Object

Representation ID: 23125

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Tarmac Trading Ltd (Sharne Sahajpal)

Agent: David Lock Associates

Duty to Cooperate

Policy CSP1 of the BCP identifies a housing target of at least 47,837 dwellings against a housing need of 78,239 dwellings. Table 2 of the BCP sets out that the shortfall of 28,239 would be met through ‘Duty to Cooperate’ with other authorities in the housing market area. LDC has
‘offered’ a contribution of 2,665 dwellings to wider housing market needs, 2,000 of which would be towards Black Country needs.

Full evidence has not yet been prepared and made available by the Black Country authorities to demonstrate the Council has engaged constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with Lichfield District Council (LDC) with respect to the amount of housing proposed towards unmet housing needs in the wider housing market area.

LDC published and consulted on its Regulation 19 Plan earlier this year but has not published a Statement of Common Ground with the Black Country authorities. In addition, no specific evidence has been made available which demonstrates LDC has actively, constructively and on an ongoing basis engaged with the Black Country Authorities over the proposed 2,665 dwellings towards the wider housing market area, in the context of the scale of emerging unmet needs in the Black Country. DLA has reviewed the Black Country Duty to Cooperate Statement (July 2021). Whilst there is reference to a meeting on 19th January 2021 with LDC, at this stage the evidence base is insufficient to demonstrate that the Black Country Authorities and LDC are cooperating constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis.

Central to this this concern is whether the full range of options have been considered and there is agreement between LDC and the Black Country authorities over the extent of housing land in Lichfield that is available to contribute towards the substantial shortfall in the Black Country. Paragraph 7.7 of the Duty to Cooperate Statement (July 2021) states that the 2,665 dwellings (2,000 towards the Black Country) is “significantly less than set out in the previous stages of the plan (4,500)”.

The recent situation between Sevenoaks and Tonbridge and Malling districts is comparable. Both Sevenoaks Local Plan and Tonbridge and Malling Local Plan have been found to have failed on Duty to Cooperate by Inspectors. Similar to the BCP, the Sevenoaks Local Plan identified a housing target lower than the published need. The Inspector was not convinced that there was evidence that the authority had continued to engage with neighbouring authorities, including Tonbridge and Malling, over whether they could assist with housing target. In the case of Tonbridge and Malling, it was a matter of whether the Borough Council engaged with SDC at the point of their own Regulation 19 plan being prepared. Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (TMBC) argued that the figure was not yet agreed but the Inspector was clear that there was enough evidence for TMBC to have known there was likely to be unmet housing need and that this was a strategic matter to which Duty to Cooperate applies. Sevenoaks District Council challenged the decision on their plan in the Courts and were unsuccessful.

In summary, there is insufficient evidence that the Black Country Authorities have engaged on an active, constructive and ongoing basis with LDC with regards to the full amount of housing that LDC can contribute to the Black Country. It is suggested that discussion are held with LDC and the higher scenario of housing contribution of 4,500 dwellings to come from sites in Lichfield be included clearly in the next version of plan; and a clear evidence base is prepared, including Statement of Common Ground, outlining the active, constructive and on-going cooperation between the authorities.

Green Belt allocations

This objection relates to Policy GB1 Green Belt and related strategic allocations in Walsall (Policies WSA 2, WSA3, WSA4, and WSA5). In order to alter Green Belt boundaries, exceptional circumstances need to be “fully evidenced and justified” (NPPF paragraph 140). It is also clear in national policy (NPPF paragraph 141) that, before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist, the authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined all other reasonable options for meeting its need, including “informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground” (NPPF Paragraph 141 C).

In the light of the above concerns over Duty to Cooperate and housing numbers, it is essential to explore the full extent of housing that can be delivered in neighbouring authorities before allocating land in the Green Belt. A letter from LDC to Black Country authorities (18th September 2019) suggests the Black Country authorities need to consider all growth options, including Green Belt releases prior to seeking housing numbers from adjoining authorities. This approach is inconsistent with NPPF paragraph 141 which states such discussions should occur before Green Belt sites are released.

It is suggested the Black Country authorities re-asses the amount of land that is available in Lichfield outside of the Green Belt to contribute to wider needs before re-examining the necessity for and scale of any Green Belt releases in Walsall. In this context, it should be reiterated that Tarmac owns land at Alrewas Quarry, outside of the Green Belt and suitable on other regards, that could deliver housing to meet both LDC and Black Country authorities’ needs.