Draft Black Country Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 47041

Received: 13/09/2022

Respondent: HIMOR

Agent: Turley Associates

Policy ENV1 of the BCP seeks to ensure that development is not detrimental to the natural environment, and outlines a series of measures / tests to ensure that any development can have a measurable improvement to the natural environment.

Ecology Solution’s Biodiversity Technical Note (Appendix 5) sets out that the ecology work undertaken to date identifies limited potential for protected species at the site, and that there are not any overriding ecological constraints to development. Indeed our proposals can achieve a biodiversity net gain. The note also demonstrates that the Council’s proposal to designate the entire site as a Site of Important Nature Conservation (SINC) is not justified. The proposals can therefore be delivered without unacceptable impacts on biodiversity. We discuss this father at Section 4.

Comment

Representation ID: 47042

Received: 13/09/2022

Respondent: HIMOR

Agent: Turley Associates

HIMOR has no objections to policy ENV5 and its intention to protect the historic character where it is evidenced and appropriate to do so. This is evident through the approach taken in the preparation of the illustrative masterplan for land at Birmingham Road as detailed throughout the Vision Document and informed by Lanpro’s Heritage Technical Note (enclosed at Appendix 3), which is summarised below:

• There are no designated archaeological assets within the site. Beyond the site there are four grade II listed buildings and part of a Registered Park and Garden and Conservation Area to the north. There is intervening development or woodland between the site and all listed buildings and the registered park and garden. As such there will be no impact on these assets.

• There is potential for non-designated archaeological sub-surface remains at the south of the site, in close proximity to the former location of cropmarks. This area will remain undeveloped in both development options.

• Fragmentary archaeological sub-surface remains have been found to the east, evidence has indicated this to most likely be a medieval moated site. This area of the site is proposed for preservation and enhancement due to its historic and ecological interest.

• There is no evidence that the site contains archaeological remains greater than local importance.

The site is proposed for designation as an Area of High Historic Landscape Value (Peak House Farm Field System – 25). The Council’s Historic Landscape Characterisation Study (October 2019) clarifies this is because it represents an example of a ‘pre- enclosure field system’. Prehistoric finds have also been recovered in the area and crop marks indicate below-ground archaeological remains. The report considers this to be ‘rare’.

Our Heritage Technical Note demonstrates that there are no significant remains at the site. Any further remains will be largely preserved, this will be subject to further investigation. The historic field pattern will be incorporated into both proposed development options. So any proposals would accord with this draft policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 47043

Received: 13/09/2022

Respondent: HIMOR

Agent: Turley Associates

As expressed throughout these representations, there is a need for policy requirements to be fully evidenced and justified. HIMOR therefore support using the most up to date local open space, sport and recreation standards and these should be

evidenced accordingly by each local authority and inform further development of the plan.

As identified on the illustrative masterplan and Vision Document for the site, HIMOR has focussed on the delivery of a robust open space strategy which will provide a significant network of open, natural spaces throughout the site.

Comment

Representation ID: 47044

Received: 13/09/2022

Respondent: HIMOR

Agent: Turley Associates

Policy ENV9 appears to be a duplication of the criteria contained in draft policy CSP4 and can be most appropriately dealt with by way of the production of a Local Design Guide for the Black Country aligning with the Governments’ recent amendments to the NPPF. As such it is not necessary.

Comment

Representation ID: 47045

Received: 13/09/2022

Respondent: HIMOR

Agent: Turley Associates

Birmingham Road, Great Barr (site ref: SA- 0003-SAN) site assessment

HIMOR is promoting land at Birmingham Road, Great Barr for residential development. The site provides an opportunity to create a sustainable and high quality new community, delivering a wide range of new family and affordable homes in a highly accessible and sustainable location, which is fully supported by a robust site specific evidence base which we have discussed and introduced at section 2 of these representations.

Our evidence base does not support the Council’s site assessment of the above site, which is then followed through to the SA, as evidenced by our critique at Appendix 9. Indeed the site should score much more positively, which reflects the pressing need for sites of this nature in Sandwell given the deficiencies in its proposed housing land supply, the scale of the shortfall, and its chronic under supply of affordable housing. We summarise the key findings from the critique below:

• The Councils’ Green Belt Review assesses the entirety of HIMOR’s land ownership scoring it ‘High’ harm. When a reduced area is assessed based on the actual proposed development area (based on either options 1 and 2), development at the site scores a much reduced ‘Low-Medium’ harm.

• As demonstrated by the Ecology Solutions Biodiversity Technical Note (Appendix
5) and its associated documents, it is clear the biodiversity value of the site has been overplayed and is not justified. Firstly the process for making the designation is not transparent and has not been subject to appropriate public consultation or independent scrutiny. Also the status of the designation is not clear as it has not been formalised in any Policies Map. The designations validity is therefore questionable, as is how much weight, if any, can be given to it. Secondly, the assessment of the site undertaken by the Wildlife Trust is seriously flawed, it significantly overplays the site’s ecological value. Its findings on the site’s ecological value are not evidenced, it over values the grassland habitat, its assessment of naturalness is inaccurate, and it over scores species rarity. We contend that the site’s value is lower than that stated in the Assessment and accordingly would not meet the criteria for it being made a SINC. Notwithstanding this, our proposals are capable of preserving the key features of the proposed SINC and existing SLINC, including through the retention and bolstering of existing hedgerows within the site, as well as achieving a net gain in biodiversity. The site should therefore score ‘Green’ for ecology.

• Any non-designated archaeological remains at the site will be undeveloped and maintained as part of any development proposals for the site. The historic field pattern will be incorporated into both proposed development options. This would preserve the features which are proposed as justification for designating the site as an Area of High Historic Landscape Value. There is no evidence that there are remains greater than local importance. The site should therefore score ‘Green’ for heritage.

• PJA’s Transport Technical Note demonstrates that the site is in a much more accessible location than the Site Assessment indicates, for instance the site is located adjacent to the Q3 Academy which is much closer than the Site Assessment acknowledges. There is also the opportunity to provide a health centre.

• At the moment the site is completely inaccessible to the public. Our proposals would deliver significant area of public open space, such as through the provision of a new country park in a location which is not currently accessible to the public. This is a significant benefit.

4.3 Notwithstanding the above, there is also concern with the application of the site selection methodology. Section 3 of the methodology for Green Belt sites states the criteria for filtering our sites include where development would cause ‘Very High’ harm to the Green Belt and ‘Moderate-High’ harm to landscape sensitivity, and where there is one or more significant planning constraint which cannot be mitigated.

4.4 As set out above, there is clear evidence that Green Belt and landscape sensitivity has been overstated for HIMOR’s site at Birmingham Road, Great Barr, largely because the Councils’ assessments have assessed a wider area of land than is proposed for development.

4.5 The methodology has been applied inconsistently, there are examples where sites which have scored ‘Very High’ Green Belt harm and ‘Moderate-High’ landscape harm have been proposed for allocation – land at Stonnall Road, Aldridge in Walsall Borough (site ref: SA-0309-WAL).

4.6 The Council has also over valued the site’s biodiversity and its proposed SINC designation is not justified.

4.7 In summary, our evidence demonstrates that the role the site would play in delivering new homes sustainably in Sandwell has been underplayed by the Site Assessment and SA, and this has followed through to the Councils’ approach to site selection. It should therefore be a proposed allocation in the plan, not least because of its range of benefits, including the provision of extensive public open space and the contribution it will make to Sandwell’s chronic affordable housing shortfall.