Draft Black Country Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 46183

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

Criterion 4 of policy HOU2 stipulates minimum expected net density for all developments of ten homes or more. 4(a) states that very high density of 100 dwellings per hectare or higher is subject to meeting accessibility standards and the site being located within a Strategic Centre or Town Centre. Given that the BCA are currently facing a housing shortfall of at least 25% against Government-assessment requirements, policy HOU2 and the supporting Table 5 should acknowledge that very high density development may also be appropriate within the defined Core Regeneration Areas, subject to accessibility standards and very high density not prejudicing historic character or local distinctiveness.

Comment

Representation ID: 46184

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

A table following paragraph 6.20 sets out a matrix of dwelling sizes by tenure, stating that ‘The Black Country Housing Market Assessment (HMA) 2021 demonstrates that new households generated by 2039 will need the following mix of home tenures and types’. It continues that it is important for housing provision to reflect the varying needs for each of the four local authorities, as set out in the HMA. The supporting text to policy HOU2 should be explicit that the table which follows paragraph 6.20 is not setting an expected mix of home tenures and types for all development sites and all authority areas, rather it is presenting the assessed overall requirement for the Black Country Plan area. Policy HOU2 should be consistent with policy HOU3 and explicit that the dwelling mix and any mix of tenures will be site specific and subject to a consideration of local needs at the time of a proposed development coming forward.

Comment

Representation ID: 46185

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

Supported is the acknowledgement in HOU3 (1) and HOU 3 (2) that the range of tenures to be provided and the proportion of any affordable housing should both be dependent upon an assessment of financial viability. HOU3 (3) effectively summarises a justifiable position that ‘The tenure and type of affordable homes sought will be determined on a site by site basis, based on national planning policy and best available information regarding local housing needs, site surroundings and viability considerations’.

However, the reference to a ‘minimum proportion of affordable housing’ to be provided is inconsistent with the earlier stance on viability and potentially ambiguous, given that there will be some sites where no affordable housing is financially viable. Paragraph 16 of the Framework sets out that development plan policy should be ‘…clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals’. The inconsistency between dependence upon financial viability and a minimum requirement falls short of being unambiguous. This element fails the test of soundness and is therefore inconsistent with the Framework.

A policy requirement for a minimum proportion of new housing be designed to meet M4(2)/M4(3) standards is unclear and ambiguous in the context of provision also being said to be dependent upon whether this is financially viable. This element fails the test of soundness and is therefore inconsistent with the Framework.

Clarity would be provided through reference to the optional NDSS

Comment

Representation ID: 46186

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

EMP1 should acknowledge that the housing policies of the Black Country Plan include existing/former employment sites/areas that are allocated for and transitioning to residential use. Some of these existing/former employment sites/areas being brought forward for housing will be alongside other employment areas being retained in employment use. EMP1 should set out that any proposals for the regeneration or renewal of existing employment areas will be considered in context of the potential impact on neighbouring land uses, both existing and proposed.

Comment

Representation ID: 46187

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

Supported is the inclusion of the clarification at EMP3 (3) that not all areas will be suitable for all uses.

EMP3 should include specific reference to the fact that the housing policies of the Black Country Plan include existing/former employment sites/areas that are allocated for and transitioning to residential use. Some of these existing/former employment sites/areas being brought forward for housing will be alongside other employment areas being retained in employment use. EMP3 should set out that any proposals for new uses in local employment areas that require planning permission will be considered in context of the potential impact on neighbouring land uses, both existing and proposed.

Comment

Representation ID: 46188

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

Whilst policy TRAN7 makes reference to ‘…ensuring that a consistent approach to maximum parking standards is enforced in new development as set out in supplementary planning documents’, paragraph 108 of the Framework states that:
‘Maximum parking standards for residential and non-residential development should only be set where there is a clear and compelling justification that they are necessary for managing the local road network, or for optimising the density of development in city and town centres and other locations that are well served by public transport’

Support

Representation ID: 46189

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

Vulcan is supportive of encouraging a move away from fossil fuels vehicles through the introduction of all-electric and hybrid alternatives, as part of the West Midlands Combined Authority commitment to setting a 'net zero' emissions target by 2041, with a climate action plan being approved by the WMCA board by January 2020. This is set to be achieved through the to be achieved through amendments to the Building Regulations 2010, which suggests that there is no explicit need for policy TRAN 8 given the forthcoming standardised approach through building regulations.

Comment

Representation ID: 46190

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

The draft policy working of ENV3 should take reference from the biodiversity wording in the Planning Act 2008 once the Environment Bill gains Royal Asset and changes are enacted.

The zones of the Local Nature Recovery Network as established by the Local Nature Recovery Network Strategy should form part of the Black Country Plan, and be justified alongside being identified on the proposal map. It is not clear whether the intention is that the Local Nature Recovery Network Strategy is to be brought forward as a supplementary planning document. The Planning Practice Guidance sets outs the limitations of SPDs, which site outside of development plan policy:

‘Supplementary planning documents (SPDs) should build upon and provide more detailed advice or guidance on policies in an adopted local plan. As they do not form part of the development plan, they cannot introduce new planning policies into the development plan. They are however a material consideration in decision-making. They should not add unnecessarily to the financial burdens on development.’(Footnote 10)

Care needs to be taken to ensure that policy ENV3 does not inadvertently erroneously place planning policy outside of the development plan, which would be contrary to the requirements of the Framework in terms of soundness.

Comment

Representation ID: 46191

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

Policy ENV4 includes a blanket statement that ‘Development should be designed around the need to incorporate trees already present on site, using sensitive and well-designed site layouts to maximise their retention’.

There should be acknowledgement that there will not be the justification for the retention of some trees, particularly in the context of poor specimens and wider development benefit. The policy text should be consistent with the Framework, which says planning policies should ensure ‘…that existing trees are retained wherever possible’ (paragraph 131).

The policy also sets out at ENV4 that ‘New developments should make a minimum contribution of 20% canopy cover across the development site and a recommended contribution of 30% canopy cover across the development site’. It is noted that this is based upon the Emergency Tree Plan for the UK – The Woodland Trust 2020 but there is no basis in the Framework or Planning Practice Guidance for the introduction of blanket thresholds for canopy cover. The same observation is made in respect of ENV4 (18) and its requirement that ‘Trees proposed for removal during development should be replaced at a ratio of at least three for one’. The requirement for replacement trees and the number to be provided should be the subject of site-by-site assessments, alongside a measured consideration of biodiversity net gain.

Comment

Representation ID: 46192

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

Supported is the general thrust of Policy ENV5 to sustain and enhance locally distinctive character, preserve and enhance local character and those aspects of the historic environment - together with their settings - that are recognised as being of special historic, archaeological, architectural, landscape or townscape quality, and achieve a locally responsive design.

Taking this to a more prescriptive level, policy ENV5 sets out that ‘The specific pattern of settlements (urban grain), local vernacular and other precedents that contribute to local character and distinctiveness should be used to inform the form, scale, appearance, details, and materials of new development’. A development plan document must be positively prepared (Framework, paragraph 35) providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the objectively assessed needs of an area. Whilst it is important to respect local character and distinctiveness, it is also true that the scale of development needed to address the housing and employment land requirements of the plan period means that there will almost certainly have to be higher density development that is in contrast with the form, scale and appearance of its immediate area. Policy ENV5 should be redrafted to reflect the position of policy HOU 2 in terms of the need for higher density development in the Strategic Centres and arguably also in the Core Regeneration Areas as well.