Object

Representation ID: 21332

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

POLICY CSP1 – DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY: OBJECT:
William Davis Homes (WDH) welcome the preparation of the Black Country Plan (BCP) and the intention of the Black Country authorities (BCAs) to positively plan for sustainable development and growth in the plan period to 2039. With that said, WDH has serious concerns in relation to the overall approach taken by the BCAs in relation to the level of growth that the Regulation 18 BCP seeks to plan for, the overall spatial strategy pursued in seeking to meet the housing needs of the BCAs, and the allocation of development sites in that context. As such, significant changes are required in the BCAs’ preparation of its Regulation 19 plan to reflect the below considerations, in order to ensure that the plan is sound.

Plan Period:
The BCP is inconsistent when referring to its plan period, which is a fundamental matter in the implementation and monitoring of the plan. Whilst the plan is titled Draft Black Country Plan 2018-2039, paragraph 3.21 refers to a housing requirement over the period 2020-2039. On the basis of the BCAs’ approach towards calculating its housing needs and setting out its housing supply, it would appear that the correct plan period is 2020-2039, but that matter clearly must be clarified through modifications to ensure clarity for monitoring purposes.

Planning Context:
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is underpinned by a presumption in favour of sustainable development that requires Local Plans to positively plan for and meet the development needs of their area as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas (para. 11). Ensuring that there is a continual supply of both market and affordable housing is a critical policy imperative for the Government and it remains a central tenet of the NPPF.

That is because insufficient housing provision has resulted in a nationwide “housing crisis” that needs to be remedied as a matter of urgency in order to address its acute socio-economic consequences (escalating house prices, rocketing rents, declining home ownership, increased housing benefit burden, reduced labour mobility, etc). The affordability issues associated with this are particularly acute within the jurisdiction of the BCAs, as well as within the wider Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA) of which the BCAs form an integral part.

The NPPF, therefore, emphasises the Government’s objective of “boosting the supply of homes” (para. 60) and requires strategic plan making authorities to establish a housing requirement figure for their whole area which shows the extent to which their identified housing need, and any needs that cannot be met in neighbouring areas, can be met over the plan period. It is, therefore, essential that the market and affordable housing needs arising in the plan area over the period to 2039 are identified and fully provided for in the BCP.

In that context, WDH fundamentally objects to the BCAs’ proposed approach towards determining the level of growth that the BCP seeks to accommodate for the following reasons:

Overall Housing Need:
Whilst WDH recognises that the local housing need (LHN) of the BCAs is 76,076 dwellings, as informed by the Housing Market Assessment that quite correctly takes into account the Government’s introduction of a 35% uplift to the local housing need figure for Wolverhampton, Government policy and guidance clearly sets out that this is a “minimum starting point in determining the number of homes needed in an area” (Planning Practice Guidance Ref. 2a-010-20190220).

That PPG states that “there will be circumstances where it is appropriate to consider whether actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates”, stating that appropriate circumstances may include “situations where increases in housing need are likely to exceed past trends [from which the household projections are based on] because of” … “growth strategies for the area that are likely to be delivered” and “strategic infrastructure improvements that are likely to drive an increase in the homes needed locally.”

The arrival of HS2 within the plan area and its surrounds must be considered such an exceptional circumstance, given that it will most certainly drive an increase in economic activity and therefore increase housing demand due to the commuting proximity of the BCAs to Birmingham, which is to act as a hub for HS2. As such, the BCAs’ housing need would benefit from an uplift to meet the inevitable additional demand from that economic activity. That matter is considered further in Turley's 'Technical Review of Housing Need and Supply in the Black Country' Report that is submitted alongside these representations.

Level of growth / Housing requirement:
Notwithstanding that point, Turley's report highlights that delivering to the base housing need of 76,076 dwellings would require just a 0.7% increase to the existing housing stock (compared to the 1.1% increase needed nationally to meet the nation's combined standard-method derived housing need), and as such that that level of growth should be entirely achievable. As such, WDH strongly objects to the BCAs’ intention to deliver just 47,837 dwellings to meet its own housing need and thus the decision to seek to export some 28,000 dwellings of its base housing need to neighbouring authorities that are themselves constrained.

In addition to WDH’s concerns that the BCAs’ identified supply will not deliver to that rate in reality (see below), that approach directly opposes the Government’s imperative of boosting the supply of homes to deal with the national housing crisis, as well as the requirement as per paragraph 11b of the NPPF for policies to “as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing” unless there is strong reasoning to restrict the overall scale of development, or if the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

In the first instance, the BCAs’ contention that they have a housing capacity of only 47,837 dwellings is demonstrably inaccurate, with the BCAs not having maximised potential housing delivery from all suitable sites available in sustainable settlements before seeking to export a significant degree (37%) of its need. Rather, in order to demonstrate that the BCAs have taken into account all ‘reasonable options’ before exporting that need, they must seek to accurately ascertain the true capacity of all suitable sites. That exercise should set aside policy constraints such as Green Belt (i.e. a ‘policy-off’ approach) and judge each promoted site on its merits as a suitable location for growth, and then test that capacity through the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) process. The BCAs have clearly failed to pursue that approach given that they have overlooked a number of wholly suitable and available development sites, including WDH’s site at Bromwich Lane (as set out in WDH’s response to Policy HOU1).

In failing to pursue that approach of identifying and allocating all suitable sites, the BCAs have failed to provide justification for their departure from the guidance of NPPF paragraph 11b that authorities must provide for their own housing needs as a minimum, and have unduly sought to limit the extent of development within the plan area without any evidence or justification, and without fully assessing the reasonable alternatives available. The BCP as currently drafted cannot, therefore, be considered to be positively prepared in accordance with NPPF paragraph 16b and as such would not be found to be sound if submitted in its current form.

In parallel to that, the BCAs should also ascertain the level of growth that could be accommodated before significant adverse impacts arise through the SA process, and should ensure that they meet that level of growth by maximising delivery from that supply of suitable development sites that are located within or adjacent to sustainable settlements but are not yet proposed to be allocated. The approach of identifying the maximum level of growth that could be accommodated through the SA would align with the requirement of NPPF paragraph 32 for local plans to be “informed throughout their preparation by a sustainability appraisal”, which must “consider and compare all reasonable alternatives as the plan evolves” (Strategic Environmental Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)).

The BCAs’ current approach of seeking to unduly limit growth without justification and export the BCAs’ housing need rather than deal with it within its own jurisdiction fails to meet those requirements. The SA published alongside the Regulation 18 BCP reflects that failure in considering only five options in relation to housing delivery:
• Option 1 – 40,117 dwellings;
• Option 2 – 47,837 dwellings (as informed by an inaccurate position on the BCAs’ capacity);
• Option 3 – 76,076 dwellings;
• Option 4 – 79,076 dwellings (76,076 dwellings plus 3,000 dwelling contribution towards Birmingham’s housing shortfall);
• Option 5 – 47,837 dwellings, with 28,239 dwellings exported through the Duty to Cooperate (also informed by an inaccurate position on the BCAs’ capacity).

By testing just five options and failing to test the considerable number of reasonable alternative options between delivering 47,837 dwellings and 76,076 dwellings (the next highest value), the SA’s approach clearly has not considered “all reasonable alternatives”; not least because the SA has failed to test the ‘true’ capacity of the BCAs’ (as above). That is a clear failing of both the SA and the Regulation 18 plan, which is not sound in its current form as a result.

Whilst there may be at least a degree of unmet need exported from the jurisdiction of the BCAs, it is imperative that the BCAs seek to maximise the level of growth that can be delivered through the plan itself, so as to minimise the level of growth that needs to be met elsewhere.

The approach to maximising growth in the BCA itself and minimising the level of exported need is particularly important given the context of the BCAs’ surrounding authorities, which themselves are constrained by many of the same planning policy constraints that the BCAs experience. Birmingham City Council (BCC) is clearly not in a position to contribute given its own unmet needs, South Staffordshire falls almost entirely within Green Belt designation, Cannock Chase is almost entirely subject to Green Belt and / or AONB designation, Lichfield is subject to Green Belt designation and is seeking in its own Regulation 19 plan to reduce its contribution to neighbouring unmet needs, Wyre Forest is largely constrained by Green Belt in its north and east and is largely countryside in its south and west (and therefore unsuitable for large-scale development), and Bromsgrove is entirely awash with Green Belt designation outside of its urban areas. Outside of the HMA, it is understood that the BCAs are anticipating Shropshire to pick up a large apportionment of this unmet need, despite that authority largely comprising designated Green Belt, countryside and rural settlements.

That difficult and constrained context has played a significant part in the ability of the HMA authorities to make a significant contribution towards the unmet needs of BCC since the adoption of the Birmingham Development Plan (BDP) in January 2017. The GBBCHMA’s latest position statement (July 2020) identified that, when compared to the c. 37,900 dwellings that the BDP sought to export, neighbouring authorities have committed just 3,720 dwellings towards the unmet needs in the wider HMA through adopted plans. As a result, BCC’s own unmet need continues to persist both pre-2031 and post-2031. Therefore, when considering the BCAs’ own housing requirement (and therefore the level of growth exported), It is critical that the BCAs learn from those historic difficulties when meeting BCC’s unmet need; rather than seeking to export a significant level of unmet need with no mechanisms in place to ensure that it is met.

Rather, given the constrained context of neighbouring authorities, the reality for the BCAs is that neighbouring authorities are unlikely to be able to accommodate significant development that would meet the substantial unmet need of 28,239 dwellings; and therefore a large amount of the unmet housing need of the BCAs may well be ‘lost.’ That is recognised within the BCP itself, with paragraph 3.25 stating that the approach “may only address a proportion of the housing and economic shortfall, as it is inappropriate and beyond the powers of the BCA to establish the limits of sustainable development in neighbouring authorities.” That position is not an appropriate approach, and therefore will not meet the tests of soundness. Moreover, the Turley report considers in detail how the failure to meet the BCAs’ housing needs in full would exacerbate the severe socio-economic consequences arising within the BCAs and wider HMA, for example increasing pre-existing housing affordability issues and limiting economic growth. As such it is imperative that this position is avoided.

Therefore, an appropriate approach towards that matter (in addition to accurately ascertaining the BCAs’ true housing capacity as above) would be for the BCAs to ascertain the maximum level of growth that they can accommodate before significant adverse impacts arise (setting that figure as the plan’s housing requirement), and to then identify sufficient land to meet that level of growth. That is clearly achievable given that there are numerous sites that are suitable and located in sustainable locations for growth that the BCAs have failed to allocate (see below).

It is therefore important that the SA revisits its approach to assessing the ‘housing delivery options’ in order to understand the level of growth that the BCAs could accommodate. That revised SA should therefore test the increased ‘true’ capacity of the BCAs, as well as reasonable alternatives above that in increments of 5,000 dwellings for example, in order to understand the point at which there is an evidenced reason to restrict the level of scale.

Whilst it is of course not possible to pre-empt the findings of that revised SA and understand the exact level of growth that the BCAs could bring forward without significant adverse impacts, it is clear that the BCP could and should plan for a significantly higher level of growth over the plan period by allocating the numerous suitable and available development sites within the plan area that as yet have not been included as proposed allocations. That approach should be reflected through significant changes to the BCP within the future Regulation 19 publication, that seek to assure that the BCP delivers as much of the BCAs’ housing needs as possible. The suitability of Bromwich Lane, Pedmore is set out in more detail in response to Policy HOU1, and as such should be included as an allocation in the Regulation 19 plan.

Housing Supply:
Notwithstanding WDH’s objection to the overall level of development in the plan period, WDH also has particular concerns as to whether the BCAs’ purported housing supply is accurate in any event, and whether the actual level of delivery in the plan period will meet the level that the BCAs contend (47,837 dwellings).

In particular, and whilst it is recognised that the BCAs’ approach to maximising the opportunity from brownfield sites before releasing Green Belt sites accords with the NPPF, WDH has concerns over the dependence in that supply on delivery from brownfield sites in urban areas. Of the housing allocations proposed within the BCP, 81% of the dwellings will be delivered at brownfield sites; reflecting the BCP's particular dependence. That concern is also set out in the submitted Turley Report which notes the BCAs' application of unrealistic delivery assumption at sites where the BCAs have experienced recent difficulties in delivering housing (i.e. occupied employment land and existing allocations). That informs Turley's finding that the true capacity should be 9,571 dwellings lower than purported.

However, that fails to reflect the particular complexities when delivering brownfield sites, which can experience delays at various stages of the development process. Prior to an application’s submission, existing tenants / landowners can delay or halt development aspirations, whether that is because of differing opinions on land value, or difficulties in relocating tenants. Furthermore, such sites are difficult to develop by their very nature, with the cost and difficulty of remediation a key constraint. Even if a site does not experience such issues, their build-out periods are often longer than those of greenfield sites. Indeed, Lichfields’ Start to Finish: What factors affect the build-out rates of large scale housing sites? identifies that brownfield sites experience a longer period between receiving full planning permission and the delivery of dwellings, and also that the average build-out rates of greenfield sites are 34% higher than brownfield sites.

There is also an additional element of complexity and uncertainty in relation to brownfield sites being delivered in ‘Strategic Centres’ and ‘Core Regeneration Areas’, which comprises 43% (20,769 dwellings) of the overall supply as set out in Policy CSP1. That is because delivery of sites within those locations is entirely subject to the separate review of the “existing suite of Area Action Plans for Brierley Hill, West Bromwich, Walsall and Wolverhampton” (i.e. the Strategic Centres) and the designated Core Regeneration Areas.

Those Area Action Plan (AAP) Reviews will themselves be subject to evidence gathering, drafting, public consultation, further alterations, public examination and later adoption before coming into force; which is of course a time-consuming process itself. As such, and given that it is reasonable to assume that developers will await the adoption of those new AAPs before advancing with planning applications, any delays in the preparation of those AAPs could result in delays in the delivery of significant elements of the BCAs’ already reduced supply. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that those AAPs will identify the level of growth expected from them at this stage once further evidence on site suitability is gathered. For example, should the AAPs’ evidence identify that some sites that are currently earmarked for potential development are entirely unsuitable (be that be through hard constraints, viability, deliverability etc.) then the expected delivery from those sites will be lost completely.

Furthermore, Table 2 (beneath Policy CSP1) states that 7,651 dwellings will be delivered in the plan period from “small windfall housing” sites that lie outside of the Strategic Centres. That is a significant element of the supply that equates to 16% of the overall supply or 348 dwellings per annum (dpa), despite the plan providing no evidence-based justification for that assumption as required by NPPF paragraph 35b. Notwithstanding that lack of justification, and even if the BCAs have achieved windfall development of that level previously, the windfall allowance within the BCP must take a reasonable view on future windfall delivery, and should take into account that the land available for windfall development will become increasingly limited / depleted in the near future; particularly given that the adopted Black Country Core Strategy and the emerging BCP focus considerable growth to urban areas. Therefore, to assume a 348dpa windfall allowance is not suitable.

As such, whilst WDH understand DBC’s allocation of brownfield land, the associated difficulties of delivering such sites do not provide sufficient certainty that development will commence in a timely manner, and that the sites identified by the BCAs will deliver to the level anticipated (which itself is well below the overall housing need). Those concerns are compounded given the un-evidenced inclusion of a significant windfall allowance within the BCAs’ purported supply.

In normal circumstances where an authority was not seeking to export an element of its housing need, WDH would suggest that an uplift be included in an authority’s housing need above its housing requirement to ensure flexibility in its land supply and provide certainty that a sufficient amount of housing would come forward. Indeed, a 2016 Local Plans Expert Group report recommended to Government that local plans should incorporate a 20% uplift above an authority’s minimum housing need to ensure that plans are resilient and their supply robust. Clearly that is not deliverable here given the BCAs’ circumstances, but this emphasises the need for the BCP to be robust in its assumptions on the housing delivery expected in the plan period.

Moreover, it reiterates the fact that the BCAs could and should allocate more sites in order to meet more of their own housing needs (given the presence of suitable sites that have not been allocated, as below), and in order to remedy the particular dependence on brownfield development. That would align with the guidance of the NPPF, which states that “planning policies should identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites” to meet its housing needs (paragraph 68), and notes that “small and medium sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, and are often built-out relatively quickly” (paragraph 69). The delivery of small – medium sized sites would critically also ensure that the BCAs could identify a five-year supply of housing during the early plan period where AAPs are being prepared and brownfield delivery is limited.

Specifically, and to reduce the existing dependence on brownfield sites, a large element of those additional allocations should be at greenfield sites in sustainable locations, as below.

Spatial Strategy:
Notwithstanding the above matters, WDH consider the absence of a clear spatial strategy to be particularly concerning, and therefore question the justification that has underpinned the approach taken to directing development to specific areas and the identification of the BCP’s proposed allocations. As such, the existing approach of loosely directing residential development to growth areas is not robust, in that it has not been justified and evidenced, and therefore would not pass the test of soundness.

Indeed, the preparation of a spatial strategy is fundamental to plan-making, with NPPF paragraph 20 requiring plans to “set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and quality of development.” Moreover, that spatial strategy would play a key role in the identification of additional development sites, and would focus growth to those areas that are most suitable in order to ensure that additional development could be accommodated with very little additional impact. Similarly, it would be an important mechanism in guiding development should the proposed allocations fail to deliver as the BCAs expect.

It is WDH’s view, therefore, that a clear spatial strategy should be defined within Policy CSP1 to clearly guide residential development over the plan period. A suitable approach to that would be to undertake an audit of the settlements in the plan area, considering both their needs and suitability to accommodate residential development (which itself should take into consideration accessibility, services and facilities, environmental constraints and land availability), and to focus growth to the most sustainable settlements identified.

Such an audit would reflect that Pedmore is a wholly sustainable settlement that would be suitable for accommodating residential development to a higher scale than is currently planned. Indeed, Pedmore is a residential suburb of Stourbridge, which itself contains a full range of high order services and community facilities. However, Pedmore itself also has a range of local services and facilities including a primary school, convenience store, church, cricket club and local park. Furthermore, Pedmore is well located to benefit from the services and retail facilities available in Hagley and West Hagley to the west of the settlement, including a medical centre.

Pedmore is also well served by public transport links, with bus route 318 running close to the site along Hagley Road (the A491), which links the site and settlement both to Pedmore, Stourbridge Bus Station and Bromsgrove Bus Station and the services and facilities therein. Stourbridge Junction Train Station and Hagley Train Station are also located nearby to the site and settlement (accessible via bus), and therefore offer opportunities for multi-modal travel to other settlements on that train line (including Kidderminster, West Bromwich, Birmingham, Solihull, Worcester Stratford upon Avon).

As such, Pedmore is clearly an entirely appropriate and sustainable location for residential development, with residents able to readily access and support the services and facilities required to meet their day-to-day needs, and benefit from convenient public transport services to key employment and higher order service centres. The sustainability of the settlement should be recognised by the BCAs through the spatial strategy that should be added to the plan, and should be reflected through the allocation of residential sites adjacent to the settlement so as to meet more of the BCAs’ housing needs and provide certainty in their housing supply.

Green Belt release:
In light of the above context, the BCAs must clearly seek to maximise delivery from Green Belt sites within their own jurisdiction rather than seeking to export a large element of its unmet need to neighbouring authorities that themselves are constrained by key planning designations, and as such are unlikely to be able to meet that unmet need fully. The BCAs must achieve that by first allocating those suitable Green Belt sites that are located within sustainable locations adjacent to the Black Country conurbation.

Indeed, the BCAs’ approach to releasing Green Belt land to meet their housing need is justified and wholly in accordance with the NPPF; albeit WDH strongly object to the BCAs’ approach to the level of Green Belt release and the quantum of development that has been proposed in the Regulation 18 BCP given the above context. The clear evidenced need and justification for Green Belt release has been recognised in the BCP itself, which states that the BCAs have “identified and made effective and extensive use of brownfield and urban sites and have also undertaken density uplifts in relation to both existing and new allocations” prior to releasing Green Belt land (in accordance with NPPF paragraph 141), and that notwithstanding that approach “there is a significant need to provide for the continued managed growth of the Black Country, to enable it to provide capacity for economic prosperity”, and as such that the BCAs “feel they have demonstrated that exceptional circumstances exist to justify the redrawing of green belt boundaries around the urban edge to release land for development” (in accordance with NPPF paragraph 140).

The BCP also sets out that, in identifying suitable Green Belt sites, “land should therefore be fully assessed not just against its suitability for Green Belt status but also with regard to the sustainability of the development it might accommodate relative to various issues important to the BCP or the wider area” and that the BCAs will release land that “if developed, would cause the least harm to the purposes of Green Belt and to landscape character, is suitable and available for development and that could create long-term and defensible Green Belt boundaries.” As such, the BCP states that the approach taken to allocating Green Belt land is the “rounding-off” of the built form.

Whilst WDH are of the view that this approach is justified and sensible in principle, it is demonstrated in response to Policy HOU1 that it has not been implemented consistently when assessing promoted sites, which has resulted in the BCP failing to allocate sites that could be developed with limited harm to the purposes of the Green Belt and landscape character subject to mitigation, and that would contribute to the creation of a “sustainable pattern of development” in accordance with NPPF paragraph 142. That is demonstrated in WDH’s response to Policy HOU1 in relation to WDH’s site at Bromwich Lane, Pedmore (SA Site Ref. SA-0016-DUD), and indeed it is critical that the BCP allocates such sites so as to ensure that it meets as much of its own housing needs as possible through substantial changes to the plan within the forthcoming Regulation 19 document.

Bromwich Lane
Bromwich Lane, Pedmore is one such example of an entirely suitable site in a sustainable location that the BCP has failed to allocate. The merits of that site, as well as WDH’s concerns with the application of the site assessment methodology when assessing the site, are outlined in further detail in WDH’s response to Policy HOU1.

That response highlights that, on the basis of the technical and environmental assessments of the site that have been carried out by WDH, there are no insurmountable development constraints that cannot be mitigated through the development of a sensitive scheme that includes suitable mitigation measures.

Those assessments find that the site is well-located at the edge of the Black Country conurbation and adjacent to the inherently sustainable settlement of Pedmore (as above), and that site access can be achieved in a manner that would achieve unrestricted two-way vehicular movements along Bromwich Lane. Relevant assessments have also found that the site is not subject to any nature conservation designations and that, whilst some protected species may be present, they can be accommodated through sensitive design to enhance the ecological value of the site, that the majority of trees will not be impacted by the proposals (save for the small scale removal required to accommodate access) and rather will be incorporated into generous landscape buffers that will be enhanced through new tree planting, and that the site is unlikely to have a detrimental impact upon surrounding heritage assets. The site is also not located within the floodplain, sustainable drainage can be accommodated within the development to provide surface water attenuation, and there is capacity within the existing foul sewerage network.

Given that Bromwich Lane, Pedmore is demonstrably an unconstrained and suitable development site yet has not been allocated by the BCAs, WDH’s response to Policy HOU1 highlights the inconsistencies in the site’s assessment within the BCP’s SA. In particular, that response demonstrates that the SA’s approach towards the site’s Green Belt and landscape considerations is unjustified, and that the development of the site would be entirely in accordance with the BCP’s approach to allocating Green Belt sites that round-off the built form, and can be developed with the least harm to the purposes of the Green Belt and landscape character.