Draft Black Country Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 23061

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Savills

Policy HOU2 – Housing Density, Type and Accessibility
The policy sets out criteria that housing mix for development sites will be based on which includes being in line with the most recently available information. Paragraph 124 of the NPPF sets out the importance of planning policies to make efficient use of land taking into account: the identified need for different types of housing, local market conditions and viability, the availability and capacity of infrastructure, the desirability of maintaining an area’s character and setting and the importance of securing well-designed and attractive places [Savills emphasis].
The housing mix set out under paragraph 6.20 of the plan sets out the housing needs identified in the BCA Housing Market Assessment (2021). Market demand changes so this ‘latest’ evidence may not be representative of need when planning applications are submitted in the future. As developers and national housebuilders have vested interests in building products that are deliverable and meet market needs, the BCA should not have a fixed size and type guidance, as this could affect development viability, lead to inflexibility and result in obstructing development. We consider that the Housing Market Assessment figures should be used as guidance only and housing mix should be determined on a site by site basis based on market evidence at the time of application submission.
Although we support the Council’s ambition to make the most efficient use of land (NPPF paragraph 125), we do not support the proposed approach to calculating density requirements within this policy. Policy HOU2 has based its proposed density requirements on Table 5, which assesses accessibility through the proximity of the site to local centres, health facilities, shops and education. The Planning Practice Guidance (‘PPG’) sets out a range of considerations which should be taken into account when considering densities for a site or area which includes accessibility to services, as the BCA have assessed but also characterisation studies (urban form and historic character), environmental and infrastructure capacity and market/site viability which the plan has not considered (Reference ID: 66004-20190722). Additionally, the PPG also states that it is “important to consider how housing needs, local character and appropriate building forms relate to the density measures being used” (Reference ID: 66-005-20190722). We consider that it is important that density is considered on a site by site basis, particularly for proposed allocations which are adjacent to lower density housing such as Site WSA9.
Paragraph 6.18 states that investment will be sought to improve any facilities where there is an identified gap in service provision. We understand that Walsall Council has not received input from health or Education to date to confirm their requirements. Therefore, the ‘Key Large Sites Viability and Deliverability Study’ (May 2021) has not been able to assess the level of investment which may be required for the strategic allocations and how the contributions sought are reasonable. Health and education requirements for each site should be confirmed and addressed accordingly within the plan. If these are required on site, then adjustments will need to be made to the housing figures proposed for sites which will likely result in an increased housing shortfall or a need for additional land to be identified around site allocations which could deliver a larger development to support the required infrastructure, such as land to the west of Site WSA9.

Comment

Representation ID: 23062

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Savills

Policy HOU3 – Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build/ Custom Build Housing
Policy HOU3 requires 30% affordable housing to be delivered on major greenfield sites. We support reference to viability within the policy and that the tenure and type of affordable homes sought will be determined on a site by site basis.
The Policy requires greenfield sites in high value zones to deliver 15% of their homes in accordance with M4(3) regulations and all remaining homes should meet M4(2) regulations. The PPG states that Councils have the option to “set additional technical requirements exceeding the minimum standards required by Building Regulations in respect of access” where there is a justified need for this requirement (Reference ID: 56-002-20160519). The NPPF also requires all policies to underpinned by relevant and up to date evidence which should be adequate, proportionate and focused on supporting and justifying planning policies (paragraph 31). The PPG (Reference ID: 56-005- 20150327 to 56-01120150327) sets out the evidence necessary to justifying a policy requirement for optional standards which includes:
• the likely future need;
• the size, location, type and quality of dwellings needed;
• the accessibility and adaptability of the existing stock; • variations in needs across different housing tenures: and • viability.
The PPG does not state what level of requirement should be required within Local Plan policies. It is considered that in requiring all new dwellings to be built to the Category M4(2) standards, it will result in larger dwellings and in turn less dwellings being delivered on sites. The NPPF is clear that planning policies should support development that makes efficient use of land (Paragraph 124). Furthermore, the BCA is constrained by Green Belt with limited brownfield redevelopment opportunities (Urban Capacity Report 2021) and the BCA is claiming that it cannot meet its own housing needs (NPPF Paragraph 125). The Council should be making the most efficient use of land on the Green Belt sites proposed to be released in order to avoid significant Green Belt release in future Local Plan Reviews. We therefore consider that the requirement to build all dwellings to Category M4(2) standards will be not be consistent with national planning policy.
The Policy also requires that on sites of 100+ dwellings, where there is a need for self-build and custom build plots on the Council’s register, at least 5% of plots should be made available for self-build or custom build or sufficient to match the current number on the register if lower. We object to this requirement and do not consider that the Council has provided sufficient evidence to support this requirement. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (Reference ID: 57-025-201760728) sets out ways in which the Council should consider supporting self and custom build which includes: developing policies in their Local Plan for self-build and custom housebuilding and “engaging with landowners who own sites that are suitable for housing and encouraging them to consider self-build and custom housebuilding” [Savills emphasis]. There is no requirement in the PPG for self or custom build plots to be provided as part of allocations and landowners should only be ‘encouraged to consider’ promoting their land for self and custom build housing.
Paragraph 6.29 states that there is a total of 32 individuals registered on Walsall’s self-build register. The register may provide an indication of the level of interest, but this needs to be analysed in further detail to uncover the specific requirements of respondents (e.g. type of property and location desired). Additionally, if all strategic sites proposed in Walsall are delivered (5,418 dwellings) and they all provide 5% self-build plots, this would equate to 271 self-build plots which is significantly greater than the number on Walsall’s housing register.
Furthermore, this register does not test whether people have the means to acquire the land and privately construct their own property. Furthermore, there are also practical issues to consider in providing self and custom building housing plots on an allocated site. For example, the day to day operation of such sites and consideration of potential health and safety issues of having multiple individual construction sites within one development. Other considerations are where a site being brought forward by a national housebuilder is the subject of a design code, what approach in the Council expecting self-build projects to take?
The provision of self or custom build plots should be the subject of discussion with those who have expressed an interest, and once the Council has an understanding of the type and range of sites that are sought allocations (for example in the form of clusters) should be identified and allocated as self and custom build opportunities around the BCA.

Comment

Representation ID: 23063

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Savills

Policy HOU5 – Education Facilities

The Policy states that where a scheme of more than 10 dwellings increases the need for education facilities, planning obligations will be required to meet the increase need. We understand that the Education team have not yet confirmed education requirements – this needs to be confirmed so that we can better understand what level of contribution is required from development sites to meet education needs.
St Phillips have worked collaboratively with Taylor Wimpey (adjacent landowner to the south) to produce a combined masterplan to show the potential for community infrastructure delivery across a wider strategic development site, including the land to the west of Site WSA9 (Illustrative Masterplan attached with this submission). This site has the potential to deliver circa 800 dwellings, land for a new school, local centre/health facility and significant public open space including a country park. This wider proposal may also be of a scale that could support a new/improved bus service on Chester Road which would enhance the sustainability credentials of the existing settlement. The scale of the combined proposals gives rise to a more comprehensive opportunity than the constrained and fragmented proposition contained in the draft plan at present and would allow for the inclusion of significant community infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 23064

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Savills

Policy TRAN8 – Planning for Low Emission Vehicles
This policy requires that new developments should include adequate provision for charging infrastructure but there are no specific requirements noted. However, the Viability and Delivery Study (May 2021) has assumed £800 per dwelling for electric vehicle charging points therefore clarity is sought on whether a specific requirement is being sought. The policy should include reference to ‘where possible’ given there may be viability or practicality constraints.

Comment

Representation ID: 23065

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Savills

Policy ENV1 – Nature Conservation

Policy ENV1 states that Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINCs) will be protected from development proposals that could negatively impact them. Confirmation is requested on how SLINCs which are included within proposed strategic allocations will be approached by the Council and whether mitigation will be accepted as part of development proposals.
SLINCS are non-statutory sites identified by the Black Country Wildlife Trust (BCWT) and they are not defined or recognised within the NPPF or PPG as sites which should be afforded protection. Walsall Council’s website states that SLINCs should be given a lesser protection than SSSIs or SINCs, which are protected by national policy. The PPG references ‘Local Wildlife Sites’ which the Wildlife Trust has defined as including SINCs. The PPG also lists a range of criteria that LWS will be assessed against (Reference ID: 8-014-20190721). As the Council has not demonstrated that the proposed SLINCs meet the LWS criteria, we do not consider that they should be given the same protection as LWS / SINCs.
In light of the above, as part of the Council’s local plan process, a review of call for sites has been undertaken and as a result, the BCWT has designated additional SLINC’s across the BCA. Within proposed allocation Site WSA9, the northern part of our client’s land has been designated as a SLINC with land to the north (Site WAH 230). Our client’s land assessed by the BCWT, and subsequently allocated as a SLINC, is identified as ‘semi-improved grassland’ in the ‘Birmingham & Black Country Local Sites Assessment Report’ was under arable cultivation until as recently as April 2018. Therefore we question whether this habitat can be described as ‘semi-natural’ given it is at most 3 years old.
Additionally, the Site Assessment Report states that “Based on the values attributed against each of the criteria a judgment must be made as to whether a site merits Local Wildlife Site status. Those sites scoring mostly ‘Highs’ will tend to meet the threshold for SINC status whereas those scoring mostly ‘Mediums’ will tend to meet the threshold for SLINC status. Sites scoring mostly ‘Lows’ will tend not to meet the threshold for selection as a Local Wildlife Site” (page 2). We do not consider that the report’s scoring system (High, Medium, Low) against the various criteria is sound. For example, the site is given a ‘High’ score for ‘Size or Extent’, however this is based on the size of our client’s land to the east (included in site WSA9) and west (not included in WSA9) of Chester Road (total 23.92ha) whereas the area proposed for SLINC designation is only a fraction of this (less than 1.5ha in total). Similarly, the scores given for ‘Habitat Diversity’ and ‘Species Diversity’ refer to the range of habitats across the whole site rather than the few habitats proposed for designation.
In light of the above, we do not consider that there is sufficient justification to support the proposed SLINC on our client’s land or to afford SLINCs the same protection as SINCs. However, regardless of the SLINC designation, as part of future development proposals, these areas could be retained as far as possible within the green infrastructure of the development layout as part of good design, and if some loss is unavoidable, this could be mitigated elsewhere within the site.
It is considered that point 2 of the policy is negatively worded with “presumption against granting permission” which does not accord with the NPPF’s requirement that plans should be “prepared positively” (paragraph 16).

Comment

Representation ID: 23067

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Savills

Policy ENV3 – Nature Recovery Network and Biodiversity Net Gain

This Policy requires development to deliver the Local Nature Recovery Network Strategy and development is expected to deliver benefits appropriate to the zone they are located. However, the Black Country Strategy is not listed as a key evidence document and although a plan is provided at Appendix 18, it is unclear what development will be required to do in order to meet the requirements of Policy ENV3. Further clarity is sought on the requirements for ‘Core Expansion Zones’.
The Policy requires sites to achieve a biodiversity net gain of 10%. Any proposed uplift requested by the Council needs to accord with national policy unless evidence is provided to justify a different figure. As the Environment Bill has not yet been passed, the Council will need to monitor its position and amend the uplift requirement accordingly. Given the housing shortfall identified within the BCA and the national requirement to make efficient use of land, we consider that if suitable land is identified for off-site biodiversity improvements that should be supported to enable strategic allocations to be delivered as efficiently as possible.
We consider that Point 7 should refer to “where viable” in regards to providing compensation prior to development.

Object

Representation ID: 23068

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Savills

Policy ENV4 – Provision, retention and protection of trees, woodlands and hedgerows
Point 3 of the Policy states that there is a presumption against the removal of trees unless there are sound arboricultural reasons to support their removal. We assume that ‘arboricultural reasons’ will include tree categorisations (Categories A, B, C and U). The NPPF only places a presumption in favour of protecting Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees (paragraph 180). We therefore consider that this policy should not seek to protect all trees on a site and lower quality trees (Category C and U) should not be afforded the same weight as a veteran or Category A tree. Additionally, we consider that site constraints / layout should also be noted as potential reason for removal subject to replacement planting.
The interaction of trees and tree roots with built infrastructure, transport networks, buildings and utility services is complex and requires detailed inter-disciplinary co-operation, with expert arboricultural or forestry advice. The selection of street trees needs to consider which species will best suit the highway environment in the long term, including associated infrastructure and utilities. Reference ID: 8-029-20190721
Point 10 should state where possible in regards to designing a scheme to incorporate existing trees already present on site.
Point 11 states that mature / ancient / veteran trees should be retained on site. In order to comply with national policy, we consider that the policy should state “subject to wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy” (NPPF paragraph 180d).
Point 12 states that new developments should use ‘large canopied species’ and street trees will be pursued. The PPG sets out guidance on what should be considered when assessing tree proposals and “the selection of street trees needs to consider which species will best suit the highway environment in the long term, including associated infrastructure and utilities” (Reference ID: 8-029-20190721). We consider that these considerations are important to the delivery of a site and should be added as a consideration within Policy ENV4. Further confirmation is also sought as to whether the cost of the Highways Authority maintaining street trees has been factored into the viability appraisal as from Savills’ experience elsewhere in the country it could be as much as £30,000 per tree.
Point 13 states that 20-30% tree canopy cover will be sought on site. We object to this requirement for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is unclear how canopy cover will be calculated across the site and how this can be deliverable for residential sites which will include private gardens where there is limited / no control on what is planted or removed unless the site is within a Conservation Area. Additionally, we consider that this requirement, in combination with others proposed in the plan (e.g. 10% net gain and 3 to 1 replacement tree planting) will have serious implications on the net developable area of the site and as the BCA cannot currently meet its housing needs, this may result in an even greater shortfall and additional sites will be required to meet this shortfall.
Point 18 states that a ratio of at least 3 to 1 for tree planting will be sought. It is unclear how this requirement will work with Point 13 which seeks to require large canopy trees which you would expect would limit the number of trees that could be delivered across a site. We consider that trees which have been assessed as low quality (Category C and U) should not be afforded the same weight as higher quality trees and similarly, should not be required to be mitigated by a ratio of 3 to 1. Additionally, this is a significant replanting figure and we consider it will have implications of the net developable area of a site which in turn could impact on the potential yield of strategic allocations.

Comment

Representation ID: 23069

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Savills

Policy ENV5 – Historic Character and Local Distinctiveness of the Black Country

The plan has proposed to designate Areas of High Historic Landscape Value (AHHLV) and Archaeology Priority Areas (APA). Policy ENV5 states that development proposals which would have an impact on the significance of a AHHLV and APA should be supported by evidence that the historic character and distinctiveness of the locality has been fully assessed and used to inform proposals

Comment

Representation ID: 23070

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Savills

Policy ENV8 – Open Space, Sport and Recreation

Point 2 of this policy states that development that would increase the overall value of open space will be supported particularly in areas of proven deficiency. NPPF Paragraph 31 states that plans need to be supported by up to date evidence. The BCA need to undertake updated open space assessments to identify potential deficits and confirm the likely public open space requirements which may be required on strategic sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 23071

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Savills

Policy CC2 – Energy Infrastructure
This policy requires major development sites to include opportunities for decentralised energy provision site – subject to viability and practicality. Savills has worked on numerous strategic residential schemes where this approach has been suggested at the policy making stage. However, to date we have not found any examples that have been delivered viably by house builders. Further clarity is sought from the Council on the practicality of delivering decentralized energy provision on sites in conjunction with other policy requirements proposed.