Draft Black Country Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 23108

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

Restoration

Canal restoration projects can bring a wide range of environmental, social and economic benefits for a local area and can be catalysts for redevelopment and regeneration. The Trust supports canal restoration being
considered in draft policy ENV7 and it is welcomed that, where appropriate, development will be expected to protect the line of the historic canal.

However, we question how practical and appropriate it is for decision makers on individual planning applications to assess whether there is a realistic possibility of the restoration of a canal wholly or in part. This requires an element of individual judgement, which opens up the possibility of inconsistency in approach. Such judgements will also be influenced to a significant degree by how far into the future the decision maker looks when considering what is realistic. In this context, it is concerning that para 10.103 appears to suggest that support for some canal restoration schemes should be limited because, amongst other things, some are not expected to be achievable within the plan period. As they are not allocations, we see no justification for why only restoration schemes that can be completed in the plan period should be safeguarded and it should be made clear in the plan that canal restoration routes are safeguarded for the plan period and beyond. We suggest that future reviews of the Black Country Plan should consider whether there is a realistic possibility of the restoration of a canal and that routes should be safeguarded until a review concludes that there is not one. This should not be left to decision makers on individual planning applications.

The policy could more positively support restoration by setting out an expectation that development that comes forward on sites that include sections of disused canals treat these sections as important areas of green infrastructure to be integrated into the development. Positive consideration should be given to re- watering sections in the interests of nature and heritage conservation (even if navigation is not possible in the short/medium term) and developing walking and cycling routes alongside the waterbodies. We understand that the IWA has identified a number of proposed allocations that may benefit from such an approach. Paragraph 10.102 of the plan offers some support for treating canal restoration schemes as green/blue infrastructure opportunities within development sites but we suggest that it would be appropriate to add this to the policy.

We agree that issues such as the environmental value of waterbodies, the availability of water supplies and the impact on the functioning and environment of the existing canal network must be considered in any planning application to bring forward a restoration scheme (para 10.105). However, we suggest that policy ENV7 should be amended to make it clear that there is support in principle for canal restoration, subject to these considerations (and any local factors that might be appropriate). At present, the policy is not positively prepared when it comes to the delivery of canal restoration schemes.

The line of the disused Hatherton Branch Canal is identified on the existing Black Country Core Strategy Key Diagram. It is proposed that the Black Country Plan will not refer to the Hatherton Branch Canal or show it on the Key Diagram(s) because it is included within the Walsall Site Allocations Document. This position seems to be at odds with the general approach that has been taken in preparing the Black Country Plan, with its greater focus on site allocations and designations. We suggest that canal restoration is an issue that requires cross-boundary co-operation and is a strategic issue (as explained in our response to the Issues and Options Report). As such, specific schemes warrant greater consideration in the Black Country Plan.

Between now and the publication of the regulation 19 draft plan in Summer 2022, we suggest that further engagement is required to consider the restoration schemes that should be covered by the plan and the most appropriate means of supporting them. Within this, we suggest that reference should be made to the Bradley Canal restoration, linking the Birmingham Main Line Canal with the Walsall Canal; the Lapal Canal and the Stourbridge Canal (Fens Branch).

Comment

Representation ID: 23109

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

Moorings


Part 3 (a) of policy ENV7 opportunities for leisure, recreation and tourism activities. The provision of appropriate enhanced visitor
moorings supports this and we would welcome policy support for securing these on appropriately located development sites.

We welcome the fact that the draft plan includes policy (parts 6 and 7) on residential canal moorings. The provision of residential moorings can contribute to bringing activity to the canal network, enhancing its character and providing passive surveillance.

We suggest, however, that the policy position is overly restrictive in a number of aspects and does not reflect the reality of how residential moorings operate on the canal network. These are:

•The provision of the ‘necessary boating facilities’. We suggest that this is amended to state ‘the provision of appropriate boating facilities’ and the minimum requirement (of electrical power, a water supply and sanitary disposal) is removed. Depending on the location of a mooring relative to an existing pump out and/or elsan point it may not be necessary for a residential mooring to include sanitary disposal on site as it is often accepted that a short cruise to an appropriate facility on the canal network on a periodic basis is suitable and in some cases beneficial. The same can also be true of water points. The amended text that we have suggested would allow greater flexibility to consider which facilities are required on a site-by-site basis.
• The requirement for dedicated car parking provided within 500m of the moorings. We question why this is required, especially in locations where mooring sites are well connected to public transport and cycling and walking networks. At present, this section of the policy does not appear to be based on consideration of the issues identified in para 107 of the NPPF. We suggest that ENV7(6)(b) is removed and that parking and access requirements for moorings are assessed against other policies in the development plan.

We support the need for an adequate level of amenity for residential moorings (ENV7)(6)(d) and for residential moorings to not have an unacceptable impact on the amenities or activities of nearby uses (ENV7)(7) where planning applications for residential moorings are being considered. However, policy ENV7 should also safeguard the amenity of existing residential moorings where planning consent for development (including change of use) is sought on sites adjacent or in
close proximity to existing moorings. At present, this is lacking in policy ENV7. Such a change would be consistent with the ‘agent of change’ principle in para 187 of the NPPF