Object

Representation ID: 23349

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Barberry

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

WOH265 - objection to density proposed
1.1. This is a representation to the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan which is subject to
consultation until 11 October 2021. It is made on behalf of Barberry in respect of land they are promoting for residential development at Perton Court Farm, Wrottesley Park Road, Perton.
1.2. The site itself falls entirely within South Staffordshire, however, a neighbouring area of land
(which falls within the Wolverhampton City boundary) to the south east at Perton Road (Ref
WOH265 WTNA) has been proposed to be released from the Green belt as a housing allocation.
1.3. This is relevant to Barberry and the site they are promoting as they are directly adjacent and share a boundary.
1.4. Barberry have submitted a Vision Document to South Staffordshire Council communicating the
constraints and opportunities of the site, together with a proposed masterplan.
1.5. Barberry would like Wolverhampton City Council to consider this and how their site might better
tie in with the proposed allocation at Perton Road.
1.6. Clearly, Barberry intend to make representations to the South Staffordshire Preferred Options
plan, where consultation is due to begin in the coming weeks.
1.7. Barberry reserve the right make further representations to the Black Country Plan as
opportunities arise. It should be noted that not commenting on an aspect of the emerging plan
does not mean they agree with that content.

2. REPRESENTATION
2.1. Barberry would like to begin by expressing their support for the allocation of the land (inside the
Wolverhampton CC boundary) East of Perton Road, Wightwick (Ref WOH265 WTNA) particularly
as it relates well to the existing established settlement edge, with the opportunity to provide a
more definitive boundary to the Green Belt beyond.
2.2. Barberry agree that there should be mitigation for green belt loss to be provided through
accessibility, biodiversity and environmental quality improvements to nearby Smestow Valley
Local Nature Reserve. However, Barberry dispute the fact that the ‘track to the north west, which
runs along the Wolverhampton / South Staffs District boundary’ , (which forms at the junction
between Pattingham Road and Perton Road) is capable of providing a defensible new green belt
boundary. The track itself is neither robust nor enduring and could easily change over time.
2.3. Paragraph 143 (f) of the NPPF is clear that when defining new Green Belt boundaries, plans
should ‘define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely
to be permanent.’
2.4. We consider a better solution would be to holistically plan for the wider site, which is controlled
by Barberry, as shown in the attached Vision Document. Here, it is shown that the development
of the site would result in new parks and play spaces, as well as a safe route to school for children
living in Perton itself.
2.5. The following table summarises the policies that we have commented on in this representation:
Table 1 – Policies/Paragraphs subject to comment:
Policy/Para Title Page
HOU1
and
WOH265 WTNA
Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth 89 (Table 3 and
Table 4)
HOU2 Housing Density, Type and Accessibility 96
HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth and WOH265 WTNA - Land East of Perton Road,
Wightwick.
2.6. The land east of Perton Road is proposed to be allocated for about 4 dwellings on 0.6 ha of land,
which is substantially low in terms of density, and an inefficient use of land. We consider this
could be increased because there are opportunities within the wider site for compensatory
access to open spaces. Of course, the wider site would have to be included as an allocation in the
emerging South Staffordshire Local Plan. Moreover, a development density of around 30
dwellings per ha would be more aligned to the established densities within the immediate
vicinity of the site. An extract of the proposals map is shown overleaf:
2.7. We consider, in reality, that if this site were to be allocated that it is unlikely just 4 dwellings
would be delivered, particularly with the added burden of delivering any noticeable
improvements to the Smestow Valley Local Nature Reserve. Nor would 4 dwellings deliver any
affordable housing or tangible public benefits, other than marginally improving housing choice
within the local area. Developers of this site are likely to push for more.
2.8. Clearly, Green Belt is a strategic planning policy which exists on a permanent basis, transcending
plan periods. It should only be released in exceptional circumstances. To that end, a small ‘nibble’
of the Green Belt as proposed is unlikely to pass the exceptional circumstances test, nor is it
likely to be warranted on such a small-scale site. It is our view that the wholesale removal of the
wider site, together with the small site should be considered, where the exceptional
circumstances test could be met and where the compensatory measures as set out in the NPPF
at para 142 could be properly addressed: ‘Strategic policy-making authorities should……. also set
out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through
compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green
Belt land’.
2.9. There are some strategic allocations included in the BC Plan proposed at Linthouse Lane, Cross
Green and Bilbrook, all of which will require substantial lead-in times, smaller strategic sites like
the land at Perton Court Farm could conceivably come forward quicker as they do not require
substantial infrastructure investment.
2.10. The BC authorities aspire to deliver 47,837 new homes over the course of the plan period 2020 to
2039. We note that in Table 4, there has been a lapse rate allowance of 10% discounted to allow
for some sites which may not come forward over the course of the plan. We would like to know
whether this truly represents the historic lapse rate pattern, as we are aware of a substantial
number of sites within Wolverhampton that have not come forward because of persistent
viability problems associated with heritage, site contamination and other issues which include tensions between commercial/industrial land values being similar to those of residential (postremediation).
We are not clear whether this has been considered carefully enough.
2.11. Further, the BC authorities propose to ‘export’ 28,239 dwellings outside of its boundary – but as
South Staffordshire Council have just publicised their preferred options Local Plan, it remains the
case that they propose to take c.4,000 dwelling as (unmet need), but it is not clear whether this is
unmet need from the GBSLEP area, or the Black Country. This needs clarification.
2.12. At 7,657 (Table 3), we consider the windfall allowance to be high – it represents around 16% of the
total housing target for the plan period, which is a considerable proportion. Given the
requirements of the NPPF, we consider the plan is at risk of not being ‘positively prepared’ given
this (we feel) overreliance on unallocated housing in the emerging plan. Paragraph 71 of the
NPPF sets this out clearly: ‘Where an allowance is to be made for windfall sites as part of
anticipated supply, there should be compelling evidence that they will provide a reliable source
of supply. Any allowance should be realistic having regard to the strategic housing land
availability assessment, historic windfall delivery rates and expected future trends. Plans should
consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential
gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area.’
HOU2 - Housing Density, Type and Accessibility
2.13. We are broadly supportive of the densities proposed in the emerging plan, however for reasons
already given, we consider that the densities on the proposed allocation at WOH265 are far too
low and represent an inefficient use of land, contrary to paragraph 124 of the NPPF, which states:
‘Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land’.
4. CONCLUSION
4.1. Overall Barberry welcome the inclusion of the land at Perton Road, Wightwick as a housing
allocation and its removal from the Green Belt. Barberry will make further representations to the
emerging South Staffs Local Plan when the consultation begins as they believe there is an
opportunity for further land to be included in this allocation within their administrative
boundary.
4.2. Barberry consider a holistic and strategic approach is clearly preferable and this is demonstrated
within the Vision Document, which is submitted with this representation.
4.3. We have made comments on more generic planning policies where we consider it is justified,
and we urge the BC councils to consider the points we have made.