infrastructure links.

Additionally one of the SLINC’s proposed within Site WSA2 (north western corner) comprises woodland. It is unclear why only the part of the woodland within the allocation boundary is proposed as a SLINC and not the wider woodland adjacent to the northern and eastern edge of the SLINC.

In light of the above, we do not consider that there is sufficient justification to support the proposed SLINC on our client’s land or to afford SLINCs the same protection as SINCs. However, regardless of the SLINC designation, as part of future development proposals, these areas could be retain as far as possible within the green infrastructure of the development layout as part of good design, and if some loss is unavoidable, this could be mitigated elsewhere within the site.

Comment

Representation ID: 21268

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Redrow Homes Ltd

Agent: Savills

Policy ENV2 – Development Affecting Special Areas of Conservation
Our client’s land is within the 15km zone of influence from Cannock Chase SAC. If mitigation is to be sought per dwelling then this figure needs to be confirmed by the BCA and factored into viability appraisals for the strategic allocations that are affected by the 15km zone of influence.