Draft Black Country Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 44838

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ruskin Properties

Please see attached our completed form, along with representations into the above. In addition, there are a number of supporting documents that need to be read in conjunction with the representations. Due to the file size, these are shared below via a WeTransfer Link.
Please note that the supporting documents include:
1. NVC Report
2. Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
3. SLINC/SINC Report
4. Site Masterplan
5. Site Masterplan and Amended Housing Allocation
6. Design and Access Statement
7. Viability assessment (report and spreadsheet). This contains confidential information and is not for public consumption.
Housing Allocation DUH006
Background
The emerging BCP has rolled forward the previous housing designation relating to the above site from the current Development Plan (2011) and previous adopted Dudley UDP (2005).
In considering the allocation of the site for housing development at the Local Plan Inquiry inm2002, the Inspector concluded that the former sewage treatment works would not be remediated within the Plan period without the financial return from a residential development. The Inspector recommended that the site should be allocated for housing on this basis.
It is relevant that the allocated site for housing is now more than 19 years on from its inception as a housing allocation within a Development Plan having been rolled forward through two Development Plans and now into a third without having been delivered.
An outline planning application was submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration in 2001 (P01/2003) for the reclamation of the sewage works and associated land for residential redevelopment, public open space, riverside walk, and landscaping. The proposals resulted in an appeal being submitted against non-determination to be heard at a Public Inquiry. The appeal was withdrawn in 2004 with a subsequent outline planning application submitted for consideration (P04/1368).
The second outline application sought approval for the means of access into the site and was supported by indicative layout plans showing the erection of 69 houses on the western part of the site and 69 homes on the eastern part of the site, a total of 138 dwellings.
The 2004 planning application was presented to Development Control Committee at its meeting on the 20th of December 2005 where it was resolved to grant planning permission subject to the signing of a S106 Agreement. The Heads of Terms associated with the S106 were for the provision of on-site open space and children’s play facilities and affordable housing. The S106 did not progress with the Local Planning Authority disposing of the application in 2015.
Ruskin Properties Limited acquired the site in 2017. A full planning application is currently being considered by Dudley MBC for the redevelopment of the site (LPA Ref: P20/0734). These representations are supported by:
• Masterplan
• Design and Access Statement demonstrating how the site can be developed
• Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey prepared by Crestwood Environmental
• SLINC/SINC Report prepared by Crestwood Environmental
• National Vegetation Classification Survey prepared by Crestwood Environmental
• Viability Report prepared by Jackson Webb
Site Constraints
The abnormal costs associated with bringing the site forward for development are significant and it is this issue that has prevented development coming forward for many decades.
The former sewage treatment works comprises remnants of the STW infrastructure. This includes the original access road leading off Caledonia which runs southwards towards the river. Within the western part of the site, the former filter beds remain visible to the north-west of the former service road, along with above ground concrete valve structures, outflow pipes/structures and concrete retaining structures lying immediately adjacent to the river. The western part of the site contains an electricity sub-station and pumping station. These structures serve the live sewer network and will need to be retained on site along with a 5m wide vehicular access and turning areas provided to them (This is a legal requirement). A large above ground obsolete concrete pipe extends across the full length of the northern boundary of the eastern part of the site crossing the river before terminating within the northern part of the site. This large pipe also connects to former sluice gates that adjoin Dudley Road.
The site retains live sewers with associated easements running through the development land. These lead from Caledonia close to the existing vehicular entrance into the site falling southwards and connecting with other sewers running along the southern and western boundaries of the site. The sewers serve both foul and storm and with easements ranging in size from 5-10 metres. Figure 1. below shows the sewers and their associated easements:
Figure 1 - Easements
Untreated former mine workings and mine shafts affect the site. This is in terms of the need for the stabilisation of the land prior to development taking place and restricting the development of the site in terms of stand-off distances that will be required from recorded shafts. Figure 2 below shows the location of recorded mine shafts throughout the site:
Figure 2 - Mine shafts and services
The river corridor is also impacted by invasive species including extensive areas of Giant Hogweed, Japanese Knotweed and Himalyan Balsam. A five-year treatment programme is underway in these areas, but the re-growth is a threat and treatment a significant cost. The extent of the areas affected are shown in the image below (Figure 3).
Figure 3 - Invasive Species
The site also has a challenging topography. To deliver housing on the site, development platforms will need to be created through the completion of an earthworks exercise. This requires the need to utilise material from outside of the allocated site from the steepest parts of the site to allow the filling of the lower levels of the current allocated site to achieve suitable levels for adopted highways and the implementation of a suitable drainage strategy.
The site constraints listed above significantly reduce the overall developable area of the site. The draft plan envisages the delivery of 158 dwellings within the draft allocation. This is unrealistic and not achievable with yield likely to be significantly less, potentially in the region of 110 dwellings. A scheme of 158 dwellings on the draft allocated site would not achieve a well-designed development and would not reflect the physical constraints on the site posed by ecology, mine-shaft exclusion zones post treatment, flood risk and root protection areas associated with trees.
Viability
The principle of development on the allocated site is already established with the Local Planning Authority confirming through the retention of the allocation that the site is available and suitable for development.
The one aspect that has not been addressed fully since the original allocation in 2002 is the delivery of development on the site. For development to progress on the allocated site, the quantum of development needs to generate a sufficient return to incentivise a developer. In this case, Ruskin Properties Limited. To ensure that there is a workable and deliverable strategy in place to bring forward development on this site, the allocation must be increased to include an additional area measuring approximately 0.63 hectares to deliver a further 22 units. Whilst the proposed quantum of development still poses viability challenges as demonstrated by the submitted viability report, Ruskin Properties Limited, we will take a long- term view on the site based upon its business model of building good quality homes for market rent with development able to commence in 2024. A full viability report is submitted in support of these representations. This supports and fully justifies the need to increase the developable area of the site beyond the current allocation. The viability report is based upon a 132-unit scheme, which includes development within part of the existing SINC.
The viability report sets out the extent, nature and level of abnormal costs associated with bringing the site forward for development. The costs and impacts of these upon the developable area of the existing allocated site are such that a larger site needs to be allocated to bring forward a comprehensive development that will remediate the former sewage treatment works, stabilise the ground from former mine-workings, fund an adoptable vehicular bridge to access the eastern part of the site, support the costs of piled foundations to dwellings and achieve a scheme that enhances, restores and creates areas of nature conservation value using the River Stour as its main opportunity.
In the same way that the Inspector in 2002 acknowledged that the sewage treatment works would not be remediated without housing development, the improvement of the River Stour corridor including nature conservation enhancement, restoration and creation will not take place without residential development. The scale of residential development required to achieve a comprehensive development that will achieve all these objectives needs to include the loss of part of the greenfield part of the site for residential development. However, this will be fully compensated for in terms of a achieving at least a 10% Biodiversity Net Gain across the scheme overall despite the small loss of part of the site that has some nature conservation value.

Ecology
The 0.63 hectares of land to the west of the existing housing allocation is greenfield and is currently designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). These representations are supported by a suite of ecological information, including an extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, a SLINC/SINC Report and a National Classification Vegetation Survey.
The National Vegetation Classification (NVC) Report relates to the land known as Freehold Farm located immediately to the west of the current housing allocation. This survey was undertaken in August 2021. The report is included with this submission. The NVC survey also includes a local site selection assessment in accordance with the Birmingham and Black Country Local Site Selection 2018.
The overall quality and condition of the SINC has deteriorated from the more recent survey to the previous survey undertaken in 2012. The site comprises areas of scrub. This presents a continuous threat to the condition of the grassland, which will eventually scrub over and result in the loss of the grassland. This will result in a severe negative impact to the nature conservation value of the site.
Based on the results of the current NVC survey, as submitted, as a best-case, scenario, the extent of the SINC falling within the boundaries of what was previously known as Freehold Farm, meets the criteria as a Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINC). From the evidence submitted, the existing SINC designation should be removed from land falling within the boundaries of the former Freehold Farm and downgraded to SLINC.
In addition, the existing SLINC designation should be modified along the River Stour corridor to remove the designation within the northern part of the allocated site. This part of the site is now bare ground following the removal of trees to facilitate necessary site investigation works to inform a developable strategy of bringing forward development on the wider site. The Local Planning Authority has already agreed to this aspect as part of the negotiations in relation to the current submission.
Masterplan
In view of the representations submitted, it is respectfully requested that the housing allocation is extended westwards from the existing to ensure the delivery of sufficient unit numbers to allow the remediation of the previously developed part of the site and to deliver the long-term management of the wider site for the benefit of nature conservation. This will be to enhance and restore the river corridor.
Without the extent and scale of development proposed, the opportunities for a comprehensive development that will remediate a previously developed site as well as providing significant benefits in the form of enhancement, protection and the creation of new nature conservation value will not be achieved. Despite, the minor impact on the existing land to the west, which is at best, a SLINC, the proposals overall will achieve at least a 10% biodiversity net gain.
The comprehensive redevelopment of the site will retain an area of 1.37 hectares of the existing 2-hectare SINC, which will be protected and enhanced. The proposals will retain connectivity and stepping-stones through the north-western part of the site with the retention of lowland meadow and it will also significantly enhance the River Stour corridor for both its nature conservation and amenity value delivering a key objective of the BCP. Adjoining land to the west, which falls outside of the ownership of Ruskin Properties Limited, which lies within the existing SINC will remain unaffected with its lowland meadow retained. The proposals will not result in the total loss of lowland meadow, which is of value within the local area.
A summary of the strategy to deliver a comprehensive housing development underpinned by a robust strategy for nature conservation enhancement is set out below:
Retention:
• Broad-leaved woodland/River Stour corridor – enhanced via additional planting and removal of invasive non-native species.
• Coniferous woodland – enhanced via appropriate management.
• Scrub – enhanced via appropriate management; and
• Poor semi-improved grassland and semi-improved grassland – enhanced to create lowland meadow.
Creation:
• Broad-leaved woodland.
• Pond (for biodiversity only), marshy grassland, reedbed and SuDS Pond.
• Amenity grassland (as part of public open spaces).
• Birch scrub.
• Urban orchard; and
• Native species-rich hedgerow.
Management
The scheme will be the subject of a long-term Ecological Management Plan, which can be secured and delivered through conditions attached to a planning permission. Ruskin Properties Limited agrees to a 30-year management programme to include re-surveying the site to monitor mitigation targets against the Local Sites Selection Criteria.
The habitats described above are located on either side of the river and relate to the following landscape/ecological areas within the proposed masterplan.
Western part of the site
• Northern Woodland and northern extent of retained SINC (0.91ha)– enhancement of existing habitat.
• Western Green spine (0.19ha)– new habitat including orchard planting.
• Flood Meadows - River Stour (1.13ha) – enhancement of existing habitat (wildflower meadow) and the creation of new habitats including ecological pond and attenuation pond.
Eastern part of the site
• Northern Woodland (0.61ha) – enhancement and management and the creation of a swale.
• Southern boundary (0.12ha) – enhancement and management.
• East Central Green (0.13ha)– new habitat including tree planting. Site-wide measures
• Planting of 1,00m of native hedgerow throughout the site.
• River Corridor – (0.94ha) – enhancement and management
• Planting of 224 trees and 44 orchard trees.
The increased extent of the allocated site for housing with continued protection provided for the retained areas of nature conservation as SLINC, will achieve numerous social, economic, and environmental benefits that outweigh any perceived harm as follows:
Social Benefits
• Creation of good quality private rented properties meeting an identified need as set out within the draft BCP.
• Development of a well-designed scheme with access to significant areas of open space available for those living on the site and the wider community. The site lies within an area that comprises the least amount of green space in the Borough. The areas perform the worst in relation to the provision of natural and semi-natural green space and amenity space. The development will significantly boost the provision of green space within an area that will be managed and maintained for the long-term. This is a significant benefit when also balanced against BNG overall.
• Inclusion of future footpath and cycleway links to the east and south-west of the site to support connectivity.
• Sustainable form of development being within walking distances of local services and facilities and public transport (bus and train).
Economic Benefits
• Provision of 132 new homes meeting identified housing need delivered within the plan period.
• The delivery of new homes will result in an increase in revenue to the Local Authority through New Homes Bonus and Council Tax receipts.
• Construction and supply chain jobs (RPL employ direct labour who are local people and uses local suppliers where possible)
• Residents’ expenditure within the local area supporting the economy.
Environmental Benefits
• Reclamation of unstable land through the treatment of mine shafts and mine workings, this would not happen without the development.
• Removal and eradication of invasive species.
• Significant net gain in the biodiversity value of the site when compared to its existing value.
• Retention of trees where possible and significant new tree planting (268).
• The planting of 1,000m of native hedgerow.
• Provision of a new vehicular bridge with a raised soffit level to the existing bridge thereby improving flood risk.
• Long-term management and maintenance of the site by RPL.
A copy of the proposed Masterplan demonstrating how the site needs to come forward for development is set out below at Figure 4. This submission is also supported by a Design and Access Statement, which demonstrates how all the technical issues associated with bringing the site forward for development will be addressed to.
Figure 4 - Masterplan
Revisions to the existing housing allocation and nature conservation designations is denoted on Figure 5 below:
Figure 5 - Revisions to the boundary of DUH006 to include land to the west, removal of SLINC to the north and downgrading of SINC to SLINC to the north-west and south- west.

Support

Representation ID: 44839

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ruskin Properties

Policy HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
Policy HOU1 relates to delivering sustainable housing growth. Criteria 4) states that:
“The development of sites for housing should demonstrate a comprehensive approach, making best use of available land and infrastructure and not prejudicing neighbouring uses…Masterplans and Supplementary Planning Documents will be produced, where appropriate, to provide detailed guidance on the development of strategic allocations.”
Support is given to this part of the policy subject to the Local Planning Authority supporting the extension of the allocated housing site DUH006 as referred to above. The Masterplan submitted in support of these representations and supporting technical reports demonstrates how site DUH006 needs to be delivered to achieve a comprehensive approach that will regenerate and remediate the entirety of the site. Without the extension of the allocation, the wider site will not be remediated, managed, or maintained.

Support

Representation ID: 44840

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ruskin Properties

Policy HOU2 – Housing Density, Type and Accessibility
The principle of increasing densities is supported with minimum densities based on accessibility criteria and proximity to local services and facilities. Limited reasons are set out for schemes to not achieve the minimum net densities set out within the draft policy with only reference to historic character and local distinctiveness given. The policy needs to include reference to physical constraints on a site such as sewers and easements, culverted watercourses, steep slopes, unstable land, and stand-off distances required from mine shafts post treatment.

Comment

Representation ID: 44841

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ruskin Properties

The draft policy refers to the need to achieve high-quality design and to minimise amenity impacts. Whilst this is supported, for this policy to be effective, there needs to be a step change from Local Planning Authorities on the definition of high-quality design. Developments of between 40-45 dph will not deliver long-established housing layouts of 2/3/4-bedroom homes with side-parking, 21-22m rear gardens, 5.5m wide carriageways with 2m footways and tracking for large refuse vehicles, which is heavily pushed for by Highway Authorities. Unless there is buy-in for a change in the way housing is laid out, designed, and serviced by Local Planning Authorities, this policy will fail.

Support

Representation ID: 44842

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ruskin Properties

Support is given in principle to draft Policy HOU3 reducing the provision of affordable housing on brownfield sites to 10%, where this is financially viable. Whilst the Black Country level work on viability provides a snapshot of the percentage of affordable housing that land can yield based upon land values, this work will not have been informed by intrusive site investigation work to quantify actual costs of redevelopment and therefore whether affordable housing can be delivered.
In our experience, none of our brownfield sites have been able to provide any planning obligations and this has been successfully negotiated at the planning application stage. To further incentivise the redevelopment of brownfield sites before greenfield and to support the regeneration agenda further, it would be preferable if this policy was amended so that affordable housing was exempt on brownfield sites with a greater burden placed on greenfield sites where abnormals costs will be less and sales values likely higher.

Object

Representation ID: 44843

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ruskin Properties

We object to the inclusion of a requirement to provide M4(2) wheelchair accessible housing given that the government has not yet responded to consultation on raising accessibility standards published in December 2020. On this basis, it is not possible to know whether the provision of M4 (2) homes will become a mandatory requirement through Building Regulations be or whether planning policy will be part of the mechanism to achieve it. Such homes will be land hungry and will reduce the net density on a site overall, which has the potential to conflict with Policy HOU2 as well as impact further upon viability. This policy is premature ahead of the results of the government’s formal consultation on the provision of M4 (2) housing as part of Approved Document M of the Building Regulations.
In terms of the draft policy, support is given to the reference to M4(2) homes not being sought where schemes are not viable. However, no reference is given to local need in relation to accessible homes. This should be evidenced to.

Comment

Representation ID: 44845

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ruskin Properties

The principle of protecting nature conservation is supported by the draft policy but there are concerns that the policy as drafted does not sufficiently distinguish the hierarchy of national and locally designated sites with a disproportionate amount of protection afforded to non- statutory sites.
In terms of criteria 3), this states that where, exceptionally, the strategic benefits of a development outweigh the importance of a local nature site, that any remaining impacts, including any reduction in area, must be fully mitigated. No definition is given as to what the strategic benefits of a development would be with this policy lacking clarity in terms of how it is intended to be implemented.
The policy does should also add in a further criterion that acknowledges that to remediate degraded, derelict, or unstable site will often result in a negative impact upon nature conservation that is inevitable. In these circumstances, where this relates to a non-statutory site, development should be permitted if the benefits of the development outweigh harm when the development is taken as a whole and as evidenced through documents submitted in support of planning applications.

Support is given to the BCA updating its evidence on designated nature conservation sites in conjunction with its partners and with the amendment to existing designations in accordance with this evidence. This evidence has not been undertaken regularly during the current period of the Development Plan resulting in out-of-date evidence that does not correlate to the nature conservation value of sites within the plan.

Support

Representation ID: 44846

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ruskin Properties

The principle of the delivery of biodiversity net gain as part of developments is supported. However, concerns are raised regarding the ability of development to achieve 10% when balanced against other competing needs of the plan (affordable housing, planning obligations and densities) and the practicalities of delivering 10% in relation to residential development within urban areas. Clarity is required on what ‘measured against baseline site information’ means.

Comment

Representation ID: 44847

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ruskin Properties

However, concerns are raised regarding the ability of development to achieve 10% when balanced against other competing needs of the plan (affordable housing, planning obligations and densities) and the practicalities of delivering 10% in relation to residential development within urban areas. Clarity is required on what ‘measured against baseline site information’ means.
Whilst the policy states that provision on site is preferred, it does not define what is meant by ‘practicable.’ Does this mean in terms of viability/land-take or the ability for land to be managed and maintained for the long-term?
No information is given in terms of potential costs associated with an off-site contribution to sites within the local area. This will be required for developers to consider on and off-site options and to help inform negotiations on development values with landowners.

Support

Representation ID: 44848

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ruskin Properties

The provision of street trees within developments is supported in principle but this raises concerns in terms of technical approval and the adoption of highways with most Highway Authorities currently reluctant to adopt trees within highways and for the potential for large, commuted sums to be endured by the developer if they are accepted.