Support

Representation ID: 11

Received: 23/11/2023

Respondent: Mr Roy Burgess

11: Environment- Spatial Plan- SUPPORT

Comment

Representation ID: 40

Received: 07/12/2023

Respondent: Birmingham and Black Country Wildlife Trust

- A Local Wildlife Site Assessment should be required in support of a planning application if it is likely to impact a SINC or a SLINC. Assessments may also be required where a site isn't designated, but there is evidence that these could be of importance (e.g.: Potential Sites of Interest)
- Proper nomenclature for EcoRecord is 'Local Environmental Records Centre'

Comment

Representation ID: 328

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

We are supportive of measures to safeguard nature, but paragraph (1) is worded in such a way that would prohibit any development where there is any harm to designated sites at paragraph 1a and 1b. Whilst paragraph 3 does allow harms to be weighed against the benefits of a development, the first part of the policy contradicts this. We would suggest paragraphs 1a and 1b be amended to reflect the exception at paragraph 3.

We consider that a more flexible approach should be adopted, particularly on sites that are unaffected by Footnote 7 nature conservation designations. It is clear that biodiversity net gain requirements, which come in in the new year will need to be proven by applicants in any case.

Surely, in this case, the better approach would be to pragmatically look at how sites would benefit from management and longer-term protection, as well as improved public access and improved and more diverse landscaping and planting, and the introduction of specific artificial habitats such as bat and bird boxes.

Support

Representation ID: 366

Received: 14/12/2023

Respondent: Corbett Meadow Action Group

CMAG support the hierarchy of protection for sites important for nature conservation; and also support the designation of Corbett Meadow as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation.

As noted above, the Meadow was upgraded from a SLINC (local interest) to SINC (regional significance) through a proper and fully evidenced process in October 2022 https://cmis.dudley.gov.uk/cmis5/Meetings/tabid/116/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/mid/543/Meeting/6444/Committee/468/SelectedTab/Documents/Default.aspx and http://planningdocuments.dudley.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00655832.pdf and so its protection as such is provided by the provisions of the adopted Black Country Core Strategy and Dudley Development Strategy.

However the Draft Local Plan provides the first opportunity for public & other stakeholder comment on the SINC designation; and so CMAG would wish to record here its full & strong support for such designation.

Again it is noted that the full site assessment is included in the Council’s evidence base https://www.dudley.gov.uk/media/joricypg/corbett-hospital-grounds-local-site-assessment-report-form-2022.pdf

Comment

Representation ID: 402

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

HBF note that LNRS have yet to be prepared. It will be important for the Plan to reflect the current position of the LNRS preparation as plan-making processes continue.
Criteria 7 is of the policy seems to be seeking to give Local Plan policy status to SPDs that have yet to written, which is not appropriate and contrary to national guidance. Planning policy must be made through the Local Plan process and be subject to the requirements for public consultation and independent scrutiny through the Examination process.

Support

Representation ID: 463

Received: 19/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Worcestershire

Not in a position to comment on environmental policies in detail. However, we support in general the aspiration to protect the key green and blue infrastructure in the district.

Comment

Representation ID: 474

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Marlie Civils

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

Policy DLP31 Nature Conservation
2.11. We are supportive of measures to safeguard nature, but paragraph (1) is worded in such a way that would prohibit any development where there is any harm to designated sites at paragraph 1a and 1b. Whilst paragraph 3 does allow harms to be weighed against the benefits of a development, the first part of the policy does not reflect this. We would suggest paragraphs 1a and 1b be amended to reflect the exception at paragraph 3.
2.12. We consider that a more flexible approach should be adopted, particularly on sites such as New Hawne Colliery. The site is not a Site of Special Scientific Interest and is regularly subject to anti-social behaviour leading to damage to the site, including fly-tipping, fires, trespass and graffiti. This is despite the landowners efforts to secure the site.
2.13. Surely, in this case, the better approach would be to pragmatically look at how the site would benefit from management and longer-term protection, as well as improved public access and improved and more diverse landscaping and planting, and the introduction of specific artificial habitats such as bat and bird boxes.

Comment

Representation ID: 493

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Mike Wood

Furthermore, there are of course potential environmental impacts as a result of the proposed changes. It is crucial that the Council conducts a thorough environmental impact assessment to evaluate the consequences on local ecosystems, air and water quality, and biodiversity. Without such an assessment, the plan may inadvertently contribute to environmental degradation.

Object

Representation ID: 559

Received: 15/12/2023

Respondent: Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Policy DLP31 – Nature Conservation

5.1. With regards to nature conservation, the emerging Local Plan seeks through Draft Policy DLP31 to secure a high level of protection for regionally designated nature conservation sites, identifying that where development would ‘harm’ nationally or regionally designated nature conservation sites, it would not be permitted. This policy goes on to identify requirements for planning applications that may affect designated sites, important habitats, species or geological features, to ensure that the likely impacts of the proposal can be fully assessed.

5.2. It is considered that this policy as currently drafted, is inconsistent with the requirements of national policy. Paragraph 180 of the Framework identifies principles that should be applied when determining planning applications, noting that only “if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused” [emphasis added].

5.3. The draft policy should therefore be reconsidered and amended to better reflect and accord with the requirements and expectations of national policy. Only in situations where significant harm is expected to arise, would it be justified for permission to be refused. It should be recognised that some limited harm may arise in situations where development would be on or adjacent to designated sites, however this harm could be appropriately mitigated through overall enhancements to the designated site as a result of the development, and securing appropriate management and maintenance going forwards. It is considered that if the Council wish to impose more stringent policy requirements that go beyond the expectation of national policy, this should be justified. The Council should recognise that in certain circumstances it may be challenging for these standards to be met, whilst achieving other objectives of the Plan, including the delivery of housing or contributing towards economic growth.

Object

Representation ID: 575

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

5.1.
With regards to nature conservation, the emerging Local Plan seeks through Draft Policy DLP31 to secure a high level of protection for regionally designated nature conservation sites, identifying that where development would ‘harm’ nationally or regionally designated nature conservation sites, it would not be permitted. This policy goes on to identify requirements for planning applications that may affect designated sites, important habitats, species or geological features, to ensure that the likely impacts of the proposal can be fully assessed.
5.2.
It is considered that this policy as currently drafted, is inconsistent with the requirements of national policy. Paragraph 180 of the Framework identifies principles that should be applied when determining planning applications, noting that only “if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused” [emphasis added].
5.3.
The draft policy should therefore be reconsidered and amended to better reflect and accord with the requirements and expectations of national policy. Only in situations where significant harm is expected to arise, would it be justified for permission to be refused. It should be recognised that some limited harm may arise in situations where development would be on or adjacent to designated sites, however this harm could be appropriately mitigated through overall enhancements to the designated site as a result of the development, and securing appropriate management and maintenance going forwards. It is considered that if the Council wish to impose more stringent policy requirements that go beyond the expectation of national policy, this should be justified. The Council should recognise that in certain circumstances it may be challenging for these standards to be met, whilst achieving other objectives of the Plan, including the delivery of housing or contributing towards economic growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 652

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England welcomes the inclusion of a strong policy on nature conservation. We particularly welcome the inclusion of point 5 -
5. All appropriate development should positively contribute to the natural environment of Dudley by:
a. extending and improving the condition of nature conservation sites;
b. improving wildlife movement; and / or
c. restoring or creating habitats / geological features that actively contribute to the implementation of Nature Recovery Networks, Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) and / or Geodiversity Action Plans (GAPs) at a national, regional, or local level.
d. ensuring that canal and natural watercourse-side developments deliver improved and extended corridors for the movement of wildlife and people.
We welcome the reference to climate change adaptation in the policy justification, the link to the Local Nature Recovery Strategy and the connection made to the Local Authorities “Biodiversity Duty”.
The policy and its justification could be strengthened by recognising the relationship between nature conservation and green infrastructure. We recommend reference to Natural England’s Green Infrastructure Framework.
The urban nature recovery standard in NE’s GI Framework recommends that in urban and urban-fringe areas, GI should be increased by an agreed percentage, and that developers should identify in their GI Plan the development’s contribution to nature recovery.
NE’s GI Framework sets out the following urban greening factor:
• At least 40% average green cover in urban residential neighbourhoods.
• No net loss of green cover in urban neighbourhoods.
• Urban Greening Factors for development of
o 0.4 for residential
o 0.3 for commercial
o 0.5 for residential greenfield.
We would welcome it if this could be written into policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 705

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Canal and River Trust

Trust welcomes that SAC’s are to be protected under the terms of section 1a of Policy DLP31 Nature Conservation. Furthermore, we welcome explicit mention of canal and watercourse-side developments within sub-section 5d of Policy DLP31 Nature Conservation.

The Trust considers that it would be appropriate to review the opportunities for Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) near to Fens Pools to avoid LSE and biodiversity net loss at this sensitive, SAC- protected location. (ACTION REQUEST)

The Trust recommends the Council utilises Natural England's Access to Natural Green Space Standards (ANGSt) to ensure current activities are not impacting on existing communities ANGSt, but also to plan ANGSt spaces within the new developments including the canals, in preference to reliance on statutory protected sites that may already be under public pressure without
substantial investment in mitigation. (ACTION REQUEST).

Support

Representation ID: 777

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: National Trust

Policy DLP31 Nature Conservation
We are supportive of the policy approach towards Nature Conservation and consider that there are likely opportunities to enhance and restore nature and ecological habitats through the development management process. We support the inclusion of part 3 of policy DLP31 which states that “Where, exceptionally, the strategic benefits of a development clearly outweigh the importance of a local nature conservation site, species, habitat or geological feature, damage must be minimised. Any remaining impacts, including any reduction in area, must be fully mitigated. Compensation will only be accepted in exceptional circumstances. A mitigation strategy must accompany relevant planning applications.” Compensation in the exceptional circumstances should be administered through the Infrastructure Funding Statement, and we would consider that land identified as being part of the 8 Hills Regional Park within Dudley would be an appropriate recipient of mitigation or compensation.

As set out in paragraph 11.10 of the Local Plan, “…the borough can play an important role in helping species migrate and adapt to climate change as their existing habitats are rendered unsuitable. It is therefore very important to increase the ability of landscapes and their ecosystems to adapt in response to changes in the climate by increasing the range, extent, and connectivity of habitats.” The 8 Hills Regional Park seeks to address this risk caused by climate change. It is considered that the designation and acknowledgement of 8 Hills Regional Park by Dudley Borough Council could address and support the Council in achieving a number of the nature conservation related objectives set out within the draft Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 877

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Ms Helen Cook

The location of Corbett Meadow is rare within an urban area it has an important connectivity to the
Coalbourne Brook Valley already designated a SINC.
The Meadow holds a variety of declining habitats, the historic natural pignut grassland, two ponds,
wetland area and mature/veteran trees. These provide for mammals, birds, amphibians and insects a
place for cover to feed, sleep & breed. These natural habitats are declining countrywide we need to
protect and enhance those that remain, to maintain numbers and to encourage further species that
rely on this ecology.
Historically the meadow has been used for grazing and haymaking, any future plans implemented
this is vital to continue to maintain the meadow flora.
I fully support the designation of Corbett Meadow as a Site of Importance for Nature
Conservation. (SINC)