Object

Representation ID: 22302

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Investin PLC

Agent: Lichfields

Sustainability Appraisal

2.62 Chapter 3 of the ‘Sustainability Appraisal of the Black Country Plan’ (Lepus Consulting, July2021) (‘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.