Draft Black Country Plan

Object

Representation ID: 43880

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

11.17 Policy ENV8 considers open space, sport and recreation, and identifies that open space quantity standards to be provided through new development will be set out within local plans produced by each of the Black Country authorities. This is not supported as it does not provide any certainty or confirmation of viability to those allocations contained within the Plan. Whilst the provision of separate standards for each of the authority areas is supported, it is not understood why these open space standards could not be forthcoming through this Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 43881

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

11.18 Policy ENV9 deals, amongst other things, with design quality and it states that development proposals should address the following:
· Implementation of the principles of the National Design Guide;
· Implementation of the principles of Manual for Streets to ensure urban streets and spaces are designed to provide a high quality public realm and safe and permeable movement network;
· Use of Building for a Healthy Life criteria;
· Consider the requirements of part Q of the Building Regulations 2010;
· Meet water efficiency standards as set out in Part II of the Building Regulations 2010;
· Meet the Nationally Described Space Standards; and
· Reflect National Design Guide Design Principle H1.
11.19 Much of the above relates to other legislation outside of planning. As a result it is not appropriate for a Development Plan Policy to reiterate requirements in other legislation.
11.20 Regarding the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS), these were published by the Department of Communities and Local Government on 27 March 2015. Their publication was accompanied by a Planning Update issued as a Written Ministerial Statement to Parliament by the Rt. Hon. Sir Eric Pickles MP on 25th March 2015.
11.21 In introducing the standards, the Written Ministerial Statement outlines:
“New homes need to be high quality, accessible and sustainable. To achieve this, the government has created a new approach for the setting of technical standards for new housing. This rationalises the many differing existing standards into a simpler, streamlined system which will reduce burdens and help bring forward much needed new homes.”
11.22 However, the Written Ministerial Statement is also clear that the standards are optional, and that compliance cannot be required outside of a relevant current Local Plan policy:
“From 1 October 2015: Existing Local Plan, neighbourhood plan, and supplementary planning document policies relating to water efficiency, access and internal space should be interpreted by reference to the nearest equivalent new national technical standard. Decision takers should only require compliance with the new national technical standards where there is a relevant current Local Plan policy.”
11.23 This is to ensure that the need for the application of the standards through planning policy is fully evidenced and that the impact on viability is considered alongside all of the other policies contained in the Plan:
“The optional new national technical standards should only be required through any new Local Plan policies if they address a clearly evidenced need, and where their impact on viability has been considered, in accordance with the National Planning Policy

Framework and Planning Guidance.”
11.24 The reference to the National Planning Policy Framework relates to paragraph 130 (f) which states planning policies should:
“create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.”
11.25 Footnote 49 makes it clear that use of the Government’s optional technical standards should be used "...where this would address an identified need for such properties and the need for an internal space standard can be justified" [emphasis added].
11.26 Planning Practice Guidance states2:
“Where a need for internal space standards is identified, local planning authorities should provide justification for requiring internal space policies. Local planning authorities should take account of the following areas:
· need – evidence should be provided on the size and type of dwellings currently being built in the area, to ensure the impacts of adopting space standards can be properly assessed, for example, to consider any potential impact on meeting demand for starter homes.
· viability – the impact of adopting the space standard should be considered as part of a plan’s viability assessment with account taken of the impact of potentially larger dwellings on land supply. Local planning authorities will also need to consider impacts on affordability where a space standard is to be
2 Paragraph: 020 Reference ID: 56-020-20150327
Revision date: 27 03 2015
adopted.
· timing – there may need to be a reasonable transitional period following adoption of a new policy on space standards to enable developers to factor the cost of space standards into future land acquisitions.”
11.27 The Guidance is therefore clear that the application of the NDSS requires a Local Plan policy which has been fully evidenced, including identification of need and the consideration of any impact on viability.
11.28 The Black Country Housing Market Assessment provides limited commentary in respect of NDSS. The focus of this commentary, contained within the Accessible and Adaptable Housing section on page 97, relates to M4(2) and M4(3) standards and provides no justification for the requirement of NDSS on all new dwellings. It also highlights that any requirements should be assessed to determine whether they are viable and should not impose any further requirements beyond building regulations.
11.29 Therefore, it is clear evidence does not support the imposition of NDSS within the Black Country. To the contrary, the evidence highlights a number of potential risks if such a policy were to be introduced.
11.30 In view of the above much of the requirements set out in policy ENV9 are not justified and contrary to national policy and should be deleted.

Support

Representation ID: 43882

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

11.31 Policy CC1 identifies the proposals for development will need to demonstrate how they have been designed to maximise resistance and resilience to climate change through addressing a number of specified requirements. These include:
· Being orientated to maximise natural heating and ventilation;
· Including a range of sustainable land low carbon transport modes as alternatives to private car use;
· Use of trees and other planting to provide for shading, air quality mitigation and connection of fragmented habitats;
· Utilising a mix of native tree species and plants;
· Minimising surface run-off; and
· Incorporate mitigation and resilience measures to reduce the risk of river and surface water flooding.
11.32 Taylor Wimpey supports the principles set out in Policy CC1 as being an appropriate response to climate change.

Object

Representation ID: 43883

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

11.33 Policy CC2 sets out energy infrastructure requirements. It requires any development of 10 or more dwellings to include opportunities for decentralised energy provision. Where there is existing decentralised energy provision close to the site, the development will be expected to link into it or be designed to accommodate a subsequent connection. This policy, in effect, requires all major developments to provide for renewable energy or for a connection into a district heat system.
11.34 Whilst Taylor Wimpey is supportive of the general policy approach, the Policy should make clear that a 'fabric first' method of reducing energy usage is preferable and most efficient. This approach also utilises existing well-tested technology, whereas some forms of energy generation have been adversely affected by products which are quickly obsolete or result in system failure.
11.35 The Policy goes on to refer to developments of 100 homes or more having energy provision developed and agreed between the Local Planning Authority and developer to establish the lowest lifetime carbon energy provision. The Policy identifies 10 individual requirements with regards to energy provision. Taylor Wimpey supports the need to minimise energy usage but question the approach taken in Policy CC2 which is requiring a number of specific energy elements to be analysed in an environment where much of both the technology and in particular ability to deliver items such as combined heat and power are at tentative early stages. Indeed, no reference is made in the Plan to any existing provision of combined heat and power within the Black Country and whilst it is understood that the plan is aspirational in this regard and that there is an overwhelming need to move towards a carbon neutral economy, providing a development plan policy with such specific requirements in an environment where there is little experience or existing provision points to a lack of evidence.
11.36 Instead, it is submitted that matters relating to the energy usage and efficiency of dwellings is deferred to Part L of Building Regulations and the roadmap to zero carbon and future homes standard.

Object

Representation ID: 43884

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

11.37 Policy CC4 deals with air quality. It states the Plan will promote a diverse approach to addressing the issue of poor air quality. Taylor Wimpey supports this approach. However, Criterion 2 states new development must be air quality neutral and, amongst other things, should not lead to a deterioration of existing poor air quality. The Policy should be amended to indicate that mitigation measures which would in overall terms ensure that air quality was not diminished, would be a legitimate way forward rather than an in principle objection to any proposal that could have even the slightest degradation of air quality. Other parts of the Policy already provide such a scenario. In addition, whilst Criterion 2 states development must be air quality neutral, Criterion 4 indicates that where proposals have a moderate air quality impact which can be dealt with standard mitigation measures, there will not be a requirement for air quality assessment. This appears to provide an inherit contradiction with the approach set out in the Policy. This all points to the need to revise Criterion 1 of the Policy.

Object

Representation ID: 43885

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

11.38 Policy CC5 deals with flood risk, of which Criterion 2 indicates that the sequential test will be applied to all developments to ensure that it takes place in areas with the lowest flood risk. This does not accord with the NPPF or PPG, which only requires a flood risk assessment to be provided in respect of major developments or developments within areas of defined flood risk. The Policy needs to be clearer and that the sequential test referred to in Criterion 2 only applies to the specific circumstances set out in the NPPF. Paragraph 167 of the NPPF is clear that only certain applications will be subject to site specific flood risk assessments and this in turn can lead to the application of the sequential test for flood risk. The Policy should reflect this.

Object

Representation ID: 43886

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

11.39 Policy CC6 deals with sustainable drainage and surface water management. It states all new development should incorporate SuDS which should be designed in line with the Black Country Local Standards for SuDS.
11.40 Whilst Taylor Wimpey supports the utilisation of SuDS, there are circumstances where SuDS are not feasible, such as ground conditions. In view of this the policy requires amendment to allow for such exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, Taylor Wimpey does not support cross reference to 'design standards'. Any standards should be contained within the Plan for clarity.
11.41 Criterion 3 states for major development surface water flows must be reduced back to an equivalent greenfield rate. It goes on to state that if greenfield run¬off rates are not considered to be feasible for viability reasons, then this must be evidenced by the developer. However, there are circumstances where, for reasons other than viability, such as location or size of development or other site constraints, where greenfield rates could not be achieved unrelated to viability. The Policy should be amended to reflect this.

Object

Representation ID: 43887

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

11.42 Policy CC7 relates to renewable and low-carbon energy. It states that major developments of 10 or more homes must achieve a 19% carbon reduction improvement over the requirements of the Building Regulations Part L 2013 or achieve any higher standard than this that is required under new national planning policy or Building Regulations and, in addition, incorporate generation of energy from renewable or low-carbon sources sufficient to off-set at least 20% of the estimated residual energy demand of the development. This requirement would clearly impose a significant burden upon even relatively small scale proposals. The justification does not identify any evidence as to why 19% is the appropriate target. As is the case with other policies relating to energy generation and/or nature conservation, referring to either separate regulatory regimes or standards that are not currently in force, is not appropriate for a development plan policy.
11.43 In addition, it is also recognised in the justification of the policy (Paragraph 10.211) that the 20% renewable energy requirement will impact on some major developments within the Black Country from a viability perspective. If this is already acknowledged on the macro level, before site specific circumstances which can impose further development costs are established, then it is not sound to include a blanket policy requirement of this type. In addition, the justification indicates that as well as the 19% carbon reduction improvement required for major development under Policy CC7, the requirement for energy generation (20%) would be beyond the already discounted figures. This is unduly onerous and not backed up by evidence.

Object

Representation ID: 43888

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

12.1 Policy MIN2 refers to mineral safeguarding. It states that mineral safeguarding areas have been defined around mineral resources in Walsall Borough. It is unclear why only Walsall has been identified for mineral safeguarding areas. In addition, the policy should also be revised to take account of site specific factors including the potential impact on surrounding residents, which could in itself be so detrimental as to prohibit planning permission being granted for mineral extraction. This should be added as a specific criterion. The issue of impact on residential amenity from mineral extraction is identified in the justification to the policy but it needs to be moved into the policy text itself.