Draft Black Country Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 44849

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ruskin Properties

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.
The draft policy states that large canopied species should be used ‘where possible’. It needs to be recognised that these types of species may not always be appropriate to the front of rear of houses with issues arising from long-term protection due to liveability issues.
It is unclear how the request for a minimum of 20% canopy cover across a development site has been factored in overall in terms of the mounting costs of developments, particularly on brownfield sites. Would the 20% canopy tree cover form part of BNG or is this criterion in addition to BNG? It is often the case that tree planting does not significantly contribute towards an increase in BNG. Has the provision of 10% BNG and 20% tree cover been factored into viability and the percentage provision of affordable housing put forward within Policy HOU3? Have these policy requirements been tested on existing schemes to consider impacts on the delivery of development on sites that are often going to be at the margins of viability?

Support

Representation ID: 44850

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ruskin Properties

General support is given to paragraph 1) as a means of delivering well-designed development. Concerns are raised in terms of Local Authorities adhering to Manual for Street principles in relation to the adoption of highways. There needs to be a step change in relation to the approach to development layouts from Highway Authorities if this to be achieved

Support is given to the use of the NDSS. Can it be clarified that the impacts of this have fed into the viability work undertaken as part of the draft BCP?

Object

Representation ID: 44851

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ruskin Properties

Objection is raised to this policy replicating Building Regulation requirements in relation to water efficiency. This should not be insisted upon at the planning stage where design SAP calculations are not possible until the technical stage of a design is reached. This is post- planning and forms part of the pre-construction phase of a project. It is often that the specification of appliances to be used in kitchens and bathrooms is unknown at the planning stage. It would be onerous on a developer to specify this level of detail prior to planning permission being granted.

Comment

Representation ID: 44852

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ruskin Properties

Criterion 4) in relation to future energy and infrastructure requirements places a significant burden on a developer at the planning application stage of a project when no certainty exists in relation to planning permission being secured. Whilst this strategic approach is acknowledged as important for large scale developments, the threshold of 100 homes seems to low. It is unlikely that energy providers will engage with this process at such an early stage with them requiring certainty on start dates, which without the benefit of planning permission will not be available.

Comment

Representation ID: 44853

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ruskin Properties

It is unclear whether the requirement for small development to derive energy from renewable sources sufficient to off-set at least 10% of the estimated residual energy demand and for major development to achieve a 19% carbon reduction improvement from Part L of the Building Regulations has been factored into viability work undertaken as part of the plan. On what basis has the additional 19% been sought for the Black Country?
The policy requires a variety of renewable and low carbon energy sources and generation to be costed, including on and off-site sources. It would be difficult to achieve this level of input at the planning application stage due the technical stage of a scheme not having been reached. Given that many brownfield sites are on the margins of viability, it does not seem reasonable to seek standards for developments locally that will exceed standards sought by Building Regulations.
Like many of the aspirational policies on energy and low carbon it is unclear how these will be implemented or what information will be sought to support planning application submissions. Many of the policies appear to be requiring more and more up-front work to be prepared with planning applications prior to designs being finalised or planning permission being granted. This seems unreasonable at this stage. If such policies are to remain, these should form conditions to planning permissions.