Draft Black Country Plan

Object

Representation ID: 43870

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

10.4 The supporting text to Policy TRAN2 (Safeguarding the Development of the Key Route Network) sets out how the Key Route Network (KRN) caters for the main strategic demand flows of people and freight across the metropolitan area. Policy TRAN2 goes on to state that the Black Country Authorities will safeguard land in order to implement improvements to the KRN.
10.5 It is not clear how this will be achieved; there is no indication as to what these improvements to the KRN might be, nor is there any indication of safeguarded land on the draft Proposals Map. It is considered likely that land ownership constraints will be a significant barrier to the implementation of this Policy.
10.6 If housing and employment allocations located on the KRN are required to include safeguarded land and/or deliver improvements to the KRN then this should be made clear through the Plan, as such improvements will ultimately impact upon the viability of the allocations.

Object

Representation ID: 43871

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

10.7 Policy TRAN3 refers to managing transport impacts on new development. The policy states, amongst other things, that mitigation schemes must demonstrate an acceptable level of accessibility and safety can be achieved "...using all modes of transport to, from and through the development". Taylor Wimpey considers this policy needs further revision to take account of circumstances when, for instance, bus penetration through a site may not be possible due to constraints such as site size, physical barriers or other design considerations (delivering high density housing developments based on Manual for Streets principles where bus penetration would be inappropriate).

Object

Representation ID: 43872

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

10.8 Policy TRAN5 relates to creating coherent networks for cycling and for walking.
10.9 It states that creating an environment which encourages sustainable travel requires new development to be linked to existing walking and cycle networks and such links should not be impeded by infrastructure provided for other forms of transport. Taylor Wimpey consider that this reference should be revised to refer to circumstances where transport infrastructure can provide for multiple users, e.g. combined pedestrian/cycle routes and other routes which could be shared by bus services but not car users.
10.10 The Policy also refers to cycle parking, although Taylor Wimpey considers this should be further developed to identify not only where cycle parking could be provided in association with commercial or employment uses, but how cycle parking should be provided within residential developments. In this regard, it is generally accepted that provision within rear garden areas or communal open space areas is a preferred option rather than public parking areas which could be subject to inadequate maintenance or poor surveillance.

Object

Representation ID: 43873

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

10.11 Policy TRAN7 (Parking Management) sets out that maximum parking standards for each of the Black Country Authorities will be enforced through supplementary planning documents. This approach is not supported by Taylor Wimpey. Any parking standards should be defined within the Plan to allow their appropriateness to be robustly tested at examination.

Object

Representation ID: 43874

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

10.12 Policy TRAN8 (Planning for Low Emission Vehicles) requires developments to include 'adequate provision' for charging infrastructure. Whilst Taylor Wimpey is supportive of the transition towards electric vehicles (EVs) and the provision of EV infrastructure, it is considered that 'adequate provision' is vague and not clear and therefore does not accord with the requirements of with Paragraph 16 d of the NPPF ("Plans should contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals."). If it is the expectation that all development should include EV charging infrastructure, then Policy TRAN8 should be explicit that that is the case.

Object

Representation ID: 43875

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

11.2 Policy ENV1 identifies a number of criteria which must be considered within development proposals in respect of nature conservation. Amongst other things, it states details of how improvements will contribute to the natural environment, and their ongoing management for the benefit of biodiversity and geodiversity will be expected to accompany planning applications. Whilst Taylor Wimpey supports the national objective for development to deliver an improvement in biodiversity, it is not clear how development could similarly contribute towards improvements in geodiversity if the sites themselves had limited geological interest. The Policy should be amended to make this more apparent.

Object

Representation ID: 43876

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

11.3 Policy ENV2 relates to development affecting the Cannock Chase SAC. It states an appropriate assessment will be carried out for any development that leads to a net increase in homes or creates visitor accommodation within 15 km of the boundary of the Cannock Chase SAC. In respect of SACs, Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that appropriate assessments will be required only if a development is likely to be a significant effect on a protected habitats site. Given the current wording, Policy ENV2 would therefore suggest a single dwelling 14.99km from the Cannock Chase SAC would have a significant effect upon it. This cannot be the case.
11.4 The explanation to the policy refers to mitigation in the form of contributions towards management of the SAC. If this is to be pursued, it should be in the main Policy text and properly justified.
11.5 The justification to the Policy identifies that development proposals can increase levels of nitrous oxide deposition that may affect designated SACs, e.g. through increased traffic usage on roads that run within close proximity to the boundary of the SAC. The supporting text indicates that a future partnership approach would be developed to address this matter but, in the meantime, where development may result in harm to the SAC, then the relevant Council will carry out an appropriate assessment. This needs further explanation and/or amendment as it appears to be relying on a partnership approach that has not yet been developed and therefore cannot be implemented.

Object

Representation ID: 43877

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

11.6 Policy LNR3 deals with the local recovery network and biodiversity net gain. It states that the Nature Recovery Network (NRN) is a major commitment in the Environment Bill which requires a Nature Recovery Strategy to be prepared locally and published for all areas of England. Policy ENV3 states all development shall deliver the local NRN Strategy in line with key principles. Amongst other things, it states that all development shall deliver a minimum of 10% net gain in biodiversity value. It also states that any exemption as to the need to provide biodiversity net gain will be set out in the relevant legislation and national guidance. Compensation will only be accepted in exceptional circumstances.
11.7 Paragraph 10.39 identifies that the Black Country authorities have commenced work on a Local Nature Recovery Network Strategy but this is yet to be concluded. The draft Nature Recovery Network opportunities map is included within Appendix 18 of the Plan but this again is in draft form. In view of the above there is considerable uncertainty as to whether the approach set in ENV3 will conclude in the manner envisaged, particularly where a number of the factors which will influence it are yet to be fixed. As a result, it provides an uncertain basis for the consideration of biodiversity and a more appropriate response would be for the Plan to follow the policy context set out in the NPPF on this matter. It would appear that the approach in the plan is making an attempt to predict a policy context which is at the early stages of development
and when the ultimate policy context may be significantly different.
11.8 In addition, the map produced at Appendix 18 is of such a small scale (1:125,000) as to make it unusable for many specific sites. Some of the strategies depicted by the mapping itself are difficult to understand. For example, the Fallings Park allocation is identified as a Core Expansion Zone 1 and Urban Matrix Recovery Zone 1 which recognises that the site is of lower ecological value but, due to its location, has the most potential to contribute towards a coherent ecological network and are a priority for investment in the restoration and creation of new habitats. Whilst Taylor Wimpey supports the potential for enhanced ecology and biodiversity as a consequence of the proposed development, this should not be at the expense of at the key objective to deliver the Neighbourhood Growth Area set out in the plan. This could be affected through the application of Policy ENV3 as it is currently drafted. In addition, much of the evidence relating to these matters has not yet been published and at present it remains an untested map produced by the Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country and the local Environmental Records Centre. This is not a sufficient basis for what could be a significant Local Plan policy which has ramifications for strategic and local development.
11.9 In summary, Taylor Wimpey generally supports the approach to improving biodiversity in conjunction with development proposals. However, as set out above, further clarity is required in respect of what the NRN is, where it is and a strategy for its improvement.

Object

Representation ID: 43878

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

11.10 Policy ENV4 seeks to provide, retain and protect trees, woodlands and hedgerows. Taylor Wimpey supports the principles set out in the policy and to delivering new tree planting in association with development proposals. However, there are certain specific elements of it that raise concern. In particular Criterion 12 states that development proposals should use large canopy species where possible. This is not support as it will often cause conflict with Highway Authorities, where they be located along new streets, particularly where they are likely to be frequented by high sided vehicles. Similarly, the policy refers to making a ‘minimum’ contribution of 20% canopy cover across a development site and a ‘recommended’ contribution of 30% canopy cover across a development site. Such an approach would have a significant impact on the capacity of any new development site. Furthermore, these specific figures are arbitrary and have not been justified. Consideration has not been given to its implications for delivery of housing or employment development. This element of the Policy should be deleted as it is not properly evidenced and it would sterilise large tracts of land which has development potential. It would also be in addition to requirements of other open space typologies- areas for sport and recreate cannot accommodate tree cover as envisaged.
11.11 Criterion 14 refers to new houses and buildings being carefully designed to avoid shade cast by both existing and new trees. As creating shade with trees is one response to climate change and combating the urban heat island effect, the inclusion of this criterion needs further clarification and justification.
11.12 Criterion 18 refers to trees proposed for removal during development being replaced at a ratio of at least 3 trees for 1 removed tree. It goes on to state the size and number of replacement trees would be commensurate with the size, stature, rarity and amenity of the tree to be removed. This approach is unreasonable, not justified by evidence and does not properly consider the practicalities of providing replacement trees particularly when larger specimens can be difficult to establish. This criterion should be deleted.
11.13 Criterion 22 refers to utilisation of planning conditions to require an arboricultural Clerk of Works being required on sites where development will potentially impact on trees. It is unclear how this requirement will be enforced on the ground. Similarly, Criterion 23 states a presumption will be applied to replacement trees being from the UK and Ireland to negate the spread of tree pests and diseases whilst supporting regional nurseries. The evidence base for this requirement is questioned. Similarly, it is difficult to understand how this would be enforced via planning conditions or through a planning permission. It could also mean trees are difficult to resource in the planting season.
11.14 Criterion 24 states there will be a presumption against the wholesale removal of hedgerows for development purposes. Taylor Wimpey supports the principle that established hedgerows should be protected in development proposals. However, particularly when dealing with greenfield sites such as those in the Neighbourhood Growth Areas, it is inevitable that some hedgerows will need to be removed to facilitate other requirements such as access, circulation routes, drainages etc and the policy should be amended to reflect that there are occasions where hedgerows can legitimately be removed to secure other planning objectives. Criterion 27 states new hedgerows would be sought as part of site layouts and landscaping schemes. This policy should be revised to reflect differing circumstances within the Black Country whereby not in every occurrence would it be appropriate to plant a hedge particularly in urban/town centre locations.

Object

Representation ID: 43879

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

11.15 Policy ENV5 refers to the historic character and local distinctiveness of the Black Country. It appears to take the position that all development within the Black Country is, in effect, part of the historic environment. Whilst in very general terms this would be considered accurate, it is clearly different to consider characteristics associated with a 1970s suburban residential development to one which is involving a Victorian street.
11.16 The Policy should distinguish between the historic environment which will consider statutory heritage assets and distinguish this from development that responds to local character. At present it is drafted where both aspects are confused.