Draft Black Country Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 43820

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

15

5. Policy GB1 - The Black Country Green Belt
5.1 The BCP identifies at paragraph 3.15 that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to
the Green Belt boundaries. However, the amount of Green Belt release proposed is contested.
To summarise our representations on the housing policies:

The BCP should seek to meet identified development needs in full. There is no justification
for reducing the housing and employment land requirements.

The BCP should also seek to meet the unmet needs of Birmingham.

The housing land supply position has been over-stated.

5.2 The result is that additional viable sites need to be allocated to address the identified shortfalls in
land supply. The supply in the urban area has been exhausted, to the extent that it has been
significantly over-estimated. The only logical solution is for the plan to release further land from
the Green Belt.

5.3 Such an approach would be entirely consistent with the Framework. Paragraph 142 requires that
when drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, local planning authorities should take
account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. It also requires local
planning authorities to consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling
development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages
inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary. In the
case of the Black Country, there would be very significant adverse social and economic
consequences of not providing sufficient land to meet the objectively assessed needs.

5.4 Our client proposes an omission site for development in Section 11 of this statement. The land
should be released from the Green Belt and allocated for a residential or mixed-use
development.
Safeguarded land
5.5 Paragraph 137 of the Framework identifies that
their openness and their .










16

5.6 Paragraph 140 requires strategic policies to
boundaries, having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so they can endure
.

5.7 Paragraph 143 states that when defining Green Belt boundaries, plans should (amongst other
requirements):

where necessary, identify areas of safeguarded land between the urban area and
the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond
the plan period;

e) be able to demonstrate that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the
(our emphasis)

5.8 Therefore, national policy is clear on the need to ensure that Green Belt boundaries will not need
to be altered at the end of the plan period (currently 2039). This is a critical aspect to achieving
the intended permanence in the long term. The appropriate mechanism for achieving this is
through the provision of safeguarded land. However, the BCP does not propose to designate
any safeguarded land. Other sources of land for future development needs beyond the Green
Belt are extremely limited.

5.9 There is no justification for not providing sufficient safeguarded land in the Black Country. The
permanence of the Green Belt would not be maintained, as it would be inevitable that Green
Belt boundaries will need to be reviewed again before the end of the plan period to meet needs
beyond 2039.

5.10 How much safeguarded land is needed in practice was considered in detail at the Cheshire East
Local Plan Strategy examination. In that case it was determined that sufficient safeguarded land
should be made available for another full plan period following the end of the current plan
period. Paragraph 99 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Str

longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the end of the current
plan period; in fact, taking account of other sources of land, it should be
sufficient for another full 15-year period beyond 2030, so that the Green Belt
boundary defined in the CELPS-PC will not need to be amended until at least












17

5.11

conclusion being based upon examples of best practice from around the country. Paragraph
50 of the Further Interim Views states:

Safeguarded Land, but after considering best practice, an approach which
considers a 10-15 year period beyond the end of the current plan period seems
reasonable in the context of Cheshire East; it strikes a reasonable balance
between avoiding the need to review the Green Belt at the end of the current



5.12 Therefore, in summary, sufficient safeguarded land should be provided to ensure that the current
requirement could be carried forward to the next 15-year plan period without the need for Green
Belt release. In practice the minimum requirement is to provide a similar amount of safeguarded
land to the amount of Green Belt being released for development in this plan period. Ideally
more should be provided, to allow flexibility for potential higher growth in the future and to
increase the permanence of the Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 43821

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

18

6. Policy HOU1 Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
Housing requirement
6.1 We address our objections to the proposed housing requirement in our response to Policy CSP1.
We consider that local housing need should be met in full.
Housing land supply
6.2 HIMOR has jointly commissioned Turley to undertake a review of housing need and supply in the
Black Country. A copy of the report is provided at Appendix EP1. The report draws the following
key conclusions in relation to housing land supply:

The Framework requires Local Plans to be aspirational but deliverable, identifying a
sufficient supply of sites taking into account their availability, suitability and likely
economic viability. Those sites should meet the tests of deliverable and developable
contained in the glossary. It is vital to realistically assess the amount of
deliverable supply in plan period, as to overestimate the amount of housing coming
forward in the plan period, as appears to be the case here, causes a significant planning
harm connected to the unnecessary creation of an acute shortfall of housing when
individuals require them.
The Black Country authorities have evidently made a set of assumptions in relation to the
housing capacity and deliverability of certain sources of supply, relied upon in the Draft
BCP. This report has assessed the proposed sources of supply and identified significant
concerns with the assumptions being relied on, with a clear absence of any up-to-date
umptions are not rigorous enough,
the evidence base is inadequate to draw out the conclusions being relied on, and in
our opinion the justification provided falls short given the context and scale of the
implications of misjudging the true amount of housing supply.
Setting realistic delivery assumptions, as required by the Framework, is essential as
planning harm arises when delivery does not come to fruition. This is evident in the Black
Country, where there has been clear issues in delivering sites previously identified in the
Black Country Core Strategy (BCCS). Despite this, the Councils seek to simply roll forward
the approach taken in that previous plan, with little scrutiny or regard to the
effectiveness (or not) of that strategy. The report highlights that:
In relation to non-implementation of commitments, the Councils seek to lower
the opposed discount rate based on entirely inadequate evidence, and a
reduction of 695 homes to this source in the plan period is proposed;
The Councils rely on existing allocations from previous Plan documents, which
are not subject to review through the BCP but have evidently struggled to come
forward in the preceding decade. A reduction of 4,973 homes to this source in
the plan period is proposed;










19

The Councils rely on a significant amount of supply from currently occupied
employment land, on which there is patently no reasonable prospect that
development will come forward at the point envisaged considering the local
delivery track record on employment sites, and the wider economic context. The
Framework which also seeks to ensure a sufficient supply of employment sites. A
reduction of 3,091 homes to this source in the plan period is proposed; and
The Councils rely on a significant number of dwellings in Wolverhampton City
Centre, where upper floor conversions of retail units are expected to come
forward at a given rate. There is no compelling evidence to include this windfall
allowance in the BCP supply, and the removal of the entirety of this source (812
homes) in the plan period is proposed.
Based on the above, the Draft BCP exaggerates the housing supply that is likely to come
forward from its identified sources, by almost 10,000 homes. Unless additional sites are
identified, this could lead to the provision of only 38,266 homes over the plan period, or
2,014 dwellings per annum, which is barely half of the identified minimum need for
housing in the Black Country. With this report showing that even delivering in line with the
proposed requirement would have negative consequences for the area, it follows that
these consequences would be even more pronounced if delivery were to be lower still.
In progressing the BCP, the Black Country authorities are encouraged to fundamentally
reconsider the proposed approach to housing provision, adding to and scrutinising the
identified supply with the aim of further boosting delivery and meeting housing needs in
full.
6.3 Therefore, there is a significant shortfall in h
constrained housing requirement, let alone a higher requirement in line with local housing need
as we propose in our response to Policy CSP1. The strategy needs to be fundamentally changed
to address these significant issues of soundness. This means significantly boosting the supply of
housing land to meet local housing need in full.

Comment

Representation ID: 43822

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

20

7. Policy HOU2 - Housing Density, Type and Accessibility
7.1 Paragraph 60 of the Framework states:

homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come
forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing
requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without
(our emphasis)
7.2 Paragraph 62 of the Framework explains that within this context:

the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the
community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies (including,
but not limited to, those who require affordable housing, families with children,
older people, students, people with disabilities, , service families, travellers,
people who rent their homes and people wishing to commission or build their
(our emphasis)
7.3 Paragraph 2a- What is the relationship between the current housing stock and
current and future needs?

Strategic policy-making authorities will need to look at the current stock of
houses of different sizes and assess whether these match current and future
needs.
7.4 Policy HOU2 does not provide any specific mix relating to need. It simply requires the density and
type of housing to be informed by s and sizes of accommodation
to meet identified sub- . The policy then sets out minimum density
requirements, the lowest of which is 40 dwellings per hectare (dph), which would still be relatively
high density for a housing development.

7.5 The plan fails to properly address the need for different types of housing, in particular family
housing. This goes to the heart of the strategy of predominately relying upon brownfield sites in
the urban area. We refer to the analysis undertaken by Turley in their review of housing need and
supply in the Black Country (see Appendix EP1, paragraphs 2.10 2.13 & 4.24 4.27).

7.6 Furthermore, we question whether the need for different types and sizes of housing identified in
Section 5 of the BCHMA is robust. The methodology for adducing the required housing mix is not
specified in the BCHMA, but it appears to be based upon demographic modelling assumptions
(i.e., the bedroom standard referred to on page 60, footnote 36 for the BCHMA, or similar) rather

21

than any analysis of current and future market demand. For example, a family of four may in
demographic terms require a three-bedroom house. However, that family may aspire to live in,
or need for other reasons, a four or five-bedroom house. For example, spare bedrooms may be
required for a home office or guest accommodation. Such issues have become particularly
relevant post-COVID with the shift towards increased home working.

7.7 We therefore consider that the overall strategy needs to be re-assessed to ensure that the need
for specific types of housing, in particular family housing, are met.

Comment

Representation ID: 43823

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

8. Policy HOU3 Affordable Housing
8.1 Please see our comment on affordable housing delivery in our response to Policy CSP1. In
summary:

The levels of affordable housing need in the Black Country and Walsall are very
significant. The Black Country Housing Market Assessment (BCHMA) identifies a net
need for 867 affordable homes per annum, including 154 per annum in Walsall. There
are
Neither the plan nor the evidence base grapples with how affordable housing needs
will be met. The evidence base should seek to identify how much affordable housing
will be delivered from the planned housing supply.
Continued reliance upon existing sources of supply from the urban areas will deliver
levels of affordable housing that fall substantially below identified needs.
A step change in affordable housing delivery is needed. This means allocating
additional sites which can viably deliver affordable housing in the plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 43824

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

22

9. Policy ENV1 Nature Conservation
9.1 Part 1(c) of the policy seeks to ensure that locally designated nature conservation sites (Sites of
Local Importance for Nature Conservation, or SLINC), important habitats and geological features
are protected from development proposals that could negatively impact them. The proposed
policies map identifies SLINCs, including . These are discussed
below.

9.2 HIMOR objects to the identification of the proposed .
Paragraph 8-013 of the PPG provides:

How can plan-making bodies identify and safeguard Local Wildlife Sites and
Local Geological Sites?
areas
of substantive nature conservation value and make an important contribution
. They can also provide wider
benefits including public access (where agreed), climate mitigation and
helping to tackle air pollution. They can be in in rural, urban or coastal locations,
can vary considerably in size, and may comprise a number of separate sites.
National planning policy expects plans to identify and map these sites, and to
include policies that not only secure their protection from harm or loss but also
help to enhance them and their connection to wider ecological networks.
Local planning authorities can take a lead in establishing and maintaining
partnerships and systems to identify, manage, enhance and safeguard local
sites. The positive engagement and co-operation of land owners and their
representative bodies can contribute significantly to the success of these
partnerships.
All local sites partnerships need to use clear and locally defined site selection
criteria with measurable thresholds. For example, where a particular habitat is
especially scarce, it may be appropriate to adopt a lower threshold for
selection than would be appropriate for other natural areas so that a suitable
range of sites is protected. Selection criteria need to be developed with
reference to the standard criteria in the following question, with all sites that
meet the relevant criteria (informed by detailed ecological surveys and
expertise) then being selected.
9.3 Paragraph 8-013 of the PPG then sets out the standard selection criteria for Local Wildlife Sites.










23

9.4 ture

However, the BCP and the evidence base provides no justification for the identification
of the land south of Bosty Lane, Aldridge as a SLINC. It provides no evidence as to why the
proposed policy approach is suitable for this site, and no assessment against the selection criteria
as required by the PPG.

9.5 As far as we are aware, there has also been absolutely no consultation with the landowner on
the proposed designation
walkover survey work in 2019. On several occasions HIMOR has made requests to Walsall Council
to provide the survey results, but the information has not been provided. It is therefore impossible
to scrutinise the evidence underpinning the proposed designation (if indeed there is any
evidence at all). The approach of the Council is not transparent, and is directly contrary to
paragraph 61-002 of the PPG, which states:

plans and open data when publishing plans and the evidence base which



9.6 HIMOR therefore requests again that the evidence informing the designation is made available
for review and reserves the right to comment further once that evidence is provided.

9.7 Our client has undertaken its own ecological survey works, the findings of which are summarised
in the attached letter and plans provided at Appendix EP4. The letter concludes that certain
features within the land are of ecological value and therefore should be retained and protected.
These comprise the boundaries, linear woodland, scattered trees and the mosaic of wet scrub,
neutral grassland and tall ruderal vegetation to the south of the farm complex. Existing
designations on land to the south of the site (Cuckoo's Nook (SINC) and the Dingle Local Nature
Reserve (SSSI)) are not in dispute. However, the relatively limited proportion of positive features
do not justify the identification of a SLINC which covers a much wider area of land. Most of the
land designated as a SLINC is of low ecological value, comprising improved, species poor
grassland used for farming and grazing horses. This is shown on the Phase 1 Habitat Map and the
Areas of Ecological Value plan which accompany the letter at Appendix EP4. The designation
of the land as a SLINC is not reconcilable with the assessments undertaken and the current use
of the land.










24

9.8 We therefore consider that the site is not of any significant nature conservation value and its
designation as a SLINC is erroneous. The site is not worthy of receiving any special protection in
the BCP. The proposed designation is not justified and, in the absence of evidence, is not
consistent with national policy.
Policy approach to SLINCs
9.9 The proposed policy approach is inconsistent with paragraph 175 of the Framework. This requires
plans to distinguish between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites.
However, Policy ENV1 seeks to apply a similar level of protection to locally designated sites as
internationally, nationally and regionally designated nature conservation sites. The protection
afforded through Policy ENV1 should be considered in light of the value of the sites identified.
Moreover, previous Secretary of State decisions have made clear that protection afforded to
non-statutory sites (i.e. both SLINC and SINC sites) must be commensurate with the sites true
ecological value, notwithstanding the designation per-se. For the reasons set out above, the
, and much of the land is
of low ecological value.

9.10 Furthermore, development on SLINCs could achieve ecological benefits. Ecological
enhancements could be delivered, including the management of the features which are of high
ecological value and biodiversity net gains. A blanket restriction on development within SLINCs
would provide no assurances on future management and would likely maintain the status quo of
existing uses on sites, such as agriculture and grazing, which may well be detrimental to any
ecological interests.

9.11 The policy should therefore be reflective of the potential for development. To illustrate the point,
the presence of a SLINC across the entirety of a site has not been a constraint to the proposed
allocation of sites within the BCP, for example Oxley Park Golf Club (ref: WOH261 WTNA) and land
off Sutton Road, Longwood Lane, Walsall (ref: WHA231 / Policy WSA.6). This clearly demonstrates
that development on a SLINC can be acceptable, and therefore the approach needs to be far
more flexible than the current policy wording suggests.

Object

Representation ID: 43825

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

25

10. Chapter 13 Sub-Areas and Site Allocations
Need for additional site allocations
10.1 As set out in our representations to Policies CSP1, HOU1 and GB1, there is a need to allocate
additional sites as part of an increased housing requirement to meet local housing need in full,
and to address the deficiencies in relation to housing land supply. Section 11 of this statement
proposes the allocation of the land at Bosty Lane, Aldridge, which would contribute to addressing
the identified shortfall.
Site selection methodology
10.2 Our concerns with the site selection methodology relate to the application of the methodology,

for Green Belt sites, the criteria for filtering our sites include:

Where development would cause very high harm to remaining Green Belt and
moderate-high or high harm to landscape sensitivity
With one or more significant planning constraints which cannot be mitigated
10.3 We have the following concerns with the approach and how it has been applied.

10.4 Firstly, the application of the methodology in the Site Assessments has significantly over-stated
harm in these categories, and/or fails to have regard to potential mitigation. The result is that
most Green Belt sites are assessed as causing very high harm to remaining Green Belt and
moderate-high or high harm to landscape sensitivity, and they are also identified as having other
insurmountable planning constraints. The assessments are unduly negative, and appear to be
part of a wider approach of over-stating harm to justify the failure to meet objectively assessed
needs within the Black Country.

10.5 Secondly, the assessments of Green Belt and landscape sensitivity rely heavily upon the
assessments of wider land in the Green Belt Study and the Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (LSA).
However, these assess much wider parcels of land and were not based on specific proposals.
Furthermore, at best they only provide a starting point of landscape sensitivity or Green Belt
contribution to a wider area. The findings of those assessments cannot be applied to the
individual site assessments in the way that they have, as the sites put forward may be lesser in


26

scale than the wider parcels, follow more logical boundaries or provide mitigation such as
landscaping.

10.6 Thirdly, the BCA has applied the methodology inconsistently. For example, in Walsall:

Several sites are proposed for allocation despite being categorised as causing very high
harm to remaining Green Belt and moderate-high or high harm to landscape sensitivity,
for example the land at (South of) Stonnall Road, Aldridge (ref: SA-0309-WAL) and the .
For other sites this results in automatic filtering out.

In some instances, the presence of a SLINC across the entirety of a site is not a constraint
to allocation, for example Oxley Park Golf Club (ref: WOH261 WTNA) and land off Sutton
Road, Longwood Lane, Walsall (ref: WHA231 / Policy WSA.6). However, in other

ne, Aldridge, ref: SA-

0047-WAL).

10.7 Fourthly, the methodology does not appear to take account of the potential for a scheme to
deliver special site-specific benefits which may outweigh other considerations such as the
purported degree of Green Belt or landscape harm. Such considerations could comprise
exceptional circumstances to justify release from the Green Belt either irrespective of, or in
combination with, other factors such as meeting housing need. An example is the proposed
development of the land south of Bosty Road, Aldridge, which can deliver a replacement school
for the benefit of the local community. This should be a very significant material planning
consideration in the site selection process and the consideration of exceptional circumstances.
However, the site selection methodology does not factor this into the assessment.

10.8
site in Section 11 below.

27

Object

Representation ID: 43826

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

11. Proposed allocation:
11.1 interests relate to land at Aldridge School and land to the south of Bosty Lane. The site
can be considered in two parcels with land at Aldridge school (ref: SA-0188-WAL), comprising
approximately 11.5ha, and the remainder of the land located to the south of Bosty Lane (ref: SA-
0047-WAL), comprising approximately 46.8ha. The sites are assessed as a combined parcel under
reference: SA-0061-WAL. A site location and concept masterplan plan are provided at EP3.

11.2 The current school was built in the 1950s and requires extensive ongoing improvements and
modernisation to meet modern educational needs. The proposals present an opportunity to
deliver a new state-of-the-art educational facility, funded by the residential development at the
existing school site and the land south of Bosty Lane. Therefore, in addition to the residential
development, which is desperately needed and for which Green Belt release will be required in
any event, the proposals also offer a unique opportunity to enhance and secure the long-term
future of the school.
Proposed allocation
11.3 In total the site has capacity for approximately 650 dwellings and a replacement school of 7.5ha.
This is based on the following assumptions:

The 46.8ha within HIMOR could accommodate approximately 425 dwellings
across approximately 20ha of the site3, and 7.5ha for a new school. The remaining 19ha,
including large tracts of land to the south and east of the proposed development, would
accommodate an extensive network of recreational and ecological greenspace.

The 11.5 hectares of land at Aldridge School, if redeveloped for housing, has an
approximate capacity of 225 dwellings4.

11.4 An initial concept masterplan is provided at Appendix EP4. This illustrates how the proposed
quantum of development could be accommodated on site to deliver an attractive form of
development or a density which would integrate and sit conformably within the existing built form
of the surrounding area.

3 Based on a net developable area of 14.3ha and an average density of 29 dph
4 Based on a net developable area of 6.4ha and an average density of 35 dph


28

11.5 We are currently in the process of refining the proposals for the site. We intend to prepare and
submit a development framework document, including more detailed proposals for the
replacement school and the findings of additional technical information, in the coming months.
Exceptional circumstances
11.6 Exceptional circumstances at the strategic level are discussed in our response to Policy GB1. The
BCA accept the need to release land from the Green Belt to meet the need for development.

11.7 In addition, there significant site-specific benefits which amount to compelling exceptional
circumstances, namely the potential opportunity to secure the long-term future of Aldridge
school by delivering a new state of the art educational facility. In this regard we draw attention
to two recent Secretary of State appeal decisions:

The first is dated 21 March 2018, in respect of Effingham School in the borough of
Guildford (PINS ref: APP/Y3615/W/16/3151098). The proposed development involved the
erection of a replacement secondary school and 258 new dwellings in the Green Belt,
and the redevelopment of the existing school site for 37 dwellings. The Secretary of State
found that the provision of school buildings which meet modern educational and social
need; addressing the condition of the school; and meeting the need for school places
each carry very substantial weight, and furthermore that these comprised very special

Belt which had been identified. That appeal was allowed. A copy of the appeal
decision is provided at Appendix EP5.

The second is dated 22 April 2020, in respect of the Seashell Trust campus in the borough
of Stockport (PINS ref: APP/C4235/W/18/3205559). The proposed development involved
the erection of a new school and campus facilities, and 325 new dwellings in the Green
Belt. The Secretary of State concluded that the benefits of the development, in
particular the improved provision for special needs education, outweighed the harm to
the Green Belt, and so very special circumstances exist to justify this development in the
Green Belt. The Secretary of State gave only very limited weight to the emerging Greater
Manchester Spatial Framework allocation, which emphasises the significance of the
weight given to the educational benefits. A copy of the appeal decision is provided at
Appendix EP6.

29

11.8 There are further examples of where a new school, cross-subsidised by residential development
in the Green Belt, can comprise very special circumstances, such as Kings School in Macclesfield
which was approved by Cheshire East Council in 2017. In that instance the Secretary of State
reviewed the case and chose not to call-in the application.

11.9

to justify the release of land from the Green Belt through
the BCP. This would be a material consideration capable of comprising exceptional
circumstances in its own right, irrespective of the other exceptional circumstances which apply
in this case (i.e. the absolute housing need across the Black Country, the need to provide the
right types of housing in the right locations, and the need to ensure a deliverable supply of
housing land over the plan period, including the first 5-years of the plan).
Site Assessment Report
11.10 As discussed in Section 10 of this statement, we consider that the application of the site selection
methodology is flawed. Specifically, we object to the assessment of site at Bosty Lane,
Aldridge (parcels SA-0047-WAL & SA-0061-WAL). We hereby address each aspect of the site
assessment in turn.
Green Belt and Landscape Sensitivity Assessment
11.11 This is a key stage of the site selection process as, under stage 3 of the current site selection
methodology, sites Green Belt
and moderate- are automatically filtered out. We
consider that the assessment of parcels SA-0047-WAL & SA-0061-WAL against these criteria is
fundamentally flawed, for the reasons discussed below.

Green Belt considerations
11.12 fied as part of sub-parcel B93E within the Black
Country Green Belt Study (2019) as prepared by LUC. The study identifies the parcel of land as


30

11.13 The Stage 2 Assessment as contained within Appendix 3 of the document, does not provide a
detailed assessment of the sub-parcel, rather a single paragraph commentary is provided within



-parcel makes a strong contribution to preventing the sprawl of the
West Midlands conurbation, maintaining the separation of Walsall, Aldridge,
and Streetly (adjoining Sutton Coldfield) and preventing encroachment on the
countryside. The sub-parcel is contained to the north by the settlement edge
of Aldridge, which forms part of the West Midlands conurbation. Bosty Lane
bounding the north of the sub-parcel creates a strong distinction between the
inset settlement and land in the northern part of the sub-parcel. The expansion
of Aldridge southwards would result in a weaker boundary and narrowing of
the gap between Walsall, Aldridge, and Streetly (adjoining Sutton Coldfield),
and would potentially increase containment of adjacent Green Belt land. As
the adjoining sub-parcels B100A and B94A are fully developed, there would be
no justification in retaining their Green Belt status if adjacent open land were



11.14 Insufficient consideration is given to existing built infrastructure, and natural features which can
act as boundaries such as woodland. In this regard, the parcel is contained by permanent road

Dingle (areas of significant woodland belt) provide very strong natural boundaries to the south.
The sub-parcel features existing developments to the south of Bosty Lane, including Bosty Lane
Farm and Aldridge Lane Farm. Furthermore, there is existing ribbon development along
Longwood Road, which contains development to the east, and the proposed development
would not extend any further south than this existing housing. These are highly pertinent
considerations in assessing the contribution of the site to preventing encroachment and
unrestricted sprawl.

11.15 The development of the parcel (or parts thereof) would not result in any physical or perceived
merging between Aldridge, Walsall and/or Streetly. Any development would be contained by
the permanent features described above, with intervening land remaining between settlements
in any event.

11.16 The assessment refers to sub-parcels B100A and B94A, and indicates that the release of sub-parcel
B93E parcel would inevitably result in the release of those parcels, as they are already
permanently developed. However, the assessment fails to acknowledge that these permanent
developments (east and west of B93E) are highly pertinent to the contribution that the site makes


31

to the Green Belt purposes i.e., they provide a development context to the east and west, in
addition to the edge of the settlement to the north.

Landscape Sensitivity
11.17 The site forms part of parcels BL30 and BL31 in the Black Country Landscape Sensitivity Assessment
(LSA). Both parcels are assessed as being of moderate-high landscape sensitivity. This is reflected
in the BCA Site Assessment, where it is rated as moderate-high landscape sensitivity overall.

11.18 Parcels BL30 and BL31 cover far more extensive areas of land than the site being promoted. They
also include potentially sensitive features, such as areas of woodland, which would not form part
of the developable area for the site. The assessment also does not account for any specific
mitigation proposals. Therefore, whilst the document may be used in developing proposals for
site allocations, it should not have formed a determinative or binary part of the site selection
process (i.e. filtering sites based upon landscape sensitivity) in the way that it has.

11.19 Notwithstanding the negative assessment of the site in relation to these criteria, other draft
allocations receiving similar scorings still go on to be allocated (see Section 10 of this statement).
It is therefore not clear why such an approach is not applied to land at Bosty Lane, particularly
given the significant economic and social benefits that could be realise
development, namely:

the delivery of market and affordable housing to meet very significant levels of unmet
need;
economic benefits associated with the delivery of housing such as increased
household spending in the local area; and,
the very significant benefits associated with the delivery of a new educational facility
for Aldridge School.
Environmental, social and economic criteria
11.20 The Site Assessments addresses various other criteria under the above heading. We address
below the aspects of the assessment which we consider to be incorrect and/or flawed.

Biodiversity or Geodiversity
11.21 The assessment refers to the loss of trees requiring ecological assessment. However, the land
could be developed without any significant loss of trees. The comment is illogical and could

32

equally apply to any of the allocations if it is assumed that all trees will be cleared to facilitate
development.

11.22 Reference is made to the Ecological Evaluation of the Black Country Green Belt (2019) which
claims that the land is of
information to support the assessments of individual sites / areas, such as site proformas or the
results of walkover surveys. Our client has undertaken its own ecological survey works, the findings
of which are summarised in the attached letter at Appendix EP7. This demonstrates that:

Most of the site is of low ecological value, comprising improved grassland that is used
for agriculture and horse grazing.

Whilst certain features within the land are of higher ecological value, these primarily
relate to hedgerow and woodland around the site boundaries which could be retained
and enhanced through development.

SINC and the Dingle)
can be protected and potentiallyenhanced through development, with appropriate
buffer areas and long-term management provided.

The site can be developed whilst also achieving a net gain in biodiversity.

11.23 The assessment of parcel SA-0061-
assessment of parcel SA-0047-WAL does refer to it, and states that
whole site is a SLINC and mitigation and or compensation [sic] would be significant barriers to
. We respond as follows:

Firstly, we refer to our objections to Policy ENV1 and the identification of the site as a
SLINC in the BCP. There is no evidence for the proposed designation. The ecological
assessment provided at Appendix EP7 demonstrates that most of the proposed SLINC is
of demonstrably low ecological value and its development would be acceptable in
ecological terms. The conclusion that mitigation and/or compensation would be
significant barriers to development cannot be reconciled with the evidence.

33

Secondly, the presence of a SLINC across the entirety of a site has not been a constraint
to other proposed allocations (see Section 10 of this statement). The approach taken to
the Bosty Lane site is inconsistent with other sites.

Thirdly, ecological enhancements can be delivered through a proposed allocation,
including the management of the features which are of high ecological value. A no
development scenario would allow no assurances on future management and indeed
would likely maintain the status quo of agricultural and horse grazing led management.

11.24 We therefore strongly disagree with the scoring of a very substantial negative effect in this
category. This means that
. That conclusion
is not even remotely credible based on the evidence of the
use.
Heritage Assets
11.25 The assessment of parcel SA-0061-WAL accepts that the retention of the listed buildings within the
parcel would not be a significant barrier to development subject to design and layout respecting
the setting of the listed buildings. However, the assessment then claims that:

The site is designated an Area of High Historic Landscape Value due to the
above features and Earthwork ridge and furrow and parkland features present.
Development here would have a significant impact on the historic landscape


11.26 The assessment is illogical and flawed. The Historic Landscape Characterisation Study states that
the historic interest of the Area of High Historic Landscape Value (AHHLV) is derived from its links
with Aldridge Lodge and Bosty Lane Farmhouse. The conclusion, therefore, of a very substantial
which cannot be mitigated in relation to the AHHLV is incompatible with the
acceptance that the setting of the listed buildings can be preserved as part of a development.
The assessment also fails to have regard to the potential for aspects of the landscape to be
retained as part of a proposed development, and the potential benefits of improving,
maintaining and managing heritage assets moving forward.

34

Impact on visual amenity

11.27

amenity. The assessment states:

There are public rights of way and open space around the submission site and
within the site. The loss of this site to development would have a significant
negative local impact on the visual amenity enjoyed by occupiers of the
existing ribbon development and users of the public rights of way and open
space. The topography from the Southern part may also have a wider visual
impact from Sutton Road reducing the existing semi-rural character of the area.
The impact along Aldridge Road would not be significant due to the presence



11.28 In response, the Council has not undertaken a detailed Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
(LVIA)of a specific development proposal, and there is no detailed visual impact assessment to
justify the proposed comments. The loss of private views from adjacent housing is not a material
planning consideration. The site is relatively flat and any impact on footpaths would be localised,
and comparable with the development of most greenfield sites on the urban fringe, which by
their nature tend to adjoin existing housing and public footpaths. We note that on other sites
(such as SA-0052-WAL & SA-0214-WAL), the Site Assessment report identifies a significant impact
on in the
assessment. In the absence of a detailed LVIA the inconsistency is not explained.

11.29 The assessment of land at Bosty Lane also does not appear to factor in the potential for mitigation.
Development of this site would be landscape-led and it includes significant areas of green
infrastructure.
Viability
11.30 The assessment states: Whilst it is self-
evidently correct to say that the school cannot be viably developed in isolation without the
associated housing development, this is not the basis on which the site has been promoted, and
it does not justify the application of a assessment. HIMOR
has confirmed that the proposed development, including the new school, is viable. Assessing
the viability of the new school in isolation is illogical.

35

Accessibility
11.31 A number of negative scores are set out in relation to accessibility. Specifically, the assessment
alleges that the site is more than 15-minute walking distance of a Primary School, Health Centre
Area and a centre / foodstore. However, the assessment does not appear to be accurate. We
respond as follows:

Primary school The site is within 500m walking distance of Whetstone Primary School,
well within the specified 15-minute walking time.
GP The site is just over 1km walking distance to the Anchor Meadow Health Centre,
again well within the specified 15-minute walking time.
Centre / Foodstore The site is within 650m of the nearest convenience store on Walsall
Road (Tesco express), and just over 1km of Aldridge district centre. Again, these
distances are well within the specified 15-minute walking time.
11.32 In addition to the above, the site is also within 600m of local bus stops providing regular services
between Walsall and Sutton Coldfield, Walsall and Leighswood and Birmingham and Brownhills
and Birmingham and Walsall, and it is therefore well-served by public transport. Furthermore, a
development of this scale has the potential to deliver new facilities and/or measures to improve
accessibility, including improvements to pedestrian / cycle links and public transport.
Public Open Space
11.33 The assessment states that:

heme would result in the loss of some public open space. There would

11.34 In response,
school playing fields comprise open space, but the proposal is to provide a new school as part
of the development (including playing fields). Any open space within the proposed
development would either be retained or re-provided within the site, as part of a comprehensive
scheme which delivers significant enhancements to open space provision for new and existing
residents. This factor should attract a positive score.
Opportunities
11.35 The assessment fails to consider the wider benefits that could be achieved by delivering a
replacement education facility for Aldridge High School (as discussed above in relation to the

36

tor which should be accounted for the in the

assessment.
Other considerations
11.36 The Site Assessment report does not identify any significant harm in any other area, including
access, residential amenity, air quality, ground conditions or flood risk. We agree that these
factors do not present any constraints to the sustainable development of the site.
Conclusions
11.37 The overall conclusion of the BCA Site Assessment is as follows:

space required. Significant impact on the historic visual character of the area
which could also have a wider impact due to topography. Relocation of school
here would also have implications, however more scope for mitigation and
sympathetic design than for Housing or Employment development.
The landscape sensitivity assessment makes the distinction that "Employment
Development as large-scale built form" has a moderate-high sensitivity and
later explains that sensitivity is reduced by the presence of large-scale
commercial buildings and agricultural sheds. A school here would only require
a small portion of the site for buildings as there is a need for playing fields so
would not be large-scale so likely score moderate landscape sensitivity in
relation to a school with playing fields. However the need for housing to
facilitate the school or any mixed use within this parcel is a significant barrier to
bringing forward this site and the reason it is not allocated.
No access to a primary school, local health centre or food centre which would



11.38 To summarise our detailed responses to the Site Assessment, we consider that the conclusions are
erroneous for the following reasons:

The Green Belt and landscape assessments relate to a much wider parcel of land and
the conclusions cannot be attributed to the subject site, which would utilise existing
features to create permanent and defensible Green Belt boundaries as part of a
comprehensive, landscape-led development.

The alleged impacts on trees and ecology are over-stated and are not insurmountable
constraints to the development of the site. The area covered by the proposed SLINC is
predominately low value improved grassland, which is not worthy of ecological


37

protection. The site has the potential to achieve significant improvements to ecology,
delivery a net gain, and securing the long-term management.

The site is accessible to services and amenities, including being within walking distance
of a primary school, health centre and local convenience stores as well as Aldridge
district centre, and a development of this scale also has the potential to deliver new
facilities and/or measures to improve accessibility.

The assessment fails to consider the wider benefits that could be achieved by delivering
a replacement education facility for Aldridge High School. This is a significant factor
which should be accounted for the in the assessment.

11.39 The site represents a very logical choice for an allocation for development in the emerging plan.
It is deliverable and can contribute to meeting the identified development needs of the Black
Country in a highly accessible location. The site is capable of bringing about significant social
benefits in the form of:

A new, state-of-the-art replacement high school, which would benefit the wider local
community;

Market and affordable housing comprising approximately 650 dwellings, to meet very
significant identified shortfalls in provision;

Substantial areas of public open space and footpath linkages which can be used by
new and existing residents; and,

A green infrastructure led masterplan which delivers a net gain in biodiversity and links



11.40 Whilst HIMOR intends to continue to promote the site and their land through the emerging BCP it
should be noted that the opportunity to deliver a new school (funded by the wider residential
development) is viewed as a potential shorter-term opportunity, which could be brought forward
via a planning application if the Council indicates that it would support the proposals. As the
aforementioned appeal decisions demonstrate, the delivery of a new school can comprise the
very special circumstances necessary to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, such that planning
permission could be granted outside of the development plan process.

38

Comment

Representation ID: 46205

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

9. Policy ENV1 Nature Conservation
9.1 Part 1(c) of the policy seeks to ensure that locally designated nature conservation sites (Sites of
Local Importance for Nature Conservation, or SLINC), important habitats and geological features
are protected from development proposals that could negatively impact them. The proposed
policies map identifies SLINCs, including . These are discussed
below.

9.2 HIMOR objects to the identification of the proposed .
Paragraph 8-013 of the PPG provides:

How can plan-making bodies identify and safeguard Local Wildlife Sites and
Local Geological Sites?
areas
of substantive nature conservation value and make an important contribution
. They can also provide wider
benefits including public access (where agreed), climate mitigation and
helping to tackle air pollution. They can be in in rural, urban or coastal locations,
can vary considerably in size, and may comprise a number of separate sites.
National planning policy expects plans to identify and map these sites, and to
include policies that not only secure their protection from harm or loss but also
help to enhance them and their connection to wider ecological networks.
Local planning authorities can take a lead in establishing and maintaining
partnerships and systems to identify, manage, enhance and safeguard local
sites. The positive engagement and co-operation of land owners and their
representative bodies can contribute significantly to the success of these
partnerships.
All local sites partnerships need to use clear and locally defined site selection
criteria with measurable thresholds. For example, where a particular habitat is
especially scarce, it may be appropriate to adopt a lower threshold for
selection than would be appropriate for other natural areas so that a suitable
range of sites is protected. Selection criteria need to be developed with
reference to the standard criteria in the following question, with all sites that
meet the relevant criteria (informed by detailed ecological surveys and
expertise) then being selected.
9.3 Paragraph 8-013 of the PPG then sets out the standard selection criteria for Local Wildlife Sites.










23

9.4 ture

However, the BCP and the evidence base provides no justification for the identification
of the land south of Bosty Lane, Aldridge as a SLINC. It provides no evidence as to why the
proposed policy approach is suitable for this site, and no assessment against the selection criteria
as required by the PPG.

9.5 As far as we are aware, there has also been absolutely no consultation with the landowner on
the proposed designation
walkover survey work in 2019. On several occasions HIMOR has made requests to Walsall Council
to provide the survey results, but the information has not been provided. It is therefore impossible
to scrutinise the evidence underpinning the proposed designation (if indeed there is any
evidence at all). The approach of the Council is not transparent, and is directly contrary to
paragraph 61-002 of the PPG, which states:

plans and open data when publishing plans and the evidence base which



9.6 HIMOR therefore requests again that the evidence informing the designation is made available
for review and reserves the right to comment further once that evidence is provided.

9.7 Our client has undertaken its own ecological survey works, the findings of which are summarised
in the attached letter and plans provided at Appendix EP4. The letter concludes that certain
features within the land are of ecological value and therefore should be retained and protected.
These comprise the boundaries, linear woodland, scattered trees and the mosaic of wet scrub,
neutral grassland and tall ruderal vegetation to the south of the farm complex. Existing
designations on land to the south of the site (Cuckoo's Nook (SINC) and the Dingle Local Nature
Reserve (SSSI)) are not in dispute. However, the relatively limited proportion of positive features
do not justify the identification of a SLINC which covers a much wider area of land. Most of the
land designated as a SLINC is of low ecological value, comprising improved, species poor
grassland used for farming and grazing horses. This is shown on the Phase 1 Habitat Map and the
Areas of Ecological Value plan which accompany the letter at Appendix EP4. The designation
of the land as a SLINC is not reconcilable with the assessments undertaken and the current use
of the land.










24

9.8 We therefore consider that the site is not of any significant nature conservation value and its
designation as a SLINC is erroneous. The site is not worthy of receiving any special protection in
the BCP. The proposed designation is not justified and, in the absence of evidence, is not
consistent with national policy.
Policy approach to SLINCs
9.9 The proposed policy approach is inconsistent with paragraph 175 of the Framework. This requires
plans to distinguish between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites.
However, Policy ENV1 seeks to apply a similar level of protection to locally designated sites as
internationally, nationally and regionally designated nature conservation sites. The protection
afforded through Policy ENV1 should be considered in light of the value of the sites identified.
Moreover, previous Secretary of State decisions have made clear that protection afforded to
non-statutory sites (i.e. both SLINC and SINC sites) must be commensurate with the sites true
ecological value, notwithstanding the designation per-se. For the reasons set out above, the
, and much of the land is
of low ecological value.

9.10 Furthermore, development on SLINCs could achieve ecological benefits. Ecological
enhancements could be delivered, including the management of the features which are of high
ecological value and biodiversity net gains. A blanket restriction on development within SLINCs
would provide no assurances on future management and would likely maintain the status quo of
existing uses on sites, such as agriculture and grazing, which may well be detrimental to any
ecological interests.

9.11 The policy should therefore be reflective of the potential for development. To illustrate the point,
the presence of a SLINC across the entirety of a site has not been a constraint to the proposed
allocation of sites within the BCP, for example Oxley Park Golf Club (ref: WOH261 WTNA) and land
off Sutton Road, Longwood Lane, Walsall (ref: WHA231 / Policy WSA.6). This clearly demonstrates
that development on a SLINC can be acceptable, and therefore the approach needs to be far
more flexible than the current policy wording suggests

Comment

Representation ID: 46206

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

9. Policy ENV1 Nature Conservation
9.1 Part 1(c) of the policy seeks to ensure that locally designated nature conservation sites (Sites of
Local Importance for Nature Conservation, or SLINC), important habitats and geological features
are protected from development proposals that could negatively impact them. The proposed
policies map identifies SLINCs, including . These are discussed
below.

9.2 HIMOR objects to the identification of the proposed .
Paragraph 8-013 of the PPG provides:

How can plan-making bodies identify and safeguard Local Wildlife Sites and
Local Geological Sites?
areas
of substantive nature conservation value and make an important contribution
. They can also provide wider
benefits including public access (where agreed), climate mitigation and
helping to tackle air pollution. They can be in in rural, urban or coastal locations,
can vary considerably in size, and may comprise a number of separate sites.
National planning policy expects plans to identify and map these sites, and to
include policies that not only secure their protection from harm or loss but also
help to enhance them and their connection to wider ecological networks.
Local planning authorities can take a lead in establishing and maintaining
partnerships and systems to identify, manage, enhance and safeguard local
sites. The positive engagement and co-operation of land owners and their
representative bodies can contribute significantly to the success of these
partnerships.
All local sites partnerships need to use clear and locally defined site selection
criteria with measurable thresholds. For example, where a particular habitat is
especially scarce, it may be appropriate to adopt a lower threshold for
selection than would be appropriate for other natural areas so that a suitable
range of sites is protected. Selection criteria need to be developed with
reference to the standard criteria in the following question, with all sites that
meet the relevant criteria (informed by detailed ecological surveys and
expertise) then being selected.
9.3 Paragraph 8-013 of the PPG then sets out the standard selection criteria for Local Wildlife Sites.










23

9.4 ture

However, the BCP and the evidence base provides no justification for the identification
of the land south of Bosty Lane, Aldridge as a SLINC. It provides no evidence as to why the
proposed policy approach is suitable for this site, and no assessment against the selection criteria
as required by the PPG.

9.5 As far as we are aware, there has also been absolutely no consultation with the landowner on
the proposed designation
walkover survey work in 2019. On several occasions HIMOR has made requests to Walsall Council
to provide the survey results, but the information has not been provided. It is therefore impossible
to scrutinise the evidence underpinning the proposed designation (if indeed there is any
evidence at all). The approach of the Council is not transparent, and is directly contrary to
paragraph 61-002 of the PPG, which states:

plans and open data when publishing plans and the evidence base which



9.6 HIMOR therefore requests again that the evidence informing the designation is made available
for review and reserves the right to comment further once that evidence is provided.

9.7 Our client has undertaken its own ecological survey works, the findings of which are summarised
in the attached letter and plans provided at Appendix EP4. The letter concludes that certain
features within the land are of ecological value and therefore should be retained and protected.
These comprise the boundaries, linear woodland, scattered trees and the mosaic of wet scrub,
neutral grassland and tall ruderal vegetation to the south of the farm complex. Existing
designations on land to the south of the site (Cuckoo's Nook (SINC) and the Dingle Local Nature
Reserve (SSSI)) are not in dispute. However, the relatively limited proportion of positive features
do not justify the identification of a SLINC which covers a much wider area of land. Most of the
land designated as a SLINC is of low ecological value, comprising improved, species poor
grassland used for farming and grazing horses. This is shown on the Phase 1 Habitat Map and the
Areas of Ecological Value plan which accompany the letter at Appendix EP4. The designation
of the land as a SLINC is not reconcilable with the assessments undertaken and the current use
of the land.










24

9.8 We therefore consider that the site is not of any significant nature conservation value and its
designation as a SLINC is erroneous. The site is not worthy of receiving any special protection in
the BCP. The proposed designation is not justified and, in the absence of evidence, is not
consistent with national policy.
Policy approach to SLINCs
9.9 The proposed policy approach is inconsistent with paragraph 175 of the Framework. This requires
plans to distinguish between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites.
However, Policy ENV1 seeks to apply a similar level of protection to locally designated sites as
internationally, nationally and regionally designated nature conservation sites. The protection
afforded through Policy ENV1 should be considered in light of the value of the sites identified.
Moreover, previous Secretary of State decisions have made clear that protection afforded to
non-statutory sites (i.e. both SLINC and SINC sites) must be commensurate with the sites true
ecological value, notwithstanding the designation per-se. For the reasons set out above, the
, and much of the land is
of low ecological value.

9.10 Furthermore, development on SLINCs could achieve ecological benefits. Ecological
enhancements could be delivered, including the management of the features which are of high
ecological value and biodiversity net gains. A blanket restriction on development within SLINCs
would provide no assurances on future management and would likely maintain the status quo of
existing uses on sites, such as agriculture and grazing, which may well be detrimental to any
ecological interests.

9.11 The policy should therefore be reflective of the potential for development. To illustrate the point,
the presence of a SLINC across the entirety of a site has not been a constraint to the proposed
allocation of sites within the BCP, for example Oxley Park Golf Club (ref: WOH261 WTNA) and land
off Sutton Road, Longwood Lane, Walsall (ref: WHA231 / Policy WSA.6). This clearly demonstrates
that development on a SLINC can be acceptable, and therefore the approach needs to be far
more flexible than the current policy wording suggests