Comment

Representation ID: 21

Received: 18/11/2023

Respondent: Miss Alana Moss-Deeley

I assume the divides between the houses will be fences - can you ensure that some of these are
native hedges improving biodiversity or at least that the fences will contain hedgehog holes to allow
movement of wildlife and increase the area that they have to forage?
-All planting on the site is either beneficial for wildlife or native, preferably both - not just cheap amenity
planting as most housing developers usually use

Comment

Representation ID: 34

Received: 30/11/2023

Respondent: Mr George Morran

3. Green Space. Despite reference to biodiversity gains there do not appear to be proposals to increase protection and enhance green area in North Dudley especially Turls Hill and Swan Brook Valley. The draft plan documentation is very complex and not easy to understand.

Comment

Representation ID: 41

Received: 07/12/2023

Respondent: Birmingham and Black Country Wildlife Trust

- Suggest that a more appropriate for this policy may be 'Local Nature Recovery Strategy and Biodiversity Net Gain'
- Suggest that point 4 is reworded to 'Development that is likely to have a negative impact on biodiversity'
- 'Local' in the context of point 8 should be defined somewhere in this document
- We would encourage Dudley MBC to consider requiring a higher than 10% minimum biodiversity net gain for all development

Comment

Representation ID: 73

Received: 18/12/2023

Respondent: RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds)

The RSPB urges Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council to make provision of universal nest bricks for birds explicit through a development condition in Policy DLP32. Further detail and justification provided within comment. The RSPB also suggest that a Supplementary Planning Document is produced to complement this Policy, which will provide detailed guidance on how to incorporate nesting opportunities for Swifts and other Red-Listed bird species within development proposals. We would very much welcome the opportunity to work with the Council to develop this. The RSPB also suggests a separate policy provision for roosting bats within DLP32.

Comment

Representation ID: 117

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Mr John Davison

The policy can be more specific in stating 'swift bricks' (that are integral0. Swift bricks last the lifetime of the building and do not detract from its appearance. There are various designs of nest bricks on the market, suited to blend with the exterior of a building, thus not affecting its appearance.

Comment

Representation ID: 121

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Shropshire Swift Group

Para 11:30 talks about bird/bat boxes/bricks to to enable wildlife to disperse - Bird boxes and bricks allow them to breed (and to a lesser extent roost) so I trust this is what you mean by disperse.
Clearer wording re the installation of swifts bricks - which are accepted as the universal nest brick for a range of small species - is needed. These are permanent, low maintenance and suitable for all developments. Best practice guidance for location and numbers should be followed. Bat boxes are needed in addition to swift bricks.

Comment

Representation ID: 139

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Swifts Local Network: Swifts & Planning Group

Support the need for bird boxes & bricks but to meet NPPG and BS 42021 and ensure longevity & low maintenance these should be swift bricks, installed in accordance with best practice. Also include bat boxes & hedgehog highways, and protect existing nest sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 318

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 32 Nature of Recovery Network and Biodiversity Net Gain
Following the enactment of the Environment Act there is now a statutory requirement to achieve 10% biodiversity net gain through new developments. This is now a statutory requirement irrespective of the need to appear to a Development Plan policy. Notwithstanding the above, we note that policy DLP 32 sets out a requirement that all development shall deliver a minimum of 10% net gain.
The policy also sets out that biodiversity net gain should be provided with a preference to deliver it on site but acknowledging there may be instances where an off-site contribution has to be made if it is not possible to accommodate it within the development boundary. Whilst every effort would be made to achieve the requisite 10% gain on site the ability to do so is entirely dependent on the nature of the habitat that is present on site and which would be lost through new development. The achievement of biodiversity net gain on site, or through an off-site contribution, has the potential to affect the deliverability of development sites. This is because if biodiversity net gain is to be achieved on site this could reduce the amount of land available for development. Conversely, if a financial contribution was required off site, this would need to be paid irrespective of whether any other developer contributions were sought by the Council. This could have a direct impact on scheme viability in that there would only be a set amount of money available to deliver biodiversity net gain which could be at the expense of meeting other developer contributions. An applicant cannot choose to not meet its statutory obligations to deliver biodiversity net gain, nor as we understand it, is there is a viability clause in the legislation that says if delivery biodiversity net gain would cause development to become unviable then it is not required. Meeting and delivering biodiversity net gain will have to take priority due to its statutory nature. This requirement could, therefore, have implications for the payment of other developer contribution particularly where viability of development is marginal.
In light of the above, the choice of allocations should consider whether or not biodiversity net gain can be achieved on site and whether in doing so this would limit or restrict the developable area available and thereby the number of dwellings that could be delivered on specific sites. Barberry query whether this exercise has been undertaken and whether the draft allocations included in the Plan are deliverable in terms of achieving 10% biodiversity net gain on site. If not, there would be a requirement to identify additional sites so that the twin objectives of delivering housing along with 10% biodiversity net gain can be achieved. Larger sites such as the Triangle site would be better placed to achieve the 10% net gain on site.

Comment

Representation ID: 329

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

We would encourage the Council to keep this policy under close review to ensure it reflects emerging national requirements to avoid any conflict.

Comment

Representation ID: 331

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

We support measures to protect trees, particularly ancient woodland and veteran trees. However, the policy should be amended to reflect the reality that tree removal is sometimes required to facilitate development proposals. Presently, the policy (in particular paragraph 3) is worded such that tree removal will only be permitted in accordance with footnote 15, that the tree poses a risk to property or the public.

Object

Representation ID: 334

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

1.94 It is helpful that Policy DLP32 acknowledges (part 1a) that development is permissible in the Local Nature Recovery Network (LNRN) including in circumstances where it will deliver benefits appropriate to the zone in which it is located. However, the phrasing of the draft policy is somewhat confusing in circumstances where part 1 refers to all development, and part 1a refers to the location of the development within the LNRN, but not all development will be within the LNRN. This might be remedied by adding the words, “if located within the Local Nature Recovery Network” to the beginning of part 1a of the policy.
1.95 Part 5a of the policy should allow for BNG to be delivered through measures outside Dudley where this is most appropriate. This might include, for example, schemes at or close to the edge of the borough boundary where more important gains can be made through interventions in the neighbouring authority. Part 8 of the policy allows for the potential for measures to be local to the development site – there will be circumstances where this best and most appropriately means land in a neighbouring authority, and that should be supported by the policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 384

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Worcester Lane Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 32 Nature of Recovery Network and Biodiversity Net Gain
Following the enactment of the Environment Act there is now a statutory requirement to achieve 10% biodiversity net gain through new developments. This is now a statutory requirement so there is no need for it to be include in a policy. Notwithstanding the above, we note that policy DLP 32 sets out a requirement that all development shall deliver a minimum of 10% net gain.

Comment

Representation ID: 403

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

HBF again note LNRS has yet to be prepared and mandatory national BNG is expected to come in in January 0224 after the close of this consultation. HBF has been involved in a significant amount of work, being led by the Future Homes Hub, on BNG preparedness for some time and note that it is somewhat unfortunate that the timing of the release of the draft Planning Practice guidance from DLUHC and the Draft DEFRA BNG Guidance has seen this information released midway through your consultation period.

90. HBF note that there is a new information for the Council to work though and consider the implications of, in order to make the necessary changes to the Biodiversity Net Gain policy so that it complies with the latest policy and guidance as it finalised.

91. The BNG PPG has been published in draft form to allow for “familiarisation” and as such some details may change between now and the implementation date in January 2024. Similarly, HBF understand the DEFRA Guidance is still being refined before the implementation date, and indeed may be further refined once mandatory BNG is working in practice, to reflect any early lessons learnt.

92. There are clearly some areas of your guidance that need revising and updating, particularly because the (draft) PPG is clear that there is no need for Local Plan policies to repeat national guidance. For example, HBF would suggest criteria five and eight needs amending to allow for off-site BNG where this may be more appropriate and the use of statutory credits where no other option is available. Criteria six and seven may be unnecessary as they are merely repeating national policy, and criteria ten needs to properly reflect how BNG will work in practice. It should be noted that compliance with the national BNG condition is a post permission consideration and a final BNG Plan can only be submitted once planning permission has been granted. Management and monitoring of BNG will be part of this plan, and as such may be separate to the planning permission.

93. It will be important for the Council to fully consider the PPG and DEFRA guidance once it has been formally published, which HBF notes will be in January 2024, after the close of this consultation period. Although no significant changes to the approach to BNG are expected, further clarity may be needed on some of the finer details, and some amendments and additional advice and guidance are anticipated.

94. It is the HBF’s opinion that the Council should not deviate from the Government’s requirement for biodiversity net gain as set out in the Environment Act. There are significant additional costs associated with biodiversity gain, which should be fully accounted for in the Council’s viability assessment. It is important that BNG does not prevent, delay or reduce housing delivery.
Any requirements to go beyond 10% BNG needs to be clearly demonstrated with evidence including considering the implications of the policy approach as part of the whole plan viability appraisal. In particular, HBF would question how the viability of more than 10% BNG can be established when the market for off-site credits, and therefore the costs of delivering the 10% mandatory BNG system are still emerging.

96. HBF notes that the proposed policy wording and supporting text will need to reflect both that the Environment Act which requires 10% Biodiversity Net Gain, and the emerging policy, guidance and best practice on how Mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain will be implemented. There is an important policy distinction to made between the national mandatory requirements and any optional further requests from LPAs to go further and faster. In particular the
10% national target is non-negotiable from a viability perspective, but policies seeking over 10% can be challenged on viability grounds. This distinction needs to be recognised within the Local Plan.

97. HBF suggest particular care is needed in terminology to ensure the Dudley policy reflects the national policy and guidance. For example, on site and off- site biodiversity is referred to as units, and the statutory national credit system of last resort is referred to as credit. It is important for the wording of the policy to accurately reflect the legalisation and guidance.

98. HBF suggest that it should be for the BNG plan to set out what happens if monitoring shows any BNG measure are ineffective. It is also important to note that large and complex sites where the development is phased, the guidance is clear that the 10% must be delivered at the end of the development, and this may not result in 10% BNG on each phase. Additional advice on phased development is still awaited.

99. As mentioned previously, Local Nature Recovery Strategies are new initiative, and one has yet to be prepared that covers Dudley. As the LNRS emerges it will be important for this Local Plan to be kept under review and further public consultation on the interaction between the two documents and/or changes to Local Plan policy to reflect the LNRS may be needed.

Comment

Representation ID: 416

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

Although HBF do not comment on specific site allocations we would question how the list of potential BNG gain sites which are Council owned can be implemented in practice. For these sites to be useful for off-site BNG the Council will need to actively establish them as a Habitat Bank either through its own endeavours or in partnership. HBF would be keen to understand further the Council’s Plans in this regard and suggest that additional wording may be needed in the supporting text of Policy DLP32 Nature Recovery Network and Biodiversity Net Gain Policy to explain how the potential of these BNG sites can and will be operationalised.

Comment

Representation ID: 451

Received: 13/12/2023

Respondent: Revelan Developments Ltd

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 32 Nature of Recovery Network and Biodiversity Net Gain
Following the enactment of the Environment Act there is soon to be a statutory requirement to achieve 10% biodiversity net gain through new developments. As this is soon to be a statutory
requirement there is no need to a policy in the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 541

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Goldfinch Town Planning Services (West Midlands)

Goldfinch Town Planning Services would suggest that the emerging Local Plan Review could be significantly strengthened and improved from a nature conservation new habitat creation planning policy perspective, by emphasising the important role that new high quality housing development schemes can play in helping to promote and deliver new on-site nature conservation habitat features, integral for helping to support the delivery of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) across the Dudley Metropolitan Borough.

Support

Representation ID: 597

Received: 18/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

We welcome the policy and its requirements for achieving Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) as part of developments in Dudley. The Severn River Basin Management Plan is a key evidence base to identify ways in which water-related habitats and biodiversity can be created and enhanced for water bodies across the district.

The BNG guidance refers to RBMPs as an important source of information for achieving BNG for the water environment. Would welcome reference to this in the policy. We are likely to support the production of the Local Nature Recovery Strategy so that the priorities for nature recovery capture the water environment opportunities.

Comment

Representation ID: 653

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England welcomes the inclusion of a strong policy on the Nature Recovery Network and Biodiversity Net Gain. Connection should also be made to green infrastructure, with reference to NE’s GI Framework. In applying BNG metrics to brown field sites, careful consideration/strategy should be given to ensuring that these sites can often be naturally biodiverse given the time they may have been left fallow. The Brachen in Berlin offers potential inspiration in valuing sites of such character - NATURA URBANA – THE BRACHEN OF BERLIN.

Comment

Representation ID: 706

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Canal and River Trust

The Trust hopes that canal corridors will over time be identified as BNG offsetting sites, as this legislative implementation proceeds. Dudley’s canals should be recognised for the crucial role they facilitate in priority species movements and recovery throughout the West Midlands.

Accordingly, we seek on-going engagement in the evolution of BNG-related policy wording throughout the plan preparation stages over 2024, including Examination stages (ACTION REQUEST)

Comment

Representation ID: 709

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Canal and River Trust

We seek on-going engagement in the evolution of BNG-related policy wording throughout the plan preparation stages over 2024, including Examination stages (ACTION REQUEST)

Support

Representation ID: 778

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: National Trust

Policy DLP32 for BNG and nature recovery
The National Trust is engaged in Local Nature Recovery Strategies and would be keen to discuss how National Trust land and initiatives, such as 8 Hills Regional Park, could contribute towards achieving the objectives of BNG and nature recovery.
We support the principles of Policy DLP32. Land within the regional park may represent the opportunity to secure off site BNG, contributing towards nature recovery and connectivity within the regional park. This could see benefits two-fold, in respect of improvement to publicly accessible open space and nature recovery of existing habitats.

Object

Representation ID: 850

Received: 31/01/2024

Respondent: St Modwen Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

It is helpful that Policy DLP32 acknowledges (part 1a) that development is permissible in the Local Nature Recovery Network (LNRN) including in circumstances where it will deliver benefits appropriate to the zone in which it is located. However, the phrasing of the draft policy is somewhat confusing in circumstances where part 1 refers to all development, and part 1a refers to the location of the development within the LNRN, but not all development will be within the LNRN. This might be remedied by adding the words, “if located within the Local Nature Recovery Network” to the beginning of part 1a of the policy.

Part 5a of the policy should allow for BNG to be delivered through measures outside Dudley where this is most appropriate. This might include, for example, schemes at or close to the edge of the borough boundary where more important gains can be made through interventions in the neighbouring authority. Part 8 of the policy allows for the potential for measures to be local to the development site – there will be circumstances where this best and most appropriately means land in a neighbouring authority, and that should be supported by the policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 859

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: McCarthy Stone

Agent: The Planning Bureau Limited

Para 5,8 and 9 of policy DLP32 should be deleted and instead the Council should rely on the Statutory
Biodiversity Metric especially given the Statutory nature of BNG.