Draft Black Country Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 22191

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Druids Heath Golf Club

Agent: Harris Lamb

The policy states that the density and type of housing should be informed by a range of factors. These include the need for and type of new housing required, the level of accessibility of a site to public transport and services and the need to achieve well design development that has regard to the surrounding character of the area. We agree that these considerations are key in determining what the density of new development should be. The policy then goes on to state that all new major development should achieve the minimum net densities set out in Table 5, which range from 40 dph to 100+ dph. Whilst the 100+ dph range is intended to be delivered within strategic centres or close to transport hubs, achieving 40 dph on other sites will present certain challenges, particularly in the context of other policy requirements in the Plan.
A large proportion of the development sites within the Black Country are urban brownfield sites. These can often have constraints that can reduce their net developable area, such as mineshafts or undergrown infrastructure such as cables and pipes. These sites are often relatively small and are not regular in shape. This makes achieving an efficient layout problematic. This has the consequence of reducing the net developable area and net density.

Policy HOU2 requires that a range of house types and sizes are provided in new developments. The Table on page 100 of the draft Plan confirms that there is a greater demand for 3, 4 and 4+ bed properties than 1 and 2 bed properties. Table 5.10 of the BCHMA, advises that 54% of the housing requirement should be delivered as three or more bedroom properties, with over 25% of the properties required as four bed and four bed plus. Larger dwellings take up more space and consequently reduce density levels.

The emerging Plan also proposes the introduction of National Described Space Standards through Policy ENV9 – Design Quality. This will result in minimum property sizes applying and consequently the average footprint of properties increasing. Again, this will result in densities decreasing.

Policy ENV8 – Open Space, Sport and Recreation, advises that each local authority will set out specific proposals for open space, sport and recreation provision for new developments in their Part 2 Local Plans. As these standards have not been published it is not possible to confirm what impact they will have on the capacity of sites. However, introducing policies that require on site open space and sport facilities will reduce the amount of land available for development that will in turn reduces the number of dwellings a site can accommodate.

The Environment Bill will introduce a required for new developments to achieve 10% biodiversity net gain. This could require additional land for offsetting on development sites. This will reduce the number of units that can be accommodated on sites and their gross density.

Drawing these factors together, we are concerned that the density levels proposed by the Policy are unrealistic. The capacity of the proposed allocations has been overestimated.

Comment

Representation ID: 22192

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Druids Heath Golf Club

Agent: Harris Lamb

The supporting text to the policy at paragraph 6.32 acknowledges that building homes that meet the M4(2) standard are more expensive to build than standard housing and that ones that meet the M4(3) standard involve a significantly increased cost. In building houses to these standards the additional cost is not offset by an increased sales value. It is an additional development cost that has the potential to impact on the viability of development. As such, securing adaptable/accessible homes may well have to be offset against other policy requirements such as delivery of affordable homes, provision of open space or payment of other contributions for example.

In relation to self build homes paragraph 6.29 confirms that there are only 153 individuals on the Self Build Register. This is the equivalent to 0.31% of the 47,837 dwellings proposed to be delivered in the Black Country. In light of the numbers of people that are interested in self build we do not see that there is any justification for 5% of larger sites over 100 dwellings to be required to provide self build plots. Indeed, this would result in a significant over supply of such plots that may not be deliverable due to a lack of demand. The self build plot requirements should be removed from the Policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 22193

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Druids Heath Golf Club

Agent: Harris Lamb

Part 2 and 3 of the policy duplicates the provisions of the emerging Environments Bill. Once the Bill is adopted it will require 10% biodiversity net gain. Dual regulatory control is inappropriate. As such parts 2 and 3 of the policy should be removed.

Measures to achieve biodiversity net gain on site could reduce coverage and consequently the number of units. This matter needs to be carefully considered in light of the draft Plans density aspirations.

Comment

Representation ID: 22194

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Druids Heath Golf Club

Agent: Harris Lamb

Part 5 of the policy states that “Tree Preservation Orders will be used to protect individual(s) or groups of trees that contribute to the visual amenity and / or the character of an area and that are under threat of damage or removal”. Guidance on the use of TPO’s is set out in the National Planning Practice Guidance. It should not be repeated in Local Planning policies

Comment

Representation ID: 22195

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Druids Heath Golf Club

Agent: Harris Lamb

In principle we support the requirement to make provision for open space and recreation land within new housing developments. The policy advises that open space standards will be set in Part 2 Local Plan produced by each LPA. We therefore cannot comment on this matter any further at this time.

Comment

Representation ID: 22196

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Druids Heath Golf Club

Agent: Harris Lamb

We have a number of concerns with this policy, particularly where it introduces dual regulatory control. For example, Part 1e) of the Policy refers to needing to achieve Secured by Design principles as set out in Part Q of the Building Regulations. Similarly, part 3) of the policy refers to water efficiency standards that are set out in Part G2 of the Building Regulations. As both matters are addressed in other legislation there is no need for them to be included in this policy.

The policy also states that all new forms of residential development will be required to meet Nationally Described Space Standards (“NDSS”) except where it can be clearly demonstrated that the implementation of NDSS would cause harm to the significance of a heritage asset. The PPG is quite clear that the Councils need to gather evidence first to determine whether there is a need for additional standards in their area and justify setting appropriate policies in their Local Plan. There is not sufficient evidence to require all new properties to meet NDDS.

The BCHMA suggest that there is a requirement of 17,866 accessible and adaptable homes in the Black Country and a requirement for 1,674 wheelchair user dwellings. Combined this equates to approximately 25.7% of the total housing requirement (76,076), and 40% of the requirement that is expected to be met within the Black Country administrative area (47,837). That being the case, unless typically less that 40% of the houses on new development sites are built to NDSS standards there is no basis for this policy.

Notwithstanding this, if NDSS were to be applied this would have a number of significant implications for the Councils. The use of NDSS means larger houses have to be built in order to comply with the standards. This will mean the density of development and the capacity of sites will decrease. This will decrease the number of houses that can be delivered in the suggested allocations in the Plan.

Part 5 of the policy refers to ‘greening’ of the Black Country. This term is not precise. Whilst it generally refers to undertaking or incorporating sustainability measures in order to try and reduce the environmental impact of development it is not clear how can this be measured or assessed.

Comment

Representation ID: 22197

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Druids Heath Golf Club

Agent: Harris Lamb

We have no objection to the general thrust of the policy and agree that the need to reduce climate change is paramount. However, there is duplication with this policy and other policies that are in draft Plan. As such, this policy is superfluous and should be removed.

Comment

Representation ID: 22198

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Druids Heath Golf Club

Agent: Harris Lamb

We object to the requirement that all developments of 10 or more houses or more than 1,000 square metres should include opportunities for decentralised energy provision. Whilst in theory the use of decentralised energy has a number of sustainability benefits, the reality is that incorporating it in new development is very difficult and expensive on small schemes making it unviable. Similarly, the end user i.e. home owners, commonly have next to no experience of using shared heating systems and this can often by a detractor. As such, there is no desire to develop the technology as ultimately there is no demand from the purchasers.

Comment

Representation ID: 22199

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Druids Heath Golf Club

Agent: Harris Lamb

We support the objective of delivering higher levels of sustainability in new development, however, we disagree with the need for this policy. It largely replicates Building Regulations.

Object

Representation ID: 22200

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Druids Heath Golf Club

Agent: Harris Lamb

Walsall Housing Allocations – Omission Site – SA-0063-WAL – Land at Druids Heath Golf Club

It is our view that the surplus land in the Clubs control, as identified by the Plan provided at Appendix 1 of this letter, should be allocated for residential development by the BCS. Figure 1 – Druids Heath Golf Club Context Plan, below shows the location of this land, and other nearby features of note, to assist in our critic of the Black Country Site Assessment Report (“BCSAR”).

Figure 1 – Druids Heath Golf Club Context Plan [available in Attached PDF]

The BCSAR has been prepared to assess the various sites promoted for development through the Call for Sites process and to help inform which sites should, and should not, be allocated for development in the emerging Plan. The Club promoted the land enclosed within the blue line on Figure 1 above for residential development though the Call for Sites consultation. It is identified as site SA-0063-WAL by the BCSAR and it is concluded that it is unsuitable for an allocation. However, the conclusions of the BCSAR are flawed and inconstant.

The BCSAR includes a series of criteria that are used to assess the suitability of sites for an allocation. A ‘traffic light’ system is used to assess each site against the criteria. We comment on the assessment of site SA-0063-WAL below.
• Green Belt Harm – It is suggested that the development of this site would lead to “high” harm to the Green Belt, and it is graded red. In the first instance it should be noted that proposed allocation SA-0309, shown on Figure 1, has exactly the same classification. This is clearly not, therefore, a constraint to development.

It is suggested that this parcel of land is important as it prevents encroachment into the countryside. Any development in the Green Belt will lead to a degree of encroachment, and the draft Plan requires Green Belt development. The site should not, therefore, be scored down for this reason. In any event this parcel of land has an access road running through it. The club house and its car park are located to the north east and east of this site respectively. There is also a large care home nearby. Encroachment has already taken place in this area, reducing the impact of the development of this site in this regard. It is proposed that this site is extended to include the existing clubhouse car park. As this site is PDL the additional impact by way of encroachment through the inclusion of this parcel of land is minimal.

It is advised that the Green Belt in this location makes a moderate contribution to protecting the gap between Aldridge and Streetly. The development of this site will have no material effect on this gap.

• Landscape Sensitivity – It is suggested that the development of this site would have “moderate/high” landscape harm. The site is flat and featureless, with the exception of the access road and occasional trees. The additional land proposed for inclusion is a car park. Whilst the wider area may be of some landscape sensitivity this is not true of this site. Furthermore, proposed allocation SA-0309 is also classed as having moderate/high landscape harm, but is still a proposed allocation. Indeed, given that the proposed allocation is currently woodland, at least in part, it is of more landscape importance than the land in the Club’s control.

• Greenfield / PDL – The site is classified as “red” and it is advised that there is no history of development. This is incorrect. The access road to the club runs through this site and is a significant feature. In addition, the inclusion of the car park makes a significant proportion of the site PDL.

• TPO and Trees – It is advised that there are no TPO trees on this site. There are trees within the site, however, as they are not the subject of a TPO they could be removed at any time. The site is classed as “amber” in this category. The allocated site is also classed as amber. However, it is advised “the western section of the site (the allocated site) is predominantly tree covered and is subject to a TPO”. Aerial images suggest that the majority of this section of the site has tree coverage. Taking this as a reference point the land in the Clubs control should clearly be classed as green.

• Biodiversity and Geodiversity – Both the land in the Clubs control and the proposed allocation SA-0309 are identified as ‘amber’ in this category. The land in the Clubs control constitutes a well maintained grass lawn, an access road and car park. The proposed allocation includes a large coppice of trees. This clearly suggested that the land in the Club’s control should be considered a less sensitive location for development from a biodiversity perspective.

• Noise Impact – The site is classed as “red” for noise impact. It is advised that as the golf club would share the access to the proposed development site the coming and going of vehicles would have a “significant unacceptable impact on the amenities of occupiers of any houses here and the existing houses which adjoin the proposed shared access.” There are a number of problems with this rational:

1) It is suggested that vehicles visiting the golf club could adversely affect the residential amenity of any houses built on this site. However, the draft Plan proposes a residential allocation immediately adjacent to this site, and no such concerns have been raised in the allocation of this site. They would be equally affected.
2) It is suggested that vehicle movements could also affect the amenity of existing houses. The vehicle movements associated with the golf club already exist on the road network. We are not aware of any complaints in this regard from neighbouring property owners. This includes the nearby care home which is clearly a sensitive receptor. This statement is unfounded.
3) In order to get to the access to the golf club cars need to travel along Stonnall Road, and the wider road network. These roads are all residential in nature. Indeed, only a small fraction of the traffic on the local network is there to gain access to the club. However, there is no suggestion that these vehicle movements adversely impact the amenity of houses in the locality.
4) The vehicles visiting the site are by and large private cars. It is, in effect, being suggested that a very limited number private car movements are not compatible with residential development, which is quite simply is not the case.

• Conclusion – The site is rejected as a proposed allocation on three grounds. The first is noise impact from cars accessing the club. As referred to above this is completely unfounded. The second reason is due to the proximity of the site to the clubhouse, and potential disturbance caused by events at the clubhouse. This has not, however, prevented site SA-0309-WAL being allocated despite it being just as close to the clubhouse. We are also unaware of any noise complaints (or complaints of any kind) from the care home or nearby properties. The third reason is topographical constraints and the site potentially being seen from Hobs Hole Lane. This is equally true of the proposed allocation. Furthermore, this site is already subject to built development in the form of a car park impacting on its landscape character.

It is clear that there is ample evidence that the development of this site will have no detrimental harm, particularly when compared to the neighbouring proposed allocation. Furthermore, the development of the site will generate funds that will be directed back into the Club so that it can improve its facilities, making it a more attractive proposition whilst enhancing its viability. It is respectfully requested that this site is allocated for development in the Plan.