Draft Black Country Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 23278

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: RPS

Draft Black Country Plan 2020-2029 – Regulation 18 Consultation 2021

RPS has been commissioned to prepare a response to the Draft Black Country Plan (dBCP) consultation on behalf of IM Land, who are working with landowners and have interests in land located within the neighbouring district of South Staffordshire. Accordingly, this response therefore focuses on the strategic matter of the unmet housing need emanating from the Black Country and how this is being addressed through the Duty to Cooperate (DTC) process.

Current Extent of Unmet Need in the Black Country

Table 2 of the dBCP identifies a housing shortfall in the Black Country of 28,239 dwellings between 2020-

2039, to be exported through the DTC process. The evidence underpinning this figure is derived from analysis presented by ABCA in the Black Country Urban Capacity Review (BCUCR) 2020. Paragraph 2.1.41 of the BCUCR concludes that local housing need outstrips housing supply from 2020/21 onwards, with the gap widening until there is a total shortfall of 38,595 homes in 2038/39. This shortfall represents 51% of the total need for 76,076 homes over the period 2020-39.

It should be noted that the extent of the shortfall has worsened since the previous capacity was undertaken in 2019, which had established a shortfall of 29,288 dwellings by 2037/38 and which was predicted to emerge from 2027 onwards. The reduction in the shortfall from 38,595 to 28,239 is based on the identification of additional sources land in the dBCP beyond current commitments and other known sources, including a proportion (c.7,700) of dwellings to be delivered on land to be released from the Black Country Green Belt. However, even after the release of Green Belt land, the shortfall remains substantial.

Thus, the worsening and unresolved nature of the unmet need from the Black Country is material to determining what an appropriate contribution towards the shortfall from neighbouring authorities should be.

Duty to Cooperate response

Comments on the approach to addressing unmet need
RPS notes that a number of neighbouring authorities have made ‘offers’ to meet ‘wider than local’ housing needs of the HMA, totalling 8,000 dwellings, of which 4,000 dwellings would be accommodated in South

Staffordshire1. Nonetheless, it is not clear how much of this 4,000 would go towards the Black Country or other parts of the HMA, including Birmingham. RPS notes that the 4,000 figure was chosen by South Staffordshire as their preferred option as part of the Spatial Housing Strategy and Infrastructure Delivery consultation as far back as August 2019 and so was clearly known by other authorities in the HMA, including ABCA. However, despite this, it remains unclear how much of this contribution will go to the Black Country. This lack of clarity on-going in the process does not represent a positively planned approach to addressing the shortfall in the Black Country.

This lack of clarity is further exacerbated by a lack of any clear outcomes to date on this issue, due to an absence of any statements of common ground (SOCG) prepared between ABCA and other HMA authorities. National policy is clear that these should be produced using the approach set out in national planning guidance, and be made publicly available throughout the plan-making process to provide transparency (NPPF 2021, paragraph 27). The lack of such details on progress towards addressing the strategic matters
at this stage is inconsistent with national policy and raises further concerns that the housing shortfall will not be properly addressed in the BCP.

Despite engagement between the GB&BCHMA authorities to date there is no conclusive outcome in relation to the strategic cross-boundary matter of redistribution of unmet housing needs from Birmingham and BCA. This is not a sound basis for plan-making. As stated in the recently published North Warwickshire Local Plan Inspector’s Final Report dated 20 July 2021 “the exercise of the D to C is not a matter of process without effect” (para 22). There is every likelihood that reaching a consensus on this strategic matter will be a
lengthy disharmonious process between the GB&BCHMA authorities.


The current piecemeal approach of independently preparing separate SoCG between individual authorities during the preparation of each Local Plan is unacceptable and provides no certainty that unmet housing needs will be met. The approach should be holistic. As a matter of urgency, the GB&BCHMA authorities should prepare a Joint SoCG. Without a Joint SoCG, there is no real commitment to resolving the redistribution of unmet housing needs in full across the GB&BCHMA. Similar approaches have been taken to good effect elswhere, including across the Coventry and Warwickshire HMA as well as between Leicester City and the other Leicestershire authorities. The GB&BCHMA authorities should set out where unmet housing need will be met. A Joint SoCG should confirm that:

• each authority will meet its own LHN calculated using the Government’s revised standard methodology plus a defined amount of unmet LHN (except Birmingham City Council, BCA, and other areas where the evidence is demonstrated they cannot meet their own needs). This cumulative
figure will be the housing requirement figure for each authority respectively; and
• an acknowledgement by the GB&BCHMA authorities that additionality in HLS will be required to ensure deliverability and flexibility.

Comment

Representation ID: 23279

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: RPS

Comments on the ‘offers’ from neighbours


In any event, RPS is of the view that the current contributions ‘offered’ by neighbouring authorities are insufficient to remedy the scale of the shortfall facing the Black Country (even after the potential supply from within the ABCA boundaries has been assessed). RPS notes that certain authorities, namely South Staffordshire, are relying for their 4,000 dwelling contribution on information taken from the Greater Birmingham HMA Strategic Growth Study (SGS) (February 2018)2, based on an urban extension of at least
1,500 dwellings, an urban extension to an existing strategic employment site for at least 1,500 dwellings, and two dispersal areas each of 500 dwellings.

However, the SGS is now over three years old and has been superseded by more recent events that bring into question the robustness of the evidence that underpins it. Notably, the basis for housing shortfall calculation used in the SGS are now likely to be out of date, for the following reasons.

Firstly, the SGS applied the previous methodology for calculating objectively assessed need using the national guidance applicable in 2018, and not the standard method approach now in operation. The new standard method now includes a 35% uplift applicable to the 20 largest cities, including Birmingham and, notably, Wolverhampton. The result is that the measure of housing need for the Black Country is now different compared to previous estimates that underpinned the SGS. The SGS identifies the housing need for the Black Country (using the old PPG methodology) of 3,554 dpa based on evidence prepared in 20163. This figure has been quoted as recently as July 2020 in the latest HMA-wide Position Statement on housing need and supply4. However, the evidence underpinning the dBCP now indicates a much higher need, showing a need for 4,004 dpa. Whilst not directly comparable, this indicates an additional 450 dpa are required to meet the minimum need going forward. Over the 19-year plan period, this equates to an additional 8,550 dwellings compared to previous estimates of need.

Secondly, evidence on housing land supply demonstrates that the SGS over-estimated the likely housing capacity in the Black Country. This is helpfully summarised in HMA Position Statement July 20205. Across the four Black Country Authorities, the estimated capacity in the SGS was 62,543 dwellings. By 2019, this had fallen to 58,737 dwellings, a decrease of 3,806 overall. It should be noted that the change in capacity
highlighted in SGS only relates to the period up to 2031, and so the SGS has not considered the capacity issues post-2031. Given the increase in the shortfall outlined above, the capacity issues facing the Black

Country will most likely have worsened in the post-2031 period.


And thirdly, the SGS did not assume any shortfall existed in the Black Country up to 20316 at the time the analysis was undertaken. This, as explained above, is now clearly not the case.

Based on this analysis, it is evident that the housing position of the Black Country has worsened since the findings of the SGS were published. RPS would therefore questions the reliance on the SGS as a basis for the 4,000 dwelling contribution towards the Black Country’s housing shortfall proposed by South Staffordshire. RPS would argue that the contribution should not be based on the strategic locations proposed in the SGS but, instead, should be derived from the scale of need and the housing shortfall stemming from it.

Comment

Representation ID: 23280

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: RPS

Conclusions


In conclusion, RPS has highlighted the deepening problems with respect to the scale of unmet need in the Black Country. Neighbouring authorities, including South Staffordshire, are using out of date evidence to underpin their ‘offer’ of assistance to ABCA to address the unmet needs of the Black Country. However, more recent evidence, summarised above, suggests that ABCA should not simply accept the ‘offer’ from South Staffordshire but should push for a greater contribution, one that properly reflects the scale of the shortfall now identified as well as recognising the strong functional links that exists between South Staffordshire and the Black Country. This should form a component of the ongoing discussions between ABCA and South Staffordshire under the duty to cooperate, with a clear outcome set out in a Statement of
Common Ground signed off by both parties at the earliest opportunity.

Comment

Representation ID: 43925

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley Assocs

Representations to the draft Black Country
Plan
On behalf of IM Land

October 2021

Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. The opportunity 2
3. Response to draft BCP consultation 6
4. Draft policy WSA8 (site ref: WAH234) and site assessment 16
5. Summary 19
Appendix 1: Turley Vision Document
Appendix 2: BWB Ground Conditions Technical Note
Appendix 3: Turley Heritage Technical Note
Appendix 4: Turley Green Belt Review
Appendix 5: BWB Air Quality Technical Note
Appendix 6: BWB Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
Appendix 7: DTA Transport Technical Note
Appendix 8: GPP Mineral Safeguarding Technical Note
Appendix 9: Evidence base summary
Appendix 10: Response to draft policy WSA8 design principles
Appendix 11: Site assessment critique



Client
IM Land
Our reference
IMPQ3017

20 Sep 2021


1

1. Introduction
1.1 These representations are submitted on behalf of IM Land who are working with
landowners in response to the draft Black Country Plan (BCP) (July 2021) (Regulation
18) consultation.
1.2 IM Land are actively promoting land at Queslett Road, Walsall (site ref: WAH234) (‘the
site’) as a sustainable and deliverable opportunity for new homes and associated
infrastructure. The site is proposed for allocation in the draft plan (draft policy WSA8).
1.3 IM is one of the UK’s leading land promoters and is committed to investing and
delivering development in the Midlands. In Walsall, IM’s vision is to create a
community that responds to the local and regional need for high-quality homes and
community facilities. IM work collaboratively with local authorities, developers and
land owners to ensure that the places that are being brought forward are deliverable
and create a positive legacy for future generations.
1.4 IM Land are promoting the majority of the site as part of a Promotion Agreement with
land owners. Part of the site is owned freehold by Walton Homes, who are working
with IM Land to bring the site forward.
1.5 The site is in a highly sustainable location, accessible to a wide range of facilities and
services nearby, as well as the towns of Walsall, Sutton Coldfield and Aldridge, and
Birmingham City Centre. This, along with the surrounding environment's ability to
accommodate development in this area, offers the opportunity to deliver high quality
new homes and associated infrastructure, including a possible site for a primary school,
local centre and public open space.
1.6 The representations are structured as follows:
• Section 2: Provides a summary of the Site and the opportunity it presents.
• Section 3: Sets out our response to the draft BCP consultation.
• Section 4: Provides commentary on proposed site allocation (draft policy WSA8)
and site assessment.
• Section 5: Provides a conclusion to these representations.




2

2. The opportunity
Historic site promotion
2.1 Representations promoting the site (including a call for sites submission) to the scope,
issues and options consultation were submitted in September 2017. These
Representations were accompanied by a previous version of the Vision Document. The
current version of the Vision Document, along with its masterplan has evolved since
2017 and supersedes all previous Master Plan’s and Vision Documents.
2.2 A submission was made to a further call for sites in September 2020, which includes
the updated and current version of the Vision Document (enclosed at Appendix 1). The
current Vision Document comprises a reduced land area compared with the original
Vision Document, removing the most northern extent of the site to ensure robust
Green Belt boundaries are in place.
2.3 The revision to the site area was further to review of the site and specifically its
landscape characteristics and how the field parcels which make up the site related and
formed part of the wider landscape setting. Through this Landscape and Green Belt
assessment it was considered that the northern most extremity of the site area
promoted in 2017 did not share the same relationship with the existing built
development which surrounds the southern portion of the site and which characterises
the site which is now being promoted by IM Land (Site Ref. WAH234) and forms the
draft allocation.

Current proposals
2.4 The Vision Document (Appendix 1) details the development of the illustrative
masterplan for land at Queslett Road, identifying the key constrains, opportunities and
design principles which have informed the promotion of the land as, available,
deliverable and suitable for allocation for proposed development in the emerging
BCLP.
2.5 The Vision Document details a landscape led approach to the development of the
masterplan, which is grounded in best design practice to create a high quality
sustainable and permeable layout. As demonstrated throughout these representations,
IM Land is committed to continuing to develop and refine the illustrative masterplan
alongside the preparation of the BCP adapting and responding to both new site specific
evidence base documents as well as evidence documents prepared in support of the
plan.
2.6 As currently drafted, the illustrative masterplan demonstrates how the site forms a
logical addition to the existing urban areas of Streetly and Pheasey, creating a new
landscaped ‘green’ edge to the north, interlinking with a network of green and open
spaces throughout the site. This masterplan has been prepared working with adjacent
landowners and promoters, who we will continue to work with going forward.




3

Access and movement
2.7 Primary access into the site is currently identified to be taken from Queslett Road and
Aldridge Road. This forms a primary spine road / boulevard which could accommodate
a bus route. Secondary access points are proposed along Doe Bank Lane and Aldridge
Road. The indirect and informal layout of the connecting streets would discourage
these access points to be used by vehicles as a direct route through the site.
2.8 A clear street hierarchy has been adopted to create a legible, safe and active
environment.
2.9 The central location of a local centre / high street, including a possible site for a
primary school and community facilities, is well connected to the surrounding area via
a network of footpaths and cycleways, encouraging movement through the
development. As we note throughout these representations, IM Land will continue to
refine the illustrative masterplan alongside the preparation of site specific evidence
base documents with the potential for the Local Centre location to be revised in
response to maximising its accessibility, and prominence both for new and existing
residents. The sustainable location of the site means that it benefits from a wide range
of services and facilities within close proximity, as well as having good access to
frequent bus services.
2.10 To further improve connectivity, alongside the wider development and refinement of
the illustrative masterplan, work is being undertaken to explore opportunities for the
provision of more direct links to Barr Beacon and the wider countryside to the north
west of the site.

Green infrastructure
2.11 Existing mature trees and hedgerows will be retained where possible and incorporated
into a strong, site wide green infrastructure network.
2.12 Areas of informal and formal green spaces, including Local Equipped Areas for Play
(LEAP) and community gardens are proposed, which also serve as community hubs /
meeting places.
2.13 Areas of green infrastructure, particularly the linear park and country edge, allow
distinctive character areas to be created which respond to existing site characteristics
and landscape / townscape character. A range of attractive and distinctive streetscapes
can be created through tree planting, surface materials and building layout.

Development
2.14 The development parcels within the site are set within and defined by the strong green
infrastructure and movement networks. Internal street networks within the
development areas create robust links between areas of public open space and green
infrastructure, enhancing the permeability and legibility of the development.




4

2.15 The illustrative masterplan proposes a range of community facilities, including
potentially1 a site for a primary school, local centre and the potential for a community
centre (reusing the tin tabernacle building) for the use of existing and new residents
(we discuss these facilities further in relation to the relevant draft policies at section 3
of these representations).
2.16 The density applied across the site responds to the site's varied landscape and urban
context. Higher density development is located towards Queslett Road and the centre
of the site, whereas lower density development is located towards the northern and
western boundaries, creating a gentle transition between urban areas and open
countryside.

Site specific evidence base
2.17 Throughout these representations we will make reference to a series of site specific
evidence base documents prepared on behalf of IM Land, which support the
promotion of the site and inform the preparation of the illustrative masterplan and
vision document. The evidence base is listed below and summarised at Appendix 9:
• Turley Vision Document (August 2020) – Appendix 1
• BWB Ground Conditions Technical Note (October 2021) – Appendix 2
• Turley Heritage Technical Note (October 2021) – Appendix 3
• Turley Green Belt Review (September 2021) – Appendix 4
• BWB Air Quality Technical Note (October 2021) – Appendix 5
• BWB Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (October 2021) – Appendix 6
• DTA Transport Technical Note (September 2021) – Appendix 7
• GPP Mineral Safeguarding Technical Note (September 2021) – Appendix 8
Benefits of our proposals
2.18 The significant benefits of IM Land’s proposals are summarised below:
• Achieving sustainable development in accordance with Paragraphs 8 and 11 of
the NPPF.
• The proposals will make a substantial contribution to the Black Country’s
significant housing needs (inclusive of affordable dwellings) in a highly
sustainable location.


1 The Local Education Authority have not yet prepared any evidence or advice on the local need or capacity within
existing schools both local to the site and across the wider plan area. As such the masterplan as currently drafted
remains flexible to accommodate a site for a new primary school if required.




5

• The proposals are capable of including the provision of community infrastructure
such as a possible site for primary school, a new local centre comprising a health
centre and retail provision.
• The proposals will enhance connectivity in the wider area through the provision
of new pedestrian and cycle ways, knitting the site into the wider area.
• They will retain and enhance existing tree and hedgerow provision throughout
the site.
• A new green infrastructure network will be delivered, including a country park to
the north and attractive green spaces and connections throughout the site. This
will contribute to achieving a net gain in biodiversity and create newly accessible
green space for existing and new residents and will contribute to any necessary
Green Belt compensatory measures, whilst creating a new defensible Green Belt
boundary.
• It will provide significant economic benefits, over and above the construction
and occupation of the site, which will boost the local economy.
• Delivery of sustainable drainage solutions for the site that will manage and
mitigate the risk of flooding and climate change.


[Section 3 omitted and included in other reps as pertain to respective policies in the BCP outside of WSA8]

16

4. Draft policy WSA8 (site ref: WAH234) and site
assessment
4.1 IM Land is promoting land to the north of Queslett Road for residential development
and are fully supportive of its proposed allocation (Draft Policy WSA8) within the draft
BCP.
4.2 The site provides an opportunity to create a sustainable and high quality new
community, delivering a wide range of new family and affordable homes in a highly
accessible and sustainable location, which is fully supported by a robust site specific
evidence base which we have discussed and introduced at section 2 of these
representations.
4.3 As currently drafted, Strategic Policy WSA8 identifies a series of design principles which
we consider closely align with the strategy and place making principles already
established within the Vision Document for the site. In the table below we consider
each of the design principles in turn in the context of work and evidence base
documents already prepared by IM Land.

Design principles
4.4 Our response to the design principles is set out at Appendix 10.
4.5 IM Land largely agree that the design principles identified will assist in the
identification of a robust vision and masterplan for the site which is responsive to the
surrounding environment and physical attributes of the site and its surrounding
environment.
4.6 As identified in the table above, work undertaken to date (which is summarised in
Section 2 of these representations) supports its allocation and will assist in the
development and refinement of a detailed masterplan for the site. As noted
throughout these representations, as part of the preparation of the BCP evidence base
it will need to be prepared to assist in the further development and refinement of the
masterplan, allowing it to take account of an assessment of the cumulative impact of
all planned development throughout the plan period and the associated impacts on
local infrastructure.
4.7 There is land currently outside of the proposed allocation to the south which adjoins
Queslett Road. The illustrative masterplan has identified how the site can be delivered
with a new access from Queslett Road, without impacting upon access to this land
parcel. IM Land will ensure that this access remains unchanged, and should this land be
later identified as part of the wider WSA8 allocation, IM Land would welcome
engagement with the landowners to ensure a holistic approach to development across
the site.
4.8 The design principle relating to heritage should not require any development to
‘enhance’ the setting and significance of the listed buildings. Section 66 of the Planning




17

(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990) does not require enhancement,
rather it requires special attention be given to preserving the building or its setting.

Proposed policy
4.9 In terms of the structure of the policy, its current presentation more reflects
supporting text than an actual policy and we question whether it would meet the tests
of paragraph 16(d) of the NPPF without modification or development. Any future policy
should set out clear criteria for what the policy requires (i.e. development quantum,
infrastructure, and any necessary specific assessment work beyond that identified in
the validation checklist). It should also include a delivery trajectory. Following
submission of these representations we would be keen to work with the Council and
other promoters to evolve this policy further.

Response to site assessment criteria (site referred to as 10116 & 10538 / SA-0017-
WAL)
4.10 Following the development and refinement of the site specific evidence base for the
site, we have undertaken a review of the site assessment criteria which has informed
draft policy WSA8 as well as the plan’s sustainability appraisal. This critique is provided
at Appendix 11.
4.11 The critique provides commentary in response to how the site has been scored,
considering whether the site specific evidence identifies allows for a revision to the
overall score for each criteria assessed. The critique only considers those criteria which
were not scored ‘green’. We summarise the key findings from the critique in our
analysis below:
• The site was included as part of a much larger area of land and assessed against
the five purposes of the Green Belt, resulting in an overall ‘Very High’ score. As
summarised at Appendix 9 of these representations, the site specific Turley
Green Belt Review (Appendix 4) which appraises the actual proposed draft
allocation development area confirms that the site scores much differently
compared to the much wider area of land. Accordingly, we consider that the
level of Green Belt harm should be reduced to ‘Moderate’.
• The heritage assets score should be ‘Green’. While there are two listed buildings
adjacent to the site, their value is preserved through the retention of field parcel
adjacent to their curtilage which are outside of the proposed site allocation.
Moreover, there are opportunities through the design of the site to further
preserve the setting of the listed buildings as well as the locally important (but
not listed) ‘Tin Tabernacle’ building on the within the site. Furthermore, a
consultation on the Great Barr Conservation Area Appraisal and Management
Plan (CAAMP), identifies that the area within which the site is located is of low
heritage value and accordingly recommends its removal from the Great Barr
Conservation Area.
• The site’s accessibility is underplayed in the Site Assessment. As our critique and
DTA’s Transport Technical Note (Appendix 7) demonstrates, the site is within




18

close proximity to a range of services and facilities, including education, health
care and retail – it should score ‘Green’ on these matters.
4.12 In summary, our evidence substantiates and supports the draft strategic allocation of
the site for residential development underlining its importance for the delivery of new
homes in a highly sustainable and accessible location.




19

5. Summary
5.1 IM Land welcome the opportunity to engage with the Black Country Plan 2039
Regulation 18 Consultation (August 2021).
5.2 IM Land has been promoting land at Queslett Road (draft Strategic Allocation Site
WSA8) (the site) as a sustainable and deliverable opportunity for new homes and
associated infrastructure since 2017.
5.3 In our representations we have a number of concerns with the draft Black Country
Plan:
5.4 The Black Country authorities’ supply is not realistic and includes sites which do not
meet the requirements of planning policy and guidance. This applies to the existing
vacant, occupied employment land and Wolverhampton upper floor conversations,
and existing Black Country Core Strategy (2011) (BCCS) allocations components of the
supply, and using appropriate and evidenced non-implementation rates.
5.5 There is currently no evidence to demonstrate how the Black Country’s shortfall of
circa 28,000 homes will be met, let alone that the fact that the scale of the shortfall is
most likely to be more significant. The plan refers to Lichfield, South Staffordshire and
Shropshire contributing to the shortfall – this totals a maximum of 7,500 new homes7.
Based on the Council’s claimed supply, there would still remain a 20,500 housing
shortfall.
5.6 At the same time the Black Country Councils are indicating an employment land
shortfall of 210ha (circa 37% of the total need). There is no policy protection proposed
for the Councils’ existing employment supply – this supply is necessary to provide
employment for the area’s working age population. Without this they risk exacerbating
their employment shortfall.
5.7 On the basis of the above Black Country Plan should be seeking all opportunities to
maximise locations for development outside of the urban area. IM Land therefore
welcomes that land at Queslett Road, Walsall is a proposed allocation for residential
development. The Councils however must ensure the evidence base is robust for its
proposed allocations to be removed Green Belt, including evidencing any needs for
infrastructure. IM Land is committed to working with the Council to achieve this.
5.8 Indeed IM Land’s site at Queslett Road is a sustainable, deliverable and developable
opportunity for a significant new residential development:
• Achieving sustainable development in accordance with Paragraphs 8 and 11 of
the NPPF.


7 Based on page 2 of the Black Country Authorities’ hearing statement to Matter 2 of the Solihull Local Plan
examination




20

• The proposals will make a substantial contribution to the Black Country’s
significant housing needs (inclusive of affordable dwellings) in a highly
sustainable location.
• The proposals are capable of including the provision of community infrastructure
such as a possible site for primary school, a new local centre comprising a health
centre and retail provision.
• The proposals will enhance connectivity in the wider area through the provision
of new pedestrian and cycle ways, knitting the site into the wider area.
• They will retain and enhance existing tree and hedgerow provision throughout
the site.
• A new green infrastructure network will be delivered, including a country park to
the north and attractive green spaces and connections throughout the site. This
will contribute to achieving a net gain in biodiversity and create newly accessible
green space for existing and new residents and will contribute to any necessary
Green Belt compensatory measures, whilst creating a new defensible Green Belt
boundary.
• It will provide significant economic benefits, over and above the construction
and occupation of the site, which will boost the local economy.
• Delivery of sustainable drainage solutions for the site that will manage and
mitigate the risk of flooding and climate change.
5.9 We would welcome the opportunity to further refine and support the proposed
strategic allocation of land at Queslett Road, Walsall (Site WSA8) through the working
with the Councils to ensure the plan’s evidence base is robust.


21

Appendix 1: Turley Vision Document

Appendix 2: BWB Ground Conditions Technical
Note

Appendix 3: Turley Heritage Technical Note

Appendix 4: Turley Green Belt Review

Appendix 5: BWB Air Quality Technical Note

Appendix 6: BWB Preliminary Ecological
Appraisal

Appendix 7: DTA Transport Technical Note

Appendix 8: GPP Mineral Safeguarding Technical
Note

Appendix 9: Evidence base summary

Appendix 10: Response to draft policy WSA8
design principles

Appendix 11: Site assessment critique

Turley Office
9 Colmore Row
Birmingham
B3 2BJ

T 0121 233 0902

[Below paragraph taken from section 3]

Policy MIN2 (Minerals Safeguarding)
3.67 Policy MIN2 confirms that planning applications for non-mineral development will only
be supported in a Mineral Safeguarding Area where the development will not
compromise existing or future mineral working within the MSA, and meets a series of
set criteria.
3.68 As confirmed in our response to the site specific assessment criteria Response for Land
at Queslett Road (site referred to as 10116 & 10538 / SA-0017-WAL) (Appendix 11), IM
Land will submit further information at the application stage to demonstrate the
mineral resource which the site covers is of no economic value.

------ [Attachment: Response to Draft Policy WSA8] -----
Design Principle 1:
High quality, sensitive design and layout that conserves and enhances the setting and significance of Doe Bank Lane Farmhouse and farm buildings, which are Grade II listed buildings; this must be informed by a detailed heritage character assessment undertaken for the proposal.
Response:
Firstly, this design principle should not require any development to ‘enhance’ the setting and significance of the listed buildings. Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990) does not require enhancement, rather it requires special attention be given to preserving the building or its setting.
As expressed throughout these representations and set out in the Turley Vision Document at Appendix 1 to IM Land’s representations, the illustrative masterplan for the site is founded on best urban design practice and identifies a landscape led strategy for the development of the site. The site’s baseline conditions have been carefully assessed, including heritage assets, landscape character, ecological, drainage and access.
As confirmed in response to ENV5, the illustrative masterplan incorporates appropriate mitigation within the design to allow for preservation of the setting of the Grade II listed farmhouse on Doe Bank Lane and allow them to continue to be appreciated as an integral part of their original landholding.
The proposals also preserve the current Conservation Area, although the separate consultation being undertaken by the Council indicates that the boundary of the Conservation Area is likely to significantly change, which result in the site being outside of Conservation Area’s boundary.
Design Principle 2:
Deliver appropriate local facilities to support the new residents and to enhance the sustainability of the existing area, including a site for a new primary school and possible site for a local health centre.
Response:
This design principle should only require the provision of a new primary school and possible site for a local health centre if such a need is evidenced.
As identified throughout the Vision Document, the key design principles which rationalise the current illustrative masterplan identify a need to create distinctive and responsive character areas which relate to their immediate landscape and/ or urban setting.
Reflecting the site’s surrounding context, the ‘Queslett Road area’ of the proposals presents a high density, strong frontage which links the development to its urban context, whereas the low density area presents a much softer setting, creating a transition from urban to rural areas.
In this context, community uses, including a possible site for a new primary school (subject to need being demonstrated), local centre, community garden, community centre, a possible health centre site (subject to need being demonstrated), recreations spaces and parks are identified within the core of the site to be utilised by new and existing residents.
During the early phases of development it may be possible to rely on any capacity available in surrounding primary schools before a possible new facility is delivered on site, this will be explored further with the Council.
IM Land will continue to develop and refine the proposed local centre features in consultation with statutory bodies and neighbouring landowners, and with a greater understanding of the need for new infrastructure / additional capacity to complement that which already exists within the surrounding area.
Design Principle 3:
Investigation and detailed proposals for remediation of contaminated land.
Response:

The BWB Ground Conditions Technical Note (Appendix 3) demonstrates that no significant source of contamination has been identified at the site, and development of the site is considered to pose a moderate / low risk to human health.
The key identified ground contamination risks identified include an off-site (decommissioned) petrol filling station (which is subject to a planning application for redevelopment as a new flatted development), and a former sand extraction pit which has since been filled in. It is considered that both are low risk.
Design Principle 4:
A transport strategy that ensures that the transport impacts of the development are appropriately managed and mitigated.
Response:
The DTA Transport Technical Note (Appendix 7) considers the highways impacts associated with our proposals for the site.
The technical note confirms that whilst walking and cycling is well catered for within the area given the established walking routes to the primary schools, secondary school, local facilities and amenities in the surrounding area, the development will look to provide enhancements to these as well as providing new facilities.
The technical note has also confirmed that the site is well served by various bus services, with 20 – 30 minute frequency services to Walsall and Birmingham.
The site will be able to be adequately accessed with three access locations currently identified onto Aldridge Road, the A4041 Queslett Road East and Doe Bank Lane. These proposed access points will continue to be developed and refined alongside the masterplan.
In the absence of up to date evidence and infrastructure testing to support the draft BCP, the technical note indicates that traffic modelling will be undertaken to understand the impact of the development of the site on the surrounding road network and infrastructure.
The forecast traffic has been estimated and distributed onto the local network. Future year traffic forecasts also include wider development growth. This has informed the design of the access and the appraisal of the off-site impact. Accordingly, the operation of the site access has been modelled which shows that there is adequate capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generation.
Off-site junction modelling assessments have demonstrated that the development will not have a material impact on future capacity.
Design Principle 5:
A site-wide Sustainable Drainage Strategy, to ensure that drainage requirements can be met on site and designed to deliver landscape, biodiversity and amenity benefits.
Response:
As set out in the Vision Document the majority of the site is at very low risk of surface water flooding. A surface water flow route in located centrally within the site following the topography of the central valley. Given the size of the site and the limited flood risk constraint, it is considered that a robust sustainable urban drainage strategy will be able to be delivered to serve the development and align with the wider landscape and open space strategy. It may be possible for drainage features such as attenuation basins and swales to contribute to the ecological improvements on site further enhancing the biodiversity on site and creation of new and extended habitats / corridors.
The roads surrounding the development are also generally at very low risk of surface water flooding and therefore safe / dry access / egress should be achievable. We recognise that there is a low / medium flood risk area at the roundabout to the east of the development however this is modelled by the EA to be less than 150mm deep and therefore not a significant risk to the access / egress for the site. In any event it may be that through the development of an appropriate evidence base for the Black Country Plan, the Council identify the opportunity for infrastructure upgrades to the local road network such as the roundabout to the east of the site which the proposed development of the site could assist in delivering.
Design Principle 6:
A strategy for landscape and habitat creation that provides enhancement, retention and mitigation for established trees and hedges, to ensure there is no significant adverse impact on visual amenity and character, nor on protected animal species.
Response:
The site is also not situated in any non-statutory local landscape designations or policy areas which seek to protect areas with locally appreciated scenic value.
Within the Walsall Landscape Sensitivity Assessment, the site has been assessed as part of Landscape Area BL29, which covers 336 hectares extending south of Aldridge, west of Streetly and north of Pheasey. The assessment parcel is characterised by ‘a generally undeveloped skyline feature along the Barr Beacon ridge, which forms a scenic backdrop to surrounding settlement.’ It also acknowledges that ’the presence of prominent electricity pylon routes provides an urbanising influence and detracts from the rural and natural character and perceptual qualities.’
The small scale field pattern to the east of Doe Bank Lane is further identified as providing a rural and open backdrop to Streetly and Pheasey. The site itself forms a smaller part of the Landscape Area BL29, occupying the lower lying land to the south-east, away from the sensitive ridgeline of Barr Beacon ridge. It is also subject to further urbanising features in the form of main arterial roads and residential development on the fringes of Pheasey, Queslett and Streetly and is of lower scenic value than the wider area to the north.
Overall, the site is considered to be of Medium-Low sensitivity in landscape terms.
As detailed throughout the Vision Document and captured within the Key Design factors which have informed the preparation of the Illustrative Masterplan, IM Land have sought to ensure that the delivery of new homes on the site has been landscape led, delivering a range of benefits / opportunities:
• New robust Green Belt boundary
• Extensive open space network which will incorporate a country park for residents as well as range of shared foot and cycle ways to improve connective around the site and to the countryside / Green Belt to the north
• Incorporation and retention of trees and hedgerows wherever possible within the site and delivery of additional planting to further enhance their ecological value and assist in the creation of a strong sense of place.
7. The site is in a MSA and requires prior extraction where practical and environmentally feasible. Where practical and environmentally feasible prior extraction for bedrock and superficial sand and gravel, shall take place.
Response:
As set out within the GPP Mineral Safeguarding Technical note (Appendix 8) development of the site for residential development would not conflict the supply of minerals given that:
• There is no prospect of prior extraction of minerals given the site constraints, including the proximity of existing residential properties to the site, and associate noise and dust emissions.
• The mineral resource is of no economic value.
• Prior extraction of minerals would result in abnormal costs and / or delays which would jeopardise the viability of the development.
• There is an overriding need for the development, which outweighs the need to safeguard the mineral resources present.
• Extraction of minerals would have unacceptable impacts on neighbouring uses, the amenity of local communities or other important environmental assets.
Further information can be submitted at the application stage to demonstrate the mineral resource is of no economic value.

------ [Response to Draft Policy WSA8 ENDS] -----

Support

Representation ID: 43926

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley Assocs

Vision for the Black Country and objectives
3.2 IM Land support the overall Vision for the Black Country and its central aim of
“…creating a prosperous, stronger and sustainable Black Country”, which needs to be
flexible to allow the authorities to respond to future challenges. In achieving this the
strategic priorities however need some further consideration.

3.3 As we explore further in these representations, the remaining unmet need for the
Black Country could be a significant issue. Strategic Priority 3 under the ‘housing that
meets all our needs’ objective should therefore place greater emphasis on this matter
and that all options will be explored to ensure the Black Country’s needs are met in full.
We discuss the policies relevant to the strategic priority further below in terms of draft
policies HOU1 and HOU2.
3.4 We note that Strategic Priority 7 under the ‘enabling a strong, stable and inclusive
economy’ objective seeks to provide a balanced portfolio of employment sites, as well
to protect and enhance existing sustainable employment areas. It must be reflected on
as to whether the plan’s current strategy of proposing to allocate active employment
sites for new homes and a lack of policy protection for employment sites being lost to
other uses would deliver this strategic priority, which we discuss further below in terms
of draft policies HOU1 and DEL2.
3.5 We welcome Strategic Priority 15 under the ‘meeting our resource and infrastructure
needs’ objective as it seeks to ensure the necessary infrastructure is in place to support
its existing and future growth. However, at this stage of the BCP preparation, the
Evidence Base which underpins the emerging BCP is incomplete. This needs to be
updated to inform any infrastructure identified for proposed allocations.

Comment

Representation ID: 43927

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley Assocs

CSP1 (development strategy)
3.8 As currently drafted the housing (47,837 homes) and employment (355ha) supplies are
identified in the emerging policy. The actual policy should be clearer that this is the
area’s proposed supply only and that the actual overall needs for the Black Country are
76,076 homes and 565ha of employment land. The policy can then be clear on how
much of the need is proposed to be exported to other authorities.
3.9 The overall development strategy is essentially made up of two elements:
• Delivering the majority of growth in the existing Urban Area / Growth Network
(86% in total); and
• Delivering a limited number of Neighbourhood Growth Areas (NGA) outside of
Growth Network (14%). The policy defines NGAs as “areas in highly sustainable
locations on the edge of the Urban Area”. The supporting text to the policy
provides further explanation – they are ‘large sites, or clusters of smaller sites,
which have been released from the Green Belt in sustainable locations on the
edge of the urban area”.
3.10 Given the existing Urban Area / Growth Network reflects the sites identified in the
Councils’ Urban Capacity Study, it is presumed the above represents a hierarchical
approach, with the existing Urban Area / Growth Network favoured over the NGAs.
This point could perhaps be further clarified as part of the justification text to draft
policy CSP1 to ensure it meets NPPF paragraph 20.
3.11 Paragraph 3.7 of the policy supporting text indicates the strategy has been developed
“through a comprehensive assessment of a range of alternative options”. The preferred
strategy reflects Spatial Option J, considered in the Sustainability Assessment (July
2021) (SA). To ensure the plan satisfies NPPF paragraph 35 further evidence will be
necessary to provide clarity as to whether this optioneering exercise reflects the
Councils’ assessment of reasonable alternatives, or whether this assessment is
provided elsewhere in the SA.
3.12 The Black Country’s needs are based on a plan period of 2020-2039. NPPF paragraph
22 states that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15 year period from
adoption. To achieve this the plan would have to be adopted by 31 March 2024. The
current schedule for the BCP is that the plan will be adopted in April 2024, on this basis
the plan would not meet the requirements of NPPF paragraph 22. The plan period
should therefore be extended to reflect this.

Support

Representation ID: 43928

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley Assocs

CSP3 (towns and neighbourhood areas and the Green Belt)
3.13 Policy CSP3 1) recognises the importance of providing a mix of good quality residential
areas where people choose to live and recognising the inherent sustainability of
directing new development through the allocation of a network of new NGAs. This is
why NGAs are crucial to the success of this plan – as traditionally certain types and
sizes of housing are more readily delivered on urban brownfield sites due to factors
such as viability and density. NGAs offer the opportunity to deliver a wider range of
housing types to meet the area’s identified needs.




8

3.14 IM Land agree that it will be important to the success of the NGAs for the parcels of
land to be comprehensively master planned to maximise the efficiency, sustainability,
and integration across the sites, and this has been central to the development of the
illustrative masterplan for land at Queslett Road (Site Ref: WAH234) to date.
3.15 The allocation of NGAs allows for greater public access to the countryside which urban
sites are not able to, so it is right parts e) and g) of the draft policy require integrated
and where possible continuous networks of green infrastructure and easy access to the
countryside. This would not be possible without NGAs and the need for this
infrastructure is a central theme to the illustrative masterplan for IM Land’s site at
Queslett Road, Walsall.
3.16 This is set out at section 5 of the Vision Document enclosed at Appendix 1, which
identifies the key design principles which have been incorporated in the development
of the illustrative masterplan for the site. This includes the provision of a defensible
Green Belt boundary to the north.
3.17 On point e), as we discuss further at draft policy DEL1, it will be essential that the
Councils’ evidence base appropriately identifies necessary infrastructure to facilitate
and mitigate the proposed development to allow for NGAs to be appropriately phased
and delivered alongside any necessary infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 43929

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley Assocs

Policy CSP4 (achieving well-designed places)
3.18 The NPPF was updated in July 2021 with a much greater emphasis placed on the
delivery of high quality design. This saw significant amendments to chapter 12 of the
NPPF and was supplemented by the publication of the National Design Guide (2021)
and National Model Design Code (Parts 1 and 2) (2021). Together these documents
confirm the Government’s intent to guide the delivery of well-designed places and
demonstrating what ‘good design’ means in practice.
3.19 The NPPF now establishes a need for local planning authorities to ensure that visual
tools such as design codes and guides are used to inform development proposals to
provide maximum clarity about design expectations at an early stage to assist in
providing a framework for creating high-quality places, with a consistent and high-
quality standard of design to inform development proposals.
3.20 IM Land therefore consider that draft policy CSP4 should be updated to reflect this
change in national guidance and instead of establishing prescriptive design criteria
within a strategic policy, there is instead an opportunity for the principles identified
within draft policy CSP4 to inform the future development of Local Design Code for the
Black Country.
3.21 In any event, throughout the masterplanning undertaken to date, IM Land have sought
ensured that the illustrative masterplan is grounded through high quality urban design
and placemaking as evidenced through the Vision Document enclosed at Appendix 1.
IM Land will continue to develop and refine the illustrative masterplan in accordance
with best practice guidance.

Support

Representation ID: 43930

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley Assocs

Policy GB1: The Black Country Green Belt
3.22 As identified at paragraph3.14-17, 3.75, the draft BCP has identified exceptional
circumstances for the removal of land from the Black Country Green Belt such as land
at Queslett Road, Walsall (draft policy WSA8), in order to meet housing and
employment land needs. The Council summarise their exceptional circumstances case
further at paragraph 4.7 of the Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021).
3.23 Following national planning policy, the authorities are therefore justified in proposing
to amend the Green Belt boundary through the associated policies map.
3.24 The policy however could do with refinement. As currently drafted part 2 applies to
sites to be removed from the Green Belt (so at the point the plan is adopted will no
longer be in the Green Belt), and the balance of the policy is to be applied to land
remaining in the Green Belt. The policy would benefit from part 2 being deleted to
provide greater clarity. Part 2)a. (the need for a defensible Green Belt boundary) is
covered in draft policy CSP3, it may be that policy should also include reference to part
2)b. and the need for compensatory measures. Another solution could be making
Part2)b. part of any site specific allocation for sites removed from the Green Belt.
3.25 In evolving the next version of the plan the Councils should provide further information
in a single document (perhaps as a topic paper) summarising the Green Belt
compensatory measures on a Black Country wide basis to ensure there is clarity on
how NPPF paragraph 142 is satisfied.

Comment

Representation ID: 43931

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley Assocs

Infrastructure
3.26 At the current stage of the preparation of the draft BCP, it is acknowledged that the
evidence base is still being prepared, and this is particularly true with regards to
infrastructure.

Policy DEL1 (infrastructure provision)
3.27 The Councils need to be cautious with their approach to viability given the scale of
brownfield land in the proposed supply. The draft BCP is highly dependent upon
development in the existing built-up area (40,117 dwellings) and brownfield sites
(81%). The Black Country’s Viability & Delivery Study (September 2021) confirms that
65% of urban typologies tested are marginally viable (27%) or unviable (38%). This
Councils must grapple with this matter as part of the plan and in identifying its
proposed supply.