Object

Representation ID: 44921

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy GB1 – The Black Country Green Belt

5.1 The justification to Policy GB1 states that exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to remove certain areas of land from the Black Country Green Belt to meet housing and employment land needs. For the reasons set out in our response to Policy CSP1, we agree that exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated in accordance with the Framework [§139-
§141] but it is essential that further Green Belt land is released and additional sites are allocated for residential development to meet development needs in sustainable locations.

5.2 We are also concerned with the approach taken to assessing the Green Belt in the Black Country Green Belt Study [BCGBS]. Having reviewed the BCGBS methodology, we are concerned that there are shortcomings in the BCGBS and this has resulted in the contribution of some sites to the Green Belt purposes being assessed as greater than they actually are.

5.3 In particular, we note that the findings of the Stage 1 assessment provide a strategic review of the contribution made by land to the Green Belt purposes. Given the strategic nature of the Stage 1 assessment, many of the parcels of land which are assessed are significant in size and the boundaries identified often extend to several different urban areas. The assessed contribution
of these parcels does not therefore necessarily reflect the contribution of smaller areas of land within the parcels.

5.4 In addition, we note that the findings of the Stage 1 Assessment have been carried through into the assessment of sub-parcels at Stage 2. We consider that the use of the findings as the starting point to assess the ‘Harm’ of smaller sub parcels results in the assessed harm being greater in some instances than it would be if the contribution of sub-parcels was assessed individually.

5.5 In addition, at Stage 2 of the Assessment process, the ‘Harm’ ratings applied are based on an assessment of sub-parcels rather than individual sites. They are not therefore considered to provide an accurate assessment on the contribution of individual sites as they are often larger in size and assessed using different boundaries.

5.6 In this regard, Taylor Wimpey wishes to draw upon the signficiant issues raised by the Inspector in the ongoing examination into the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan. 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' note23 in December 2017 setting out their 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) [Lichfields emphasis]

5.7 In order to ensure that the contribution of sites to the Green Belt is accurately assessed, Taylor Wimpey considers that a similar finer grained approach is appropriate in the case of the BCGBS.

5.8 We consider the findings of the BCGBS in the context of Taylor Wimpey’s land interests at Mob Lane, Chester Road and Clent View Road and provide more detailed commentary of this matter in the Green Belt Technical Report submitted with these representations. We have undertaken our own assessment of the contribution of each of these sites in isolation to the Green Belt purposes. For the reasons identified, when this more ‘fine grained’ approach is taken, the contribution of the sites is much less that when they are assessed as larger strategic parcels and sub-parcels in the BCGBS.

5.9 The assessment demonstrates that all three sites perform a limited Green Belt function and are suitable for removal from the Green Belt boundary and allocation for residential development.

Walsall Policies Map

5.10 With regard to the Policies Map for Walsall, Taylor Wimpey strongly supports the removal of the Mob Lan site from the Green Belt and the allocation of the site as part of Strategic Allocation WSA.2 (Land at Vicarage Road and Coronation Road, High Heath and land at Mob Lane, Pelsall). The Green Belt Technical report submitted alongside these representations, sets out
the reasons why the removal of the site from the Green Belt is wholly appropriate and will help to deliver much needed housing for the Plan area.

5.11However, Taylor Wimpey objects to the inclusion of land at Chester Road, Streetly within the Green Belt boundary. The contribution of the site to the purposes of the Green Belt is considered in detail in the Green Belt Technical Report submitted with these representations. For the reasons identified, we consider that the assessment of this part of the Green Belt in the Black Country Green Belt Study [BCGBS] is incorrect. We have provided a more detailed assessment of the contribution of the site in isolation and identify the reasons as to why the site is suitable for Green Belt release and should be allocated for residential development.

Dudley Policies Map

5.12 With regard to the Policies Map for Dudley, Taylor Wimpey objects to the inclusion of land at Clent View Road, Stourbridge within the Green Belt boundary. The assessment of this part of the Green Belt in the evidence supporting the Draft BCP is also considered to be incorrect. Our Technical Report considers this site in detail and identifies the reason as to why the site is

Part 2

5.13 Part 2 of the policy notes that

“For sites that are removed from the Black Country Green Belt and allocated to meet housing,
employment, or other needs through this Plan (as listed in Chapter 13):

a. the design of development will include physical features that define the new green belt boundary in a readily recognisable and permanent way; and

b. compensatory improvements to the environmental quality, biodiversity and accessibility of remaining green belt land will be secured to offset the impact of removing the land from the green belt, in accordance with national policy”.

5.14 Taylor Wimpey broadly supports these policy requirements. However, we request clarification on the mechanisms through which the authorities expect compensatory improvements to be delivered (e.g. through financial contributions, improvements on neighbouring land etc.) and would suggest that this information is provided in the policy. The BCP Viability Study (May 2021) indicates that a cost of £1,000 per unit has been included to account for Green Belt loss
mitigation and we also request clarification as to how this cost has been derived.