Draft Black Country Plan

Support

Representation ID: 46193

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

Policy ENV7 is positively written and fully supported the reference to the canal network being focus for future development through its ability to deliver a high-quality environment and enhanced accessibility for pedestrians, cyclists, and other non-car-based modes of transport. ENV3(d) refers to development proposals ‘…providing active frontage onto the canal’ and ‘ improving the public realm’. The policy should acknowledge that such aspirations should be pursued where possible.

Comment

Representation ID: 46194

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

The policy leaves open to interpretation the phrase ‘increase the need…to the extent that significant new or improved facilities would be required’. Given that the policy is clearly targeted at major development proposals, rather than requiring interpretation of whether significant new or improved facilities would be required, there is justification for including unit threshold above which a provision for improved built sports facilities would be required.

Comment

Representation ID: 46195

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

The approach of the draft Black Country Plan to design quality should accord with the latest Framework guidance (paragraphs 126 to 136 inclusive of the July 2021 version). The draft policy should be clear about design expectations and how proposals will be tested against policy, having regard to national guidance and other material considerations. The references to the National Design Guide (Footnote 11), Manual for Streets (Footnote 12), NDSS (Footnote 13), Building for a Healthy Life (Footnote 14) and accordance with agent of change principles (Footnote 15) are noted but BCA should prepare design guides and/or design codes consistent with the principles set out in the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code, and which reflect local character and design preferences. If these are to follow as supplementary planning documents, given the reference to local housing design SPDs for new housing developments, then the draft development plan policy should be explicit in this regard.

11 In common with draft policy CSP4, draft policy ENV9 should provide clarity over how the BCA intend to proportionately apply any assessment frameworks, such as Building for a Healthy Life .

Paragraph 133 of the Framework sets out that assessment frameworks are ‘…particularly important for significant projects such as large scale housing and mixed use developments’. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) provides clarity on this, stating that:
‘Authorities may wish to refer to the use of specific frameworks in their policies or supplementary planning guidance that are most relevant to the vision for their area, although it is important to ensure that they are used in a proportionate way and do not conflict with national or local planning policy’

Whilst justified for the largest-scale, strategic development sites, in the context of the guidanceprovided by the Framework and the PPG, such processes can introduce damaging additional costs and delay in the decision making process for smaller scale developments. It is important when setting out broad policies relating to high quality design (of both places and buildings) that thresholds are introduced such that it is clear and unambiguous which developments are to be subject to which requirements. Paragraph 16 of the Framework is clear that development plans should contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals.

Draft policy ENV9 also addresses water efficiency requiring that new development ‘…meet water efficiency standards[59] of 110 litres per person per day, as set out in Part G2 of current Building Regulations 2010 or any successor legislation’. The Planning Practice Guidance requirement is 125 litres per person per day (Footnote 18) unless a clear local needs exists to justify the tighter Building Regulations optional requirement of 110 litres/person/day. Clear need is to be based upon: existing sources of evidence; consultations with the local water and sewerage company, the Environment Agency and catchment partnerships; and consideration of the impact on viability and housing supply of such a requirement.

This element of policy ENV9 should be deleted as it renders the draft policy unsound unless clear need exists.

Comment

Representation ID: 46196

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

The Framework sets outs clear guidance on planning for climate change:

‘Plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, taking into account the long-term implications for flood risk, coastal change, water supply, biodiversity and landscapes, and the risk of overheating from rising temperature’

It continues that development plan policies should support appropriate measures to ensure the future resilience of communities and infrastructure to climate change impacts, such as providing space for physical protection measures, or making provision for the possible future relocation of vulnerable development and infrastructure. New development should be planned for in a way that avoids increased vulnerability, manages risks and makes best user of location, orientation and design. There is support for the use and supply of low carbon energy, including community-led initiatives.

To provide clarity for applicants, Draft policy CC1 should include assessment criteria against which the local planning authority can determine whether a development is in compliance with its climate change and energy policies in the context of local requirements and site specific circumstances.

Comment

Representation ID: 46197

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

20 Paragraph 16 of the Framework is clear that development plans should contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous. Draft policy CC2 is not clear in respect of on what grounds applicants will be able to demonstrate that development is not suitable, feasible or viable for district heat or decentralised power networks. Draft policy CC2 needs to provide clear direction in this regard. It is also without justification why the threshold for compliance is ten units/1,000 sq. m and why there are no further thresholds at greater unit numbers/floorspace, which would allow for proportionate consideration of proposals relative to scale. The draft policy should be revised to remove ambiguity and introduce additional trigger thresholds to ensure that it is sound in the context of being clear and positively prepared.

Comment

Representation ID: 46198

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

Preceding draft policy CC2 regarding energy infrastructure sets a minimum threshold for development proposals to which it applies, whereas policy CC3 is drafted such that it applies to all development proposals without distinction. Whilst all development proposals can be subject to design materials choices in the context of managing heat risk, it is potentially only on larger development sites where there is the potential for layout and orientation choices to have a nearing on heat risk. Similarly, the cooling hierarchy set out in the draft policy is not necessarily appropriate or applicable to all development proposals.

Paragraph 16 of the Framework is clear that development plans should contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous. Draft policy CC3 should be revised such that it is clear for which size/scale of development the draft policy can be reasonably applied and include a clear indication of on what grounds applicants will be able to demonstrate that expectations cannot be viably or reasonably met, including in context with the cooling hierarchy. Added clarification is necessary to ensure that the draft policy is sound in the context of it being clear, positively prepared and fit for purpose in seeking to managing in the most effective way heat risk from new development.

Object

Representation ID: 46199

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

Draft policy CC4 includes a blanket statement that new development must be at least air quality neutral. This element of the draft policy does not reflect the Framework or the Planning Practice Guidance, in its blanket approach. The PPG sets out that plans may need to consider:
- what are the observed trends shown by recent air quality monitoring data and what would happen to these trends in light of proposed development and / or allocations;
- the impact of point sources of air pollution (pollution that originates from one place);
- the potential cumulative impact of a number of smaller developments on air quality as well as the effect of more substantial developments, including their implications for vehicle emissions;
- ways in which new development could be made appropriate in locations where air quality is or is likely to be a concern, and not give rise to unacceptable risks from pollution. This could, for example, entail identifying measures for offsetting the impact on air quality arising from new development including supporting measures in an air quality action plan or low emissions strategy where applicable; and - opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impacts, such as through traffic and travel management and green infrastructure provision and enhancement.

The PPG continues to explain that the test is the impact of proposed development and potential impact on future occupants:
- whether the proposed development could significantly change air quality during the construction and operational phases (and the consequences of this for public health and biodiversity); and
- whether occupiers or users of the development could experience poor living conditions or health due to poor air quality.

A requirement for development being air quality neutral is justified where there are sensitive receptors such that anything other than air quality neutral would be unacceptable or a proposed development would otherwise lead to a deterioration in existing poor air quality. For the policy to pass the test of soundness it should add criteria into its air quality neutral requirement, to set out on what basis such an expectation is justified and how an applicant might demonstrate the acceptability of a development ion circumstances where such a requirement is justified.

Comment

Representation ID: 46200

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

Draft policy CC5 should be clear on what basis the proposed distance limitations on development proximate to an ordinary watercourse are derived, a detailed justification for the proposed limitations and how the policy text as drafted relates to any local byelaws set under the Land Drainage Act 1991.

Comment

Representation ID: 46201

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

Paragraph 169 of the Framework states that ‘Major developments should incorporate sustainable drainage systems unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate’. The draft text to Policy CC6 states that ‘All new developments should incorporate SuDS and all development proposals should provide details of adoption, ongoing maintenance, and management of SuDS’. The proposed requirement that all new development incorporate SuDS is inconsistent with the Framework and should be amended to meet the test of soundness. The Framework (paragraph 167 (c) ) requirement that development proposed in an area at risk of flooding incorporate sustainable drainage systems is also subject to a caveat ‘…unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate’. This should be reflected in the draft development plan policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 46202

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

The supporting text to draft policy CC7 (paragraph 10.208) includes the caveat ‘…where financially viable’ to the requirement that major developments achieve a 19% carbon reduction improvement upon the requirements within Building Regulations Approved Document, Part L 2013. There will be reasons why some development cannot achieve 19% or there is a clear justification for it achieving a lesser carbon reduction. The policy text at CC7 (3a) does not include the same caveat, which it should do to ensure that there is consistency between the policy and supporting text and that the policy overall passes the test of soundness.

The support text (paragraph 10.210) also includes the caveat, in respect of all new development contributing towards renewable and low carbon energy generation, that this is where such a contribution is financially viable and feasible to implement. The draft policy text (at CC7 5a/5b) establishes the same caveats, and the same consistency needs to be applied in respect of carbon reduction at CC7 (3a).