Draft Black Country Plan

Support

Representation ID: 22401

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

REPRESENTATION TO REG 18
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN
in respect of
Land off Riverbank Road, Willenhall
on behalf of
ASW Property Ltd

CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. REPRESENTATION
3. CONCLUSION

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. This is a representation to the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan which is subject to
consultation until 11 October 2021. It is made on behalf of ASW Property Ltd, in respect of their
land off Riverbank Road, Willenhall, Walsall. The site entirely falls within Walsall Borough.
1.2. The site is an area of undeveloped land lying directly between a housing development
(Riverbank Road, Evenlode Grove and Bure Grove) and the former Severn Trent Water Treatment
Works to the south east and it is shown in red, edged in green below:
[See Map 1 Attachment]
1.3. The site includes an earth bund, which was presumably necessary at one point to separate the
water treatment works and the housing (constructed by Bloor Homes), but as the works are no
longer in operation, this is no longer required.
1.4. We note that the former treatment works are now proposed as an employment site in the Reg 18
Black Country Plan (WAE333) (see site in blue overleaf) and as such, ASW Property would like to
object to this allocation, on the grounds that as the site is surrounded by housing, it would make
far more sense to allocate the site for further housing development.
1.5. Further, the land owned by ASW Property is shown as Green Space, but the land is not publicly
accessible for this purpose and never has been. They object to this designation and wish to be
included as an allocation for housing.
[See Map 2 Attachment]
Source: Black Country Reg 18 Plan Proposals Map
1.6. ASW are promoting their site for inclusion as housing in the emerging Black Country Plan and
would like the Black Country authorities to consider this alternative.
1.7. The remainder of this representation document is as follows:
• Representation
• Conclusion
2. REPRESENTATION
2.1. The Willenhall Sewage Works site is a ‘carry over’ from the previous Site Allocations document
(Ref IND5) as shown in Table 37 and has remained undeveloped since the works were
decommissioned. Regeneration proposals were being put forward in 2018 for the site (where an
EIA Screening Opinion was sought for ‘employment uses (B1,B2, B8) with potential for sui generis
employment uses and an included access scheme from the adjacent Black Country Route’ ref
18/1578), but we are not aware of any planning applications being made subsequent to this.
2.2. ASW Property object to the allocation of the works site for employment purposes and wish for
their site to be considered as a residential allocation, together with a residential allocation on the
sewage works site.
2.3. The following table [listed] summarises the policies that we have commented on in this representation:
- HOU1 Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth 89 (Table 3 and Table 4)
- HOU2 Housing Density, Type and Accessibility 96
- HOU3 Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build / Custom Build Housing
- CC2 Energy Infrastructure 267
- CC7 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards
- CC5 Development and Flood Risk 282
- DEL2 Balance between employment land and housing 63
- EMP1 Providing for economic growth and jobs 124
- WAE333 Allocation of Willenhall sewage works for employment
CC5 – Flood Risk
2.19. The subject site sits outside of any area of flood risk (see yellow pin below), however a large part
of the proposed employment allocation at the water treatment works site adjacent, falls into
flood zones 2 and 3. Clearly, hydrological modelling and flood compensation measures would be
required to deliver the site, and we consider a residential scheme with SuDS (for 1 in 100 flood
events plus 40% for climate change) and large areas of open space would, in our view, be more
viable in the longer term than large areas of warehousing and yard which would require higher
levels of on site attenuation (in volumetric terms).
2.20. We have not seen evidence that a sequential test has been carried out by the council in the
selection of the site for employment purposes and this would need to be provided as part of the
justification for the proposed allocation.
[See Map 3 Attached]
DEL2 – Balance Between Employment Land and Housing
2.21. This policy at (d) states that ‘Proposals for new development must take account of existing
adjacent activities where the proposed development could have an adverse effect on or be
affected by neighbouring uses. Mitigation of the impact of noise and other potential nuisances
will need to be demonstrated.’
2.22. We consider that new employment uses on the site are likely to result in some harm to the living
conditions of residential neighbours to the site, given their proximity. It is not clear what work
has been undertaken to demonstrate that this is not an issue – as clearly the limitations placed
on hours of operation would reduce the commercial viability of the site.
3. CONCLUSION
3.1. We consider that there is a strong case to include both the land at Riverbank Road and the
former Willenhall water treatment works as a residential allocation within the Black Country
Plan. This is largely because of the fact that its neighbouring uses are all residential, its highly
sustainable location, the flood risk issues within the site as well as the previously developed
nature of the land.
3.2. The site is a ‘carry over’ from the previous BC plan and it is clear that the delivery of the site has
been significantly delayed, it is therefore not clear whether the site is indeed viable for an
employment use, in light of the known constraints.
3.3. The land at Riverbank Road is not green space which is publicly accessible – it is in private
ownership and could form part of a holistically planned new housing scheme which would better
knit in with the surrounding predominant residential uses.
3.4. Both sites in combination offer significant opportunities to add new open spaces that would be
properly managed and protected for future and existing residents, as well as better opportunities
for flood storage measures to be integrated into a scheme. Furthermore, a residential
development would not necessarily mean a new access would be required on to the Black
Country route.
3.5. We have made comments on more generic planning policies where we consider it is justified,
and we urge the BC councils to consider the points we have made.

Comment

Representation ID: 22402

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

EMP1 and WAE333 – Employment Allocation
2.23. Walsall Borough has a significantly higher employment land allocation than the other BC
authorities, but it is not clear why this should be the case: [Policy pictured from BCP document]
2.24. We consider that there remains greater scope for Walsall Borough to lose some ‘old’ or
longstanding employment allocations which have not yet come forward in favour of more
housing – because the pressure on neighbouring the neighbouring Staffordshire authorities
should not just translate into them blindly accommodating unmet need from the BC if there are
sites which still have not been delivered for employment uses.

Comment

Representation ID: 22403

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

CC7 - Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards
2.18. We consider that, linked to the above policy CC2, the aims of CC7 are laudable, it is clear that
there is some duplication between this planning policy and Building Regulations, which are
delivered in any case. There are therefore elements of this policy which are not particularly
justified or necessary, insofar as they effectively repeat Building Regulations requirements.

Comment

Representation ID: 22404

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
2.4. The BC authorities aspire to deliver 47,837 new homes over the course of the plan period 2020 to
2039. We welcome this as a minimum target.
2.5. We note that in Table 4, there has been a lapse rate allowance of 10% discounted to allow for
some sites which may not come forward over the course of the plan. We would like to know
whether this truly represents the historic lapse rate pattern, as we are aware of a substantial
number of sites within Walsall Borough that have not come forward because of persistent
viability problems associated with heritage, site contamination and other issues which include
tensions between commercial/industrial land values being similar to those of residential (post-
remediation). We are not clear whether this has been considered carefully enough.
2.6. Further, the BC authorities propose to ‘export’ 28,239 dwellings outside of its boundary – but as
South Staffordshire Council have just publicised their preferred options Local Plan, it remains the
case that they propose to take c.4,000 dwelling as (unmet need), but it is not clear whether this is
unmet need from the GBSLEP area, or the Black Country. This needs clarification.

2.7. At 7,657 (Table 3), we consider the windfall allowance to be high – it represents around 16% of the
total housing target for the plan period, which is a considerably proportion. Given the
requirements of the NPPF, we consider the plan is at risk of not being ‘positively prepared’ given
this (we feel) overreliance on unallocated housing in the emerging plan. Paragraph 71 of the
NPPF sets this out clearly: ‘Where an allowance is to be made for windfall sites as part of
anticipated supply, there should be compelling evidence that they will provide a reliable source
of supply. Any allowance should be realistic having regard to the strategic housing land
availability assessment, historic windfall delivery rates and expected future trends. Plans should
consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential
gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area.’

Support

Representation ID: 22405

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

HOU2 - Housing Density, Type and Accessibility
2.8. We are broadly supportive of the densities proposed in the emerging plan, however we consider
they are aspirational when it comes to the central areas of the main Black Country settlements,
with the exception of perhaps Wolverhampton, because of viability (specifically build costs v
likely sales values). Apartments continue to be difficult to sell in much of the Black Country and
it is hard to imagine how (post-covid) high density apartment schemes will, in reality, come
forward on any great scale. We would urge the BC authorities to reconsider their expectations on
this moving forwards.
2.9. We would seek some flexibility in the application of accessibility standards – particularly as a
result of the move towards more sustainable personal travel modes, such as electric cars.
2.10. We would also seek flexibility in the application of housing mix standards, where evidence from
the availability of second hand stock within the immediate area demonstrates an oversupply of a
particular size of dwelling.

Support

Representation ID: 22406

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

HOU3 - Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build / Custom Build Housing
2.11. We are broadly supportive of the affordable housing policy but would suggest the policy is
slightly reworded to make it absolutely clear that those minimum proportions should only be
required where viability demonstrates it is deliverable. Setting minimum levels are laudable, but
unlikely to make a difference in reality if viability is an issue (as is the case on many BC sites).
2.12. We are broadly supportive of the requirements to make more homes accessible for disabled
people.
2.13. The 5% self-build requirement does raise some concerns, however – related to maintaining
health and safety on large housing sites, as well as in relation to the ultimate control over
phasing. Given the council’s strong reliance on windfall sites – many of which are likely to be self
or custom build, we cannot see why the council can justify requesting a proportion of self-build
on large housing developments that are proposed for allocation.
CC2 – Energy Infrastructure
2.14. We are concerned about the proposal to require a decentralised energy network on sites of 10
dwellings or more. We remain unconvinced that decentralised energy is always appropriate in
anything other than unconstrained, strategic level development sites (000’s rather than 00’s of
dwellings), and certainly not for smaller schemes.
2.15. This is because of the limitations this can place on the ultimate consumer – where decentralised
energy can limit consumer choice in terms of energy provider and where the consumer may
wish to add further energy saving measures – such as solar power, heat pumps, etc.

2.16. It is not clear from this policy why it would be beneficial: district heating systems have had a
mixed result, where residents have had to sign up for long term contracts of 25 years or more.
Efficiencies tend to be a lot lower for small schemes, as the infrastructure costs can be the same,
so the larger the scheme, the more viable it could be. The industry itself is not regulated in the
same way and physical problems with a district heating system or decentralised energy system
can often result in whole areas being without heating or hot water for period of time.
2.17. We would therefore urge the BC authorities to reconsider the wording of this policy to
‘encourage’ the use of such systems, but not to stipulate that they must be used.

Object

Representation ID: 22612

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

Objects to SAH097 as 16 indicative dwelling numbers unviably low, 40 dwellings are req to make site deliverable