Draft Black Country Plan

Support

Representation ID: 23559

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Planning & Design Group (UK) Limited

2.0 Policy CSP1 - Development Strategy and CPS3 Town and Neighbourhood Areas and the Green Belt
2.1 WDL broadly support the development strategy set out by Policy CSP1 insofar as it increases the scope for sustainability located sites to come forward for development, to meet future growth needs across the Black Country Area.
2.2 The number of new homes to be delivered by the Spatial Strategy in the Local Plan (47,847) is expressed as ‘at least’ which is welcomed as the number of new homes required to meet the housing need is higher than this figure. We address this point in more detail under Policy HOU1 and this point is addressed in full by WDL, in their representation on Housing Need and Supply , a copy of this report by Turley’s is attached as Appendix 1 for reference.
2.3 WDL agree with the approach for sustainable patterns of development and welcomes the identification of Neighbourhood Growth areas including site WAS6. These are sites which are located in highly sustainable locations on the edge of the Urban Area. Site WSA6 fulfils this brief as it is immediately adjacent to the built-up area of Daisy Banks, a neighbourhood of Walsall and will function as an extension to this area with access to all the services facilities of Walsall Strategic Centre.

Comment

Representation ID: 23560

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Planning & Design Group (UK) Limited

2.4 Policy CSP3 considers in more detail the areas outside the Strategic Centres, including the Neighbourhood Growth Areas.
2.5 The justification states that the purpose of the Neighbourhood Growth Areas is to support the delivery of a constant supply of new housing development, to be able to bring forward these sites quickly and for several sites to be developed simultaneously. The justification also recommends that such sites regardless of ownership are masterplannned as one site to ensure any new infrastructure is planned for. In the case of WAS6 an initial masterplan has already been produced for the whole site, attached as Appendix 2, it therefore can meet these requirements.
2.6 The reasoned justification states that Neighbourhood Growth areas should provide for at least 250 new homes, however WDL suggest that this figure is reduced to 200 new homes to reflect the ability of the sites to be well designed, reflect the local vernacular and allow for appropriate open space and ecological enhancement as per the proposed development of WAS6.

Comment

Representation ID: 23561

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Planning & Design Group (UK) Limited

1.0 Introduction

1.1 These representations have been prepared by Planning and Design Group (P&DG) on behalf of William Davis Limited (WDL) in response to the Regulation 18 Consultation on the Draft Black Country Plan 2018-2039.

1.2 These representations are made in the context of seeking to work with the Council to ensure that an effective and deliverable plan for the area is achieved. This document builds on earlier representations made by P&DG as part of previous consultation stages in the Local Plan process.

1.3 Our client has been promoting the land At Sutton Road, Longwood Lane identified as WAS6, a Residential Allocation in the emerging Local Plan. Our representations concern the policies which directly relate to the allocation and deliverability of this site.

2.0 Policy CSP1 - Development Strategy and CPS3 Town and Neighbourhood Areas and the Green Belt
2.1 WDL broadly support the development strategy set out by Policy CSP1 insofar as it increases the scope for sustainability located sites to come forward for development, to meet future growth needs across the Black Country Area.
2.2 The number of new homes to be delivered by the Spatial Strategy in the Local Plan (47,847) is expressed as ‘at least’ which is welcomed as the number of new homes required to meet the housing need is higher than this figure. We address this point in more detail under Policy HOU1 and this point is addressed in full by WDL, in their representation on Housing Need and Supply , a copy of this report by Turley’s is attached as Appendix 1 for reference.
2.3 WDL agree with the approach for sustainable patterns of development and welcomes the identification of Neighbourhood Growth areas including site WAS6. These are sites which are located in highly sustainable locations on the edge of the Urban Area. Site WSA6 fulfils this brief as it is immediately adjacent to the built-up area of Daisy Banks, a neighbourhood of Walsall and will function as an extension to this area with access to all the services facilities of Walsall Strategic Centre.
2.4 Policy CSP3 considers in more detail the areas outside the Strategic Centres, including the Neighbourhood Growth Areas.
2.5 The justification states that the purpose of the Neighbourhood Growth Areas is to support the delivery of a constant supply of new housing development, to be able to bring forward these sites quickly and for several sites to be developed simultaneously. The justification also recommends that such sites regardless of ownership are masterplannned as one site to ensure any new infrastructure is planned for. In the case of WAS6 an initial masterplan has already been produced for the whole site, attached as Appendix 2, it therefore can meet these requirements.
2.6 The reasoned justification states that Neighbourhood Growth areas should provide for at least 250 new homes, however WDL suggest that this figure is reduced to 200 new homes to reflect the ability of the sites to be well designed, reflect the local vernacular and allow for appropriate open space and ecological enhancement as per the proposed development of WAS6.
3.0 Policy GB1 – The Black Country Green Belt
3.1 Government planning policy on Green Belts can be found in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Paragraph 138 explains that the Green Belt serves five purposes. These are:
“a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.”
3.2 The NPPF continues at Paragraph 139 that:

“The general extent of Green Belts across the country is already established. New Green Belts should only be established in exceptional circumstances, for example when planning for larger scale development such as new settlements or major urban extensions.”
3.3 Paragraph 140 then states:
“Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans. Strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries, having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so they can endure beyond the plan period. Where a need for changes to Green Belt boundaries has been established through strategic policies, detailed amendments to those boundaries may be made through non-strategic policies, including neighbourhood plans.”
3.4 WDL note that that Council’s Local Plan evidence base shows that based on land availability ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ do exist to release land from the Green Belt for development and that it has carried out a full ‘Green Belt Assessment’ to find the most appropriate releases.
3.5 Site WSA6 is proposed to be removed from the Green Belt. WLD support that approach.
3.6 Previously P&DG prepared a ‘Call for Sites’ submission for site on behalf of WLD. The submission included our own Green Belt Assessment of site WAS6. We have also responded on behalf of WDL to the Black Country Green Belt Study. In relation to the 5 purposes of Green Belt (NPPF Paragraph 138 above), we made the following comments regarding site WAS6:
Purpose 1 -Check the Unrestricted Sprawl of large built-up areas
3.7 The site is bordered by urban development on the majority of its eastern and southern boundaries and is strongly contained by both this and the landscaped edge of the Rushall Canal to the west. The site is also compartmentalized by integral landscaping and sub-parcels denoting field boundaries, limiting its openness significantly. The site therefore has a predominant relationship with the urban fringe of Walsall as opposed to the countryside.
Purpose 2: Preventing the Merging of Neighbouring Towns
3.8 The development of the site would have a minimal impact in terms of coalescence. The development site lies on the edge of Daisy Bank, an existing part of Walsall. There is consequently no danger of this development leading to the merging with any adjacent separate urban area. The physical housing development will not protrude any further north beyond the existing ribbon development that fronts onto Sutton Road; it will in fact be situated behind it. As a result, there would be no cumulative extension of residential development northwards into the Green Belt that would ordinarily result in a reduction in the gap between Daisy Bank and Aldridge. The development would result in built form extending westwards towards the Rushall Canal but would not diminish the function of the area of Green Belt that extends in from the surrounding countryside towards the Walsall Arboretum.
3.9 This site performs no distinct role in contributing towards the gap between Walsall and Aldridge and the development limits would be contained in parallel with existing development without any further encroachment northwards towards Aldridge.

Purpose 3: Safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

3.10 The site’s eastern and southern boundaries are urbanised by residential development along Sutton Road. On the horizon to the west are notable urban structures forming the settlement of Walsall including urban development, including high rise housing. The sites’ location and surrounding uses can be described as urban fringe. We consider that the location and wider context would suggest that it possesses a stronger physical and visual connection with the existing urban form in Walsall, not limited solely to the neighbourhood of Daisy Bank but also the urban form further afield towards the central part of the town and at the western extent of the Walsall Arboretum.

3.11 It is accepted that the development would result in some encroachment into the defined countryside, but its contribution to this purpose is low as the site has a stronger relationship with the urban area than the countryside.

Purposes 4 is not applicable to this site

Purpose 5: To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

3.12 The release of Green Belt in this location would place no harm upon the premise that is held in the development plan to allocate brownfield sites on a preferential basis, since from all of the evidence available there is simply not enough suitable brownfield land, either in the Green Belt or not, to meet the required housing needs across Walsall. As such, it is an acknowledged reality, that derelict urban land will not meet housing requirements and is not a significant element of the land supply.
3.13 The above analysis ratifies the Council’s decision to remove site WSA6 from the Green Belt, and this is fully supported by WDL.
3.14 In respect of the requirements set out in Policy GB1, criterion 2) a. requires the design of the development to include physical features that define the new Green Belt boundary in a readily recognisable and permanent way. WDL confirm that WSA6 can be developed in such a way. The canal already defines the boundary to the west and existing housing forms a boundary to the south and east. Therefore, it is only the northern boundary that will require consideration.
3.15 WDL does not support criterion 2) b. which requires compensatory improvements to the environmental quality, biodiversity and accessibility of remaining Green Belt to offset the impact of removing the land from the Green Belt. Compensatory improvements to environmental quality and biodiversity are covered by other policies within the Plan. Moreover, Green Belt is a planning designation and not one that is based on a site’s ecological value. It is also unclear how compensatory improvements to remaining Green Belt would be delivered. WDL therefore recommend this criterion should be removed from the policy.
4.0 Policy HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
4.1 The Plan identifies an overall need for 4,004 dwellings per annum over the plan period (2020-39) – or 76,076 homes in total. While not specified, it is assumed that this has been calculated using the ‘standard method’ for determining ‘the minimum number of homes needed’, as is required in all but ‘exceptional circumstances’ according to the NPPF (Paragraph 61).
4.2 However, the Plan intends to only make provision through Policy HOU1 for 2,518 homes each year, or 47,837 homes in total. The justification for this policy clearly identifies that this will only accommodate 63% of current Local Housing Need up to 2039 within the Black Country. We assume, as it is not stated, that the Council will expect the shortfall of circa 28,198 homes to be met by the neighbouring authorities.
4.3 WDL have significant concerns that despite these housing figures only meeting the minimum need required, as they are not based on the most up to date emerging evidence, the figures underestimate both need and deliverability leading to a significant shortfall. We do not in these representations seek to interrogate the housing numbers or the approach taken by the Council in relation to the level of housing accommodated in the Plan (WDL has done this through a joint submission with other developers prepared by Turleys attached as Appendix 1). However, what this does highlight is the need for the allocated sites to be fully supported by the Council to enable them to be carried forward through the Plan process and any barriers to development or restrictions on deliverability minimised.
4.4 WDL also note that in addition to the sites already allocated in the Plan, there may be a need to identify additional sites to supplement these figures and to ensure that the Plan is prepared positively. It appears that currently the Plan cannot be found sound on the basis that the Council’s full level of housing need is not being met in its Plan.
4.5 Policy HOU1 provides the total number of houses to be delivered in the Plan period but does not specifically identify any individual housing sites. The proposed housing allocations are shown on ‘Figure 4 – Housing Key Diagram’, and Section 13 of the Plan contains a table setting out the allocations in each area. However, as neither the tables are worded as ‘policy’, nor the individual site descriptions in Section 13 within Policy HOU1 or that the individual site allocations are worded as a separate policy. This will ensure that the Plan is clear, and the individual allocations are accorded the appropriate weight.
5.0 Policy ENV1 Nature Conservation
5.1 WDL strongly object to the designation in the emerging Local Plan of Allocated Site WAS6 as a Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation.
5.2 Prior to the publication of the consultation draft Plan, the site did not fall within the designation boundary of any site of international, national, or regionally important site for nature conservation. The area immediately adjoining the canal was covered by ‘Non -Statutory local designation – Wood End Farm Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINC)’ and our submissions to date have been on this basis.
5.3 Previous submissions included a ‘Phase I Ecology Survey’. We attach this as Appendix 3. It concludes that the current habitats forming the site are generally of low ecological value with most of the site formed by grazed poor semi-improved grassland, with boundaries formed predominantly by native hedgerows and scrub with the domestic gardens of residential units along Sutton Road forming the eastern boundary. Other habitats present include dense bramble scrub, willow scrub, tall ruderal, waterbodies and flush habitat. It is important to note our survey included a walkover of the site.
5.4 The emerging Plan now covers the entire site allocation area with the Wood End Farm SLINC designation. Given our findings within the survey above, WDL does not believe the designation to be justified and it has not been clearly and fully evidenced as part of the Plan preparation.
5.5 The evidence relating to this designation is ‘An Ecological evaluation of the Black Country Green Belt’ (Evaluation) October 2019, produced by EcoRecord. This was a desk-based exercise.

5.6 WDL has a number of concerns with this evidence. In simple terms, the evaluation report maps the whole of the Black Country Green Belt and then assigns land parcels a rating based on the use they are currently in, what use they are next to, if there are water features nearby and if they are next to designated sites. It then provides a final ranking figure for each parcel of land.
5.7 In the case of WAS6 this forms part of a much wider parcel which includes Grange Park and the Walsall Arboretum to the West and the designated SLINC sites to the north. It is therefore washed over with a ‘very high’ ecological score.
5.8 WLD strongly object to the site being included as a SLINC on the basis of this report. It contradicts WLD’s own findings which were based on site specific data and a walkover of the site.
5.9 The NPPF at Paragraph 16 states that Plans should:
“d) contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals;”
5.10 WDL is of the view that this poorly thought-out designation renders the WAS6 allocation ambiguous. On one hand the site is suitable for allocation, but on the other it has ecological value which would hinder development. Housing allocations need to be clear and robust, particularly to get local support. This designation will also confuse environmental stakeholders who offer advice to the Council.
5.11 As this designation is new and not based on rigorous on-site assessment (as was the WDL survey), WDL respectfully request the Council to remove it and as such, provide certainty on the Council’s behalf, that the site is deliverable.
5.12 Notwithstanding WDL’s objection to the designation, it would further object to the wording of Policy ENV1 which deals with such sites. It states:
1. Development within the Black Country will safeguard nature conservation, inside and outside its boundaries by ensuring that:
c) locally designated nature conservation sites (Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation), important habitats and geological features are protected from development proposals that could negatively impact them;
5.13 Part 1 of the policy shows no real differentiation between Internationally designated to locally designated sites as although worded slightly differently, the policy still seeks to preclude any development on these sites with no reference to any mitigation or compensation.
5.14 The policy does go on to state at Part 2 that adequate information must be submitted with planning applications that affect designated sites to ensure the likely impacts of the proposal can be fully assessed.
5.15 Although seemingly acknowledging the need for appropriate assessments this again does not mention mitigation or compensation and does not allow for development to take place, it merely requests information on the impacts.
5.16 Part 3 of the policy does allow development on nature conservation sites but states;

where exceptionally the strategic benefits of a development clearly outweigh the importance of a nature conservation site damage must be minimised and impacts fully mitigated against. (our emphasis)
5.17 Therefore, this policy as currently worded only allows development on designated nature conservation sites (including non-statutory SLINC’s) in exceptional circumstances where the strategic benefits clearly outweigh the conservation importance.
5.18 WDL does not think this is the intention of the policy, in fact it states in the evidence base ‘Site Assessment Appendix C Walsall’ in respect of site WAS6;
Some constraints could impact on the developable area, the existing pattern of development and arboricultural features could be used to mitigate any significant harm. A strategy for impact on the SLINC would need to consider mitigation and or compensation. Residential uses compatible with existing character.
5.19 It is therefore clear that although designating the entirety of the site as a SLINC the Council does consider that the site is developable, and the impacts can be mitigated and/or compensated for.
5.20 This was also the finding of WDL’s Phase I Ecology Survey which concluded that;
Any loss of grassland habitat will be mitigated for within the landscaping scheme via the creation of smaller areas of more species-diverse native grassland within the retained green corridor along the western boundary. A network of residential garden and tree and shrub planting within the site green infrastructure will provide further ecological enhancements and the implementation of such mitigation would ensure no net loss to biodiversity as required by NPPF
5.21 WDL therefore requests that if the designation as discussed above is retained, the wording is amended at Part 1 criterion b) to state:
development is not permitted where it would harm Local Nature Reserves and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation unless it can be demonstrated that the need for the development outweighs any harm caused by the development and that adequate mitigation or compensatory measures are put in place.
6.0 Policy ENV5 Historic Character and Local Distinctiveness of the Black Country
6.1 Whilst in principle WDL does not have any objection to the wording of this policy, it does strongly object to the extension of the Grange Country Park Area of High Historic Landscape Value (AHHLV) boundary to cover the majority of site WAS6.
6.2 The evidence base which links to this policy is the Black Country Historic Landscape Characterisation Study. This is a desk-based study and from reading no site visits appear to have been undertaken to inform the recommendations.
6.3 Grange Country Park is identified as AHHLV 13, reading the description of this AHHLV it firstly gives no explanation as to why the boundary of the AHHLV was extended or even makes reference to the boundary having been extended. It is not clear, what, if any, assessment was made on site WAS6 and there is no clear justification for its inclusion.

6.4 The Study states that the importance of the AHHLV13 is in the main in relation to Ridge and Furrow features on site. WDL undertook an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment, (which includes a site walkover). This is attached as Appendix 4. The report identifies that extensive and well-preserved earthwork remains of ridge and furrow are to be found to the west of the site in the area of Walsall Arboretum. However, in regard to site WAS6, although there are intermittent areas of truncated and poorly preserved ridge and furrow on the site’s western and northern sides, they are of no more than local significance. The findings of this report reflect the previous boundary of AHHLV13 and WDL can see no justification for extending the boundary to cover the entirety of site WAS6.
6.5 The description also refers to the ‘potential to contain historic hedgerows’. Whilst WDL acknowledge that the site does contain hedgerows, these are afforded protection under policies ENV1, ENV3 and ENV9 and more specifically ENV 4 of the Plan and would not on their own constitute a reason for designating the site as an AHHLV.
6.6 WDL therefore object to the widening of AHHLV13 boundary to include site WSA6 as this has not been properly evidenced and is therefore not justifiable.
7.0 Strategic Allocation WSA6
7.1 WDL welcome and support the strategic allocation of WSA 6 for housing development.
7.2 Through successive submissions to the Council, WDL have demonstrated that the site can be removed from the Green Belt and allocated for residential development, in line with Government planning policy.
7.3 WDL has undertaken a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), attached as Appendix 5, which identifies that there are only a limited number of constraints or issues in landscape and visual terms that reduce the site’s capacity to accommodate development. The assessment concluded that the opportunities to provide mitigation would ensure that the impacts of any development on the landscape can be minimised.
7.4 An Archaeological Desk Based Assessment has been undertaken which demonstrates that the site can be developed for residential development without causing any harm to designated or non-designated heritage assets. The potentially ‘important’ hedgerows can be retained as part of the proposals and any impact on earthworks can be mitigated through appropriate design and/or a staged programme of archaeological surveys.
7.5 A Phase I Ecology Survey was carried out on site which demonstrated that the current habitats forming the site are generally of low ecological value. Any loss of grassland habitat could be mitigated within the landscaping scheme via the creation of smaller areas of more species-diverse native grassland within the retained green corridor along the western boundary. A network of residential garden and tree and shrub planting within the site green infrastructure would provide further ecological enhancements and the implementation of such mitigation would ensure no net loss to biodiversity as required by the NPPF.
7.6 Again, as part of the ‘Call for Sites’ exercise, WDL submitted a ‘Vision Document’ to demonstrate how the site could be developed to respond directly to the site’s context with the potential to generate a positive sustainable community. It is clear from WLD’s initial work that WAS6 offers unequivocal opportunities to deliver a sustainable and quality residential development.

7.7 WDL therefore fully support the Council’s approach to allocating the site for residential development and is confident that the site is fully deliverable.
7.8 With respect to allocation WSA6, WDL would suggest that this is drafted as a policy, rather than a series of statements. This would provide more weight and certainty to its status and deliverability.
7.9 WDL generally support the objectives of the design principles relating to WAS6 but would recommend the following amendment to the wording to ensure that the policies are clearly written and unambiguous as per the NPPF guidance;
Improvements to local facilities which are proportionate to the amount of development proposed.
This change would ensure that any improvements requested as part of an application relate only to the potential impacts that the development may have.
7.10 WDL do strongly object to the following wording;
a Transport Strategy that includes single access onto Sutton Road.
7.11 This is unnecessarily prescriptive and premature when the transport work has yet to be undertaken and options explored. It is not yet known if an access from Sutton Road is the best solution and if insisted upon this could prevent the development from being delivered.
7.12 WDL have undertaken some initial work on the access onto both Longwood Lane and Sutton Road to explore both options. We include as Appendix 6 the engineering drawings. Restricting the access through policy wording, at this point to Sutton Road is unnecessary, and all options need to be further explored. Therefore, at this stage we request that the prescriptive wording is removed or amended to include;
A Transport Strategy that delivers a safe and suitable access.
8.0 Conclusions
8.1 WDL note that that Council’s Local Plan evidence base shows that based on land availability ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ do exist to release land from the Green Belt for development and that it has carried out a full ‘Green Belt Assessment’ to find the most appropriate releases.
8.2 WDL support the removal of site WSA6 from the Green Belt and its allocation for residential development and believe that the Council has followed Government planning policy in arriving at the allocation.
8.3 WDL do object to the new landscape and conservation allocations on site WSA6 and not believe these have been clearly and justifiably evidenced. WDL is of the view that these poorly thought-out designations render the WAS6 allocation ambiguous. On one hand the site is suitable for allocation, but on the other it has ecological value and landscape value which would hinder development. Housing allocations need to be clear and robust.
8.4 As these designations are new and not based on rigorous on-site assessment (as was the WDL survey), WDL respectfully request the Council to remove them and as such, provide certainty on the Council’s behalf, that the site is deliverable.

Support

Representation ID: 23583

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Planning & Design Group (UK) Limited

3.1 Government planning policy on Green Belts can be found in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Paragraph 138 explains that the Green Belt serves five purposes. These are:
“a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.”
3.2 The NPPF continues at Paragraph 139 that:

“The general extent of Green Belts across the country is already established. New Green Belts should only be established in exceptional circumstances, for example when planning for larger scale development such as new settlements or major urban extensions.”
3.3 Paragraph 140 then states:
“Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans. Strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries, having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so they can endure beyond the plan period. Where a need for changes to Green Belt boundaries has been established through strategic policies, detailed amendments to those boundaries may be made through non-strategic policies, including neighbourhood plans.”
3.4 WDL note that that Council’s Local Plan evidence base shows that based on land availability ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ do exist to release land from the Green Belt for development and that it has carried out a full ‘Green Belt Assessment’ to find the most appropriate releases.
3.5 Site WSA6 is proposed to be removed from the Green Belt. WLD support that approach.
3.6 Previously P&DG prepared a ‘Call for Sites’ submission for site on behalf of WLD. The submission included our own Green Belt Assessment of site WAS6. We have also responded on behalf of WDL to the Black Country Green Belt Study. In relation to the 5 purposes of Green Belt (NPPF Paragraph 138 above), we made the following comments regarding site WAS6:
Purpose 1 -Check the Unrestricted Sprawl of large built-up areas
3.7 The site is bordered by urban development on the majority of its eastern and southern boundaries and is strongly contained by both this and the landscaped edge of the Rushall Canal to the west. The site is also compartmentalized by integral landscaping and sub-parcels denoting field boundaries, limiting its openness significantly. The site therefore has a predominant relationship with the urban fringe of Walsall as opposed to the countryside.
Purpose 2: Preventing the Merging of Neighbouring Towns
3.8 The development of the site would have a minimal impact in terms of coalescence. The development site lies on the edge of Daisy Bank, an existing part of Walsall. There is consequently no danger of this development leading to the merging with any adjacent separate urban area. The physical housing development will not protrude any further north beyond the existing ribbon development that fronts onto Sutton Road; it will in fact be situated behind it. As a result, there would be no cumulative extension of residential development northwards into the Green Belt that would ordinarily result in a reduction in the gap between Daisy Bank and Aldridge. The development would result in built form extending westwards towards the Rushall Canal but would not diminish the function of the area of Green Belt that extends in from the surrounding countryside towards the Walsall Arboretum.
3.9 This site performs no distinct role in contributing towards the gap between Walsall and Aldridge and the development limits would be contained in parallel with existing development without any further encroachment northwards towards Aldridge.

Purpose 3: Safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

3.10 The site’s eastern and southern boundaries are urbanised by residential development along Sutton Road. On the horizon to the west are notable urban structures forming the settlement of Walsall including urban development, including high rise housing. The sites’ location and surrounding uses can be described as urban fringe. We consider that the location and wider context would suggest that it possesses a stronger physical and visual connection with the existing urban form in Walsall, not limited solely to the neighbourhood of Daisy Bank but also the urban form further afield towards the central part of the town and at the western extent of the Walsall Arboretum.

3.11 It is accepted that the development would result in some encroachment into the defined countryside, but its contribution to this purpose is low as the site has a stronger relationship with the urban area than the countryside.

Purposes 4 is not applicable to this site

Purpose 5: To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

3.12 The release of Green Belt in this location would place no harm upon the premise that is held in the development plan to allocate brownfield sites on a preferential basis, since from all of the evidence available there is simply not enough suitable brownfield land, either in the Green Belt or not, to meet the required housing needs across Walsall. As such, it is an acknowledged reality, that derelict urban land will not meet housing requirements and is not a significant element of the land supply.
3.13 The above analysis ratifies the Council’s decision to remove site WSA6 from the Green Belt, and this is fully supported by WDL.
3.14 In respect of the requirements set out in Policy GB1, criterion 2) a. requires the design of the development to include physical features that define the new Green Belt boundary in a readily recognisable and permanent way. WDL confirm that WSA6 can be developed in such a way. The canal already defines the boundary to the west and existing housing forms a boundary to the south and east. Therefore, it is only the northern boundary that will require consideration.
3.15 WDL does not support criterion 2) b. which requires compensatory improvements to the environmental quality, biodiversity and accessibility of remaining Green Belt to offset the impact of removing the land from the Green Belt. Compensatory improvements to environmental quality and biodiversity are covered by other policies within the Plan. Moreover, Green Belt is a planning designation and not one that is based on a site’s ecological value. It is also unclear how compensatory improvements to remaining Green Belt would be delivered. WDL therefore recommend this criterion should be removed from the policy.

Support

Representation ID: 23584

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Planning & Design Group (UK) Limited

3.14 In respect of the requirements set out in Policy GB1, criterion 2) a. requires the design of the development to include physical features that define the new Green Belt boundary in a readily recognisable and permanent way. WDL confirm that WSA6 can be developed in such a way. The canal already defines the boundary to the west and existing housing forms a boundary to the south and east. Therefore, it is only the northern boundary that will require consideration.
3.15 WDL does not support criterion 2) b. which requires compensatory improvements to the environmental quality, biodiversity and accessibility of remaining Green Belt to offset the impact of removing the land from the Green Belt. Compensatory improvements to environmental quality and biodiversity are covered by other policies within the Plan. Moreover, Green Belt is a planning designation and not one that is based on a site’s ecological value. It is also unclear how compensatory improvements to remaining Green Belt would be delivered. WDL therefore recommend this criterion should be removed from the policy.

Object

Representation ID: 23585

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Planning & Design Group (UK) Limited

Paragraph 3.15 - "Green Belt is a planning designation and not one that is based on a site’s ecological value. It is also unclear how compensatory improvements to remaining Green Belt would be delivered."

Comment

Representation ID: 23586

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Planning & Design Group (UK) Limited

4.3 WDL have significant concerns that despite these housing figures only meeting the minimum need required, as they are not based on the most up to date emerging evidence, the figures underestimate both need and deliverability leading to a significant shortfall. We do not in these representations seek to interrogate the housing numbers or the approach taken by the Council in relation to the level of housing accommodated in the Plan (WDL has done this through a joint submission with other developers prepared by Turleys attached as Appendix 1). However, what this does highlight is the need for the allocated sites to be fully supported by the Council to enable them to be carried forward through the Plan process and any barriers to development or restrictions on deliverability minimised.

Comment

Representation ID: 23587

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Planning & Design Group (UK) Limited

Paragraph 4.3 - Because of the shortfall of housing "need for the allocated sites to be fully supported by the Council to enable them to be carried forward through the Plan process and any barriers to development or restrictions on deliverability minimised."

Comment

Representation ID: 23588

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Planning & Design Group (UK) Limited

4.0 Policy HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
4.1 The Plan identifies an overall need for 4,004 dwellings per annum over the plan period (2020-39) – or 76,076 homes in total. While not specified, it is assumed that this has been calculated using the ‘standard method’ for determining ‘the minimum number of homes needed’, as is required in all but ‘exceptional circumstances’ according to the NPPF (Paragraph 61).
4.2 However, the Plan intends to only make provision through Policy HOU1 for 2,518 homes each year, or 47,837 homes in total. The justification for this policy clearly identifies that this will only accommodate 63% of current Local Housing Need up to 2039 within the Black Country. We assume, as it is not stated, that the Council will expect the shortfall of circa 28,198 homes to be met by the neighbouring authorities.
4.3 WDL have significant concerns that despite these housing figures only meeting the minimum need required, as they are not based on the most up to date emerging evidence, the figures underestimate both need and deliverability leading to a significant shortfall. We do not in these representations seek to interrogate the housing numbers or the approach taken by the Council in relation to the level of housing accommodated in the Plan (WDL has done this through a joint submission with other developers prepared by Turleys attached as Appendix 1). However, what this does highlight is the need for the allocated sites to be fully supported by the Council to enable them to be carried forward through the Plan process and any barriers to development or restrictions on deliverability minimised.
4.4 WDL also note that in addition to the sites already allocated in the Plan, there may be a need to identify additional sites to supplement these figures and to ensure that the Plan is prepared positively. It appears that currently the Plan cannot be found sound on the basis that the Council’s full level of housing need is not being met in its Plan.
4.5 Policy HOU1 provides the total number of houses to be delivered in the Plan period but does not specifically identify any individual housing sites. The proposed housing allocations are shown on ‘Figure 4 – Housing Key Diagram’, and Section 13 of the Plan contains a table setting out the allocations in each area. However, as neither the tables are worded as ‘policy’, nor the individual site descriptions in Section 13 within Policy HOU1 or that the individual site allocations are worded as a separate policy. This will ensure that the Plan is clear, and the individual allocations are accorded the appropriate weight.

Support

Representation ID: 23589

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Planning & Design Group (UK) Limited

Paragraph 4.5 - "The proposed housing allocations are shown on ‘Figure 4 – Housing Key Diagram’, and Section 13 of the Plan contains a table setting out the allocations in each area. However, as neither the tables are worded as ‘policy’, nor the individual site descriptions in Section 13 within Policy HOU1 or that the individual site allocations are worded as a separate policy. This will ensure that the Plan is clear, and the individual allocations are accorded the appropriate weight."