Object

Representation ID: 45865

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen Developments Ltd

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

2.24 The observations in this section speak to the general strategy of the BCP. The detail of how that is expressed in terms of the housing requirement, and how a contribution to meeting that requirement can be met through a further strategic allocation, are considered in Sections 3 and 4 respectively.
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 8

3. THE HOUSING REQUIREMENT


3.1 As discussed in Section 2, above, there are issues in the way the spatial strategy of the BCP is framed in policy terms and the extent to which at the outset it properly acknowledges the scale and character of development need, and the way it expresses it will be met, including in particular through Green Belt release. However, there are also more detailed issues with the quantum of need identified, its distribution, and how it will be met. Those matters are discussed in this section of the representations, principally in relation to the housing requirement. The points made in this section reflect back on the content of the strategic policies discussed in Section 2, and should be understood in that context.

3.2 The concerns raised below in reference specifically to Policy HOU1 are however far reaching and point to a fundamental failing of the draft Plan to meet the tests of soundness set out in the Framework.

3.3 This section first looks at the quantum and distribution of housing proposed in the draft Plan in principle and then at the proposed components of the draft Plan’s anticipated supply in more detail. It then identifies some additional points of concern with regard to the draft Plan’s anticipated provision of housing, before setting out a summary of the points raised.

Comments on: Policy HOU1 – Development Strategy


Nature of comment: Objection


Quantum and Distribution of Unmet Housing Need in the Black Country over the BCP

period


3.4 The Framework (paragraph 61) expects strategic policy-making authorities to determine the minimum number of homes needed in strategic policies by following the Standard Method set out in Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) for assessing Local Housing Need. It also states that in addition to the Local Housing Need figure, any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas should also be taken into account in establishing the amount of housing to be planned for.

3.5 In this respect, Paragraph 61 points directly to the “positively prepared” test of soundness (in particular) as set out at Paragraph 35 of the Framework. Plans are “positively prepared” if they provide a strategy which “as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 9

assessed needs1; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development” (our emphasis underlined).

3.6 Policy HOU1 of the draft BCP sets out that sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 47,837 net new homes over the period 2020 – 2039. In its justification to Policy HOU1 the draft BCP sets out that this will deliver a 10% increase in housing stock but confirms that will accommodate only 63% of current Local Housing Need up to 2039 within the Black Country, noting the Local Housing Need (LHN), or the minimum number of homes needed, in the Black Country over the BCP plan period is 76,076 homes when calculated following the PPG’s Standard Method2. The draft BCP (paragraph 3.21 for example) recognises that this amounts to a shortfall of 28,239 homes, or in other words 37% of the minimum number of homes needed in the Black Country will not be delivered by the Black Country Authorities (BCA) between 2020 and 2039.

3.7 The BCP sets out that the BCA are asking their neighbouring authorities to work with them to meet this substantial shortfall under the “Duty to Cooperate” (DTC). The draft BCP refers to the current position being set out in the Draft Plan Statement of Consultation but that ultimately this matter will be elaborated on in more detail in Statements of Common Ground at Publication stage.

3.8 The Statement of Consultation sets out that those neighbouring authorities being relied on by the BCA include South Staffordshire, Lichfield, Cannock Chase, Shropshire and Telford
& Wrekin and indicates that currently there have been offers from those authorities amounting to between 8,000 and 9,500 homes. In other words, even this approach of relying heavily on neighbouring authorities will not, by some margin, deliver the minimum number of homes currently needed in the Black Country over the BCP period.

3.9 Whilst the draft BCP says that the BCA recognise that this approach may only address “a proportion of the housing (and employment) shortfall”, it does not offer a solution as to how the sizeable shortfall, or the homes that are needed in the Black Country over the BCP period, will be made up.
3.10 The draft BCP simply says that “the engagement will extend beyond the adoption of this plan and will build on the partnership approach developed across the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area to address the combined housing shortfalls of the Birmingham and Black Country Authorities in particular”. In essence, the draft BCP appears to be suggesting that its very significant unmet housing need will be dealt with at


1 Footnote 21 of the Framework sets out that “where this relates to housing, such needs should be assessed using a clear and justified method, as set out in paragraph 61 of this Framework”.
2 Calculated in the Black Country Housing Market Assessment: Final Report (March 2021)
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 10

some point in the future as part of an already significant regional scale strategic challenge, without any clear or specific indication of exactly how that will be achieved, or what guarantees or fallback mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that the Black Country’s housing needs will be met.

3.11 To put this into context, the West Midlands has struggled unsuccessfully to meet the unmet needs of Birmingham for a number of years, following the adoption of the Birmingham Development Plan (2011 to 2031) in January 2017 with its stated housing shortfall of circa
37,900 homes that Birmingham is also relying on neighbouring authorities (including the BCA) to deliver. Notwithstanding the various housing need and supply Position Statements published by Birmingham and its neighbouring authorities since the adoption of the Birmingham Development Plan, which suggest that Birmingham’s unmet need has gradually reduced over time reflecting changing unmet housing need figures derived for the whole Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA) and supply evidence including ‘commitments’ (allocated or emerging contributions) from neighbouring authorities, the only adopted, and examined, shortfall figure for Birmingham is 37,900 homes. Simply put, no other shortfall figures have been tested at Examination, and ultimately no other housing shortfall figures have been adopted.

3.12 Moreover, the ‘commitments’ made by the GBBCHMA authorities to deliver some of Birmingham’s unmet need are from the same authorities that the BCA are also now relying on to deliver their substantial unmet needs (28,239 homes up to 2039) – including South Staffordshire and Lichfield for example.

3.13 To summarise, Birmingham’s unmet housing needs have not been fully addressed within the GBBCHMA. Several neighbouring authorities are unable to help meet those needs, and several others have already committed homes elsewhere. It is clear that the GBBCHMA’s current approach to plan-making and to strategically address the significant unmet needs of Birmingham, and now the Black Country, through DTC is not working, and should not continue to form the focus of plan making in the GBBCHMA and in particular the BCA.

3.14 To compound this, as matters stand there is also likely to be a very considerable amount of additional unmet need from Birmingham beyond 2031 as a result of the City being subject to the 35% uplift in Local Housing Need that applies to each of the 20 largest urban areas (which includes Birmingham, and also Wolverhampton) as now included as part of the Government’s Standard Method.

3.15 In short, and in headline terms, the draft BCP raises some very serious concerns over its inability to meet the minimum identified housing needs of the BCA over the Plan period,
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 11

and by some considerable margin. It does not fully grapple with the scale of unmet housing need it has identified and relies too heavily on neighbouring GBBCHMA authorities to deliver it. This is a strategy that has so far not worked for neighbouring Birmingham. Ultimately, the draft Plan fails to address in any tangible way how the minimum number of homes needed in the BCA during the BCP period can ever be delivered. As a result it fails to meet any of the tests of soundness set out at Paragraph 35 of the Framework.

Distribution of the draft BCP’s Anticipated Housing Supply


3.16 Delving deeper into the draft Plan’s key component sources of housing land supply, the very serious concerns raised above from the headline figures are exacerbated.

3.17 Policy HOU1 itself refers to the key sources of housing land supply being summarised in Tables 3 and 4, and illustrated in the Housing Spatial Diagram. The Policy goes on to say that the majority of the housing requirement, or the 47,837 homes it says it can deliver, will be delivered through sites with existing planning permission and sites it allocates for housing and allocated in other local plan documents. Additional housing supply will also be secured on windfall sites throughout the Black Country Urban Area and through the update of local plans covering the Strategic Centres, where appropriate. It also says that the estimated net effect of housing renewal up to 2039 will be reviewed annually and taken into account in the calculation of housing land supply. It then deducts 1,071 homes from Dudley’s estimated Housing Renewal (deductions) and Small-Scale Demolitions (windfall). For the reasons set out below (para. 3.39 et seq.) this deduction is likely to be an underestimate, and the true figure would have a greater, negative, effect on supply.

3.18 To summarise, Table 3 sets out that the BCP anticipates 21,413 homes (43.7% of the gross new homes total) will be delivered from “current supply” or commitments as of April
2020; 17,732 homes (36.3%) will be delivered from allocations in the draft BCP (including through Green Belt release); 8,463 homes (17.3%) will be delivered from windfall sites as part of a windfall allowance of small sites (less than 10 homes or 0.25 ha); and 1,300 (2.7%) will be delivered from additional site capacity in strategic centres (to be allocated in Local Plans), once discounts are applied to account for non-implementation and delays to delivery for example.

3.19 The justification to the policy sets out that 81% of identified supply is on brownfield land and 19% on greenfield land.

3.20 The minimum housing target for each BCA over the period 2020 – 2039, and for each of the phases of the BCP, is set out in Table 4.

3.21 Detailed concerns highlighting shortcomings in the components of the draft BCP’s anticipated supply are set out as follows (numbered i – vi):
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 12

i. Increasing Housing Density


3.22 The housing supply figures set out in Table 3 are informed by the Black Country Urban Capacity Review Update (Urban Capacity Review, May 2021) which reviewed all housing and employment allocations in the Black Country Joint Core Strategy which fall outside the Strategic Centres. This included a review of the Black Country Core Strategy’s (BCCS) density assumptions leading to the new density policy in the emerging BCP (draft Policy HOU2). It recognised that increasing minimum densities throughout the Black Country from 35dpa to 40dpa, 45 dpa or 100 dpa (as set out in draft Policy HOU2) could give rise to an additional supply of 476 homes, or just under 1% of the total 47,837 homes anticipated in the Plan.

3.23 In other words, the Urban Capacity Review Update confirms that a continuation of the BCCS strategy to focus growth in the Urban Areas, but increasing development densities to those now set out in draft Policy HOU2, will yield just 476 additional homes or just under
1% of the total homes anticipated in the draft BCP. It is clear that increasing development densities on BCCS allocation sites will result in minimal increases to the Black Country’s housing supply over the Plan period.

ii. Converting Employment Land to Residential Use


3.24 The Urban Capacity Review also refers to new evidence prepared in support of the draft BCP which has resulted in removal of suitable / developable status from a “significant number” of existing (BCCS) housing allocations on surplus occupied employment land. The draft BCP refers to retention of the BCCS discount rates of 15% on residential allocations on occupied employment land “in order to take account of the multiple delivery constraints that typically affect such sites and that are likely to reduce delivery on a minority of sites”. The GBBCHMA Growth Study (February 2018) prepared by GL Hearn however concluded that this (15%) rate reflects the “significant proportion of land supply on occupied employment land with delivery challenges” (our emphasis underlined), notwithstanding that a “significant number” of the most constrained residential allocations on occupied employment land have been removed from the housing supply in any event. It is clear that there are numerous challenges associated with bringing housing development forward on employment sites and a number of those relied upon in the BCCS have been removed as they are not suitable or developable for housing.

3.25 The Urban Capacity Review also points to the shift in evidence now demonstrating a net need for an increase in employment land rather than the surplus of such land as previously identified around the Black Country, to inform the BCCS. As such, the Urban Capacity Review sets out that the BCA have looked at increasing the number of employment sites
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 13

that could be given over to housing but recognised that this would also mean more employment sites would be needed to replace those being lost, noting there is already a substantial unmet need of employment land of 211 ha that the draft BCP is relying on neighbouring authorities to deliver (in addition to the substantial unmet housing need). Whilst the focus of these representations is on the housing land requirement, it is clear that the shortcomings of the BCP in meeting development needs are also significant in terms of employment land.

3.26 Despite this, Table 3 nonetheless indicates that 3,091 homes (6.5% of the total anticipated supply) are still anticipated from occupied employment sites, even with the 15% discount
– raising questions as to whether these sites in the anticipated housing supply are truly suitable or developable for residential use and also why these sites are being lost for employment use when the BCA have such a significant shortfall in employment land supply and cannot meet their identified employment needs to the tune of 211 ha of land.

iii. Green Belt Release - Sites


3.27 By contrast, the draft BCP recognises that green field sites, including those proposed to be released from the Green Belt, will generally not be affected by delivery constraints and as a result no discount has been applied to allocations on sites released from the Green Belt. The Policy’s justifying text does however recognise that for five of the larger Green Belt release sites in Walsall, the Viability and Delivery Study has indicated that housing capacity up to 2039 is likely to be limited by market constraints such that not all of the homes identified from these sites will be delivered in the BCP period, and around 1,715 homes will be delivered post 2039. This indicates that greenfield sites, including Green Belt sites, are necessary to deliver the homes needed in the Black Country but that the draft Plan relies heavily on a relatively small number of sites, including in locations that are limited by market constraints.

3.28 Despite this, the Key Spatial Diagram / Spatial Strategy demonstrates, for example, that there are no large-scale housing allocations at all to the south and south west of the Black Country conurbation, and only 3 small to medium sized allocations (50 to 100 homes) in this area generally.

3.29 The limited release of Green Belt sites within the BCA also raises a further concern around the ability and suitability of neighbouring authorities to deliver the homes, and scale of homes, needed in the Black Country over the BCP period.

3.30 The Black Country and neighbouring Birmingham form a conurbation which is surrounded by the metropolitan Green Belt. The Green Belt is drawn quite tightly around the conurbation meaning it largely extends into neighbouring authorities, the majority of which
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 14

are rural in nature, and are largely covered by Green Belt in the parts closest to the BCA. This means that locations in those neighbouring authorities that are suitable to contribute towards the housing (and employment) needs of the Black Country are (literally) few and far between, and some distance from the Black Country itself whose needs they would be meeting. The Black Country’s needs cannot be met by displacing the requirement to generally quite distant towns in neighbouring authorities. Locations close to the BCA would require release of Green Belt from those neighbouring authorities rather than releasing Green Belt from the BCA.

3.31 This is notably the case to the south and southwest of the Black Country, in Dudley (where there is very limited Green Belt release proposed) but whose needs would have to be met in neighbouring South Staffordshire and Bromsgrove District, which are particularly rural in nature and whose countryside is almost entirely comprised of Green Belt, if they are to suitably contribute to the needs of the Black Country (and to the south and southwest of the Black Country in particular).

3.32 This provides another indicator that the BCA need to identify more Green Belt release sites themselves to contribute towards their own identified housing needs, rather than relying heavily on neighbouring authorities to deliver those needs and for those neighbouring authorities to release sites in their own Green Belts.

iv. Strategic Centres


3.33 The justification to Policy HOU1 also says that the draft BCP does not make or review allocations within Strategic Centres, but additional capacity above existing supply is nonetheless expected to come forward within Strategic Centres over the Plan period (amounting to 1,300 homes, or 2.7%, of the draft Plan’s total anticipated supply). The justification to the Policy goes on to say that existing allocations will be reviewed, and new allocations made, in line with these targets when Local Plan documents covering Strategic Centres are updated, alongside or immediately following adoption of the BCP.

3.34 The uncertainty provided at this stage of the draft BCP suggests that the 1,300 homes included in the anticipated supply from this source is an arbitrary figure and cannot be relied upon within the draft BCP at this stage, casting further doubt over the ability of the draft BCP to deliver the homes needed in the Black Country during the Plan period, if relying on the strategy set out within the draft Plan.

v. Windfall


3.35 The draft BCP’s anticipated supply also includes a sizeable windfall allowance of 8,463 homes (or 17.3% of the total anticipated supply). The Policy justification sets out that this allowance is robust as it “reflects historic completion rates for sites of less than ten homes”.
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 15

Paragraph 71 of the Framework says Local Planning Authorities may make an allowance for windfall sites in their 5 year supply, if they have compelling evidence that such sites will provide a reliable source of supply and any allowance should be realistic having regard to the strategic housing land availability assessment, historic windfall delivery rates and expected future trends (our emphasis underlined).

3.36 The BCA’s reliance on historic completion rates only suggests that its windfall allowance is not supported by compelling evidence that such sites will continue to provide a reliable source of supply as required by the Framework.

3.37 Moreover, windfall sites are by their definition unknown and have therefore not been identified yet. The BCP’s heavy reliance on windfall sites, to the tune of 17.3% of its total anticipated supply, represents an over-reliance on this source of housing supply particularly given the ineffectiveness of the BCCS’ strategy to date to focus and support development within the Strategic Centres and Urban Areas more generally since its adoption in 2011. An over-reliance on windfall sites is particularly notable in Dudley where of the 13,235 net new homes anticipated over the Plan period (as set out in Table 4), 2,816 (or 21%) are from the windfall allowance.

3.38 The heavy reliance on windfall further calls into question the ability of the draft BCP to deliver the homes needed in the Black Country during the Plan period.

vi. Demolitions in Dudley Borough


3.39 The total net housing supply identified in Table 3 (amounting to the 47,837 net new homes referenced in Policy HOU1) is derived from a gross figure of 48,908 homes and deducting
323 homes from “Dudley Estimated Housing Renewal Demolitions” and 748 homes from

“Small-scale demolition windfalls”.


3.40 The justification text sets out that parts of Dudley have been identified as needing some form of housing market intervention. A combination of renovation, improvement, refurbishment, and / or redevelopment is proposed, to be determined on a site-by-site basis having regard to the most sustainable approach and the needs of the Borough and its community. As such, the likely amount of demolition across current Dudley housing renewal sites (-323) has been estimated for the purposes of the BCP (Table 3).

3.41 The Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021), however, sets out that Dudley’s 10 Year Asset Management Strategy (October 2018) identified around 2,500 homes (some 12% of the Council’s stock) considered not viable and red-flagged for review for strategic investment, de-investment or demolition. In doing so it acknowledges that this may result in an overall loss in housing capacity but is also subject to detailed consultation. To date, the Urban Capacity Review Update sets out that 323 demolitions have been programmed
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 16

and it is this figure that is shown in Table 3 of the draft Plan. This figure is likely to be a significant underestimate of the number of demolitions required in Dudley during the BCP period and if it does increase (as is likely), would further reduce the number of net new homes that could be delivered within the BCA during the BCP period.

3.42 Each of the points highlighted above – including around increasing housing density of BCCS allocation sites, converting employment land to residential use, green belt release sites, additional capacity in Strategic Centres, over reliance on windfall sites and deductions arising from anticipated demolitions in Dudley - indicates that those sites that are relied upon in Table 3 of the draft BCP are unlikely to deliver even the 47,837 net new homes that are anticipated in the draft Plan, such that the true extent of unmet need within the Black Country is likely to be significantly greater than the already substantial 28,239 homes it acknowledges. They also highlight that the Black Country’s neighbouring authorities are extremely unlikely to meet the Black Country’s unmet housing needs. Each of these fundamental points of principle concern indicate that the BCA need to identify significantly more sites to deliver the homes needed in the Black Country, and this will require additional Green Belt release above that which the Plan currently identifies.

Trajectory


3.43 Added to the concerns around distribution of anticipated supply raised above, the Housing Trajectory set out at pages 706 and 707 of the draft BCP indicates that there is no contingency in the housing supply identified in the draft BCP, such that cumulatively the sites identified in Table 3 will not meet the HOU1 target supply until the final year of the BCP period (2038/39), when the trajectory suggests the anticipated supply will enter into surplus, but only then by a single home.

3.44 Notwithstanding this approach would leave the BCA susceptible to 5 Year Housing Land Supply challenges throughout the BCP period, this also suggests that if just two homes from all of the sources of supply identified in the draft Plan do not come forward as planned, the 47,837 net total homes anticipated in the BCP will not be delivered – meaning the shortfall in supply will be exacerbated beyond the 28,239 homes that are currently not being planned for.

3.45 Whilst there is no ‘rule’ for how much flexibility should be built into a strategic development plan to ensure delivery of a housing requirement, many experts, including the HBF, often advocate a 20% buffer. The lack of any buffer here is considered particularly remiss given the reliance on sites that are unlikely to deliver the housing set out in Table 3 and in neighbouring authorities for the reasons set out above. The lack of flexibility to deliver the
47,837 homes identified in Table 3 further necessitates additional housing sites being
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 17

identified in the Black Country in the BCP to provide sufficient flexibility to meet any unforeseen circumstances over the course of its Plan period. This is of course in the context that the BCP fails to plan for enough homes to deliver its Local Housing Need in any event, and by a significant margin.

Green Belt Release - Strategy


3.46 Policy HOU1 does not make any specific reference to Green Belt release forming an integral part of the draft BCP strategy to deliver the homes needed in the BCA. This despite the BCA acknowledging that the Black Country’s significant housing needs cannot be met if the current BCCS strategy to focus growth in Strategic Centres and on brownfield land within the Urban Areas generally necessitates release of Green Belt land, and ultimately that this need amounts to the exceptional circumstances required to alter the Green Belt in accordance with Framework (Paragraph 140). The BCAs have acknowledged that Green Belt release is essential in order to deliver housing growth in accordance with national planning policy.

3.47 Paragraph 140 of the Framework goes on to say that “Strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries, having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so they can endure beyond the plan period.”

3.48 With this in mind, it is important to consider that a Green Belt Review is generally regarded as a “once in a generation” occurrence whereby Green Belt boundaries should endure well beyond the Plan period. The justification for Policy HOU1 refers to green field land contributing just 19% of the Table 3 anticipated supply despite the acknowledged inability to continue to rely on brownfield land in the Urban Areas. Green Belt release sites contribute 16% of the Table 3 anticipated supply highlighting the very limited amount of suitable greenfield land available in the Black Country that is not in the Green Belt. The contribution of Green Belt land to meeting the housing requirement in the draft Plan as currently formatted is very limited. In the context of the comments set out above dealing with the inability of the BCP to meet a significant proportion of its requirement within the BCA area, and in terms of the extent to which it has been shown that event the current limited level of provision to be made within the BCA area rather than exported has been overstated, there is a clear justification for identifying further sites in the Green Belt for release.

3.49 Similarly, the inability of the Black Country’s neighbouring authorities to deliver the homes needed by the Black Country (and neighbouring Birmingham), is compounded where those neighbouring authorities would have to release sites from their own Green Belts.
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 18

3.50 As we have discussed above, the inability of the Strategic Centres and Urban Areas generally of the BCA and of the wider GBBCHMA to meet their minimum housing needs is a recurrent strategic planning issue, which requires significant bold intervention.

3.51 With brownfield opportunities exhausted, and in any event failing to deliver, the BCP must identify more Green Belt release sites within the Black Country to meet the Black Country’s own housing needs during the BCP period, and beyond.

SUMMARY


3.52 As drafted the BCP raises some very serious concerns over its inability to meet the minimum housing needs of the BCA over the Plan period, and by some considerable margin. It simply does not fully grapple with the scale of unmet need it has identified and relies too heavily on neighbouring GBBCHMA authorities to deliver its unmet needs. In doing so it fails to address in any tangible way how the homes needed in the BCA during the BCP period can ever be delivered and fails to meet the tests of soundness set out in the Framework.

3.53 This fundamental concern is exacerbated where those sites that are relied upon in the draft BCP, as set out in its Table 3, are unlikely to deliver even the 47,837 net new homes it anticipates over the Plan period, such that the true extent of unmet need within the BCA areas is likely to be significantly greater than the already substantial 28,239 homes it acknowledges.

3.54 It is exacerbated further still where the neighbouring authorities being relied upon to deliver the homes needed in the Black Country lack suitable growth locations that are well related to the Black Country whose needs they would be meeting and are in any event constrained heavily by their own Green Belts, such that they would need to release sites within their own Green Belts to meet the Black Country’s unmet needs.

3.55 There is also a distinct lack of flexibility to deliver the 47,837 homes identified in Table 3 of the draft BCP, and this also necessitates identifying additional housing sites to provide flexibility in the Black Country’s housing supply over the BCP period.

3.56 The BCAs have acknowledged that Green Belt release is essential in order to deliver housing growth as part of the BCP strategy and in accordance with national planning policy.

3.57 With this in mind, it is important to consider that a Green Belt Review is a “once in a generation” occurrence and Green Belt boundaries should endure well beyond the Plan period. Despite this, and the inability of the Strategic Centres and Urban Areas of the BCA and of the wider GBBCHMA generally to meet their minimum housing needs being a
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 19

recurrent strategic planning issue, which requires significant bold intervention, Green Belt release sites contribute just 16% of the BCP’s anticipated supply over the plan period.

3.58 With brownfield opportunities exhausted, and in any event failing to deliver, the BCP must identify (significantly) more Green Belt release sites to help meet its minimum housing needs during the BCP period, and beyond, and to avoid the need for another Green Belt Review in the near future.

3.59 The concerns raised above in reference specifically to Policy HOU1 are far reaching and point to a fundamental failing of the draft Plan to meet the tests of soundness set out in the Framework.

3.60 In terms of a remedy for these shortcomings, at a basic level, Policy HOU1 requires amendment to identify significantly more deliverable and developable housing sites and to achieve that additional Green Belt release sites must be identified.

3.61 However, and crucially, the draft Plan fails to address in any tangible way how the minimum number of homes needed in the BCA during the BCP period can ever be delivered, and this exacerbates the very serious shortcomings within the GBBCHMA generally. This is a recurring strategic planning issue and requires significant bold intervention including a step-change in approach to avoid the new homes that are needed in the GBBCHMA, and the Black Country in particular, being unprovided over the BCP period.

3.62 This is a fundamental point. The BCP must do everything possible to meet as much of the requirement as possible within the BCA area. It must also demonstrate convincingly how it will ensure any remaining requirement will be taken up by the importing Authorities. As drafted, it fails on both counts.
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 20

4. OPPORTUNITIES TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT


4.1 In Section 2 of these representations, it was noted that at a strategic level the BCP does not adequately deal with important issues around comprehensively meeting need, providing range and choice, and delivering improvement and diversification in housing provision; or with properly acknowledging the requirement for Green Belt release; or with properly addressing how any export of development requirements will be guaranteed.

4.2 In Section 3 representations are made in terms of the quantum of housing need identified, its distribution, and how it will be met. It is noted there that the BCP as drafted fails by some considerable margin to meet the housing need over the Plan period, that even the limited extent to which it does purport to meet that need is overstated, and the mechanism by which the significant shortfall will be dealt with is lacking.

4.3 In this section, these themes are brought together. Read as a whole, the representations made in Sections 2 and 3 demonstrate that transparency and clarity of purpose is needed in the BCP in terms of the extent of Green Belt release required to avoid the housing requirement to a significant degree being unmet. The clear conclusion reached is that additional allocations for housing development within the Green Belt should be made, including within Dudley. To that end it is proposed that a strategic housing allocation should be made on land at Uffmoor Vale. This is discussed below.

Comments on: Policy HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth, and Tables

3 and 4; Chapter 13 Part A, including Tables 13 and 14 and Policies for Strategic

Allocations


Nature of comment: Objection


4.4 For the reasons set out elsewhere in these representations it is considered that the BCP should plan for a higher level of housing delivery to be achieved within the Authorities’ area, reducing the number of dwellings to be exported to other areas. The BCP Spatial Strategy as currently formulated acknowledges the exceptional circumstances that exist to justify Green Belt release for residential development, with opportunities to meet the need within the urban area and outside the Green Belt fully exploited. It must be the case that additional Green Belt sites need to be allocated if the requirement is to be met more fully within the Authorities’ area; all possible non-Green Belt sites must necessarily already have been accounted for before any Green Belt release could be countenanced.

4.5 In Section 3 of these representations, it is noted that an important limitation on the extent to which part of the requirement might be exported is the extension of the Green Belt into potential importing authorities. If Green Belt land on the edge of the Black Country urban
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 21

area is not more fully used it is unlikely to be appropriate simply to pass development over the BCA boundary into the nearby Green Belt of neighbouring authorities. Urban areas within neighbouring authorities which might be better suited to accommodating residential development are relatively distant from the Black Country and hence poorly placed to meet the specific (i.e. Black Country) need.

4.6 The appropriate response is to plan for more growth within the BCA Green Belt on the edge of the existing urban area, and make fuller use of that resource with further allocations for well-planned developments.

4.7 In this context it is proposed that land to the south of Manor Way, Dudley (Uffmoor Vale) should be removed from the Green Belt and allocated to deliver approximately 1,200 homes at an average net density of 40 dph. The effect of this allocation should be reflected throughout the BCP including in particular the Strategic Policies and Policy HOU1 and associated Tables, Tables 13 and 14 in Part A of Chapter 13, and the introduction of a new Strategic Allocation Policy DSAn. Uffmoor Vale should be recognised as a Neighbourhood Growth Area, contributing to the provision of a reasonable level of choice of sites and to enable several locations to be developed simultaneously. This will help to sustain the rate of housing delivery needed across the Black Country to meet requirements.

4.8 Land at Uffmoor Vale has previously been advanced through the plan process via the call for sites. The Uffmoor Vale site extends to 66.62ha and is located immediately adjacent to the southern urban edge of Dudley. It offers the opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to meeting the requirement within the BCA area through expansion of the urban area and with a corresponding reduction in the number of dwellings to be exported to other authorities.

4.9 It is notable that the BCP as currently drafted proposes no sizeable housing allocations (greater than 100 units) at all in the southern part of the Plan area, south of the A458. An allocation at Uffmoor Vale would contribute towards achieving a more balanced distribution of housing growth.

4.10 Detailed information to support the allocation of the site is set out in a series of documents appended to these representations including:

 Appendix 1: A Landscape, Visual and Green Belt Assessment prepared by Bradley Murphy Design – this comprises an Executive Summary and extensive analysis through a Green Belt & Landscape Capacity Study and a Green Infrastructure Study.
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 22

 Appendix 2: A Heritage Note prepared by RPS – this provides an overview of matters around archaeology, built heritage and historic landscapes.

 Appendix 3: A Highways and Access Technical Note prepared by PJA – this reflects on submissions previously made at the Call for Sites stage and sets out analysis dealing with the crossing of Manor Way, innovative transport solutions, cycle infrastructure, public transport, and demonstrating the suitability of the Site generally.

 Appendix 4: A Vision Document prepared by Barton Willmore – this brings together the supporting case for an allocation and includes an Illustrative Land Use Concept Plan to demonstrate how residential led development with associated green infrastructure can be successfully delivered here. This document is central to understanding the credentials of the Site for allocation.

4.11 The content of these documents forms part of these representations and should be noted carefully in understanding the suitability of the Uffmoor Vale site for allocation.

4.12 The analysis used by the BCA to inform the proposed allocations, expressed for example in the Site Assessment Report and reflected in the Sustainability Appraisal, raises a number of concerns in terms of the allocation of land at Uffmoor Vale. In circumstances where this analysis covers all relevant locations considered through the plan process to date it is necessarily high level rather than providing a detailed, focused site-specific assessment. The concerns raised include:

4.13 The extent to which a defensible Green Belt boundary could be achieved, and the extent of landscape and visual impact. These matters are addressed here principally in Appendix
1. From a landscape perspective, this concludes that the landscape of the Site and its context is not sensitive to sustainable development guided by a landscape-led masterplan; that there is an opportunity to improve existing landscape features; that there is an opportunity to improve access and provide space for recreation; and this is allied to wider landscape improvement opportunities at Coombeswood. The Site is not considered to be visually sensitive. Noting, as above, that Green Belt release is required to meet the housing need of the Black Country it is considered that the Site makes a limited contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, whilst offering the opportunity to retain a strong Green Belt boundary and improving access to the Green Belt. The overall conclusion is that the Site has the capacity to support development, based on a truly landscape led masterplan.

4.14 The implications from a heritage perspective. This is addressed here principally in Appendix 2. This concludes that there are no known archaeology and built heritage constraints to bringing the Site forward as an allocation for development. The Site
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 23

contains no statutorily designated heritage assets. It notes that the archaeological potential of the Site is such that it can be adequately managed in the planning development control process. It acknowledges that while impacts caused by the Site’s development to any affected archaeological and built heritage assets may be suitably mitigated and minimised within planning and through appropriate design and master planning, the Site’s historic landscape (part of a non-statutory AHHLV designation) is more vulnerable to change, even in its currently degraded form. Any scheme for the Site would need to be of a scale and density sensitive to the identified non-statutory designation and have regard to the associated local policy. It observes that all surviving historic field boundaries would need to be retained and there would be a benefit if those removed in the post-medieval period were reinstated.

4.15 The effect on trees and ecology. The ways in which development here can incorporate and enhance habitat and respect biodiversity are addressed here principally in Appendices 1 and 4. The submitted Green Infrastructure Strategy seeks to deliver a vision based on a public open space and habitat network interconnected through wildlife corridors and a pedestrian movement network that moves through the Site, creating an interwoven fabric of green infrastructure. It would comprise an ecological network based on consolidating woodlands, hedgerows, wetlands and grasslands and prevent surface water running off by creating a network aimed at capturing, storing and recycling water through use of SuDS. Landscaped buffers to the Site’s boundaries, focused on introducing transitional woodland edge habitat, would protect and enhance existing boundary features as well as defining a new Green Belt boundary. Particular emphasis would be placed on delivering ecological improvements by enhancing the riparian corridor through the Site, and securing green infrastructure connectivity.

4.16 The extent to which development can be successfully integrated with the existing urban area. This is addressed here principally in Appendices 3 and 4. The Highways and Access Technical Note demonstrates that measures including a new bridge, pedestrian and crossing improvements, and an effective corridor treatment on Manor Way, are deliverable and will ensure the Site is integrated effectively with the rest of the urban area. These measures can be complemented through the provision of local facilities, a mobility hub, further pedestrian and cycle improvements, and public transport enhancements, to link the Site fully with the wider area.

4.17 The Vision Document sets out the ways in which development at Uffmoor Vale can embody the latest best practice place-making design principles, embedded within the existing landscape and providing a vibrant response and accessible environment. It shows how high-quality design can ensure that proposals are integrated within their
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 24

context and inter-connectivity between existing and new residents and facilities are maximised. It demonstrates that a residential led scheme at Uffmoor can be created to form a natural expansion of, rather than separate development to, the existing urban area.

4.18 It is considered that the more detailed site-specific analysis presented here demonstrates the Uffmoor Wood site can successfully and appropriately be brought forward for residential development as an expansion of the existing urban area and should be allocated by the BCP.

4.19 Moreover, for other major Green Belt releases proposed by the BCP in Dudley it should be noted that measures to provide sufficient mitigation have not been identified; the requirements in this regard are relegated to later versions of the document. Mitigation is an important point and one that is recognised as a requirement for Green Belt release elsewhere in the BCP (Policy GB1). This is also reflected in national policy. The NPPF provides (paragraph 142) that where (as is the case in the Black Country) it has been found necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should, “…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.”

4.20 Exceptionally in this regard, development at Uffmoor Vale can secure the delivery of compensatory improvements which can be identified at this stage.

4.21 The Landscape, Visual and Green Belt Analysis submitted as part of these representations (Appendix 1) identifies ways in which access from the existing urban area and the site to the wider Green Belt countryside can be enhanced, and complemented by woodland planting, improvements to biodiversity and habitat connectivity. However, it also identifies the unique opportunity to link development at Uffmoor Vale with compensatory improvements elsewhere in the Green Belt locally, at Coombeswood.

4.22 The land at Coombeswood is owned by St Modwen, thereby providing certainty in terms of its availability for improvement. It extends to over 37ha of land approximately 2.5km to the northeast of Uffmoor Vale, adjacent to the Dudley Canal (identified as a geotrail as part of the recently recognised UNESCO Geopark) and the Grade I listed Leasowes Park. Consultation has identified a desire to retain the wildness of Coombeswood with improvements focusing on biodiversity and creating calm spaces for people to relax.

4.23 A strategy is presented which would retain and enhance Coombeswood’s natural characteristics whilst offering improved opportunities for recreation. Proposals include habitat enhancement areas and the introduction of a variety of uses such as a public art trail and a sensory garden for quiet reflection and relaxation. In this way, enabled by
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 25

development at Uffmoor Vale, enhanced Green Belt land at Coombeswood has the potential to improve the health and wellbeing of the community as well as providing important benefits to biodiversity and wildlife. The Vision Document (Appendix 4) shows how this can be imagined as a “Health and Wellbeing Heart” for the community.

4.24 As such, alongside the suitability of Uffmoor Vale to be released for residential led development, it has been demonstrated that there is a clear, deliverable opportunity nearby for compensatory improvements to be provided across a large and important area of Green Belt.

SUMMARY


4.25 Transparency and clarity of purpose is needed in the BCP in terms of the extent of Green Belt release required to avoid the housing requirement to a significant degree being unmet. Additional allocations for housing development within the Green Belt should be made, including within Dudley. To that end it is proposed that a strategic housing allocation should be made on land at Uffmoor Vale.

4.26 This Site should be removed from the Green Belt and allocated to deliver approximately

1,200 homes. The effect of this allocation should be reflected throughout the BCP including in particular the Strategic Policies and Policy HOU1 and associated Tables, Tables 13 and 14 in Part A of Chapter 13, and the introduction of a new Strategic Allocation Policy DSAn.

4.27 Detailed information to support the allocation of the Site and demonstrate its suitability for development has been prepared addressing landscape, visual and Green Belt issues; heritage; highways and access; and bringing relevant matters together through a Vision Document. This material also addresses concerns in relation to the allocation of the Site expressed through the Councils’ Site Assessment Report.

4.28 For other major Green Belt releases proposed by the BCP in Dudley the required measures to provide sufficient mitigation have not been identified. Exceptionally in this regard, development at Uffmoor Vale can secure the delivery of compensatory improvements which can be identified at this stage. This can be achieved through measures on and around the Site but additionally, and uniquely, by linking development at Uffmoor Vale with compensatory improvements elsewhere in the Green Belt locally, at Coombeswood.

4.29 The land at Coombeswood is owned by St Modwen and extends to over 37ha. It is adjacent to the Dudley Canal which is identified as a geotrail as part of the recently recognised UNESCO Geopark and the Grade I listed Leasowes Park. A strategy has
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 26

been prepared which would retain and enhance Coombeswood’s natural characteristics whilst offering improved opportunities for recreation. Enabled by development at Uffmoor Vale, enhanced Green Belt land at Coombeswood has the potential to improve the health and wellbeing of the community as well as providing important benefits to biodiversity and wildlife.
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 27