Comment

Representation ID: 22408

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields

Draft Policy CSP1 (Development Strategy)
2.1 St Philips 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 St Philips 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’), St Philips 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, St Philips 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 North 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.
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).