Comment

Representation ID: 22299

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Investin PLC

Agent: Lichfields

2.1 Investin objects to CSP1 on the basis that it seeks to provide only 47,837 dwellings in the plan period, leaving a significant shortfall of 28,239 dwellings. The BCP has failed to provide sufficient land to meet the minimum housing needs, as per NPPF paragraph 11(b), and will need to ensure that additional housing land is provided through further Green Belt release.
2.2 The BCA’s approach through CSP1 is flawed on several grounds, and these are set out as follows and below:
1. Local Housing Need and Plan Period: An incorrect local housing need figure is utilised, and an insufficient plan period is incorporated.
2. GBBCHMA Unmet Housing Need: The BCP fails to address the unmet housing need arising from the Great Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA’).
3. Black Country Unmet Housing Need and Duty to Cooperate: The Duty to Cooperate has not been fulfilled and the unmet housing need identified has been deferred rather than dealt with, contrary to NPPF paragraph 35(c).
4. Sustainability Appraisal: The Sustainability Appraisal fails to take into account the reasonable alternatives for housing growth and therefore would not be justified as per NPPF paragraph 35(b).
5. Exceptional Circumstances and Green Belt Release: The BCP does not seek to identify, allocate and release a sufficient supply of land within the Green Belt for housing.
6. GBHMA Strategic Growth Study: The BCP fails to take account of the findings and spatial recommendations of the GBHMA Strategic Growth Study, contrary to NPPF paragraph 35(a) and 35(b).
Local Housing Need and Plan Period
2.3 Draft Policy CSP1 is unsound it utilises an incorrect local housing need figure and does not incorporate a sufficient plan period.
2.4 The BCP “sets a housing target for the Black Country of 47,837 new homes over the period 2020-39, compared to a local housing need for 76,076 homes, creating a shortfall of 28,239 homes” (paragraph 3.21) [Emphasis added].
2.5 Though the BCA has not set out its methodology for calculating a local housing need figure of 76,076 dwellings over a 19-year plan period, the calculated figure is seemingly incorrect. Calculated using the standard method as of April 2021, utilising household projections over 2021-2031 and affordability ratios for 2020, the local housing need figure should equate as follows:
Table 2.1 BCA Local Housing Need (April 2021)
Black Country Authority - LHN (annual) - LHN (19-year plan period)
Dudley - 635 - 12,065
Sandwell - 1,466 - 27,854
Walsall - 869 - 16,511
Wolverhampton (incl. 35% urban uplift) - 1,041 - 19,779
Total - 4,011 - 76,209
Source: Lichfields analysis
2.6 The BCA will therefore need to revise its calculation underpinning the local housing need figure in order to reflect the most up-to-date data, and consequently seek to plan for a minimum of 4,011 dwellings per annum (‘dpa’) rather than 4,004 dpa.
2.7 As for the plan period, the BCA should firstly ensure that the period is explicitly expressed within Draft Policy CSP1 to ensure its soundness in the context of NPPF paragraphs 16(d), 22 and 35.
2.8 Secondly, although the 19-year plan period may exceed the minimum 15-year requirement, NPPF paragraph 22 goes on to state:
“Where larger scale developments such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns form part of the strategy for the area, policies should be set within a vision that looks further ahead (at least 30 years), to take into account the likely timescale for delivery.” [Emphasis added]
2.9 Whilst it is acknowledged that the publication of the 2021 NPPF post-dates this consultation, and therefore the BCA has not had the opportunity to address its final contents, the BCP will need to employ a 30-year delivery trajectory as the development strategy comprises larger scale developments.
2.10 In this regard, NPPF paragraph 22 defines larger-scale developments as including “new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns”, and thus whilst the Council has not opted to include new settlements within its preferred growth strategy, it has nonetheless included significant extensions to existing villages in towns:
Table 2.2 Sites Allocated for Housing by Black Country Plan (Policy HOU1)
Site Ref - Site Name and Address - Indicative Housing Capacity - Gross Site Area (ha) - Net developable area (ha) - Net Density (dph) - Strategic Allocation
WAH232 - Yieldsfield Farm (sometimes recorded as Yieldfields farm), Stafford Road, Bloxwich - 978 - 39.55 - 37.26 - 35 - Policy WSA.4
WAH234 - Land between Queslett Road, Doe Bank Lane and Aldridge Road, Pheasey - 1,426 - 42.27 - 42.27 - 45 - Policy WSA8
WAH235 - Home Farm, Sandhills, Walsall Wood - 1,417 - 54 - 54 - 35 - Policy WSA1
Source: Black Country Plan
2.11 Whilst it is noted that the quantitative threshold qualifying a “significant extension” is ill-defined, the above allocations are all between 900-1,400 dwellings and would therefore likely fall within the scope of a significant extension. Consequently, the BCP should employ a 30-year delivery trajectory to align with NPPF paragraph 22.
GBBCHMA Unmet Housing Need
2.12 Draft Policy CSP1 is unsound as it fails to address the unmet housing need arising from the Great Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA’). 2.13 The HMA overall situation has primarily been set out within the:
• The Strategic Growth Study’ (‘the 2018 SGS’);
• The ‘Housing Need and Housing Land Supply Position Statement’ (September 2018) (‘the 2018 Update’); and
• ‘Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA) Housing Need and Housing Land Supply Position Statement’ (July 2020) (’the 2020 Position Statement’).
2.14 A summary of the concluded shortfall is shown below. The chart compares how the original 37,900 unmet need identified in the original BDP has been gradually whittled down by successive supply reviews, driven by BCC.
Figure 2.1 Comparison of GBBCHMA Unmet Housing Need Positions
[2018 SGS
• BDP Unmet Housing Need (2031) = 37,900
• GBBCHMA Unmet Housing Needs (2031) = 28,150
2018 SGS (Inc. Densities)
• BDP Unmet Housing Need (2031) = 37,900
• GBBCHMA Unmet Housing Needs (2031) = 15150
2018 Update
• BDP Unmet Housing Need (2031) = 37,900
• GBBCHMA Unmet Housing Needs (2031) = 10,696
2020 Position Statement
• BDP Unmet Housing Need (2031) = 37,900
• GBBCHMA Unmet Housing Needs (2031) = 2,597]
Source: Lichfields’ analysis, based on GBBCHMA Position Statements
2.15 Each of these positions has featured very different land supply figures, generally reflecting either changing supply evidence or differing assumptions on densities1. Indeed, the latest position reflected BCC’s ‘Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 2019’ data, which concluded that completions over 2011 to 2019 had exceeded the requirement by c.1,374 dwellings and that the Council’s supply of land has increased by c.14,300.
2.16 Taking the 2020 Position Statement at face value suggests that this significant unmet need challenge has been met. However, the raft of position statements above all use an unmet housing need figure derived for the whole GBBCHMA (i.e. Birmingham and the Black Country) which has not been tested through the examination process and only includes the period to 2031.
2.17 Importantly, the need figure does also not take into account the potential need to consider any uplift to supply to meet matters such as the delivery of affordable housing or economic growth.
2.18 The GBBCHMA Position Statement published in July 2020, concluded that the 2011-2031 shortfall is now estimated to be 2,597, a fall of 13,728 since the Greater Birmingham Strategic Growth Study was published in 2018.
2.19 Appendix 2 of the 2020 Position Statement sets out the allocated and emerging contributions made by the GBBCHMA authorities, which it says totals between 18,130-20,130 dwellings:
Figure 2.2 Summary of Direct Contributions to GBBCHMA’s housing shortfall [see PDF of representation]
2.20 This huge reduction in the identified GBBCHMA shortfall set out in the 2020 Position Statement has been calculated on the basis of BCC banking all the ‘commitments’ made by the GBBCHMA authorities to contribute towards the unmet need.
2.21 This is despite there being no formal agreement between the authorities making up the GBBCHMA regarding the apportionment of this unmet need, and importantly, these ‘commitments’ not forming part of any adopted Local Plan that has been tested through the examination process.
2.22 In this context, arguably, the only adopted and examined shortfall is that set out in BCC’s adopted Local Plan. Therefore, contributions ought to be considered against the adopted c.37,900 shortfall if considering the period to 2031.
2.23 Whilst Investin agree that Birmingham City Council has markedly improved its housing land supply since establishing the level of unmet need in 2017, it is considered however that there remains a sub-regional housing land supply shortfall across the HMA.
2.24 This is because several of the ‘banked’ housing contributions have been reduced or have been earmarked to help meet the Black Country’s needs.
2.25 This is demonstrated through reference to the following local authority positions around unmet need contributions to date:
South Staffordshire – ‘Up to 4,000’
2.26 It is not clear how much of South Staffordshire District’s emerging c.4,000 dwelling contribution can realistically be said to be exclusively Birmingham’s, given that even the most cursory glance at a map shows that the District wraps around Wolverhampton, Stourbridge and to a lesser extent Walsall. It will obviously have a major role in meeting the Black Country’s emerging unmet needs up to 2039. Furthermore, there are no signed Statements of Common Ground [SoCG] or Memorandums of Understanding [MoU] agreeing to this contribution for Birmingham. At best, only a small part of this 4,000-dwelling contribution is likely to be meeting Birmingham’s unmet needs, with the bulk going towards the Black Country’s.
Lichfield – ‘4,500’
2.27 In the Litchfield District Local Plan 2040 Regulation 19 consultation, Litchfield City Council has already reduced its contribution from c.4,500 to c.2,665. The Plan sets out at paragraph 4.22 that; “Therefore, of the 2,665 homes to be made available to the housing market area to meet their need, a capped contribution of 2,000 is to be made for the Black Country authorities’ needs starting after 2027 to assist with their identified shortfall up to 2040”. The Council is therefore, apportioning 75% of this contribution to help meet the Black Country’s emerging unmet housing need and not those arising from BCC, reducing its contribution to Birmingham from 4,500 to 665 (paragraph 4.22).
North Warwickshire – ‘3,790 + 620’
2.28 North Warwickshire Local Plan has now passed its examination. The Examining Inspector’s Report notes that the Memoranda of Understanding between “NWBC and BCC and TBC acknowledge that the ‘discrete’ figure of 913 homes is subsumed within the overarching figure of 3,790” (IR127). In essence, only 2,877 dwellings are actually going towards meeting Birmingham’s unmet housing needs; and
Stratford on Avon – ‘2,720’
2.29 The 2020 Position Statement states that this c.2,720 dwelling contribution arises from the Coventry and Warwickshire MoU, which estimated that c.50% of the Council’s c.5,440 dwellings, above its demographic need, could be apportioned 50/50 between the GBBCHMA and Coventry and Warwickshire HMA. However, this is completely at odds with the Inspector’s conclusions at the Core Strategy Examination and the purpose of Policy CS.16, which is to provide a mechanism to meet these needs. Indeed, the Inspector was clear that the “MoU has identified a figure but this is based on an incorrect assumption that everything over and above the demographic need is ‘surplus’ and available to meet the needs of others.” (IR62). In essence, only the 600 dwellings being brought forward through the emerging Site Allocations Plan would contribute towards Birmingham.
2.30 These above figures are presented in the diagram below. It should be noted that these figures are dependent on how much of South Staffordshire’s 4,000 dwelling contribution can be attributed towards Birmingham, which at this stage is unknown.
Figure 2.3 Birmingham's Unmet Housing Needs up to 2031 [see PDF of representation]
Source: Lichfields' analysis
2.31 This demonstrates that based upon the stated positions of each of the identified authorities that there is a likely shortfall of between 11,479 and 15,479 dwellings up to 2031.
2.32 There are also of course two main elements to the GBBCHMA unmet need; that coming from Birmingham City; and that coming from the Black Country. For the avoidance of any doubt the position set out above does not include the Black Country shortfall.
2.33 The Position Statement, however, did also conclude that there will be significant shortfall past 2031, with the Black Country alone identifying its own shortfall of 28,239 dwellings.
2.34 The level of shortfall post 2031 will of course be subject to consideration through the future plan making process for the remaining HMA local authorities.
2.35 Whilst it is possible to speculate around a potential minimum level hosing need based upon the current Standard Methodology and assessment of the existing publicly stated housing land supply position, there is of course uncertainty, given that each of the HMA authorities (excluding North Warwickshire) have not yet had seen their emerging Local Plans process through EiP.
2.36 Further still, beyond 2031, there is likely to be a very considerable level of additional unmet housing need arising in Birmingham, as a result of the city being subject to the Government’s 35% urban uplift on its local housing need figure, whilst the LHN figure will rise still further when the standard method Local Plan ‘cap’ is removed in January 2022. BCC has also now decided that it needs to undertake a Development Plan Review following the decision of its Cabinet on 29 June 2021.
2.37 Conclusively, it is incumbent upon the BCA to address the unmet housing need arising from the GBBCHMA as a whole, to avoid exacerbating the already significant shortfall of between 11,479 and 15,479 dwellings up to 2031. Consequently, the shortfall is compounded by the BCA choosing to defer, rather the deal with, its own unmet housing need up to 2039. Black Country Unmet Housing Need and Duty to Cooperate
2.38 Draft Policy CSP1 is unsound as its own unmet housing need identified has been deferred rather than dealt with, contrary to NPPF paragraph 35(c), and the Duty to Cooperate has not been fulfilled.
2.39 The BCP “sets a housing target for the Black Country of 47,837 new homes over the period 2020-39, compared to a local housing need for 76,076 homes, creating a shortfall of 28,239 homes” (paragraph 3.21) [Emphasis added].
2.40 The Black Country Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021) summarised the various sources of housing land supply, comparing current supply with identified need, for the plan period 2020-39. It identified a housing shortfall of 36,819 dwellings in the plan period and concluded that exceptional circumstances had been met to trigger a Green Belt review.
2.41 Table 22 of the BCP sets out the scale and distribution of housing growth as proposed in the development strategy. Additionally, Table 33 confirms that a total of 17,732 dwellings are to be delivered through housing allocations in the BCP, comprising the following sources:
• Occupied Employment Land: 3,091
• Sites released from the Green Belt: 7,720
• Other (discounted by 10%): 6,921
2.42 It is unclear as to the actual source of land supply attributable to the reduction of the shortfall from 36,819 dwellings (as identified in the Urban Capacity Review Update) to 28,239 dwellings (as identified in the BCP), though it is inferred this is derived from sites released from the Green Belt in addition to other sources such as increased densities and/or employment land.
2.43 Notwithstanding, the BCA confirms at Table 2 that it intends to export the 28,239-dwelling shortfall elsewhere in the GBBCHMA through the Duty to Cooperate. Consequently, the BCA has published a Duty to Cooperate Statement (July 2021) setting out how it assumes the shortfall will be addressed elsewhere through the local plan reviews of counterpart HMA authorities.
2.44 Whilst the BCA considers it has “fulfilled the duty through the plan preparation process”, it nonetheless confirms that “it is intended to draft and agree Statements of Common Ground with relevant authorities and bodies on key duty to co-operate issues at the BCP’s publication stage” (paragraph 1.10). The BCP later sets out that “the current position is set out in the Draft Plan Statement of Consultation and will be elaborated on in more detail in Statements of Common Ground at Publication stage” (paragraph 3.24).
2.45 Firstly, in the absence of any signed statements of common ground (‘SoCG’), Investin disagrees with the BCA’s assertion that it has fulfilled the duty at this this stage. NPPF paragraph 35(c) confirms that plans are sound if they are “based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground”.
2.46 The PPG4 confirms that the preparation of SoCGs with neighbouring authorities will contribute in demonstrating whether the duty has been met:
“How will the duty to cooperate be considered at local plan examination?
The local plan examination will first assess whether a local planning authority has complied with the duty to cooperate and other legal requirements. The Inspector will use all available evidence including statements of common ground, Authority Monitoring Reports, and other submitted evidence (such as the statement of compliance prescribed by Planning Inspectorate’s examination procedure guidance) to determine whether the duty has been satisfied.” [Emphasis added]
2.47 Until the BCA has published such SoCGs and additional evidence detailing the discussions that have taken place, the duty has not been fulfilled.
2.48 The absence of any SoCG at this stage reinforces the apparent issues between the BCA and its counterpart HMA authorities as it is clear there remains a number of areas of disagreement. As later set out, it is noted that the BCA has identified several areas of disagreement with Solihull within their joint ‘Statement of Common Ground between Solihull MBC and the Black Country Authorities’ (April 2021), underpinning the examination into the Solihull Local Plan. The BCA has also objected to the site selection process underpinning the Solihull Local Plan through its response to Matter 3 (The housing requirement/overall housing provision).
2.49 Secondly, as the provisional housing contributions from neighbouring authorities addresses only a limited proportion of the 28,239-dwelling shortfall, the BCP has not sought to maximise housing land supply in order to deal with the residual unmet need.
2.50 In terms of the current position in respect of contributions from neighbouring authorities, the BCA has published a Duty to Cooperate Statement (July 2021) which sets out the direct and indirect ‘offers’ from each authority and considers that potential contributions could total up to 14,750 dwellings.
2.51 However, Investin considers this assumption wholly flawed and misleading on several grounds. Following a review of the direct and indirect contributions within emerging plans throughout the HMA, it is likely that a potential contribution will total between 3,500–10,770 dwellings:
Table 2.3 Direct and Indirect Contributions to Black Country’s housing shortfall [see PDF of representation]
2.52 Given that the BCA recognises that the contributions from some authorities “would need to be attributed to meeting the needs of Birmingham” (paragraph 7.6), it is wholly inappropriate to ‘bank’ each total contribution as being attributed solely to the Black Country. This is the case for South Staffordshire, Cannock Chase and Solihull who have each not specified to whom their contributions are attributed.
2.53 Furthermore, some authorities such as Stafford Borough have not expressed a definitive commitment to even consider making a contribution to the HMA, particularly as it has concluded that “Stafford Borough comprises its own Housing Market Area (HMA) and that its Functioning Economic Market Area (FEMA) predominantly aligns with Stafford Borough’s administrative boundary”. Similarly, some authorities such as Telford and Wrekin have not yet defined an approximate figure which they have committed to testing through their local plan review.
2.54 Whilst it is recognised that both Stafford and Telford and Wrekin are at early stages of their local plan review, it is nonetheless unknown as to how the BCA has derived contributions of 2,000 and 3,700 dwellings respectively. As such, these should be removed from any assumptions made by the BCA at this stage as to the potential total contribution to the shortfall. 2.55 Notwithstanding, even as discussions with counterpart authorities progress as part of the BCP’s preparation, it is likely that a total contribution of between 3,500–10,770 dwellings represents, at best, a maximum figure. The emerging position therefore demonstrates that the BCA will fall substantially short of addressing the unmet need.
2.56 In this context, NPPF paragraph 35(c) requires that cross-boundary strategic matters are “dealt with rather than deferred” and, at this stage of the BCP plan-making process, it is fundamentally unclear how the residual shortfall up to 2039 will be met through the BCP, serving to highlight the onus on the BCA to reduce this shortfall. In this respect, the justification text for Draft Policy CSP1 states:
“The BCA recognise that this approach may only address a proportion of the housing and employment shortfall, as it is inappropriate and beyond the powers of the BCA to establish the limits of sustainable development in neighbouring authorities.”
2.57 Not only is this approach fundamentally flawed and entirely contrary to the requirement of NPPF paragraph 35(c), but it is completely misaligned with “the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes” (NPPF paragraph 60).
2.58 In the knowledge that a large proportion of the unmet need will remain unaddressed, Draft Policy CSP1 would be unsound as the BCA are seeking to defer, rather than deal with, the issue of unmet housing need through the BCP. The BCA should therefore seek to ensure that the housing supply within its administrative areas is truly maximised prior to being exported to other areas.
2.59 This consequently points to the need for the BCA to identify an understanding of the functional relationship between itself and the HMA constituent authorities, and to assess the likely effect of jobs-based growth within the Black Country upon demand for new housing.
2.60 As set out later in these representations, the BCA will be required to identify and release additional land from the Green Belt for housing. To align with the spatial recommendations of the GBHMA Strategic Growth Study, the BCP should allocate land South of Little Aston Road, Aldridge, Walsall. A Vision Document is submitted alongside these representations which demonstrates how up to 180 dwellings could be sustainably accommodated on the site. Sustainability Appraisal
2.61 Draft Policy CSP1 is unsound as it fails to take into account the reasonable alternatives for housing growth and therefore would not be justified as per NPPF paragraph 35(b).
2.62 Chapter 3 of the ‘Sustainability Appraisal of the Black Country Plan’ (Lepus Consulting, July
2021) (‘the SA’) sets out the various housing growth options assessed in sustainability terms. Table 3.1 of the SA outlines the five housing options subjected to the appraisal, as replicated below.
Table 2.4 Sustainability Appraisal Housing Options (May 2021) [see PDF of representation] Source: Sustainability Appraisal of the Black Country Plan (Lepus Consulting, July 2021) Table 3.1
2.63 Although the BCP Preferred Approach (Chapter 3.5) does not actually confirm the BCA’s preferred housing growth option, the Executive Summary confirms that the BCP “proposes a strategy that is most closely aligned with Option 5” (page vii).
2.64 There is seemingly no rationale or justification for the five housing options appraised, other than that “the four authorities developed five housing number and five employment number options to be subject to sustainability appraisal” (paragraph 3.1.2). Notwithstanding, the BCA’s approach is flawed on two grounds.
2.65 Firstly, the preferred option, Option 5, is effectively a duplicate of Option 2 as both options incorporate a housing requirement of 47,837 dwellings within the BCP area boundary. In itself, Option 5 is somewhat disingenuous as it refers to a housing requirement of 76,076 dwellings whilst proposing 28,239 dwellings to be exported outside of the BCP area boundary.
2.66 In this respect, the PPG16 confirms that the reasonable alternatives are to be identified “taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan or programme”. Consequently, it is not within the remit or scope of the SA to appraise the sustainability credentials of exporting housing growth outside of the administrative area of the Black Country and the area boundary of the BCP.
2.67 This option should therefore be removed, and the SA be amended to clarify that the preferred growth option is indeed Option 2 and not Option 5.
2.68 Secondly, following removal of Option 5 as set out above, the growth alternatives essentially comprise four separate housing quantum options:
• Option 1: 40,117 dwellings;
• Option 2: 47,837 dwellings;
• Option 3: 76,076 dwellings;
• Option 4: 79,076 dwellings.
2.69 Fundamentally, the distinction between Options 1 & 2 and Options 3 & 4 are too broad and wide-ranging such that the sustainability implications of a mid-range growth option have been disregarded. By way of illustration, the proportional difference between Option 1 and 2 amounts to circa 19%, whilst the difference between Option 3 and 4 amounts to circa 4%.
2.70 However, the proportional difference between Option 2 and 3 amounts to circa 59%: this is clearly too significant of a distinction and therefore does not allow for the appraisal of an intermediate growth option and its associated sustainability implications. In this regard, the PPG17 states:
“Reasonable alternatives are the different realistic options considered by the plan-maker in developing the policies in the plan. They need to be sufficiently distinct to highlight the different sustainability implications of each so that meaningful comparisons can be made.”
2.71 By omitting a mid-range growth option, for example an option within a range of between 50,000–70,000 dwellings, the BCA has artificially omitted a reasonable but realistic alternative which could potentially provide more positive and less negative sustainability impacts, whilst still meeting the objectives, than the preferred option.
2.72 In this respect, whilst R (Friends of the Earth) v Welsh Ministers [2015]18 confirms it is for the plan-making body to identify the reasonable alternatives, Hickinbottom J sets out:
“Article 5(1) refers to “reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives… of the plan or programme…” (emphasis added). “Reasonableness” in this context is informed by the objectives sought to be achieved. An option which does not achieve the objectives, even if it can properly be called an “alternative” to the preferred plan, is not a “reasonable alternative”. An option which will, or sensibly may, achieve the objectives is a “reasonable alternative”.” (paragraph 88)
2.73 Consequently, the SA as currently prepared is unsound as the BCA has failed to identify and test the sustainability implications of a growth option within a range of between 50,000–70,000 dwellings as a reasonable alternative. For this reason, Draft Policy CSP1 is unsound as it conflicts with NPPF paragraphs 32 and 35(c).
Exceptional Circumstances and Green Belt Release
2.74 Draft Policy CSP1 is unsound as it does not seek to identify, allocate and release a sufficient supply of land within the Green Belt for housing.
2.75 Principally, Investin agrees with the BCA’s conclusion that exceptional circumstances exist to justify the redrawing of Green Belt boundaries around the urban edge to release land for development (BCP paragraph 3.15). In this context, Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council19 confirms that the acuteness and intensity of housing need constitutes a matter for consideration in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist.
2.76 However, Investin fundamentally disagrees with the BCA’s approach in assessing the suitability of Green Belt land for development:
“The BCA have undertaken an extensive Green Belt and landscape sensitivity assessment to identify land that, if developed, would cause the least harm to the purposes of the Green Belt and to landscape character, is suitable and available for development and that could create long-term and defensible Green Belt boundaries. […]” (paragraph 3.16)
2.77 This approach is contrary to NPPF paragraph 142 which states:
“When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. Strategic policymaking authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary. Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport. […]” [Emphasis added]
2.78 NPPF paragraph 143(a) also confirms that when defining Green Belt boundaries, plans should “ensure consistency with the development plan’s strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development”.
2.79 Crucially, neither the NPPF or PPG suggest that, once exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to justify Green Belt release, the approach to reviewing Green Belt boundaries should be solely dictated or informed by causing the least harm to the purposes of the Green Belt. Indeed, the objective of NPPF paragraphs 142 and 143(a) seeks to promote sustainable development and, more specifically, land “which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport.” It follows that high-performing Green Belt areas may indeed prove to be the most sustainable locations for housing, whilst low-performing Green Belt areas may indeed be the least sustainable locations for housing.
2.80 It is therefore apparent that the BCA’s approach, in identifying land that “if developed, would cause the least harm to the purposes of the Green Belt”, is contrary to the objectives of the NPPF and may well not seek to ensure the most sustainable strategy for the BCP. The BCA should not just be seeking to cause the least harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, but rather should identify locations within the Green Belt that, if developed for housing, would most contribute to sustainable development.
2.81 Furthermore, there are several shortcomings in the Black Country Green Belt Study: Stage 1 and 2 Report (Land Use Consultants, September 2019). Whilst these will be discussed later in its responses to Draft Policies GB1 (The Black Country Green Belt) and HOU1 (Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth), Investin wishes to draw upon the signficiant issues raised by the Inspector in the ongoing examination into the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan.
2.82 Submitted for examination in May 2017, the plan as submitted did not provide for a sufficient housing land supply to meet the Full Objectively Assessed Housing Need (‘FOAHN’). Following stages 1 and 2 of the hearing sessions, the Inspector issued a 'Green Belt review' note20 in December 2017 setting out its initial thoughts relating to the soundness of the plan in the context of the Green Belt Review findings:
“The Council has suggested that it is unable to meet its housing need because of Green Belt restrictions among other concerns. In my concluding remarks to the Hearing sessions into Strategic Matters, I pointed out that I did not consider the development strategy put forward in the plan to be sound, in part because there was insufficient justification for the failure to identify sufficient developable sites within the Green Belt. That is largely because the phase 1 Green Belt Review was at such a strategic level as to render its findings on the extent of the potential harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, caused by development within the large parcels considered as a whole, debatable when applied to smaller individual potential development sites adjacent to the urban areas. It goes without saying that a finer grained approach would better reveal the variations in how land performs against the purposes of the Green Belt. Such an approach is also more likely to reveal opportunities as well as localised constraints, both of which might reasonably be considered further.” (page 1) [Emphasis added]
2.83 Following conclusion of the examination hearings over three years, the Inspector raised fundamental issues relating to the soundness of the plan and, amongst other matters, requested the Council to provide additional sites to make up the supply of housing land to meet the FOAHN. The Inspector later published its ‘Supplementary Conclusions and Advice’ note21 in June 2021, setting out:
“14. The sites that passed the site selection process but were not submitted to the Examination, appear to have been rejected primarily because the Land Use Consultants (LUC) stage 3 GB study concluded that they would cause high or moderate/high harm to the GB and/or they would erode the green gaps between excluded villages. At the same time, the Council also resolved to no longer support a number of Regulation 19 sites that the LUC report had similarly concluded would cause high harm to the GB, including some that had already been examined and found to be potentially sound.
15. Whilst the harm to the GB’s purposes is certainly a significant consideration in the assessment of a site’s appropriateness for allocation, other than in locations that were specifically classified as “essential GB”, it is not a trump card. It is undoubtedly an important starting point for the assessment, but it is nevertheless only one of a number of factors that should be appropriately weighed in the exceptional circumstances’ consideration and then in the overall soundness balance. Whilst site selection should have regard to the extent of the harm to the GB, sustainability and accessibility factors, as well as other planning considerations, also warrant weight in this balance.
16. Site selection is a complex process, which needs to be undertaken in a consistent and transparent manner. There is no evidence to suggest that the Council followed such a process when considering which additional sites to place before the Examination. Indeed, not all land previously considered appropriate for development by the Council but also being assessed as causing high or moderate/high harm to the GB, if developed, was selected for removal from the plan. At best this suggests an inconsistent approach and a lack of objectivity. The conclusions are not justified and thereby unsound.” [Emphasis added]
2.84 In short, it is critical that the BCA avoids a similar fate to that experienced by Welwyn Hatfield. The BCA should therefore seek to alter its approach in the Site Assessment and Selection Methodology (August 2021) and, consequently, seek to identify and allocate further land within the Green Belt for housing, particularly given the 28,239-dwelling shortfall identified in the BCP.
2.85 This is a fundamental issue of the BCP which, unless resolved at the Regulation 19 stage, will most likely lead to it being found unsound at examination. Additionally, it is an issue echoed by counterpart GBBCHMA authorities including South Staffordshire which, within its recent publication of the Local Plan Review Preferred Options (September 2021) consultation, sets out:
2.86 “[…] the Council will be working with the Birmingham and the Black Country authorities to ensure that housing supply within their administrative areas is truly maximised prior to being exported to other areas […]” (paragraph 4.11)
2.87 It will therefore prove critical that the BCA provides additional Green Belt land for housing not only to address the 28,239-dwelling shortfall, but also to fulfil the Duty to Cooperate by ensuring counterpart GBBCHMA authorities are satisfied the BCA has truly maximised its housing land supply.
2.88 Lastly, as the BCA has demonstrated that exceptional circumstances exist to justify Green Belt release, the BCP should seek to allocate a sufficient quantum of land for housing through this local plan review in order to avoid the need for a further Green Belt review through future local plan reviews. In this regard, NPPF paragraph 140 states:
“Strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries, having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so they can endure beyond the plan period.”

2.89 Given that the BCA has identified a 28,239-dwelling shortfall – which, as earlier identified, no more than around half of this will be met by neighbouring authorities through the Duty to Cooperate – and that the supply of land in urban areas has been maximised through the Urban Capacity Study (May 2021), the BCA will most likely be obliged to undertake a further Green Belt review following a future review of the BCP upon adoption. Consequently, the BCA should seek to maximise sufficient land through the current review to avoid such a scenario, as per NPPF paragraph 140.
GBHMA Strategic Growth Study
2.90 Draft Policy CSP1 is unsound as it fails to take account of the findings and spatial recommendations of the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (‘GBHMA’) Strategic Growth Study (GL Hearn and Wood, February 2018), contrary to NPPF paragraph 35(a) and 35(b) which requires plans to be positively prepared and justified.
2.91 The BCA has been an active participant in the Strategic Growth Study which considered the potential additional supply on Green Belt land for housing development, by applying a consistent approach across the HMA22. In terms of the function of the Study, the GBBCHMA Position Statement No. 1 (February 2018) confirmed:
“For the avoidance of doubt, this is an independently prepared, objective study and not a policy statement. It does not in any way commit the participating authorities to development of any of the geographic areas referred to (nor does it exclude the testing of alternatives), but it is a thorough evidence base to take matters forward through the local plan review process.” (page 1) [Emphasis added]
2.92 As part of the GBBCHMA, the BCA would therefore be expected at the very least to consider the Study within its evidence base as part of the BCP. However, there is not one reference of the Study within the BCP itself, or any of the BCP’s evidence base documents including the Site Assessment and Selection Methodology (August 2021), Sustainability Appraisal (July 2021), or the Duty to Cooperate Statement (July 2021). This is a fundamental issue of the BCP which, unless addressed at the Regulation 19 stage, will most likely result in it being found unsound at examination.
2.93 Indeed, the BCA has seemingly endorsed the Study for use through the local plan reviews of HMA authorities, as it has persistently referred to its use in its dialogue with Solihull Council through examination of the Solihull Local Plan.
2.94 The ‘Statement of Common Ground between Solihull MBC and the Black Country Authorities’ (April 2021) (‘SoCG’) was published as part of the Solihull Local Plan evidence base to inform its examination. Whilst the SoCG confirms that both authorities agree they were both active partners of the HMA-wide commission23, the BCA raised several areas of disagreement in the context of the Study:
• Paragraph 36: “The BCA disagree with SMBC’s approach to how SMBC has used the outcome from the Strategic Growth Study. In particular they believe that SMBC has not given the study’s findings for a new settlement between Birmingham and Coventry (ie around Balsall Common) enough weight or demonstrated why such an option would not be appropriate.” [Emphasis added]
• Paragraph 38: “While the status of the GL Hearn study is as described, in reality it has been used to provide a well-defined framework for discussions across the HMA on housing numbers and distribution. It is also likely to form a part of discussions at various local and strategic plan examinations and as such, the BCA feel SMBC should address its findings and recommendations more clearly and clarify how it has been used to shape the SMBC position.” [Emphasis added]
• Paragraph 41: “The GBHMA Strategic Growth Study also indicated that larger scale sites would be required to address the longer-term housing shortfalls within the GBHMA. The findings of the Sustainability Appraisal of the Solihull Local Plan are noted, but due to the findings of the GBHMA Strategic Growth Study, the BCA are concerned that failure to deliver this strategic location may displace housing growth into less sustainable locations in the wider GBHMA.” [Emphasis added]
2.95 The BCA re-iterated the above points through its response to the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions24, raising further areas of concern to Matter 3 (The housing requirement/overall housing provision):
• Page 10: “This site selection process does not appear to have reflected or given extra weight to the spatial recommendations made in the GBHMA Strategic Growth Study and appears to have delivered a GBHMA unmet needs contribution that is not any different to that which Solihull originally proposed in November 2016. This risks displacing growth that may be better accommodated within Solihull into other less sustainable areas within the housing market area.”
• Page 10: “We consider that Solihull’s site selection process should be revisited to fully explore the opportunities identified in the GBHMA Strategic Growth Study. We consider that an approach that seeks firstly to truly establish Solihull’s full potential capacity in these key strategic locations is the appropriate approach to sustainably determining the borough’s contribution to the GBHMA unmet housing needs. This approach would have regard to the findings of the GBHMA Strategic Growth Study, ensuring that development is focused in broad locations and typologies considered more sustainable than other options elsewhere within the GBHMA.”
2.96 As set out the above, the BCA clearly endorses the findings and spatial recommendations of the Strategic Growth Study given the degree of objection directed at Solihull for not considering the Study through its spatial strategy or site selection process.
2.97 For the very same reasons that the BCA has set out above, Investin considers it is critical for the BCA itself to consider the Study through its own spatial strategy and site selection process, to ensure the BCP is positively prepared, justified and effective in the context of NPPF paragraph 35.