Draft Black Country Plan

Object

Representation ID: 23590

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Planning & Design Group (UK) Limited

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 23591

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Planning & Design Group (UK) Limited

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.

Object

Representation ID: 23592

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Planning & Design Group (UK) Limited

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.

Object

Representation ID: 23595

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Planning & Design Group (UK) Limited

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.

Support

Representation ID: 23596

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Planning & Design Group (UK) Limited

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 23604

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Planning & Design Group (UK) Limited

Paragraph 7.8 - "With respect to allocation WSA6, 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."

Object

Representation ID: 23605

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Planning & Design Group (UK) Limited

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.