Question 12b - Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).

Yes namely at land adjacent to Pattingham (land known as West of Moor Lane, Pattingham WV6 7DW) and Coven (land known as east of School Lane, Coven WV9 5AN). These are sustainable villages with a number of services, and fall within the administrative boundary of South Staffordshire District Council. Both sites are currently being promoted through the South Staffordshire Site Allocations Document. A 'call for Sites' form has been submitted for the specific sites.

Also land at Bridge Farm, Brinsford Lane, Coven Heath, WV10 7PR. This is an under-utilised brownfield site in the Green Belt which has excellent links to the highway and three Strategic Employment Sites in South Staffordshire.

Yes, we specifically consider that land at Kingswinford bordered by the B4178, the A449 Kidderminster Road and the A4101 should be released for development. The site extends to 26 hectares and could provide a mix of market and affordable housing and supporting open space and landscaping. Further details have been submitted through the "Call for Sites".

It is clear that a combination of Options H1 and H2 will be required to deliver the significant housing requirement of the Core Strategy review. To provide a realistic prospect of achieving the housing requirement a range of sites of a variety of different sizes and locations should be identified for development in sustainable locations within the HMA. Identifying a range of sites in a variety of different locations will help create the choice and competition of the market for land and ensure delivery. It must be ensured that any proposed urban extensions are deliverable within the plan period and that, if larger sites are identified, only the part that is deliverable in the plan period is included in the supply figures. It is, therefore, necessary to understand the infrastructure requirements, likely delivery rates and the ability of sites delivered quickly when making allocations.

As referred to above, we are of a view that a variety of different sites should be allocated for development to meet the growth requirements of the Black Country to provide choice and competition in the market for land. These sites should be located throughout the HMA. In particular, it is our view that it will be entirely appropriate to direct development towards sustainable settlements in the South Staffordshire District part of the HMA. South Staffordshire is included within the SHMA assessment area given its close ties to the Black Country Authorities. There are a number of settlements within South Staffordshire and a range of services and facilities that are capable of supporting relatively significant levels of development to meet the needs of the Black Country. These areas should be considered for allocation.

As referred to above, we are of a view that a variety of different sites should be allocated for development to meet the growth requirements of the Black Country to provide choice and competition in the market for land. These sites should be located throughout the HMA. In particular, it is our view that it will be entirely appropriate to direct development towards sustainable settlements in the South Staffordshire District part of the HMA. South Staffordshire is included within the SHMA assessment area given its close ties to the Black Country Authorities. There are a number of settlements within South Staffordshire and a range of services and facilities that are capable of supporting relatively significant levels of development to meet the needs of the Black Country. These areas should be considered for allocation.

RE: BLACK COUNTRY CORSE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS QUESTIONS


Please find below the responses from William Davis Ltd:
Question 1 - Do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies?
The adopted core strategy pre-dates the 2012 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF.) There is a need to re-assess the soundness of the existing and emerging policies against this. Moreover, the acknowledged scale of the housing requirement within the area and the associated Green Belt release forces more than a partial review. The proposals within the Issue and Options paper are fundamental changes and require a full review and re-structure of the document.

Question 2 - Do you think that the key evidence set out in Table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy review?
The proposed documents to form the evidence base for the Core Strategy are considered sufficient; however it is essential that the Green Belt review is undertaken comprehensively. The Green Belt review should acknowledge that the release of smaller parcels of land for residential use in some areas may be more appropriate. The review should not preclude this approach by only assessing larger sites.

Question 3 - Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014-36 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance?
Whilst it is accepted that a Duty To Co-operate to meet Birmingham's unmet need is established within the Issues and Options document which is in-line with paragraphs 156 and 178 of the NPPF; it is considered that due to the proximity of the Black Country to Birmingham and the available infrastructure, employment, and land to accommodate growth, the proposed accommodation of 3,000 of the 38,000 shortfall is too low and should be revisited following the Green Belt review. This sentiment is echoed within the 2017 White Paper "Fixing our broken housing market" where it is discussed plans should incorporate an "honest assessment of the need for new homes." Moreover, the White Paper discusses the need for Local Authorities to "work with their neighbours so that difficult decisions are not ducked." It is considered this direction and strategy needs to be incorporated more closely with any emerging policy and associated housing target.

Question 4 - Do you consider the employment land requirement identified for the Black Country up to 2036 in the EDNA is appropriate and in line with national guidance?
The NPPF states in paragraph 22 that "policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose." This is acknowledged within the EDNA and therefore is supported. However, the long term goal of placing a residential focus on these sites is not. It is apparent from the Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs) of Walsall and Dudley (both 2016) that this is failing and housing land should be re-allocated within the forthcoming Green Belt review. Walsall discusses "land being lost from employment to use uses is more gradual than anticipated in the BCCS targets" and within the AMR actually shows an increase from residential land to employment land of 1.47 hectares in 2015-2016. Dudley can only demonstrate 8 Hectares of land from employment to residential between 2011 and 2016 against a target of 57. It is apparent from this evidence that the current requirement is unattainable.

Question 5 - Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt Review?
A Green Belt review is supported as it is considered the only feasible and sustainable way to accommodate the housing need within the area. However, a review of the Green Belt should accommodate all potential sites and not exclusively larger parcels of land suitable for SUEs. Ideally the scoping and approach of the Green Belt review should be open for consultation.

Question 6 - Do you agree that the key issues set out in Part 3 are the key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy Review?
The issues set out in Part 3 require some adjustment as they appear to underestimate the difficulties of retaining the existing strategy whilst acknowledging the need for the release of Green Belt land to sustainably meet residential need.

Question 7 - Do you think that the Core Strategy vision and sustainability principles remain appropriate?
Paragraphs 17 and 111 of the NPPF states Local Authorities should "encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has previously been developed." However, the BCCS sustainability principle states Brownfield land should be put first. This is not consistent with the NPPF and should be altered accordingly.

Question 8 - Do you think that the Core Strategy spatial objectives remain appropriate?
As previously discussed, the aim of using redundant employment land to accommodate new residential growth has proved unsuccessful and if past trends continue will leave a significant shortfall in the housing target. Therefore, this should be altered to accommodate a variety of sites within the Green Belt.

Question 9 - Do you agree that Policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the Growth Network?
It is considered these policies are not in accordance with the requirement to release Green Belt land to accommodate the increased housing need. Therefore, they should be altered to be harmonious with this.

Question 10 - In continuing to promote growth within the Growth Network, is there a need to amend the boundaries of any of the Regeneration Corridors in the existing Core Strategy?
Whilst it is not suggested an alteration of the regeneration corridors is required in order to support the emerging growth within the Black Country, there is a clearly a need to offer a broader focus on infrastructure, employment and housing ; as the geographical extent of the current corridors does not support the sustainable release of Green Belt land.

Question 11a - Do you support Strategic Option 1A?
1A is supported. This is because the previous Core Strategy's attempt to release employment land for housing need has proven to be ineffective and has fallen well short of target. Therefore, committing to extending this over a forthcoming plan period which features a far higher housing requirement would be destined to fail. Therefore Option 1B is unsustainable and unobtainable. 1A however, commits to a review of the existing strategy of Green Belt land which is essential to ensure that housing needs are successfully met by providing a broad portfolio of development opportunities.

Question 12a - Do you support Spatial Option H1?
Yes. Smaller sites should be used to contribute to the unmet need as SUEs often fall short of targets and are slow to deliver, whereas smaller strategic locations effectively and quickly contribute to housing figures by providing a broad portfolio of development opportunities. The use of smaller sites offers wider choice and balance throughout the housing market area contributing to social, economic and employment networks without overburdening infrastructure. Smaller scale Section 106 agreements can benefit communities in a sustainable manner further supported by CIL monies.

Question 12b - Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered?
Yes-Land off Bromwich Lane, Pedmore. Land off Sutton Road, Walsall. Forms submitted through Call For Sites

Question 13a - Do you support Spatial Option H2
No. As previously mentioned, SUEs are not always the best solution as they can be slow to be delivered.. It is considered for a large area such as the Black Country where such a broad housing and social spectrum exists a mixed portfolio of small, medium and large scale residential commitments are more effective in terms of both delivery and sustainability.

Question 15a - If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the 'export' of housing growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA?
No. A successful Green Belt review, a Core Strategy that embraces a shift in the nature of development and Regeneration Corridor alteration will allow for the HMA to meet its own OAN.

Question 36 - Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 should be changed?
Paragraph 47 of the NPPF states Local Authorities should "set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstance." It is therefore considered there is a need for flexibility which takes into account individual sites in term of their siting, situation, surrounding area and access. Whilst it is acknowledged a broad density assumptions are required to achieve the housing need, a density set across the board is not in line with National requirements.

Question 41c - Do you support a requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots? Yes/No; any further comments?
Any policy should simply encourage provision rather than impose a "requirement". The accommodation of serviced plots for self or custom build on larger sites presents operational difficulties due to Health and Safety legislation as plots will often be built outside of normal working hours. They also create uncertainty and amenity problems for adjoining areas which may inhibit sales. Not every house builder will therefore wish to commit to such provision

Question 42- Do you agree that annual affordable homes target should be increased to reflect the 2017 Black Country Strategic Housing Market Assessment?
In line with NPPF policy, any affordable housing targets are required to be based on a robust assessment of need and viability

Question 43a- Do you think that the existing Policy HOU3 site size threshold should be kept and 15 homes or more?
The site size threshold should be justified by viability evidence

Question 45 - Should an increased affordable housing requirement be set for green belt release sites, to reflect the likely financial viability of these sites?
The target should reflect need/viability evidence as discussed above but any policy should not seek to load greater provision on Green Belt sites as this will simply inhibit overall delivery in these areas.
Question 49a - Is there still a need for existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing?
It is apparent from AMR data that the release of employment land for housing is proving unsuccessful. The employment to residential land change progression is insufficient to meet the more demanding housing targets. Therefore it is considered a move toward Green Belt release is more sustainable and DEL2 requires a fundamental review.

Question 99a : Do you think that the national standards for housing developments on water consumption should be introduced in the Black Country?
The adoption of optional higher water efficiency standard should only be applied using the criteria set out in the NPPG (ID 56-013 to 56-017). The Black Country has not been identified as a water stress area in an up to date Water Cycle Study.

Question 99b : Do you think that the national access standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country?
No. National accessibility standards should only be introduced in accordance with the criteria set out in the NPPG.

Question 99c : Do you think that the national space standard for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country?
The nationally described space standard should only be introduced in accordance with the criteria set out in the NPPG (ID: 56-020).

Question 99d : Do you think the standards should be different for brownfield and greenfield sites?
No. It is not relevant to whether site is brown or green field.

Question 118: Do you agree with proposals to streamline and simplify the Core Strategy Monitoring framework?
The plan making process in the Black Country should be improved. The existing adopted Core Strategy is over-due for review and second tier Local Plans are still not yet in place six years after adoption of the Core Strategy. Any streamlining and simplification of the monitoring framework should incorporate more effective monitoring mechanisms such as key performance indicators. Currently the Councils are underperforming by 3,000 dwellings against adopted Core Strategy housing targets without triggering any positive policy response.

Question 10 - In continuing to promote growth within the Growth Network, is there a need to amend the boundaries of any of the Regeneration Corridors in the existing Core Strategy? Yes/No; If so, which boundaries and why?

The HCA has no detailed comments at this stage on the actual boundaries of the Regeneration corridors but suggests that the capacity of each corridor for housing is reviewed to ensure the maximum amount of quality housing and the place making aspirations can be delivered. In particular the capacity of regeneration corridors close to railway stations, Metro lines and proposed Metro lines should be intensified. An understanding of the delivery issues affecting each corridor would be useful along with an associated delivery and implementation plan.


Question 11a - Do you support Strategic Option 1A? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why.
If no, do you support Option 1B? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why.
If you support the release of further employment land for housing, what should the characteristics of these employment areas be?

The HCA suggests that a robust assessment of the capacity within each of the regeneration corridors needs to be carried out along with a greater understanding of the delivery issues in order to determine the most appropriate sustainable location for housing and employment.

Question 12a - Do you support Spatial Option H1? Yes/No; What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? E.g. ability to create a defensible new green belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services.

The HCA suggests that in determining the "rounding off" option would depend on the actual location, size and scale of proposed development in the context of its proposed location, the provision of the existing services and the new population's ability to access these services in a sustainable way. Failure to properly plan these areas could result in necessary infrastructure not being delivered.

Question 12b - Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).

The identification of these areas should be informed by a robust assessment of the Green Belt areas.

Question 13a - Do you support Spatial Option H2? Yes/No; What should the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) be? E.g. minimum/ maximum size, mix of uses, mix of housing types, accessibility to other areas.
What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs, potential to support existing settlements / services, proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban regeneration.

The HCA has extensive experience of dealing with the development and delivery of large scale urban extensions. As set out in the Issues and Options document they do allow for large scale place making opportunities and to create sustainable new communities. Given the nature of the Black Country the location of such a scheme would need to take into account the location of existing facilities and the opportunities that any new development could benefit existing residents.

Question 13b - What infrastructure do you think would be needed for different sizes of SUEs?

The table below provides guidance as to the infrastructure requirements based on population. Naturally, given the nature of the Black Country the actual location of any large scale development and the infrastructure required would be subject to individual assessment.









Question 13c - Are there any potential locations that should be considered for SUEs (please submit through the 'call for sites' form) and what infrastructure would be required to support these?

The identification of any locations for SUE's which it is understood may be located in the Green Belt would have to be determined through a robust evidence based selection process in accordance with the NPPF and the White Paper, 'Fixing our broken housing market'. The actual location, form, function and size of the SUE would then determine the actual infrastructure requirements.

Question 13d - Do you think that the Core Strategy should set out detailed guidance for the development of SUEs (e.g. type and tenure of housing, specific infrastructure required), rather than details being determined at a local level in light of local policies? Yes/No; Any further comments?

Given the scale and complexities of developing SUE's the Black Country Authorities need to be satisfied and indeed will need to demonstrate to the Planning Inspectorate that any SUE's proposed will be viable and deliverable. On that basis the HCA considers that the Core Strategy should contain sufficient guidance for the development of the SUE/SUE''s. Please find attached a link to a report produced by the HCA entitled 'Policy making for strategic sites' which contains advice on the approach to take when proposing large site allocations within Local Plans. \\hca.local\wa\NCU\ATLAS\RESEARCH 46.3\Strategic Site Allocations\Revised guidance\final guide 2014\Policy Making for Strategic Sites - Final 50214.docx

Question 21 - Do you think that changes are required to Policy DEL1 to ensure it covers both development within the existing urban area and any within the Green Belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

If the proposal is for sites to come forward within the Green Belt, then yes Policy DEL1 should be updated to reflect this as it is imperative that all infrastructure requirements are known and costed in order to demonstrate delivery.

Question 25 - Will there be any new social infrastructure requirements necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, please explain the type and scale of any new social infrastructure required.

Please see response to Q. 13b.

Question 28 - Do you think physical infrastructure is necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, what type and scale of physical infrastructure is necessary?

Please see response to Q. 13b.

Question 29 - Do you think there are any other tools or interventions that could be used to ensure enough infrastructure is provided by developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

In order to understand what tools or interventions are required to ensure enough infrastructure is provided it will be necessary to understand the existing position relating to the infrastructure and an assessment made as to whether it will be fit for purpose for the lifetime of the Plan. Once an understanding of the entire infrastructure requirements are known and costed it will then be possible to explore what other tools or interventions the HCA could assist with.

Question 30 - Do you have any suggestions around how the strategy can be developed in order to maintain the urban regeneration focus of the Black Country while at the same time bringing forward sites in the green belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

The HCA suggests a phasing policy would address this issue.

Question 31 - Do you think that the right scale and form of funding is available to support the delivery of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If no, what alternative sources of funding or delivery mechanisms should be investigated?

One of the areas that the HCA has experience across the country is not the actual level of funding but organisations having the necessary delivery skills in bringing urban sites forward for development. One mechanism could be to review the setting up of a dedicated implementation and delivery team.

Question 35 - Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

The HCA welcomes the potential to increase high density housing allocations within Strategic Centres. In addition to Walsall we suggest that all of the strategic centres are reviewed to ensure that the maximum housing capacities within these key areas are identified.

Question 36 - Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 should be changed? Yes/No; If yes, what standards should be applied instead, for example should the minimum net density of 35 dwellings per hectare be increased to maximise brownfield housing delivery?

The existing policy sets out that higher densities of 60+ or more are only acceptable in strategic centres. The HCA considers that higher densities of 60+ would also be acceptable near to or in close proximity to railway stations, metro/proposed metro stops and other public transport nodes.

Question 66 - Should the Core Strategy set new housing targets for the Strategic Centres through the review? Yes/No; Any further comments?

Yes. The HCA consider that higher densities should be fully explored within all of the strategic centres.

Question 89 - Do you support the proposed changes to the priorities for the development of the transport network? Yes/No; Please explain why.

The HCA broadly supports the changes to the priorities for the development of the transport network and in particular supports the priority to continue to provide rapid transit extensions to the Midland Metro and re-introduce rail services to connect the Black Country Strategic Centres given this will assist in the opportunity for the delivery of additional housing within easy access of sustainable transport.


Question 94 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to environmental infrastructure and place-making? Yes/No; If you think that any other changes should be made to Policies CSP3 or CSP4, please provide details.

The HCA are fully supportive of the proposed changes which will reflect the Garden City principles and quality place making principles. The HCA would be supportive of a Garden City quality accreditation system which would fulfil the aspirations of raising the design and place making within the Black Country.

Dear Sir / Madam

Black Country Core Strategy Review - Issues and Options Consultation Response
Introduction We are writing to provide our response to the Black Country Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation on behalf of our clients who own land to the north of Hardwick, in the District of Walsall. As well as submitting a response to the questions set out in the Issues and Options document, we have also submitted our client's land to be considered through the Call for Sites process.
This letter includes our response to the following questions:
* Question 1 * Question 2 * Question 3
* Question 5 * Question 6 * Question 7
* Question 8 * Question 9 * Question 11
* Question 12 * Question 13 * Question 14
* Question 15 * Question 21 * Question 35
* Question 36 * Question 37 * Question 38
* Question 39 * Question 40 * Question 42
* Question 43 * Question 44 * Question 45
* Question 49 * Question 95

Site Context

Our clients' land is located adjacent to Chester Road to the north of Hardwick. Their land is approximately 23.6 hectares in size and is currently used for agricultural purposes. We consider that this land could be developed for residential or retail purposes and would form a logical extension to the existing settlement with a defensible boundary. We have attached a Call for Sites form and a location plan for your reference.

Issues and Options Response

Question 1

We consider that the emerging Core Strategy should be the subject of a full review. The adopted Core Strategy predates the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the updated Core Strategy should be fully updated to take account of a change in circumstances. It covers four Local Authorities and is therefore crucial that the spatial strategy is fully reviewed so that all of the policies are relevant and up to date. Also the scale of the proposed changes to the existing strategy warrants a full and comprehensive Review. It is also essential that the Review takes account of the Birmingham Housing Market Area (HMA) shortfall.

Question 2

No - Wolverhampton City Council is the only Black Country Local Authority which has updated it's Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) in 2017. Walsall's SHLAA is from 2016 and both Dudley and Sandwell's SHLAAs cover the period of 2015/2016. We consider that all of the SHLAAs must be updated to
represent the current availability of housing land.

Question 3

The figures in the Housing Supply Background Report (July 2017) are based on the adopted Core Strategy requirement from the 2006-based household projections that were published in 2008. We consider that these figures are outdated and the figures in the Housing Supply Background Report should be based on up to date housing requirement figures as set out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2017.

There is also an inconsistency with the housing requirement within the Issues and Options document. The Core Strategy states that the housing requirement is 78,190 dwellings. However, table 7.1 of the SHMA states that the total Black Country housing requirement totals 78,105 dwellings. This point should be rectified.

We do not agree that 3,000 dwellings is an appropriately evidenced contribution towards the 38,000 dwelling Birmingham HMA housing shortfall. Although it is positive that the Black Country Local Authorities have included a figure to contribute to towards the HMA shortfall, there is no evidence to support the 3,000
dwelling figure and we consider that the Black Country will be expected (and potentially capable) to contribute more than this once distribution figures/locations have been finalised.

Question 5

We agree. NPPF paragraph 83 states that "Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances". The proposed 21,670 (+3,000 BHMA addition) housing shortfall and limited availability of alternative sites should count as exceptional circumstances. Birmingham did not have enough brownfield
land or other suitable alternatives to meet its housing need, and therefore 6,000 dwellings have been allocated within former Green Belt land at Langley, Sutton Coldfield. The Black Country's spatial connection and proximity to Birmingham means that areas of Green Belt land within the Black Country will be amongst
the most sustainable options to locate new residential development to help meet the HMA shortfall.

Question 6

We agree.

Question 7

We object to the adopted Core Strategy Sustainability Principle 4 'Brownfield First' as it is contrary to paragraph 17 of the NPPF which states that the principles of planning should 'encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), it does not refer to prioritising
brownfield land before Green Belt land. Sustainable Principle 4 should be amended to be in accordance with the NPPF. This principle is potentially irrelevant where there is insufficient brownfield land to meet the housing requirement and all sites identified are required to meet the housing need.

Question 8

Strategic Objectives should be reviewed to include new housing developments which is a key focus at present due to the housing shortfall within the HMA. There is a significant shortfall of housing land currently available within the Black Country and the HMA. Therefore we consider that finding land for 21,670 (+3,000
BHMA addition) dwellings should be a key spatial objective within the Core Strategy.

Question 9

We do not consider that the policies should be retained. Policy CSP1 and CSP2 are old policies which predate the NPPF. The Black Country requires a new strategy for housing growth to deal with the significant Black Country and Birmingham HMA housing shortfall and therefore the policies should be updated
accordingly.

Question 11a

We support Strategic Option 1A "continue to strengthen the Growth Network with some corridors being housing led and others employment led. Remaining housing and employment land growth to be accommodated in the green belt". We consider that there would be a significant loss of potential employment land if Option 1B is selected which is required in order to meet the Core Strategy Vision of 'Economic Prosperity'. Issues of viability are a potential major challenge for this Option which may result in some housing/employment needs not being met if sites don't come forward during the plan period. We consider that a range of sites will need to be allocated which promote a balanced housing portfolio.

Question 12a

The theoretical capacity of our client's site is approximately 495 dwellings at 35dph using 60% capacity. Suitable sites should be adjacent to existing settlements and have a defensible boundary, such as roads or railway lines. The site we have identified could be reduced to provide a smaller housing opportunity north of Hardwick.

Question 12b

We consider that land to the north of Hardwick east and west Chester Road provides a potential location for sustainable growth and the railway line acts as a defensible boundary. The scale of opportunity to meet spatial option H1 could be considered through a detailed review with the Council's policy team.

Question 13a

Yes we also support spatial option H2 because we recognise that the Council will have a range of housing sites to consider. We propose that the land north of Hardwick could also be considered for a larger SUE opportunity at circa 600+ dwellings . This opportunity could include land to the south west of our client's site.

Question 13b

This will very much depend on the assessment of existing infrastructure and will need to be reviewed on a site by site basis.

Question 13c

We consider that land north of Hardwick should be considered as a potential SUE opportunity. This may require improved highways, education and community infrastructure.

Question 13d

The core strategy could set out high level strategic infrastructure expectations and capture cross boundary requirements. However more detailed site specific requirements should be left to local policies.

Question 14

We consider that a range of small / medium scale infill and SUE opportunities together with any re-use of brownfield sites could provide a range of sites suitable for meeting the Objectively Assessed Housing Need (OAHN).

Question 15a

We support the export of housing growth across the HMA area. The HMA area represents the most sustainable approach to solving the overall housing requirements in both the Black Country HMA and other neighbouring authority areas.

Question 15b

The consideration to other areas meeting the Black Country's housing requirement should only be given where evidence shows that the land within the Black Country cannot accommodate all of this need.

Question 15c

If housing has to be exported beyond the Black Country then first consideration should be given to areas close to the Black Country boundaries or via public transport corridors that serve the Black Country.

Question 21

We do not consider that Policy DEL1 should seek to assess infrastructure on the basis of whether the site is in the existing urban area or with the Green Belt. There is no evidence that Green Belt sites have any greater ability to pay more towards infrastructure (for example roads, utilities etc) than brownfield sites. Green Belt sites often have high infrastructure start up costs which need to be properly taken into account. Therefore we consider that the policy should be updated and based on a site by site considerations.

Question 35

We do not consider that Policy HOU1 is clear enough to reach an informed conclusion. Paragraph 6.20 states that the SHLAAs are up to date for the four Authorities. We do not agree with this statement as only Wolverhampton's SHLAA is from 2017, the rest of the SHLAAs are from 2015/2016. All of the SHLAA's should be updated to show the current supply of housing land.

Appendix B of the 'Black Country Housing Trajectory' sets out that the Authorities have not met their cumulative Core Strategy Target between 2006/07 - 2015/16 - cumulative target between 2016/17 to 2025/26 is even more aspirational. The Councils need to identify more sites in order to deliver this target.

The total completions figure for Walsall within Appendix C of the 'Black Country Housing Trajectory' is inconsistent with the figure in Table 1 of the Housing Supply Background Report (HSBR) July 2017. The BCCS refers to 6,137 dwellings whilst the HSBR refers to 6,165 dwellings. This inconsistency should be rectified.

Once the SHLAA evidence for the BCCS area is consistent and up to date the position on supply of deliverable housing sites should be made available to enable an informed review of whether the OAN housing supply is appropriate for the identified OAN.

Question 36

Before a review of Policy HOU2 and Table 8 is pursued, further evidence should be provided on whether the accessibility and density standards have been successful. We consider that to apply blanket policies on density do not always lead to the most appropriate forms of development.

Question 37a and 37b

Further evidence should be provided to confirm what proportion of housing delivery across the Black Country has been on sites of 15 dwellings or more. Where for example, a significant number of schemes are being built comprising between 10-15 dwellings, then a review of the threshold may warrant being undertaken.

Question 38

Not necessarily - the density of any new development should be appropriate to the density of the existing surrounding area, not necessarily being a lower density just because its a Green Belt release or higher density because it is a brownfield site. Should be done on a site by site basis.

Question 39

Yes potentially. Where car ownership / access to public transport can be shown to be greater for different types of housing then separate accessibility standards should be applied.

Question 40

Yes as long as they are in line with up to date evidence. The most up to date evidence should be applied.

Question 42

Prior to any change being proposed to the affordable homes target, detailed evidence should be undertaken to review a range of matters including viability and past deliver across the BCCS area.

Question 43a and 43b

Where evidence demonstrates the reducing the threshold to 11 homes or more will be achievable and viable then yes. However, there is a need for an achievable up to date affordable housing viability assessment in
order to assess whether this threshold is viable.

Question 44a and 44b

As per our responses to Q's 42 and 43a, the decision as to whether the affordable housing requirement should be changed requires further detailed evidence (viability and past delivery) to demonstrate that any changes are supported with up to date evidence.

Question 45

This question makes a sweeping assumption that all Green Belt sites have a greater financial viability than brownfield sites. This may not always be the case where significant investment is required in new infrastructure and S106 obligations are overloaded without due regard to site viability. Unless viability
appraisals are undertaken as part of a comprehensive approach including a review of infrastructure requirements, the basic assumptions should be properly supported by appropriate evidence.

Question 49a and 49b

Where evidence can be provided which clearly demonstrates that employment sites are no longer required for their current use then use for residential development may be appropriate. Of all of the BCCS Authorities, Walsall has the largest areas of Green Belt land and therefore, parcels adjacent to settlements within Walsall should be seriously considered for release to meet the housing requirement within the Black Country.

Question 95a

Where appropriate sites of sufficient scale can be identified to provide opportunities that meet the Garden City / Village principles then they should be considered.

Question 95b

Whether greenfield or brownfield sites are considered, there will need to be careful consideration of site details and context, including viability. These details will determine how the Garden City or Village principles could be applied.

Introduction.

I am writing to you on behalf of Hallam Land Management, which has a long and successful reputation in working with local authorities to promote land for both housing, industrial, commercial and mixed-use development throughout the country. Their approach is to take a positive initiative in promoting land through strategic and local plans to ensure that homes and jobs are delivered for the benefit of local communities and for the wider economy.

For some time, Acres Land & Planning Ltd has been promoting a 10.68ha site (SHLAA site 222) at Sandy Lane in Codsall within South Staffordshire District on behalf of 'Hallam Land'. The site, although currently within the Staffordshire Green Belt nevertheless forms a logical extension to a recently approved housing development to the north of the village which was released from the Staffordshire Green Belt as a 'safeguarded site' in the previous South Staffordshire Local Plan.

The Black Country Issues and Options Document represents a first but very important step in the planning of the area within the wider West Midlands Metropolitan sub-region which also has a critical bearing on the surrounding local authorities including South Staffordshire. We therefore warmly support the integrated approach which the Black Country authorities are adopting and specifically the decision (referred to within paragraph 3.12 of the document) to assess the Black Country and South Staffordshire together as a joint housing sub-market.
The Issues and Options.

Question 1 - Do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies? Yes/No; If not, what do you think should be the scope of the review?

The challenges facing the West Midlands (including the Black Country) are critical both in terms of the scale and complexity of housing needs and the changes now being experienced in the local economy. These are influenced by the pressures being felt from Birmingham, triggered in part by the potential growth being stimulated by the forthcoming construction of HS2 and other infrastructure projects but also the uncertainties created by the economic and political changes likely to stem from the decision to leave the European Union.

We broadly support the need for a partial review, retaining the basis of the existing Core Strategy - Hallam Land do not wish to prolong the exercise by starting entirely afresh and re-inventing those aspects of the planning strategy which already work effectively - but we do feel the review needs to be sufficiently far-reaching to challenge the current Core Strategy and to test its robustness thoroughly and also to reflect the changes in policy approach since the NPPF was introduced.

Hallam Land very much welcome the acknowledgement within paragraph 1.19 of the Issues and Options Document that not all growth can and will occur within the existing built-up area. We welcome the pragmatic approach which the Black Country authorities are taking towards the over-reliance on re-used brownfield and derelict sites in the area. The Black Country has a legacy of contaminated land including many sites with old mine shafts and other physical and technical challenges. These will not always be suitable for housing development and hence capping and re-use for commercial or recreational land may be the only viable option. Furthermore, as the Issues and Options report emphasises, the welcome growth in the regional economy means that fewer former industrial sites may be now available for housing.

We applaud the decision to review the Green Belt, jointly in the Black Country and in South Staffordshire. Although it is important to protect the concept of the green belt and to adhere to its principles, the Green belt must be able to respond to the inevitable pressures for urban expansion (unless other options can be delivered instead). Against a background where the GB boundaries have not been reviewed since the 1970's and are very tight (see Figure 5), this is both desirable and essential. There can be no sustainable case for imposing rigid Green Belt constraints which would otherwise impede growth in the Black Country which desperately needs it.

We agree that the existing two-tier forward planning approach should be retained. Most Local Plans are now currently emerging as single-tier plans, but this Core Strategy provides a strategic plan for a large part of the Metropolitan area. The individual Metropolitan Boroughs of Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton and those Districts surrounding the Black Country - such as South Staffordshire - will then develop the policies, identify the sites and implement the strategy.
Question 2 - Do you think that the key evidence set out in Table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If not, what further evidence is required and, if there are any particular issues that should be taken into account in considering development on any particular sites or in any particular areas, please provide details.

Hallam Land acknowledges the list of strategic challenges and opportunities identified as 'Key Issues' in paragraph 3.1 of the Core Strategy document.

Within the first of these - the evidence base - Table 1 provides an exhaustive list of studies, research and evidence which has either been undertaken or is in progress to assist in the preparation of the Black Country Review. This is impressive, but the most important consideration is that the strategy should be consistent, integrated and holistic. The studies therefore need to be considered as a whole and should be compatible with plans and proposals which are emerging within the surrounding areas, especially in the Birmingham housing market and in Southern Staffordshire.
In that context, notwithstanding the reference to 'Working with neighbours' one document which, in our view, is lacking is a draft Duty to Co-operate Statement which shows the relationships between areas and the extent to which pressures for housing and jobs are being accommodated across the sub region.

In the absence of a wider West Midlands Regional Strategy, which places Birmingham and the Black Country in their broader context, it is really important to ensure that the Black Country is planned as part of a functioning sub-region. This may well emerge from the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (HMA) Strategic Growth Study (due to be published later in September 2017) and within the WMCA Land Delivery Action Plan published (a few days ago) in early September 2017 and due to be considered by the WMCA Board.

The second document which is not referred to is the recently published WMCA Land Commission report published by the West Midlands Land Commission in February 2017 on behalf of the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA). This report attempts to address the pressures for and against delivery of development in the West Midlands Authorities' areas. The WMCA has yet to formally adopt the report, but it is currently being addressed by the GBSLEP and the WMCA.

The third document which is in the list, the West Midlands Combined Authority Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) - completed in 2016 - clearly needs to inform the review of the Black Country. The SEP is much more ambitious than both the statutory plans and the Strategic Housing Needs Survey (undertaken by PBA in 2015). The prospect of creating some 500,000 new jobs and 215,000 additional homes within the region (as advocated by the SEP) needs somehow to be reconciled with the more modest plans currently being pursued by the West Midlands' local authorities. Clearly unless the respective Metropolitan Councils plan for integrated housing and employment growth, it simply won't happen.

Question 3 - Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014-36 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.

The assessment of housing need in the Black Country is extremely complicated, since it is surrounded by local authorities on all sides. The Housing White Paper advocates a standardised approach to housing needs assessment which should narrow the areas for debate in settling OAN (Objectively Assessment Need) figures. This may work where housing markets are relatively self-contained with identifiable economic and housing catchment areas - but this is clearly not the case for the Black Country.

The Black Country housing market tends to operate at two levels - both as a strategic market stretching across the whole West Midlands Metropolitan sub-region with people moving in and out both regionally, nationally and internationally, and also as a complex network of local markets, catering for the many smaller communities which have traditionally constituted the Black Country.

On the demand side, it is not just a case of looking at the consequences of people living longer and families and households breaking down more often, but also a result of stronger in-migration both from elsewhere in this country and abroad which fuels household formation. The Black Country has traditionally become a lower-priced housing market area accommodating households with a wide range of skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled jobs. It therefore tends to act as a 'reception area' for inward international migrants in addition to catering for both intra-regional movement and local demand. The 78,190 does not contain allowances for economic growth or providing additional affordable housing.

Figure 6 adds 3,000 dwellings as a contribution to supply in the wider Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area. This should logically be a demand component but is presented as a one-off contribution to help meet a neighbouring OAN. Whilst pragmatically we understand the way in which these numbers have been devised (as a gesture to help resolve 'Birmingham's needs'), in reality it might be more robust to explore the intra-regional migration patterns to see whether 3,000 is a realistic contribution to the integrated housing market. We are inclined to feel that the Black Country should be absorbing more of the 'Birmingham boom' which is arising in part from the growing attractiveness of Britain's second city. OF course, a West Midlands Regional Plan would have been able to tackle this exercise. Sadly, the Duty to Co-operate mechanism is very blunt instrument in resolving cross-boundary issues.

With that in mind it is difficult to simply 'rubber stamp' the broad assessment outlined in the Issues and Options document. We therefore reserve judgement on the proposed OAN of 78,190 homes (2014-2036) until further work has been undertaken to explore both the sub-regional needs and examine how the Black Country OAN relates to the Districts around it - especially South Staffordshire (and Telford and Wrekin which has historically acted as destination for out-migrants from the Black Country) to determine whether the 78,190 figure is robust.
On the supply side, we acknowledge the broad thrust of the 5 stage assessment within Figure 6, (although it would be logical if the order of the items in the histogram was consistent with the diagram). It's upside down.

A few points are relevant here:-

Firstly, the number of completions (2011-2014) should be a matter of fact, however it may be worthwhile looking at the mixture of dwellings delivered against need to see to what extent they match demand/requirements. Other Districts outside the Black Country may be better placed to provide new family housing,

Secondly, the existing 'supply' registered in the SHLAA may be a helpful guide towards the capacity within the urban area of the Black Country - however it is not clear whether all the SHLAA sites have been tested for availability and constraints and what proportion of those sites are deliverable and at what density. Further work needs to be done on this to clarify the status of 'committed' sites.

Thirdly, paragraph 3.15 states that identified sites and windfall sites have a potential to deliver around 8,335 homes (2026-36) but it is not clear whether there is any overlap between the 'potential' windfalls and the SHLAA sites and/or the scope for increased density housing allocations in town centres.

Fourthly, paragraph 3.16 refers to the scope for the re-use of employment sites of which 300ha (delivering 10,400 homes) may release land over the 10 year period from 2016-2026. However, the document acknowledges that this may reduce as a source of housing land, especially if the West Midlands economy continues to improve. It makes little sense to re-direct employment development onto greenfield land within Green belt (thereby displacing jobs from local communities) if housing is then being steered to sub-optimal contaminated sites within the urban areas which are more expensive to remediate to residential standards.

Fifthly, there is no mention within the assessment of replacement housing to cater for older homes (or sub-standard property) reaching the end of its life. This element is normally built-in to the demand side of the equation, but in the Black Country the decaying housing stock and/or system built housing affected by design and construction problems could further reduce the supply available. (We have not investigated this aspect and more work may need to be done on this).

Finally, the residual figure of 24,670 dwellings which (according to paragraph 3.18) may need to be accommodated within the green belt (in the Black Country or elsewhere) will need to be balanced against other options if the sequential approach towards land allocation within the Housing White Paper is implemented. Against that background, the 'value' of the Black Country Green Belt in meeting the 5 key purposes of green belt will need to be measured against the merits of releasing arguably less sensitive green belt sites in South Staffordshire or indeed negotiating to release non-green belt land in the former New town of Telford, where the infrastructure is already in place and there is a growing industrial base.
Question 4 - Do you consider the employment land requirement identified for the Black Country up to 2036 in the EDNA is appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.

The nature of the economy has changed significantly over the last 10-15 years. Although the Black Country is the traditional home to extractive industries, manufacturing and especially metal-bashing much of this heavy industry has moved to other countries to be replaced by higher value manufacturing and services - including distribution. At the other end of the scale, the economy now encourages smaller-scale initiatives with a sharp rise in small businesses and self-employment.

It is therefore much more difficult to gauge the employment land requirements since the more traditional industrial estate forms only a partial element of employment needs. Employment may also be transient and not necessarily place-based. Recent history has shown that there is a pressing need for readily available large employment sites to meet the one-off inward investment such as JLR which tends to create large numbers of jobs, both in direct and spin-off employment. Similarly, distribution now requires much larger loading bays with high spans which can accommodate the needs of the current market. The West Midlands Strategic Employment Sites Study and the Black Country & South Staffs Sub-Regional High-Quality Employment Land Study will provide an important part of the evidence base.
We therefore support the portfolio approach to the provision of employment sites.

At the more localised level the town and local centres are becoming less attractive to the major retail multiples and more popular with local specialist shops, coffee shops and restaurants and entertainment venues. Disappointingly, despite Birmingham and the Black Country being world famous for the historic canal network, there is no reference at all to the potential of the canals in creating and boosting the local economy. The only reference to canals is within Policy EN4 where a cautionary approach is taken due to the possible ecological implications of restoration. Yet many examples exist within Wolverhampton, Walsall, Dudley and Sandwell where the canals have been at the heart of urban regeneration and others could be in future. There are also opportunity sites elsewhere in Telford where this applies.

The Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) suggests the review should plan for up to 800ha of additional employment land for the Black Country from 2014-2036 which reflects the loss of around 300ha to housing and reflects the economic growth aspirations of the Black Country SEP. This residual figure assumes that a further 90-170ha of employment land is released within South Staffordshire to reflect the needs of the Black Country. Logically this will also have a housing implication within South Staffordshire rather than just within the Black Country despite serving the Black Country's needs. Clearly if this is the basis for the employment target - the same principle must also apply to the housing target. Otherwise we make no detailed comment on the 300ha 'gap' figure which emerges as the employment land requirement within paragraph 3.27 of the document.

Key issue 5 - Protecting and enhancing the environment.

It is self-evident that planning policies should be devised to protect the environment and to avoid damage to Special Protection Areas (SPA's), RAMSAR sites, water quality and other aspects of the natural environment.

We are extremely sceptical however about the outcome of the environmental impact work of the Cannock Chase SAC Partnership. Local authorities involved have sought to impose a levy on house-builders operating within the 15km catchment zone on the assumption that increased 'pressure' will be imposed on Cannock Chase from the building of houses within the area. Having examined this consultancy work in depth previously, we are not convinced that the study undertaken on behalf of Natural England has demonstrated that the 'pressure' on the wildlife necessarily arose from newcomers. Rather it was caused by specific 'user groups' or people acting irresponsibly for example mountain bikers, horse riders, dogs, or people starting fires, some of whom already live locally or are travelling from further afield.

On a more general note, the implication that the use and enjoyment of public open spaces should be discouraged through the imposition of a 'dwelling tax' on housing is counter-intuitive. It conflicts with Local Councils' own tourism strategies (which try to attract people to the Chase) and is contrary to wider public health objectives within planning which promote walking, cycling and taking other forms of exercise. The Cannock Chase SAC Partnership and Natural England therefore need to re-assess their evidence base carefully and review this policy so that it does not impose a burden on builders or indirectly future residents of the Black Country and those people moving to those parts of Districts such as South Staffordshire and Stafford and those places which lie within the 15km catchment of the Chase

Question 5 - Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt Review? Yes/No; If not, what additional work do you think is necessary?

We welcome the recognition that the implications of future growth in and around the Black Country will require a systematic review of the Black Country green belt and that this will be done in a consistent way with the other local authorities in the Birmingham and Black Country housing market area. The emerging Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA Strategic Growth Study, being produced by GL Hearn provides the right context for the Black Country Green Belt review and it is logical (as suggested in paragraph 3.47) that this should also cover the South Staffordshire area which falls into the same general housing market area and maintains strong economic links.

The completion of the Preferred Spatial Option report for the Core Strategy Review in September 2018 seems a sensible timescale in view of the complexity of the task.
Since the development of Green Belt is regarded as a last resort, we think it would be logical to also dovetail the strategic housing and green belt review with the exploration of options to deflect housing provision to Telford which has long served to cater for the needs of people from the Black Country with ambitions to move.

Question 6 - Do you agree that the key issues set out in Part 3 are the key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy Review? Yes/No; If not, what other key issues should be taken into account?

The key issues outlined in paragraph 3.1 are as follows:

* Updating the evidence base
* Meeting the housing needs of a growing population
* Supporting a resurgent economy
* Supporting strong and competitive centres
* Protecting and enhancing the environment
* Reviewing the role and extent of the green belt
* Keeping the Black Country connected
* Providing infrastructure to support growth
* Working effectively with neighbours.

We agree that, subject to the caveats wish we have listed above, these key issues outlined in Part 3 represent the factors which need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy.

Question 7 - Do you think that the Core Strategy vision and sustainability principles remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest?

Yes. We broadly support the Core Strategy Vision and sustainability principles. However, although we accept that ideally it may be desirable to 'put brownfield first' in terms of the authorities' priorities, in practical terms this is not always feasible. In any event, a 'brownfield first' strategy for housing is not actually Government policy. Authorities are expected to encourage and promote the development of brownfield sites for housing but this may not necessarily mean putting brownfield before greenfield development. The market would grind to a halt if they did so.

Question 8 - Do you think that the Core Strategy spatial objectives remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest and how might these changes impact on individual Core Strategy policies?

The 10 objectives seem broadly sound as a basis for planning and regeneration of the review period. However, although there is a mention of existing housing areas in Objective 4, there is no actual reference to providing an adequate level of new housing, in places where people want to live. Furthermore, the Objective 3 which refers to 'Model sustainable communities on redundant employment land in the Regeneration Areas' does not reflect the change in stance within the review which will now be looking at a wider portfolio of sites, including some Green belt sites both with the Black Country and South Staffordshire. There is also no reference to working in partnership with neighbouring authorities or the private sector, something which is essential to achieve delivery.

Question 9 - Do you agree that Policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the Growth Network? Yes/No; If not, what changes do you think should be made to Policies CSP1 and CSP2 in response to new challenges and opportunities?

Yes. We agree that policies CSP1 and SP2 remain relevant. But they may be rather too prescriptive in trying to direct development to specific centres, locations and corridors. The Review provides the opportunity to gauge to what extent the current
Core Strategy has succeeded both in focusing development on preferred locations but more important in boosting and regenerating the Black Country. These policies may have unintended consequences if they tend to deflect growth elsewhere.

It may also be appropriate to consider whether there are other places in the Black Country which now need a boost other than the main centres and corridors. Since most of the Black Country is within built-up areas there may be a case for more flexibility with a greater focus on design rather than location. We would also suggest that the canal network provides an opportunity for water-based regeneration which can improve the environment through waterside development and create a rich mixture of residential, small scale commercial and recreational development.

Question 10 - In continuing to promote growth within the Growth Network, is there a need to amend the boundaries of any of the Regeneration Corridors in the existing Core Strategy? Yes/No; If so, which boundaries and why?

Question 11a - Do you support Strategic Option 1A? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why.
If no, do you support Option 1B? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why.
If you support the release of further employment land for housing, what should the characteristics of these employment areas be?

Question 11b - Are there any current employment areas that might be considered suitable for redevelopment to housing? Yes/No; Please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form.

Yes. The Regeneration Areas will need to be extended. We don't have fixed views about the merits of options 1A and 1B. Indeed a 'one size fits all' approach may lead to a contrived solution which becomes difficult to deliver in practice and stifles development which could otherwise legitimately occur. According to Government policy the use of the Black Country Green Belt should be viewed as a last resort, hence there should logically be a pointer towards Option 1B in preference to 1A. The canal routes could provide employment areas where regeneration could result in more housing as part of mixed used development thereby improving the overall environment and bringing the Black Country's history and culture to life. We agree that using green belt in South Staffordshire rather than the Black Country should be considered where pressure and potential impact may not be as great. The scope for exporting some housing needs to Telford where green belt is not an issue and infrastructure is already in place, should also be seriously considered.
Question 12a - Do you support Spatial Option H1? Yes/No; What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. ability to create a defensible new green belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services.

Question 12b - Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).

The designation of Green belt is based on 5 specific purposes, most of which are relevant to the Black Country. However, Green Belt is a strategic policy tool, not an instrument of landscape or recreational policy - although in some cases they may well function as recreational areas in practice. We feel there is a valid case for rounding-off parts of the Green belt in the Black Country and in South Staffordshire. The Black Country, especially Walsall, has a network of green wedges which separate smaller communities which would be hard to justify on current criteria and in some cases are less sensitive as green belt.

The criteria for selection of site review, should be related to the initial reasons for designation of green belt. This is consistent with the findings of the West Midlands Land Commission Report which suggests that there should be review of the Green Belt within the whole West Midlands Metropolitan Area and that it should be consistently applied and related to those areas of land which perform poorly against the five statutory purposes of the green belt.

In defining new areas and boundaries, as suggested within the NPPF (which was unchanged from the former PPG2) local authorities should look for clear defensible boundaries such as rivers, roads, railways and tree lines or field boundaries where the case for striking a green belt edge is stronger.

There may also be a case, as the Government's Housing White Paper suggests for redefining green belt boundaries on their outer edge to retain the width of protection for towns. In addition, although green belts are not intended to be an environmental or landscape policy, there is a strong case (as the Landscape Institute has suggested) to adopt a separate landscape or recreational strategy for some green belt land to strengthen its positive role in providing value for society (including those residents of the urban areas who may lack accessible public open space, rather than being an enclave of protected green land for people who occupy high value or more exclusive homes.

In South Staffordshire there are also areas where green belt could be rounded-off without damaging its purpose, such as north of Codsall on land being promoted by Hallam Land at Sandy Lane (SHLAA site 222) which would extend a recently consented site and where the 5 purposes of the green belt would not be compromised. We have submitted a separate contribution under the 'Call for Sites' including the Sandy Lane, Codsall site.


Question 13a - Do you support Spatial Option H2? Yes/No; What should the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) be? e.g. minimum/ maximum size, mix of uses, mix of housing types, accessibility to other areas.
What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs, potential to support existing settlements / services, proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban regeneration.

Question 13b - What infrastructure do you think would be needed for different sizes of SUEs?

Question 13c - Are there any potential locations that should be considered for SUEs (please submit through the 'call for sites' form) and what infrastructure would be required to support these?

Question 13d - Do you think that the Core Strategy should set out detailed guidance for the development of SUEs (e.g. type and tenure of housing, specific infrastructure required), rather than details being determined at a local level in light of local policies? Yes/No; Any further comments?

There may well be cases where larger sustainable urban extensions are deemed appropriate. However, comparative assessment work would need to be undertaken and a strong case demonstrated if large areas of green belt were to be sacrificed to development. The Housing Green Paper emphasises that the use of green belt land for development should be a 'last resort' and rightly points towards peripheral rail stations as providing an obvious focus for larger scale development.

Inevitably, larger free-standing settlements in the green belt would take longer to develop albeit they would deliver a broad range of services. Easy access to jobs and public transport would need to be an essential pre-requisite to any sustainable urban extension. Suitable SUE's would need to conform to essential criteria to justify their selection in the first place - though the precise nature of the SUE would no doubt emerge through public and private sector negotiation and partnership.

Question 14 - Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Housing Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

We have already mentioned above that other options rather than encroaching onto the Black Country green belt, do exist. The larger South Staffordshire villages which are served by public transport provide a logical case for growth. In the case of Codsall/Bilbrook there are 2 railways stations and the village is within cycling distance of the new i54 JLS plant and the Pendeford Business Park close by. Carefully selected green belt releases in these locations offer good potential links between homes and jobs whilst exploiting the wide range of facilities which Codsall enjoys. The Sandy Lane site, promoted by Hallam Land will be surrounded on three sides by development, once the adjacent Watery Lane site is built, and is ideally suited for development.
Question 15a - If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the 'export' of housing growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA? Yes/No; What factors should be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities in neighbouring authorities e.g. proximity to the edge of the urban area, proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs?

Question 15b - Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

Question 15c - Do you think there are ways to ensure that exporting housing will meet the needs of people who would otherwise live in the Black Country? (e.g. transport improvements, provision of affordable housing, creation of employment opportunities) Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

Telford New Town has long provided an opportunity for a new life for people moving out of the Black Country since its designation in 2017, indeed the original purpose of the New Towns were to serve the wider housing needs of the West Midlands Metropolitan area. Although Telford has since lost its formal New Town designation and no longer has Assisted Area status, it still retains the culture and ambition for growth and enjoys much of the infrastructure needed for growth which has already been provided at public expense. There are potential strategic sites in Telford, for example at Wappenshall to the north of the town, which are well linked to both existing and planned industrial jobs as well as having an attractive environment and close proximity to all the facilities existing in a burgeoning new community.

Strangely, Telford & Wrekin Council currently seems reluctant to continue its natural growth trajectory, or even to reach its original population target, but the Telford Local Plan Inspector has recently rejected the submitted housing strategy within the emerging Local Plan Review, and sought higher housing numbers, a justification for the selection of sites within and an early review within the Proposed Modifications.

Wappenshall provides scope for the delivery of 2,500 new homes within a restored canal-side environment lying adjacent to the built-up area of Telford, close to the major industrial estates of Hortonwood and Hadley and in a location where public-sector land owned by HCA can be levered into the scheme. The Proposed Modifications to the Telford & Wrekin Local Plan now provides a further opportunity to examine new initiatives - such as Wappenshall, which could bring all round housing, economic, recreational and tourism benefits to the town.

Telford provides a natural destination for current residents of the Black Country who could still commute the 15 miles to jobs at i54 or Pendeford Business Park using the M54 motorway or travel by train. Alternatively, there will be further job provision locally which would enable people to start a new life and career whilst retaining their close links with the Black Country - just as previous generations have done before them.

Questions 16 - 20, Spatial Employment Options (E1 - E4).

We have no specific comments to offer on the alternative Employment Options for the Black Country.

Question 21 - Do you think that changes are required to Policy DEL1 to ensure it covers both development within the existing urban area and any within the Green Belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

Yes. we would expect Policy DEV1 to be reviewed as a matter of course as part of the review of the Core Strategy, which could include the imposition of infrastructure requirements to meet future community needs, subject to any changes in the CIL regime which may be announced in the coming months, following the CIL review.

Questions 22-28, Social and Physical Infrastructure.

We have no further comments on these aspects.

Question 29 - Do you think there are any other tools or interventions that could be used to ensure enough infrastructure is provided by developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

Question 30 - Do you have any suggestions around how the strategy can be developed in order to maintain the urban regeneration focus of the Black Country while at the same time bringing forward sites in the green belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

The use of generalised and site-based viability assessments are likely to be important in determining whether schemes can progress and if so, what level of infrastructure - social and physical - they can support. Paragraph 5.28 indicates that some 25% of potential housing sites and 30% of employment sites in the Black Country are unviable to develop. This legacy of contaminated land often precludes the development of sites and makes affordable housing difficult to deliver on others.

In addition to the mechanisms outlined in paragraph 5.24, such as clawback, or phased viability assessments, it may be possible to link or cross-subsidise green belt and brownfield sites. This has been suggested previously albeit often flounders unless the two sites are in the same ownership where delivery can be assured. Green belt sites would (in general) be capable of offering a higher level of infrastructure which could tip the balance in terms of justifying their release. Grant aid, for example through the Black Country LEP, the WMCA or by using the HCA's new £3bn Home Building Fund which is designed to assist with infrastructure could assist.

The West Midlands Combined Authority has just released (September 2017) its Land Delivery Action Plan which includes funding initiatives to assist in the delivery of land for housing.
Question 31 - Do you think that the right scale and form of funding is available to support the delivery of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If no, what alternative sources of funding or delivery mechanisms should be investigated?

The Black Country is a prime example where additional public funding may be necessary to lever out sites for regeneration. In addition to those areas of support from Government, HCA, LEP's and now WMCA there could be Heritage Lottery funding where for example there are old canal structures are involved. As para 5.38 indicates, the Housing White Paper signals potential changes to the CIL regime which may result in a standardised tariff rather than the present CIL floorspace formula.

It is also possible that the Government may encourage the Black Country to pursue its Garden Village bid, which could then be accompanied by associated funding for development and renewal.

Question 32 - Do you think that the proposed approach to incorporate health and wellbeing issues in the Core Strategy review is appropriate? Yes/No; If no, please provide details

Question 33 - Is there more that the Core Strategy can do to address health and wellbeing issues in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, is a new policy needed to address such issues for example?

Question 34a - Do you agree that the health and wellbeing impacts of large development proposals should be considered at the Preferred Spatial Option stage of the Core Strategy review through a Health Impact Assessment approach? Yes/No; Any further comments?

Question 34b - What design features do you think are key to ensuring new development encourages healthy living, which could be assessed through the HIA process?

Health and Wellbeing is becoming an essential element in the planning process and there are many potential initiatives and measures which could be employed to raise levels of health and wellbeing which could help to stem multiple deprivation in the Black Country, for example:

* Travel modes - including the encouragement of walking and cycling,
* public open space - including facilities to encourage more exercise and improvement of quality of life
* reduction in diesel emissions for example through traffic restraint and pedestrianisation and the possible removal of speed humps,
* the juxtaposition of land-uses to encourage better home/job relationships including the promotion of working from home,
* possible education on diet and exercise - especially for children.

A Health Impact Assessment will be required.
Question 35 - Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

We certainly support the need to update the Policy HOU1 figure and to review the trajectory and the balance between brownfield and greenfield development, now that the Councils in the Black Country recognise that some future housing development will need to go onto the green belt. The maintenance of a generous 5 year housing land supply is an essential element of the NNPF as part of the commitment to 'boosting housing delivery' within paragraph 47 of the document, which should apply to all four local authorities. It is unclear however how the housing provision and housing land supply for South Staffordshire will work, bearing in mind it is outside but integral to the Black Country.

If the Black Country authorities are planning to reduce the degree of flexibility on the delivery of strategic sites (as indicated in paragraph 6.22 and also introduce a 505 per annum small site allowance then there will need to be plenty of leeway in the provision on sites to ensure that targets are met.

Question 36 - Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 should be changed? Yes/No; If yes, what standards should be applied instead, for example should the minimum net density of 35 dwellings per hectare be increased to maximise brownfield housing delivery?

Question 37a - Do you think that the existing Policy HOU2 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why

Question 37b - If no, should it be reduced to 11 homes or more? Yes/No; If no what other threshold should be used and why?
Question

Question 38 - Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards are appropriate for green belt release locations? Yes/No; If no, what standards should be applied in these locations and why?

Question 39 - Do you think separate accessibility standards are needed for particular types of housing e.g. housing for the elderly or affordable housing (as occupiers may be less mobile and more dependent on public transport)? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

Question 40 - Do you agree that the 2017 SHMA findings should be used to set general house type targets for the Plan period? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

We are not in favour of applying specific housing mix criteria for sites, unless they are sufficiently large where a mix and variety of dwellings is important. The housing mix should be related to the specific site circumstances and ideally determined through pre-application discussions. They should not be prescriptive.

It is logical to apply higher density expectations to sites close to public transport modes, whether within the green belt or not, but it may be dangerous to impose specific standards which fail to reflect the circumstances of particular sites we therefore support the proposal within paragraph 6.28 to remove this paragraph from the Plan.

Paragraph 6.30 refers to the growing need for Sheltered and Extra Care dwellings, estimated at about 5% of the requirement. The Councils should encourage the delivery of this type of property, but it will not be feasible to expect market sites to deliver an element of extra-care and sheltered accommodation which tend to have
somewhat different locational requirements.

Finally, it may be tempting to apply housing requirements on density, mix and type according to the Council's SHMA but unless the expectations can be supported in terms of viability and deliverability they will not actually materialise.

Question 41 - Do you support the introduction of a policy approach towards self and custom build housing in the Core Strategy? Yes/No; If yes, would you support:
A target for each authority? Yes/No; Any further comments - A requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots? Yes/No; Any further comments?
Another approach altogether? Yes/No; If yes, please specify.

Government warmly support the idea of self-building as an opportunity for more people to get onto the housing ladder and a policy encouraging self-build plots would be sensible. However, self-builders tend to want specific isolated plots where they can 'do their own thing' or require custom built homes which are separate from larger standard housing sites. Any idea that builders should specifically reserve plots for self-builders could be self-defeating. In practice, small housebuilders will cater for self-build or custom building if it means selling a plot or a house in a different way.

Question 42 - Do you agree that the annual affordable homes target should be increased to reflect the 2017 Black Country Strategic Housing Market Assessment? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

Question 43 - Do you think that the existing Policy HOU3 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why. If no, should it be reduced to 11 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, what threshold should be used?

The Councils should set the target for affordable homes at the level which emerges from the evidence obtained from the SHMA. With the definition of affordable homes set to change to include starter homes it is admittedly difficult to pin down exactly what counts as affordable and what doesn't. The Black Country authorities should therefore set the right policy climate to encourage more affordable homes to come through. Where so many sites ae affected by contamination and site stability issues the ability to subsidise affordable housing may be problematic. Affordable housing may therefore need to emerge through public subsidy through Registered Providers and housing trusts, rather than necessarily through cross-subsidy.
Question 44 - Do you think that the affordable housing requirement for eligible sites in Question 43 should be kept at 25% of the total number of homes on the site? Yes /No; Any further comments? If no, should the percentage be increased to allow for the provision of affordable home ownership? Yes/No; If yes, what should the percentage be and why?

The current 25% quota is probably a helpful guideline, unless evidence from the SHMA demonstrates that a higher (or lower) percentage is justified. The lower level of subsidy now expected from developers (80% of market price) may make a high overall quota easier to achieve. This will be guided by the outcome of the SHMA which may assist in identifying the range and type of affordable housing needed, but this may well change over time and in any event, will need to be determined on a site by site basis.

Question 45 - Should an increased affordable housing requirement be set for green belt release sites, to reflect the likely financial viability of these sites? Yes/No; If yes, what should this be.

There is every likelihood that green belt sites will be capable of delivering higher levels of affordable housing, but on the other hand may not be the most appropriate location for accommodating people without cars or access to employment. If there is a broad overall policy guideline but with a site by site assessment, this is likely to produce the most satisfactory result.

Question 47 - Do you think that Policy HOU5 should be expanded to cover other types of built social infrastructure and to set out standards for built social infrastructure to serve major housing developments? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

Question 48 - Do you agree that the requirement in HOU5, to demonstrate there is adequate alternative provision to meet the needs of the community served by a facility which is to be lost, should be reviewed? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why.

In a situation where Sandwell and Dudley both have CIL plans and policies but Walsall and Wolverhampton currently don't, creates a difficult situation in terms of producing a standardised policy for the Black Country as a whole.

S106 agreements have the ability to adapt to the circumstances of the specific site and reflect its viability and deliverability. But there are clear advantages of incorporating the funding of 'strategic' facilities through a pooled CIL policy - if the viability of each site is not prejudiced.

In principle, it is right that community facilities should be funded through developer contributions, however public funding for infrastructure is currently being reassessed through the Government's CIL review and it may be sensible to await the outcome of this report before formulating policy on this aspect.

Question 49 - Is there still a need for existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing? Yes/No; If no, please explain why. If yes, should this policy be used to assess the release of employment land to alternative uses, other than housing? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why.

It is probably desirable to keep Policy DEL2 to enable the authorities to manage the release of poorer quality employment land. The Core Strategy has identified a higher than expected take up of employment land within the Black Country and hence the local economy should not be prejudiced by the lack of employment availability if it is needed. Furthermore, the Black Country needs a pool of poorer and cheaper sites in sub-optimal locations to find places for 'unneighbourly uses' such as scrap yards, storage sites and other uses which need to find a home somewhere.

Question 50 - Do you think that the Core Strategy should continue to set a target for the total employment land stock in Policy EMP1? Yes/No; Please explain why.
Do you think that distinguishing between Strategic High Quality Employment Areas and Local Quality Employment Areas is still appropriate? Yes/No; Please explain why.

The scenario described in paragraphs 6.53 - 6.58 paints a very fluid picture on employment supply and need, with the turnover of sites catering for emerging needs but with a lack of larger strategic sites which could provide more jobs for the wider Black Country and south Staffordshire economy. We feel there is a need for a total employment land stock as a general guideline, but that the LEP needs to carefully review the nature of the economy so that growth is not held back by a lack of land.

Question 51 - Do you think that the criteria used to define Strategic High-Quality Employment Areas are appropriate and reflect actual market requirements? Yes/No; If not, how do you think the criteria and/or terminology should be amended?

Question 52 - Do you think that the criteria used to define Local Quality Employment Areas are appropriate and reflect actual market requirements? Yes/No; If not, how do you think the criteria and/or terminology should be amended?

Question 53 - Do you think that Strategic High-Quality Employment Areas should continue to be protected for manufacturing and logistics uses, with the other uses set out in Policy EMP3 discouraged? Yes/no; If not, what alternative approach do you recommend?

This strays outside my client's interests. However, we feel that the policies need to be reviewed against the background of the High Quality Strategic Sites Study (2015) and the practical evidence coming forward from the Black Country LEP and the WMCA on the type of strategic sites which are likely to be needed and the extent to which these need to be 'ring-fenced' from more general employment sites.
Question 54 - Do you agree that the current approach in Policy EMP4 is no longer fit for purpose and should be amended to reflect a portfolio based approach? Yes/No; If no, what alternative approaches would you recommend?

We would support the views of EDNA that there needs to be a broad portfolio of sites rather than a single overall target. This should relate to sites within South Staffordshire as well as the Black Country.

Question 88 - Do you agree that the overall transport strategy supports all of the Core Strategy spatial objectives? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Question 89 - Do you support the proposed changes to the priorities for the development of the transport network? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Question 90 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to managing transport impacts of new developments? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

Question 92 - Do you support the proposed approach to providing a coherent network for walking and cycling? Yes/No; Please explain why.

The Black Country is at the centre of the national trunk road and rail network, but at the same time has a network of local communications which serve the myriad of localised Black Country communities. It is important that any transport strategy recognises this dual role and that there is a focus on maintaining and improving the metro, bus, cycling and walking networks within the Black Country - also using the traditional canal network as a regeneration opportunity.

Question 94 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to environmental infrastructure and place-making? Yes/No; If you think that any other changes should be made to Policies CSP3 or CSP4, please provide details.

Question 95 - Do you think Garden City principles should be applied in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, how should they be applied? Should the application of Garden City principles be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why.

It is important that the Environmental networks within the Black Country are developed and improved to boost the image of the area and provide the enhancement in the landscape and environment to support the local economy and provide a platform for residential development.

The promotion of a Garden City for the Black Country was a positive initiative to raise the profile of the area and attract funding, but bearing in mind that the Black Country Garden City proposal incorporated a wide range of disparate and unconnected sites the traditional concept and principles of a Garden City are unlikely to be easily translated into the Black Country context.

Question 98 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to Design Quality? Yes/No; If you think that any other changes should be made to Policy ENV3 please provide details.

We support the proposal to remove the reference to the Code for Sustainable Homes since this has been deleted as a requirement from the NPPF.

Question 99 - Do you think that national standards for housing development on water consumption, national access standards or national space standards should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why. Should any standards be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No; If yes, please explain how and why.

We are not convinced that there is a need to apply national standards for water consumption, national access standards or minimum space standards to schemes in the Black Country, unless there is a clear justification, all of which would tend to make housing less affordable. The same principle would apply for both brownfield and greenfield (and green belt) sites. Most builders adhere to Building for Life specifications and Building Regulations are becoming ever more stringent to cater for access and environmental standards.

Question 100 - Do you support the removal of the reference made to canal projects? Yes/No; Do you think that any other changes should be made to Policy ENV4? Please provide details.

Whilst there may be a case for the removal of references to specific canal projects we would expect to see a rather more positive strategy for both canal restoration and for regeneration relating to the canals to encourage exploiting the historic assets which the Black Country is famous for and enjoys.

Question 118 - Do you agree with the proposal to streamline and simplify the Core Strategy Monitoring Framework? Yes/No; If no, please explain why

We have no objection to removing redundant or superfluous monitoring targets and information to simplify and streamline the process. However, since the Black Country Core Strategy is being reviewed in tandem with the South Staffordshire Local Plan there may be a need for a monitoring schedule to link the two, so that South Staffordshire is able to assist in bringing forward sites to meet the Black Country's needs.

Question 119 - Do you think that a new Core Strategy policy is required? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why and provide details of the suggested policy.

We agree that there may be a case, as outlined in paragraph 6.2.6 to address changes to green belt so that they relate to specific sites rather than general areas, since new GB boundaries need to be properly defined and the 'exceptional circumstances' adequately tested.
Appendices B and C.

The monitoring figures within Appendices B and C indicate that the Black Country has fallen a little behind in its housing output (-3039) compared with its overall target for the cumulative plan period so far. Whilst this is not significant, it demonstrates that measures need to be taken to link the availability of sites with Southern Staffordshire where there are sustainable opportunities which are more readily available and to undertake a coherent and consistent review of the green belt to address the shortfall of sites.

Call for Sites - potential options.

We have already referred above to the Sandy Lane site at Codsall and will be submitting this as a potential opportunity to extend an existing consented site north of the village which was previously 'safeguarded' green belt land and together with the existing built-up area now surrounds the Sandy Lane site on three sides.

We have also referred to a potential strategic site at Wappenshall north of Telford which can be developed in conjunction with HCA land and has been promoted through the Telford & Wrekin Local Plan. Telford provides a genuine opportunity to take-up surplus requirement from the Black Country, to address a shortage of supply where green belt would not be affected.

I trust this submission is helpful in formulating your emerging Core Strategy review.

Yours sincerely

John Acres

ACRES LAND & PLANNING LTD

South Staffordshire Council response to the Black Country Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation

Purpose and scope of the review.

Question 1 - Do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies? Yes/No; if not, what do you think should be the scope of the review?

It is acknowledged that the existing spatial strategy of focusing urban regeneration at the Growth Network has been successful. This strategy aimed to deliver regeneration in the Black Country and prevents the outward movement of people and investment from the MUA. The South Staffordshire Core Strategy was developed as a counterpoint to this and looked to limit development to meeting locally identified needs. Recent developments in the Black Country have shown this to be an effective strategy and therefore it seems sensible to explore if there is scope to stretch the existing spatial strategy in the first instance.

This acknowledged, it is clear that the challenges now faced are very different from those faced when the current Black Country South Staffordshire Core Strategies were developed. Principally, it is clear that the Black Country housing and employment shortfall (25,000 dwellings and 300ha of employment land) cannot be wholly met within the urban area and that some Green Belt release is inevitable. The NPPF (Paragraph 83) is clear that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, and as such, all reasonable non-Green Belt options should be fully explored. The Government's recent Housing White Paper makes it clear that demonstrating exceptional circumstances for Green Belt release is a high bar, and Green Belt boundaries should only be amended where authorities can demonstrate they have examined all other reasonable options, including effective use of suitable brownfield sites and estate regeneration. Therefore brownfield sites should be maximised as far as possible - both within and outside the existing Growth Network. Similarly, whilst recognising that estate regeneration is very challenging, if this option is not going to be pursued then the plan should set out the reasons why this is not considered a viable and deliverable option.

Key Issue 1 - Updating the evidence base

Question 2 - Do you think that the key evidence set out in Table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If not, what further evidence is required and, if there are any particular issues that should be taken into account in considering development on any particular sites or in any particular areas, please provide details.

The Council agrees that all the key evidence based studies identified with Table 1 are necessary. However, which evidence based documents are required may depend on which options for growth are progressed. It is acknowledged that a Landscape Character Assessment will form part of the HMA Strategic Growth Study however a Landscape Sensitivity Study considering the relative sensitivity of land cover parcels will also be required. The Issues and Options confirms that the Core Strategy will allocate strategic sites, and therefore dependent on which options for growth are pursued, it may be appropriate to undertake an assessment of the impact on heritage assets and their setting. Historic England should be able to offer advice on this matter.

Key Issue 2 - Meeting the housing needs of a growing population

Question 3 - Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014-36 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.

The housing need for the Black Country for the period 2014-2036 as identified in the SHMA is considered robust and the anticipated supply seems appropriate in line with national guidance; therefore the initial housing requirement of 24,670 is supported. The Council also supports the ongoing work to consider if there are options for surplus employment land to be allocated for housing, as well as considering the potential to increase the density of housing allocations and the limited release of surplus open space. Clearly, the Black Country authorities will need to demonstrate that the potential sources of supply within the urban area have been fully considered in order for Green Belt release to be justified.

Key Issue 3 - Supporting a resurgent economy

Question 4 - Do you consider the employment land requirement identified for the Black Country up to 2036 in the EDNA is appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.

The recommendation that the Black Country should plan for 800ha of employment land (B1 (b), B1(c), B2 and B8 uses) as suggested within the Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) appears robust and in line with national guidance. The Issues and Options paper goes on to confirm that 394ha of employment land is available or is likely to come forward in the Black Country over the plan period, including opportunities to intensify existing employment areas. It is then apparent that the Black Country authorities are seeking to rely on some 100ha of employment land in South Staffordshire when concluding that there is a residual need to identify some 300ha of employment land through the Core Strategy review.

As you are aware, South Staffordshire Council is progressing its Site Allocations Document that seeks to allocate 62ha of additional employment land at proposed extensions to i54 and ROF Featherstone to meet a proportion of the Black County's employment needs. Remaining employment land at our strategic sites is relied upon in the District's employment land supply to meet South Staffordshire needs and therefore any additional supply that South Staffordshire Council can contribute above the 62ha (including a proportion of land at West Midland Interchange should it be consented) would need to be agreed through Duty to Co-operate discussions and a Memorandum of Understanding. We will be undertaking our own EDNA next year which will consider our own need for additional employment land and will provide a clearer picture of how much additional employment land South Staffordshire could contribute towards the Black Country supply, if any. Until this work has been done and agreements have been reached about the amount of existing supply that can contribute to the Black Country need, it is not possible to say if the stated residual requirement for 300ha of employment land is appropriate. The Council would welcome further Duty to Co-operate discussions with the Black Country authorities to establish if any unmet employment land need from the Black Country can be met within the District.

Key Issue 6 - Reviewing the role and extent of the Green Belt

Question 5 - Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt Review? Yes/No; If not, what additional work do you think is necessary?

South Staffordshire Council is working closely with the Black Country authorities and others authorities within the HMA as the commissioning authorities for the Strategic Growth Study. In addition to this, the Council supports the Black Country authorities' approach of producing a more detailed Green Belt review to inform the Preferred Spatial Options Report. Currently officers are working with counterparts from the Black Country in ensuring that the more detailed Black Country Green Belt review uses a consistent methodology with the South Staffordshire Green Belt review that will be commissioned to support our Local Plan review at an appropriate stage.

Question 6 - Do you agree that the key issues set out in Part 3 are the key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy Review? Yes/No; If not, what other key issues should be taken into account?

In the context of a partial review of the Core Strategy, the key issues as presented in Part 3 of the Issues and Options Report are considered appropriate.

Vision, Principles, Spatial Objectives and Strategic Policies

Question 7 - Do you think that the Core Strategy vision and sustainability principles remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest?

In the context of a partial review of the Core Strategy, the Core Strategy vision and sustainability principles remain appropriate.

Question 8 - Do you think that the Core Strategy spatial objectives remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest and how might these changes impact on individual Core Strategy policies?

It is considered that most of these objectives remain valid. However, as it is acknowledged that some Green Belt release will be necessary, additional objectives around delivering sustainable urban extensions, or other smaller Green Belt releases (the 'rounding off' option) may be necessary dependent on which growth option is progressed.

Considering the pressure for housing and employment land it may be that a further objective around maximising brownfield opportunities - both within the Growth Network and outside it - is required.

Question 9 - Do you agree that Policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the Growth Network? Yes/No; If not, what changes do you think should be made to Policies CSP1 and CSP2 in response to new challenges and opportunities?

The focus of the existing Core Strategy was to focus the majority of growth at the strategic centres and regeneration corridors, known collectively as the Growth Network and set out in Policy CSP1, and to see more limited growth outside the Growth Network and reflected in Policy CSP2. It is therefore agreed that such overarching policies should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence.

Considering the requirements for new housing and employment land, it is welcomed that the Issues and Options Report acknowledges that Policy CSP2 will be amended and subject to significant change in order to accommodate housing and employment land and to reflect proposed changes to the Black Country Green Belt. As stated in response to Question 1, all reasonable options should be considered and therefore fully exploring development options outside the existing Growth network, both Green Belt and non -Green Belt, is essential.

Reviewing the Spatial Strategy

Stage 1: Strategic Options 1A and 1B - continuing the role of the Growth Network

Question 10 - In continuing to promote growth within the Growth Network, is there a need to amend the boundaries of any of the Regeneration Corridors in the existing Core Strategy? Yes/No; If so, which boundaries and why?

The Council supports the Black Country authorities in re-examining the boundaries of the regeneration corridors to explore whether this could result in additional sites for housing and/or employment land.

Question 11a - Do you support Strategic Option 1A? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If no, do you support Option 1B? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If you support the release of further employment land for housing, what should the characteristics of these employment areas be?

Whilst there may be scope for the release of some occupied employment land for housing in certain locations in the Growth Network (Strategic Option 1B), the loss of employment land would need to be offset in the Green Belt and therefore this option is unlikely to reduce the loss of Green Belt overall. It is also acknowledged that there are likely to be delivery and viability issues around Option 1B. On this basis, the bulk of the remaining housing and employment needs are likely to need to be met outside the Growth Network (Strategic Option 1A). However, before this is concluded, the authorities will need to demonstrate that there are no other deliverable sources of supply (e.g. estate regeneration) within the Growth Network.

Question 11b - Are there any current employment areas that might be considered suitable for redevelopment to housing? Yes/No; Please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form.

No comment.

Stage 2: Strategic Options 2A and 2B - Housing and Employment outside the urban area

Question 12a - Do you support Spatial Option H1? Yes/No; What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. ability to create a defensible new green belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services.

It is noted that both options outside the Growth Network (Strategic Option 2A and 2B) would involve Green Belt release. As stated in response to questions 1 and 16, all reasonable non-Green Belt options should be explored, and therefore the authorities will need to demonstrate that there are no other deliverable sources of supply (e.g. estate regeneration and increasing development density) within the urban area outside of the identified Growth Network. Once this has been demonstrated, it is considered that exploring a combination of Spatial Options H1 and H2 will need to be explored.

As Spatial Option H1 would see the 'rounding off' the edge of the Green Belt, including internal Green Belt wedges, it is envisaged that this will see the release of a number of small to medium sized sites. Considering the upfront infrastructure delivery for Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUEs) (Option H2) it is considered that from a delivery perspective, a number of these smaller 'rounding off' sites will need to come forward to ensure housing is being delivered over the short term (0-5 year period). The Issues and Options report confirms that this 'rounding off' option may not yield sufficient capacity to accommodate all the growth needs, and if this is the case, then a combination of 'rounding off' sites, as well as SUEs, are likely to be required to meet the growth requirements.

In terms of what criteria should be used to select such sites, this must be evidence led. Of particular importance will be the outcomes of the Strategic Growth Study and Black County Green Belt Review in terms of the contribution that these site play to the Green Belt. A Landscape Sensitivity Study will also be a key piece of evidence for determining the degree of landscape sensitivity, to ensure that areas of very high sensitivity remain undeveloped where possible. Access to services and facilities will need to be considered, however these sites by their nature will adjoin the urban area, and therefore in most cases there is likely to be adequate access to amenities. It is not considered that a size threshold should be imposed on these 'rounding off' sites; however sites should follow defensible boundaries, such as existing roads, watercourses and hedgerows where possible.

An important consideration when considering options for growth will also be the Cannock Chase SAC. The Council welcomes the continued involvement of the relevant Black Country authorities in the Cannock Chase SAC Partnership through the Core Strategy Review process. Any development proposals in the Core Strategy Review need to come forward in accordance with the most up to date evidence to ensure that development does not have an adverse impacts on European protected sites.

Question 12b - Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).

To reiterate, it is important that site selection is evidence led, and therefore crucially, it is essential that all sites/areas with 'rounding off' potential are considered. This includes areas that haven't been put forward through the 'call for sites' but perform well in planning terms based on the evidence undertaken. Where necessary, land searches/land assembly should be undertaken to ascertain if these sites are available and deliverable.

Question 13a - Do you support Spatial Option H2? Yes/No; What should the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) be? e.g. minimum/ maximum size, mix of uses, mix of housing types, accessibility to other areas. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs, potential to support existing settlements / services, proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban regeneration.

As set out in response to Question 12a, there is likely to be a requirement to allocate SUEs to meet the identified growth requirements in addition to smaller 'rounding off' sites. However, it is unclear if this option includes options for new standalone settlements in the Green Belt, or will just focus on SUEs that adjoin the urban area. It is suggested that, considering the scale of the housing and employment requirements, new standalone settlements could be considered at this early stage of plan preparation under this option.

It is considered that any SUE would need to provide a mix of house sizes and specialist housing (for example for the elderly) where there is evidence of need, and an appropriate level of affordable housing. The Council also believes there are options for new employment land to be allocated within SUEs. In particular there may be scope for modern industrial units aimed at SME businesses offering supply chain opportunities to serve established businesses in the area. Clearly sustainable development principles should be followed with good access to amenities, public transport, employment opportunities, sport and recreation and other green infrastructure.

An important consideration when considering options for growth will also be the Cannock Chase SAC. The Council welcomes the continued involvement of the relevant Black Country authorities in the Cannock Chase SAC Partnership through the Core Strategy Review process. Any development proposals in the Core Strategy Review need to come forward in accordance with the most up to date evidence to ensure that development does not have an adverse impacts on European protected sites.

Question 13b - What infrastructure do you think would be needed for different sizes of SUEs?

It is suggested that SUEs would typically need to be in excess of 750 houses to facilitate a primary school and it is likely that developments would need to be larger than this (in excess of 1000) to provide a local centre. A self-contained development is likely to be in excess of 2000 -2500 homes; with 5000 homes the typical threshold to facilitate a new high school.

Question 13c - Are there any potential locations that should be considered for SUEs (please submit through the 'call for sites' form) and what infrastructure would be required to support these?

It is important that site selection is evidence led, and therefore it is essential that all sites/areas with potential to accommodate an SUE are considered. This includes areas that haven't been put forward through the 'call for sites' but perform well in planning terms based on the evidence undertaken; for example the Strategic Growth Study, any further fine grain Green Belt assessment, Landscape Sensitivity Study and market capacity evidence. Where necessary, land searches/land assembly should be undertaken to ascertain if these sites are available and deliverable.

Question 13d - Do you think that the Core Strategy should set out detailed guidance for the development of SUEs (e.g. type and tenure of housing, specific infrastructure required), rather than details being determined at a local level in light of local policies? Yes/No; Any further comments?

The Council supports the Core Strategy setting out detailed guidance and broad parameters for design and layout of SUEs, including the type of tenure of housing, employment land requirements, infrastructure and service provision and open space requirements etc. It may be that these requirements are set out in a proforma for each proposed SUE, which then hooks to the relevant SUE allocation policy.

Question 14 - Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Housing Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

As set out in previous responses, if Green Belt release is proposed then the authorities will need to demonstrate that all reasonable non-Green Belt alternatives have been considered. This should include exploring funding opportunities to deliver constrained brownfield sites, increasing site densities within the urban area and exploring any opportunities for estate regeneration.

As set out in response to Question 13a, at this early stage of plan preparation, Spatial Option 2a should consider options for new standalone settlement as well as SUEs that adjoin the urban area.

Meeting housing needs outside the Black Country

Question 15a - If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the 'export' of housing growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA? Yes/No; What factors should be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities in neighbouring authorities e.g. proximity to the edge of the urban area, proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs?

If it is clearly demonstrated that housing need cannot be met within the Black Country by carrying out a robust and transparent assessment of all non-Green Belt and Green Belt options, then it is acknowledged that some of this housing growth will need to be exported to other authorities within the Greater Birmingham HMA. This could potentially be to neighbouring HMAs should it be robustly demonstrated that the shortfall cannot be met within the Greater Birmingham HMA. The Strategic Growth Study will provide an indication of where opportunities may exist outside the Black Country and these opportunities could then be explored further by the relevant authority through local evidence gathering.

It is clear that there are significant pressures for new housing, employment and Gypsy & Traveller provision and these key cross boundary issues will need to be addressed through our respective local plans. It is the Council's firm view that this is a two-way negotiation and the role that South Staffordshire might play in this regard needs to be very carefully explored. An equitable and fair approach, which recognises the environmental, physical and infrastructure constraints, as well as the availability of sites to meet specific needs, should be robustly evidenced when addressing these issues under the Duty to Cooperate.


Question 15b - Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

Potential locations outside the Black Country, similar to considering options for 'rounding off/SUEs within the Black Country, should be evidence led. Therefore, this could include areas that haven't been put forward through the 'call for sites' but perform well in planning terms based on the evidence undertaken; for example the Strategic Growth Study, any further fine grain Green Belt assessment, Landscape Sensitivity Study and market capacity evidence. Where necessary land searches/land assembly should be undertaken to ascertain if these sites are available and deliverable.

Question 15c - Do you think there are ways to ensure that exporting housing will meet the needs of people who would otherwise live in the Black Country? (e.g. transport improvements, provision of affordable housing, creation of employment opportunities) Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

Whether development is delivered within the Black Country or is exported elsewhere it will need to comprise sustainable development that meets the needs of the people who live there. If housing is exported, it will be for the LPA(s) in question to allocate sites through their Local Plan alongside appropriate infrastructure having undertaken a Sustainability Appraisal to ensure that sustainable development is being achieved.

Strategic Option Area 2B - accommodating employment land growth outside the urban area

Question 16 - Do you support Spatial Option E1? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access) If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).

The Council supports Spatial Option E1 of extending the Black Country's existing employment sites on the edge of the urban area into Green Belt land where it is demonstrated that there is insufficient options for employment land within the urban area. It is considered that there is a need for a mix of employment sites, both in terms of use class, size and quality. Overall, it is likely that the authorities will need to provide a range of employment land from sites aimed at large advanced manufacturing companies, through to small scale modern fit for purpose industrial units aimed at existing SMEs and start-up businesses.

In most instances, good access to the strategic road network is a key criterion, particularly for logistics companies, however for more local quality manufacturing this may be less of a factor. Access to labour markets, including accessibility to employment via public transport is also seen as key site selection criteria.

Question 17 - Do you support Spatial Option E2? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites e.g. quick motorway access, good sustainable transport links? If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).

The Council supports Spatial Option E2 of providing new freestanding employment sites in sustainable locations in the Black Country's Green Belt where it is demonstrated that there is insufficient options for employment land within the Black Country urban area. New freestanding employment sites are more likely to be aimed at larger advanced manufacturing and/or distribution companies and therefore good access to the strategic road network is seen as key. Again, access to labour markets, including accessibility to employment via public transport is also seen as key site selection criteria.

Question 18 - Do you support Spatial Option E3? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access) If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).

The Council supports Spatial Option E3 of providing new employment land within Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUEs) in the Green Belt where it is demonstrated that there is insufficient options for employment land within the urban area. In particular, there may be opportunities within SUEs to provide modern industrial units on new business parks as part of a sustainable mixed use development. These are more likely to be aimed at existing SMEs and start-up businesses.

Question 19a - Do you support Spatial Option E4? Yes/No; Any further comments?

The Council acknowledges that alongside the other three spatial options, there may be a requirement to export employment growth to neighbouring areas. It is acknowledged that South Staffordshire has strong economic links with the Black Country as demonstrated by the fact that our emerging Site Allocations will provide an additional 62ha of employment land to meet Black Country needs.

The Black Country EDNA concludes that South Staffordshire and Birmingham are the areas with the strongest economic links to the Black Country, but acknowledges that there are also links with other adjoining areas e.g. Lichfield, Cannock and Bromsgrove. Clearly, the employment land requirements for the Black Country are significant, reflecting the growth aspirations of the Black Country and wider West Midlands Combined Authority. Considering the scale of the need, if it is demonstrated that Spatial Option E4 is an appropriate option, then options to export to all neighbouring authorities with an economic relationship to the Black Country should be considered under this option.

Question 19b - Should any factors be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities? Yes/No; If yes, what should they be? (e.g. quick motorway access, strong transport links with the Black Country, good sustainable transport links with the Black Country)

It is agreed that good access to the strategic road network with good sustainable public transport links are important factors if the export option was to provide large scale freestanding employment site(s). Further, consideration should also be given to which communities in the Black Country the sites will serve. Clearly, sites on the northern edge of the Black Country are less likely to serve residents in Dudley and Sandwell and vice versa. Therefore, if employment sites are provided outside the Black Country then this should be done in a way that avoids the overconcentration of sites in one area.

Question 20 - Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Employment Land Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

No other options are suggested at this stage. It may be the case that a combination of all options is needed to meet the Black Country employment requirements. As set out above, assuming that the export option is required, all neighbouring authorities with an economic relationship to the Black Country should be considered under Spatial Option E4.

Delivering Growth - Infrastructure and Viability
Introduction and scope

Question 21 - Do you think that changes are required to Policy DEL1 to ensure it covers both development within the existing urban area and any within the Green Belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

It is agreed that the policy may need to be reconsidered. Where Green Belt release for SUEs/employment land is proposed then it may be that there is a hook in the policy to link to site specific proformas/development briefs for these sites. These could clearly set out what infrastructure is required to be delivered, both on and off site.

Social Infrastructure

Question 22 - Do you have evidence of a requirement for new social infrastructure to serve existing needs? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.

We have no evidence with regard to social infrastructure needs in the Black Country.

Question 23 - Do you have evidence of social infrastructure that is no longer needed and where the site could be reallocated for alternative uses? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

We have no evidence with regard to surplus social infrastructure provision in the Black Country.

Question 24- Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current social infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new housing? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

We have no evidence with regard to social infrastructure needs in the Black Country. However, it is acknowledged that new housing will put pressure on social infrastructure both within the Black Country, and the surrounding local areas and therefore the authorities will need to engage carefully with cross boundary social infrastructure providers to ensure that they understand the 'tipping point' at which new development will facilitate the need for additional social infrastructure provision.

Question 25 - Will there be any new social infrastructure requirements necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, please explain the type and scale of any new social infrastructure required.

See response to Question 24.

Physical Infrastructure

Question 26 - Do you have any evidence of a requirement for new physical infrastructure to serve existing needs? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.

We have no evidence at this stage with regard to physical infrastructure needs in the Black Country.

Question 27 - Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current physical infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
We have no evidence with regard to physical infrastructure needs in the Black Country. However, it is acknowledged that large scale new development (for example SUEs) are likely to require substantial upfront infrastructure provision.

Question 28 - Do you think physical infrastructure is necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, what type and scale of physical infrastructure is necessary?

See response to Question 27.

Delivery and Viability

Question 29 - Do you think there are any other tools or interventions that could be used to ensure enough infrastructure is provided by developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

Clearly infrastructure provision through Section 106 and 278 agreements and CIL will be essential. No other tools or interventions are suggested.

Question 30 - Do you have any suggestions around how the strategy can be developed in order to maintain the urban regeneration focus of the Black Country while at the same time bringing forward sites in the green belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

It is considered that in order to maintain the urban regeneration strategy, a brownfield first approach should be explored to its fullest extent. Therefore, all funding options should be explored to try and deliver as many problematic brownfield sites as possible.

Funding for Site Development and Infrastructure

Question 31 - Do you think that the right scale and form of funding is available to support the delivery of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If no, what alternative sources of funding or delivery mechanisms should be investigated?

Both private and public sector investment will be needed to deliver the Core Strategy. The availability of funding sources will impact on viability, and therefore robust viability, delivery and infrastructure studies will be needed when determining if the proposed Core Strategy policies are feasible.

Review of Existing Core Strategy Policies and Proposals

Policy Area A - Health and Wellbeing

Question 32 - Do you think that the proposed approach to incorporate health and wellbeing issues in the Core Strategy review is appropriate? Yes/No; If no, please provide details

It is agreed that spatial planning and place making does have a key role in improving the health and wellbeing of residents and therefore incorporating a health and wellbeing into the Core Strategy is fully supported.

Question 33 - Is there more that the Core Strategy can do to address health and wellbeing issues in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, is a new policy needed to address such issues for example?

A number of policy areas, e.g. open space and sports provision, affordable housing delivery tie in with the health and wellbeing agenda and these will be picked up in other Core Strategy policies. There may however be a role for overarching health and wellbeing policy that ties these together to ensure it is clear on how development will be expected to contribute towards healthier communities.

Question 34a - Do you agree that the health and wellbeing impacts of large development proposals should be considered at the Preferred Spatial Option stage of the Core Strategy review through a Health Impact Assessment approach? Yes/No; Any further comments?

Undertaking a Health Impact Assessment for large developments in addition to considering their impact through the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) is supported.

Question 34b - What design features do you think are key to ensuring new development encourages healthy living, which could be assessed through the HIA process?

Applying good practice design principles, including provision of on site open space and links to existing green infrastructure will be essential. It is also important that larger schemes to include facilities for children's play and youth development.

Policy Area B - Creating Sustainable Communities in the Black Country

Policy HOU1 - Housing Land Supply

Question 35 - Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

The proposed approach to housing land supply is supported.

Policy HOU2 - Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

Question 36 - Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 should be changed? Yes/No; If yes, what standards should be applied instead, for example should the minimum net density of 35 dwellings per hectare be increased to maximise brownfield housing delivery?

The Council supports the proposal to increase the minimum net density of 35 dwellings per hectare to maximise brownfield housing delivery. Densities should be reconsidered through the emerging viability and delivery evidence and efficient use of land be promoted.

Question 37a - Do you think that the existing Policy HOU2 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why

The authorities should consider lowering or removing the threshold for applying density standards as in many instances high densities may also be appropriate for small sites of less than 15 dwellings.

Question 37b - If no, should it be reduced to 11 homes or more? Yes/No; If no what other threshold should be used and why?

The site size threshold could be reduced to less than 11 if there is evidence to suggest that this will not impact on deliverability.

Question 38 - Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards are appropriate for green belt release locations? Yes/No; If no, what standards should be applied in these locations and why?

It is important that efficient use of land is encouraged so as to limit Green Belt release as far as possible, particularly given the Housing White Paper's requirement to limit the need for Green Belt release by optimising the proposed density of development. Therefore, where Green Belt release has been shown to be necessary, the minimum net density of any Green Belt release should not be set below the standards for the adjacent urban area.

Question 39 - Do you think separate accessibility standards are needed for particular types of housing e.g. housing for the elderly or affordable housing (as occupiers may be less mobile and more dependent on public transport)? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

As locations for residential development will principally focus on sites within the urban area or Green Belt locations on the edge of the urban fringe, it is considered that none of these locations will be isolated with fundamental accessibility concerns. Therefore, separate accessibility standards for different types of development are not considered necessary. With regard to affordable housing, this should be provided on site where possible.

Question 40 - Do you agree that the 2017 SHMA findings should be used to set general house type targets for the Plan period? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

Yes.

Question 41a - Do you support the introduction of a policy approach towards self and custom build housing in the Core Strategy? Yes/No; if yes, would you support:

Yes.

Question 41b - A target for each authority? Yes/No; Any further comments

Considering the low numbers on the register currently (nine for the entire Black Country), It may be most appropriate to set a target for each authority, rather than a percentage requirement for each large development coming forward. One potential approach could be to extrapolate need evidenced from the base periods to date, in order to determine how many plots each authority should be providing over the plan period.

Question 41c - A requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots? Yes/No; Any further comments?

See response to Question 41b.

Question 41d - Another approach altogether? Yes/No; If yes, please specify.

See response to Question 41b.

Question 41e - Do you support the use of a variety of local approaches to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) across the Black Country? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

No comment.

Policy HOU3 - Affordable Housing

Question 42 - Do you agree that the annual affordable homes target should be increased to reflect the 2017 Black Country Strategic Housing Market Assessment? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

It is agreed that the annual affordable housing target should be directly informed by the 2017 SHMA.

Question 43a - Do you think that the existing Policy HOU3 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

It is agreed that the threshold requiring sites to provide a proportion of affordable housing set out in Policy HOU3 should be lowered to 11 homes or more in line with Government guidance.

Question 43b - If no, should it be reduced to 11 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, what threshold should be used?

See response to question 43a.

Question 44a - Do you think that the affordable housing requirement for eligible sites in Question 43 should be kept at 25% of the total number of homes on the site? Yes /No; Any further comments?

A requirement for 25% affordable housing seems reasonable considering the viability constraints that may be associated with some sites. This is also in line with the requirement identified in the SHMA.

Question 44b If no, should the percentage be increased to allow for the provision of affordable home ownership? Yes/No; If yes, what should the percentage be and why?

It may not be necessary to increase the affordable housing percentage requirement in order to increase the provision of affordable home ownership now that the Housing White paper appears to have removed the specific requirement to deliver starter homes (20%) on all sites over a certain threshold. The 10% requirement for affordable home ownership products can be met within the proposed 25% affordable housing policy. The split within this between shared ownership, starter homes and other types of affordable home ownership could then be dealt with by negotiation, considering the comments in 6.37 which note that most starter homes in the Black Country would not necessarily be genuinely affordable in all areas. This would also still leave a 15% requirement for rented products, which is only marginally below the 16.6% recommended in the SHMA.

Question 45 - Should an increased affordable housing requirement be set for Green Belt release sites, to reflect the likely financial viability of these sites? Yes/No; If yes, what should this be.

The SHMA confirms that the Black Country authorities should aim for 28.6% (23.3% if starter homes are excluded) of new housing to be affordable housing; therefore on this basis there may be limited scope to go above 25% on greenfield sites. However, considering that these could be large sites that would need substantial onsite infrastructure provision then a cautious approach should be taken to going above 25%. Setting an appropriate percentage should be directly informed by a high level viability study.

Policy HOU4 - Accommodation for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople

Question 46 - Do you agree with the proposed new gypsy, traveller and travelling showpeople accommodation targets? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

The targets set out in Tables 4 and 5 are taken from the Black Country and South Staffordshire GTAA 2017 and therefore are deemed appropriate for identifying the Black Country's pitch/plot requirements. However, as you are aware the 2017 GTAA identified a pitch requirement of 87 residential pitches for South Staffordshire for the period 2016-2036, considerably above the pitch requirements for the four Black Country authorities combined. Historically, pitch provision in South Staffordshire has been in the Green Belt as no non-Green Belt options have ever been promoted. Therefore, assuming that this remains the case, there will be a requirement through our Local Plan review to demonstrate that we have explored other reasonable options to amending Green Belt boundaries including exploring whether other authorities can help to meet some of the identified development requirement, as set out in the Housing White Paper. As such, there will be a requirement through Duty to Co-operate discussions to explore whether there may be deliverable brownfield options in the Black Country to meet a proportion of the districts pitch requirements. On this basis, a flexible approach to setting pitch targets and exploring pitch/plot options is suggested.

It is clear that there are significant pressures for new housing, employment and Gypsy & Traveller provision and these key cross boundary issues will need to be addressed through our respective local plans. It is the Council's firm view that this is a two-way negotiation and the role that South Staffordshire might play in this regard needs to be very carefully explored. An equitable and fair approach, which recognises the environmental, physical and infrastructure constraints, as well as the availability of sites to meet specific needs, should be robustly evidenced when addressing these issues under the Duty to Cooperate.


Policy HOU5 - Education and Health Care Facilities

Question 47 - Do you think that Policy HOU5 should be expanded to cover other types of built social infrastructure and to set out standards for built social infrastructure to serve major housing developments? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

Expanding Policy HOU5 to include a criteria based approach which requires service providers to demonstrate why health care and education facilities are no longer required or viable is welcomed. It is agreed that this approach should be expanded to other types of social infrastructure such as community centres.

Including standards for built social infrastructure to serve major housing developments set out in Policy HOU5 is also considered appropriate.

Question 48 - Do you agree that the requirement in HOU5, to demonstrate there is adequate alternative provision to meet the needs of the community served by a facility which is to be lost, should be reviewed? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why.

This policy should be reviewed to reflect a clear criteria based approach to considering the loss of social infrastructure, and should be expanded beyond health and educational facilities where appropriate. One of these criteria could relate to ensuring that the developer demonstrates that there is adequate alternative provision to meet the needs of the community.

Policy Area C - The Black Country Economy

Policy DEL2 - Managing the Balance between Employment Land and Housing

Question 49a - Is there still a need for existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

The existing wording for Policy DEL2 seems very broad, setting out completions to date and how many are expected to come forward within each regeneration corridor. A clearer approach may be to specifically identify areas of Local Quality Employment Land that is considered poor quality and therefore suitable for release for housing, either through a revised Core Strategy policy or through allocation documents.

Question 49b - If yes, should this policy be used to assess the release of employment land to alternative uses, other than housing? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why.

A revised policy could set out areas of poor quality employment land that could be suitable for release for housing or alternative uses, providing clarify on what uses may be acceptable.

Policy EMP1 - Providing for Economic Growth and Jobs

Question 50 - Do you think that the Core Strategy should continue to set a target for the total employment land stock in Policy EMP1? Yes/No; Please explain why. Do you think that distinguishing between Strategic High Quality Employment Areas and Local Quality Employment Areas is still appropriate? Yes/No; Please explain why.

It is considered that the authorities themselves are best placed to decide if there is any value in setting a target for the total employment stock within the Black Country. Setting a target for the additional employment land that is required is a clearer approach; however if possible, there may be a need to have a mechanism in place to ensure that any loss of existing high quality sites to other uses is compensated by new provision reflected in updated targets. Robust monitoring and national guidance encouraging authorities to review plans in whole or part every 5 years should ensure that any issues around the loss of existing high quality employment land can be addressed.

Policy EMP2 - Strategic High Quality Employment Land and Policy EMP3 - Local Quality Employment Land

Question 51 - Do you think that the criteria used to define Strategic High Quality Employment Areas are appropriate and reflect actual market requirements? Yes/No; If not, how do you think the criteria and/or terminology should be amended?

The criteria used to define High Quality Employment Areas are supported. There may however be scope to slightly amend the accessibility criteria to focus on good access the strategic road network, rather than just focusing on access to the motorway network.

Question 52 - Do you think that the criteria used to define Local Quality Employment Areas are appropriate and reflect actual market requirements? Yes/No; If not, how do you think the criteria and/or terminology should be amended?

The criteria used to define High Quality Employment Areas are supported.

Question 53 - Do you think that Strategic High Quality Employment Areas should continue to be protected for manufacturing and logistics uses, with the other uses set out in Policy EMP3 discouraged? Yes/no; If not, what alternative approach do you recommend?

The High Quality Employment Areas should be focused on advanced manufacturing and logistics and be protected for these uses.

Policy EMP4 - Maintaining a supply of readily available employment land

Question 54 - Do you agree that the current approach in Policy EMP4 is no longer fit for purpose and should be amended to reflect a portfolio based approach? Yes/No; If no, what alternative approaches would you recommend?

Removing the requirement to have a 'reservoir' of readily available shovel ready employment land is supported. The provision to review plans in whole or part every 5 years will help ensure that there is a constant supply of employment land, providing scope to allocate additional employment land if required. Ensuring provision for a balanced portfolio of sites is important

Policy EMP5 - Improving access to the labour market

Question 55 - Do you agree with the proposal to retain Policy EMP5? Yes/No; If no please explain why.

Policy EMP5 encourages the use of planning objections to be negotiated with developers of new job creating development in order to support recruitment and training of local people. This approach is fully supported as access to a skilled workforce is a key consideration for businesses.

Policy EMP6 - Cultural Facilities and the Visitor Economy

Question 56 - Do you agree with the proposal to update Policy EMP6 in line with current priorities? Yes/No; If no, please explain why

Updating the list of visitor attractions and facilities in Policy EMP6, which seeks to develop the visitor economy and cultural facilities of the Black Country is supported.

Policy Area D - The Black Country Centres

Policy CEN1: The Importance of the Black Country Centres for the Regeneration Strategy

Question 57 - Do you support the proposal to merge Policy CEN1 and Policy CEN2, given that both policies focus on the overall strategy in the Black Country, including the hierarchy of centres? Yes/No; if you have any comments on Policies CEN1 and CEN2 please provide details.

Merging these policies relating to the town centres seems logical.

Question 58 - Do you think there is any evidence to suggest that the hierarchy of centres is not appropriate going forward in the context of the regeneration strategy? Yes/No; If so, please provide details.

The Council has no evidence to suggest that the hierarchy of centres is not appropriate. However, the Retail Capacity and Town Centre Uses studies should be used to inform the hierarchy. It is recognised that a number of the Black Country centres - particularly the strategic centres - play an important role in meeting the higher order needs of our residents including access to hospitals, retail and leisure. Therefore, their continuing regeneration is fully supported.

Question 59 - Have all the appropriate centres within the Black Country been identified? Yes/No; If not, please specify additional centres.

From the Council's knowledge, It appears that all the appropriate centres within the Black Country have been identified.

Question 60 - Is there evidence to suggest that identified centres are no longer performing as a centre or at their identified level in the hierarchy? Yes/No; If yes, do you agree that they should be moved / removed within or out of the hierarchy? Please explain why.

We have no evidence on the performance of centres or relating to their level within the hierarchy of centres.

Question 61 - In addition to para 4.33 of the current Core Strategy should the revised Core Strategy include criteria for the creation of new centres that might be needed as a result of any additional housing identified through the plan? Yes/No; Any further comments?

As an indicative rule, development of around 1000 houses or more are likely to require a new centre. Therefore, if the evidence suggests a need for new developments around this scale then clear criteria for the creation of new centres will be required. It may however be appropriate to have site specific infrastructure requirements for large strategic allocations (e.g SUEs) identified in the Core Strategy. These would include the requirements for new centres.

Policy CEN3: Growth in the Strategic Centres

Question 62 - Do you agree that the Strategic Centres should remain the focus for large scale comparison retail (clothes, white goods etc), office and major commercial leisure development in the Black Country? Yes/No; Any further comments?

It is logical for the existing strategic centres such as Wolverhampton and Brierley Hill to be the focus for retail, office and commercial leisure development. This is important for their continuing regeneration.

Question 63 - Do you agree that the targets for comparison retail floorspace and office floorspace should be revisited as part of this review to take into account current and future trends? Yes/No; Any further comments?

It is agreed that retail and office floorspace needs should be revisited.

Question 64 - Is there a need to set targets for convenience retail floorspace in the Core Strategy? Yes/No; Any further comments?

We have no evidence to confirm if there is a need to set a target for convenience retail floorspace. The proposed Retail Capacity and Town Centre Uses studies should be used to inform this.

Question 65 - Should the Core Strategy set any targets or policy requirements for leisure development in the Strategic Centres? Yes/No; Any further comments?

Targets for leisure development may be appropriate where supported by evidence of need. It may be appropriate to undertake an audit of sports facilities as part of this evidence gathering and consider cross boundary provision dependent on the evidence of need/demand. If this is deemed appropriate then close liaison with Sports England is recommended.

Question 66 - Should the Core Strategy set new housing targets for the Strategic Centres through the review? Yes/No; Any further comments?

The authorities will need to demonstrate that they have fully considered options for additional housing in the strategic centres, whilst recognising that other uses such as retail will also be the focus of these centres. The Council supports the authorities setting new housing targets for the strategic centres.

Question 67 - Do you think there are any other uses and/or developments that should be planned for in the Strategic Centres? Yes/No; Please provide details.

Retail, offices, housing, leisure and cultural facilities should be the focus of the strategic centres.

Brierley Hill Retail Pre-Conditions

Question 68 - Do you agree with the proposal to re-examine the detail and appropriateness of the existing conditions for retail growth at Merry Hill through the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; Do you have any further comment to make on this issue?

The Core Strategy review is considered the correct time to re-examine any conditions relating to retail growth at Merry Hill.

Policy CEN4: Regeneration of Town Centres

Question 69 - Should more types of uses be encouraged and more flexibility be allowed to ensure the regeneration and vitality of the Black Country Town Centres? Yes / No; Please explain why.

It is considered appropriate to encourage convenience shopping and other mixed use development (e.g. community centres) to support new residential development within the strategic centres.

Question 70 - Do you think there are any specific developments or uses that should be supported in any particular Town Centre? Yes/No; Please provide details.

No specific suggestions.

Question 71 - Should the Core Strategy set housing targets for the Town Centres? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Policy CEN5: District and Local Centres

The authorities will need to demonstrate that they have fully considered options for additional housing in the strategic centres, whilst recognising that other uses such as retail will also be the focus of these centres. The Council supports the authorities setting new housing targets for the town centres.

Question 72 - Should more types of uses be encouraged and more flexibility be allowed to ensure the regeneration and vitality of the Black Country District and Local Centres? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Flexibility of uses is encouraged in the Local Centres.

Question 73 - Are there are any specific developments or uses that should be supported in any particular District or Local Centre? Yes/No; Please provide details.

No specific suggestions.

The Centres Threshold Approach

Question 74 - In the context of the 'centres first' strategy, should the threshold approach be reviewed to consider the appropriateness, scale and impact of development in and on the edge of Strategic, Town, District and Local Centres? Yes/No; Please explain why.

No comment.

Question 75 - Should thresholds apply to all main town centre uses (Yes) or just retail uses (No)? Please explain why.

No comment.

Policy CEN6: Meeting Local Needs for Shopping and Services

Question 76 - Is the approach set out in Policy CEN6 appropriate in the context of supporting local community needs? Yes/No; Please explain why.

The approach of protecting local shops and small parades unless it can be demonstrated that they are no longer viable is supported. The authorities may want to consider setting out clear expectations on what evidence would be required to justify the applicants viability case.

Question 77 - Does the wording of the criteria clearly achieve the objectives of the centres strategy? Yes/No; Please explain why.

No comment

Question 78 - Should the policy clarify that this policy applies both to applications in edge-of-centre and out-of-centre locations, and should this also be referred to in the relevant centres policies? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Clarification that the policy applies to edge-of-centre and out-of-centre locations is supported

Question 79 - Should the policy set what types of uses this policy applies to and set out any further types of material considerations that could be relevant for the determination of certain proposals, for example, the location or concentration of hot food takeaways, premises selling alcohol or gambling operations? Yes/No; Please explain why

No comment

Question 80 - Should the policy clarify that those schemes of multiple units, where individual units are below the set figure, but the cumulative figure is above, also need to meet the relevant requirements of other centres policies? Yes/No; Please explain why

No comment.

Policy CEN7: Controlling Out-of-Centre Development

Question 81 - Do you agree that the approach of strong control over out-of-centre development is still appropriate in the context of the strategy to ensure the vitality and viability of the Black Country Centres? Yes/No; Please explain why.

This approach seems appropriate.

Question 82 - Is 200sqm (gross) an appropriate scale of development above which the impact tests should apply? Yes/No; Please explain why.

No comment.

Policy CEN8: Car Parking in Centres

Question 83 - Should Policy CEN7 provide more guidance on accessibility? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why.

No comment.

Question 84- Do you think that Policy CEN8 is still appropriate for managing car parking in centres and will ensure the network of Black Country Centres are maintained and enhanced over the plan period? Yes/No; Please explain why.

No comment.

Question 85 - Should Policy CEN8, with regards to pricing of car parks, continue to be applied to Strategic Centres to ensure that pricing of parking is not used as a tool of competition? Yes/No; Please explain why.

No comment.

Other Centres Issues

Question 86 - Do you think that there are other centre uses or centres issues that need to be addressed in the centres policies? Yes/No; Please provide details.

No specific suggestions.

Question 87 - As shopping, leisure and other commercial trends continue to change, should the revised Core Strategy have a policy to reallocate out-of-centre attractions that are no longer viable for town centre uses for alternative uses such as for employment uses or housing? Yes/No; If no, please explain.

As retail trends continue to change with the continued expansion of online shopping it is essential that Local Plan policies on centres strike the correct balance between ensuring that town centres uses cannot be too easily lost, whilst also ensuring there is flexibility to adapt to changing retail trends. Where retail, leisure or other commercial uses are not viable then reallocating these for housing or employment uses would be supported.

Policy Area E - The Black Country Transport Network

Question 88 - Do you agree that the overall transport strategy supports all of the Core Strategy spatial objectives? Yes/No; Please explain why.

The overall transport strategy of providing better use of existing capacity as well as providing new sustainable transport capacity to provide an integrated transport system for the West Midlands is supported. Achieving this will help support the Core Strategy Spatial Objectives.

Policy TRAN1 - Priorities for the Development of the Transport Network

Question 89 - Do you support the proposed changes to the priorities for the development of the transport network? Yes/No; Please explain why.

The updated transport priorities in TRAN1 are generally supported. However, reference of 'development of road to freight interchange facilities to serve the sub region' is vague. It is unclear if this is making specific reference to the development of a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI), which by the Governments definition is an Interchange in excess of 60ha and capable of handling 4 trains a day, or a number of smaller RFI facilities within the Black Country. That said, Paragraph 6.1.40 of the Issues and Options makes specific reference to rail freight interchanges proposals coming forward at Bescot and Four Ashes (currently being promoted as West Midlands Interchange (WMI)) which suggests that the transport priority relating to rail freight at Para 6.1.36 may relate specifically to Four Ashes. As you are aware, the WMI proposal is in the Green Belt and is still at the pre-application stage and therefore any transport priorities that relate to this proposal are considered premature.

Policy TRAN2 - Managing Transport Impacts of New Development

Question 90 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to managing transport impacts of new developments? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

Proposed changes to reference greater focus on choice of modes of transport for access to new developments, including electric vehicle charging infrastructure, provision for cycles etc. is supported.

Policy TRAN3 - The Efficient Movement of Freight

Question 91 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to the efficient movement of freight? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

The proposed change to Policy TRAN3 is to remove reference to the 'principle road network' to be replaced with reference to the 'key route network' which is defined in the West Midlands Combined Authority 'movement for growth' plan. It is our understanding that the 'key route network' is a term used to describe the metropolitan main road network. The current reference in the policy is as follows:

Proposals which generate significant freight movements will be directed to sites with satisfactory access to the principal road network.

It is unclear from the Issues and Options report if this change is simply to provide consistent terminology with that used in the WMCA transport plan, or if this will result in a material change to the policy. Specifically, it is unclear if the reference to the principal road network was referring specifically to the road network within the Black Country? Whereas the 'key route network' seems to refer to a wider area across the region. Clarification on this would be welcomed.

Policy TRAN4 - Creating Coherent Networks for Cycling and Walking

Question 92 - Do you support the proposed approach to providing a coherent network for walking and cycling? Yes/No; Please explain why.

The approach of providing a coherent network for walking and cycling is supported.

Policy TRAN5 - Influencing the Demand for Travel and Travel Choices

Question 93 - Do you support the proposed changes to Policy TRAN5? Yes/No; Please explain why.

The proposed inclusion of priorities in Policy TRAN5 around introducing new transport technologies such as ultra low emission vehicles is supported.

Policy Area F - The Black Country Environment

Environmental Infrastructure and Place-Making

Question 94 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to environmental infrastructure and place-making? Yes/No; If you think that any other changes should be made to Policies CSP3 or CSP4, please provide details.

The proposed changes to environmental policies to reflect adopted DPDs and include new proposals to address the environmental infrastructure needs of new developments in light of up-to-date evidence seems appropriate.

Question 95a - Do you think Garden City principles should be applied in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, how should they be applied?

Good plan making objectives such as providing comprehensive green infrastructure, integrated and accessible transport networks, access to employment and affordable housing provision are amongst those that make up the garden city principles. These requirements will be picked up through applying the relevant individual policies.

Question 95b - Should the application of Garden City principles be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why.

The may be more scope to apply the garden city principles on larger greenfield sites. Considering that there may be viability issues on some brownfield sites, it may be less realistic to apply the garden principles on these sites.

Policy ENV1 - Nature Conservation

Question 96 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to nature conservation? Yes/No; If no, do you think that any other changes should be made to Policy ENV1?

Updating the policy in line with the NPPF and the introduction of requirements for new development to incorporate biodiversity features, such as new natural green space, is supported.

Policy ENV2 - Historic Character and Local Distinctiveness

Question 97 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to Historic Character and Local Distinctiveness? Yes/No; If no, please provide details of any other changes that should be made to Policy ENV2.

Updating the policy in line with the latest national policy and guidance is supported.

Policy ENV3 - Design Quality

Question 98 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to Design Quality? Yes/No; If you think that any other changes should be made to Policy ENV3 please provide details.

Removing reference to requiring a specific code of sustainable home in line with national guidance is supported.

Question 99a - Do you think that national standards for housing development on water consumption should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.

This is considered for the authorities to decide in consultation with the water companies.

Question 99b - Do you think that national access standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.

Introducing an access standard so that a percentage of new builds would be usable or easily adaptable for those with disabilities is supported. However, in terms of the threshold of where this percentage is set, this would need to informed by viability evidence. It may be that it would not be viable to apply this policy on certain types of sites e.g. small brownfield sites; again this could be considered in the viability evidence.

Question 99c - Do you think that national space standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.

Applying the Nationally Described Space standard (CLG, March 2015) is supported should the evidence suggest that this would not impact on viability.

Question 99d - Do you think that the standards should be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No; If yes, please explain how and why.

It may be appropriate to have different standards for brownfield and greenfield; this could be considered in the viability evidence.

Policy ENV4 - Canals

Question 100 - Do you support the removal of the reference made to canal projects? Yes/No; Do you think that any other changes should be made to Policy ENV4? Please provide details.

It is understood that part of the route of the Hatherton Branch Canal is safeguarded in proposed Policy EN4 of Walsall's Site Allocations Document. On this basis it is considered appropriate to remove reference to the restoration of the Hatherton Branch Canal from the Core Strategy, and for this to be considered at the more local level.

Policy ENV5 - Flood Risk, Sustainable Drainage (SuDS) and Urban Heat Island Effects

Question 101a - Do you support the proposed changes relating to Flood Risk, Sustainable Drainage and Urban Heat Island effects? Yes/No; Further comments?

The propose changes to align with national policy and guidance is supported.

Question 101b - Do you think that any other changes should be made to Policy ENV5? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

None suggested.

Policy ENV6 - Open Space, Sport and Recreation

Question 102a - Do you support the proposed changes relating to open space, sport and recreation? Yes/No; If no, please explain

It is not clear what specific changes are proposed, however if the existing policy is in line with national policy then it may be that the changes needed are minimal.

Question 102b - Do you think that Policy ENV6, taken together with national and local policies, provides sufficient protection from development for open space? Yes/No; If no, please explain

It is considered that paragraph 74 of the NPPF offers sufficient protection from development for open space.

Question 102c - Do you think that any other criteria need to be added to Policy ENV6, or any other changes should be made. Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

None suggested.

Policy ENV7 - Renewable Energy

Question 103a - Do you think that Policy ENV7 should be changed to allow increased energy efficiency standards to be accepted in lieu of renewable energy provision for non-domestic buildings? Yes/No; If not, please explain

Increased energy efficiency standards for non-domestic buildings would be supported; however this would need to be supported by plan viability evidence confirming that this is achievable.

Question 103b - Do you think that the 10% requirement should be changed? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what percentage would be more appropriate and to what type of site it should apply.

Any percentage requirement relating to energy demand would again need to be supported by plan viability work.

Policy ENV8 - Air Quality

Question 104 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to Air Quality? Yes/No; If you think that any other changes should be made to Policy ENV8 please provide details.

Rewording the policy to reflect the approach in the more recent Black Country wide SPD on Air Quality and the West Midlands Low Emissions Towns and Cities Programme (WMLETCP) seems appropriate.

Policy Area G - Waste

Question 105 - Do you think that Policy WM1 identifies all of the key waste issues that need to be addressed in the Core Strategy, in accordance with national policy? Yes/No; If not, please specify what changes should be made to the Policy. If you have any evidence that can be referred to in the Waste Study, please provide details.

No comment.

Question 106a - Do you support the approach set out in Policy WM2? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

No comment.

Question 106b - Are there any strategic waste management sites that no longer need to be protected? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details

No comment.

Question 106c - Are there any new sites that do need to be protected? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

None suggested.

Question 107 - Do you think that there are any strategic waste management proposals that should either be removed from or added to the list in Policy WM3? Yes/No; If so, please provide details.

No comment.

Question 108 - Do you agree that Policy WM4 provides an appropriate level of control over the location and design of new waste management facilities? Yes/No; If no, what changes do you think should be made to the Policy?

No comment.

Policy Area H - Minerals

Question 109 - Do you agree that Policy WM5 provides an appropriate level of control over resource management for new developments? Yes/No; If no, what changes do you think should be made to the Policy?

No comment.

Question 110 - Do you think that Policy MIN1 identifies all of the key minerals issues that need to be addressed in the Core Strategy, in accordance with national policy? Yes/no; If no, what changes should be made to the policy?

No comment.

Question 111 - Do you agree with the proposed change to 'prior extraction' requirements, to maintain a size threshold in urban areas and increase the threshold for green belt sites to 3 ha? Yes/No; If no, what evidence do you have to justify an alternative approach?

No comment.

Question 112a - Are there any key mineral related infrastructure sites that no longer need to be protected? Yes/No; Please provide details

No comment.

Question 112b - Are there any other sites that do need to be protected? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

No comment.

Question 113 - Do you think that Policy MIN2 identifies all of the key aggregate minerals issues that need to be addressed in the Core Strategy up to 2036, in accordance with national policy? Yes/No; If not, what changes should be made to the policy?

No comment.

Question 114 - Do you have evidence of workable, viable deposits of brick clays outside the areas of search, which could justify defining new areas of search? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

No.

Question 115a - Do you have evidence of any realistic possibility of fracking in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

No.

Question 115b - Do you think there are particular issues for the Black Country that would justify approaches different from those in national policy? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

No comment.

Question 116 - Do you think that Policy MIN5 identifies all of the key issues that need to be addressed in relation to new mineral developments in the Core Strategy, in accordance with national policy? Yes/No; If not, what changes should be made to the policy?

No comment.

Policy Area J - Growth Network Detailed Proposals

Question 117 - Do you agree with the proposed approach to updating and amending Appendix 2 and Tables 2 and 3 of the existing Core Strategy? Yes/No; If not, what alternative approach would you suggest?

Updating Appendix 2 and tables 2 and 3 of the existing Core Strategy to reflect proposals in the adopted and merging SADs and AAPs is supported.

Policy Area K - Monitoring and Additional Policies

Question 118 - Do you agree with the proposal to streamline and simplify the Core Strategy Monitoring Framework? Yes/No; If no, please explain why

Streamlining the monitoring framework to focus on the key quantitative indicators which relate to the delivery of development is supported.

Question 119 - Do you think that a new Core Strategy policy is required? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why and provide details of the suggested policy.

If the authorities are required to allocate Green Belt sites then a new policy for this will be needed. It is likely that a proforma will be needed for each allocation setting out what will need to be delivered on site that hooks to the policy.

Dear Sirs,
This is a covering letter for CPRE's response to the Black Country Core Strategy. This consists of two documents:
* A response to the various questions ('Options response).
* A detailed report on demographic issues ('Housing and Employment Options').
CPRE is a campaigning charity, which is a coalition of a national charity and branches in most counties, which are mostly independent charities. CPRE West Midlands is a regional group of the national charity, whose scope is the West Midlands region.
Our regional chairmanship is technically vacant. As an interim measure, we have agreed a rotating chairmanship, which I currently hold. You may however like also to note the e-mail address of our regional secretary,
Yours Faithfully,
From the Acting Chairman

Black Country Core Strategy Issues and Options
Response for WM CPRE
Sept 2017

Introduction
1. The West Midlands Regional Group of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) welcomes this opportunity to respond to the consultation on the Black Country Core Strategy Review and commend the professional nature of the work done by Officers so far.
2. As a charity with about 60,000 members, a branch in every county, over 200 district groups and more than 2,000 parish council members we work locally and nationally to protect, shape and enhance a beautiful, thriving countryside for everyone to value and enjoy.
3. This response was developed with the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Branches of CPRE, who are responsible for monitoring planning in the Black Country.
4. In developing our response we commissioned an independent consultant to
review the economic and housing evidence base and his report is attached.
5. We note that he has concluded that more clarity is needed on the benefits or otherwise of releasing employment land for housing to reach a firm conclusion and we suggest this is work the authorities may want to progress as they move towards a preferred option.
6. We do have some concerns about the wording of the on-line questionnaire, particularly the first two questions. In effect they ask respondents where extra housing and employment land should go as if the quantity of land required was fixed. This is not the case and, to avoid bias, respondents should have been asked whether they agreed with the assumptions about housing and employment need. We hope that this will be addressed in future consultations.

Overarching Comments
7. CPRE is in favour of a continuation of the centres and corridors approach and the ongoing stress on urban regeneration. This, however, has been put under threat by the assumed housing and employment land need.
8. As set out in the attached report we believe there is additional capacity which reduces (or removes) the need for Green Belt housing. We also believe that the level of employment land needed is not as high. There may be some need for larger employment sites, but this needs to take account of land available in adjacent authorities, including (as it stands) all of Four Ashes.
9. In principle we support industrial land which is no longer suitable being used for housing, but this is a complex issue which requires further analysis.
10. We believe it will be as important what type of housing is provided and there needs to be adequate affordable and social housing. In particular there is a need to address directly both accommodation for the elderly, whose numbers will dramatically increase, and housing for young people who are struggling to enter the market.
11. We are concerned that a review of Green Belt appears to be being driven solely by numbers, rather than by policy considerations and that allocations in the Green Belt could undermine urban regeneration.
12. We are in favour of strong policies to support centres, but these need to be framed within a changing environment where some centres may need to shrink or diversify to meet future needs.
13. We want to see a dramatic improvement in public transport provision which supports the regeneration of the Black Country.
14. We also believe more consideration should be given to air pollution, both from
transport and other sources. The issue with diesel cars has increased the awareness of this and yet it is appears to be only obliquely addressed in the strategy.
15. Lastly, the strategy needs to continue the strong emphasis on environmental improvement, including developing the Garden City idea, and it needs to acknowledge the value of the countryside within the Black Country's boundaries.

Responses to Individual Questions

Question 1 - Do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies? Yes/No; If not, what do you think should be the scope of the review?

Yes, we agree that a partial review is appropriate. However, we are concerned that some elements are being dealt with out of context with the wider conurbation. In particular, while accepting there may be a need for some larger high quality employment sites across the Combined Authority Area, the basis for this would be wider than the Black Country. Sites such as Peddimore are already going ahead, and we do not believe it would be helpful to over-allocate competing large sites, which would lead to loss of Green Belt and might not be fully occupied.

Question 2 - Do you think that the key evidence set out in Table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If not, what further evidence is required and, if there are any particular issues that should be taken into account in considering development on any particular sites or in any particular areas, please provide details.

Yes, the evidence does provide a basis for the review. However, we do not fully agree with the conclusions drawn on housing and employment land as set out in the attached report. This impacts on our response to later questions. We cannot comment on the Green Belt review as it stands since we do not have details as yet.

Question 3 - Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014-36 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.

No, we do not, as is set out in the attached report. In particular we are concerned in supply terms about the double counting of homes resulting from the market uplift identified in South Staffordshire, the questionable need to provide for under-provision from 2011 to 2014, especially as there was over provision in 2015 and no adverse market signals in those years except in South Staffordshire where there was over-provision. Furthermore the Oxford Economic Analysis which, unlike SNPP, allows population migration based on relative economic success, suggests that, even under the most fortuitous circumstances, that is to say delivery of the SuperSEP, some 6,000 households will migrate out of the conurbation beyond those accounted for in the SNPP figures. Since Oxford's Economic Analysis is being widely relied on, this hypothesis should be further tested.

There is a further problem with the trend analysis because it relies on Unattributed Population Growth which SNPP does not. Further analysis should be done discounting UPC, which results from a variety of causes but may not be indicative of the future to reach a reasonable view on likely housing need.

This is particularly important because, while the majority of household growth comes from aging households, about a third comes from migration. We cannot be sure international migration rates will stay as high in a post-Brexit world while out migration to other parts of the UK may continue unabated.

In terms of the supply we cannot identify reasons to disagree with the position taken except in relation to large windfalls and current industrial land. It is clear that many current industrial sites, if they became vacant, would not be considered suitable for industrial use and become housing sites. In other words there is a large pool of potential windfall sites. The assessment of existing industrial land potentially suitable for housing seems to vary across the four boroughs but is clearly very substantial. In other words, even if the policy to release industrial land to housing is not taken forwards, sites will come forward. That being the case the local authorities should, in our view, be less cautious in their approach to large windfalls and assume a continuation at current rates.

Without including additional industrial land these factors could still add up to some 12,500 more homes available than is being suggested and substantially reduce the supposed deficit.

It also is important to understand these factors, because put together all these elements could mean the proportion of elderly people in the population was higher than currently envisaged making the type of housing created even more important.

Question 4 - Do you consider the employment land requirement identified for the Black Country up to 2036 in the EDNA is appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.

No, we don't. There is a broad range of figures for future employment need. Much of what is needed for smaller sites can be found based on the available employment land, even assuming the current trend continues. In terms of larger sites the EDNA identifies a need for larger sites, with none currently available over 20 hectares, (although the extension to i54 in South Staffordshire would fulfil that requirement.) To meet SuperSEP requirements it suggests there is a need for roughly 300 hectares of land not currently identified, the majority for logistics. It then discounts 170 hectares of land out of 270 has total at the Four Ashes site for no obvious reasons since it is clearly within the area and would serve the Black Country. This might leave 130 hectares but even that has to be seen in the light of the SuperSEP as a wider strategy, which includes large sites such as Peddimore in Birmingham.

In our view there may be a need for a very limited release of sites over 20 hectares across the SuperSEP area and these are unlikely to be found in the conurbation but, the result of releasing very large amounts of Green Belt land in the Black Country and competing with Four Ashes, Peddimore and other existing business parks and logistics sites, (both in the West and East Midlands,) is likely to be both oversupply and underused sites, which would severely harm the countryside and encourage unsustainable patterns of travel.

Question 5 - Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt Review? Yes/No; If not, what additional work do you think is necessary?

No. The approach to the Green Belt review is consistently wrong. It is identified as being solely to identify enough land to meet the housing and employment figures in the SHMA and EDNA. But this does not justify exceptional circumstances.

The NPPG guidance is clear:

However, assessing need is just the first stage in developing a Local Plan. Once need has been assessed, the local planning authority should prepare a strategic housing land availability assessment to establish realistic assumptions about the availability, suitability and the likely economic viability of land to meet the identified need for housing over the plan period, and in so doing take account of any constraints such as green belt, which indicate that development should be restricted and which may restrain the ability of an authority to meet its need.

In other words, even if both the OAN is correct and the housing supply figure is correct, which we question (see answer to Question 2), the Green Belt review should not simply identify land to meet that need, it should seek to establish whether the level of land provision should be lower that the OAN because of the constraint of Green Belt.

In other words, Exceptional Circumstances should only be established if there are strategic justifications for the releases.

Question 6 - Do you agree that the key issues set out in Part 3 are the key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy Review? Yes/No; If not, what other key issues should be taken into account?

We agree with most of them. We do not agree with the assumed figure for housing or that it is 'inevitable' that Green Belt will have to be released. That is a policy choice which needs to be assessed taking account of the high level of proof for 'exceptional' Green Belt release.

The key issues do not address the social impacts of the Core Strategy adequately and in particular fail to place sufficient emphasis on the housing needs of an aging population, which is clearly evident in the demographic evidence.

Question 7 - Do you think that the Core Strategy vision and sustainability principles remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest?

Yes, we supported the principles of the Black Country Core Strategy. In particular we supported the emphasis on urban regeneration and the importance of environmental improvement and enhanced public transport provision to deliver an area people wanted to live in. We also supported the principle of Corridors and Centres. There is a serious risk in our view that the approach to housing and employment land, driven by theoretical numbers rather than strategy, will undermine this approach and rather than lead to improved delivery will export housing and employment into the Green Belt, encouraging unsustainable patterns of development.

Question 9 - Do you agree that Policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the Growth Network? Yes/No; If not, what changes do you think should be made to Policies CSP1 and CSP2 in response to new challenges and opportunities?

Yes, they should be retained and updated. Their aspirations need to guide the approach to current needs. They should not be diluted.

Question 10 - In continuing to promote growth within the Growth Network, is there a need to amend the boundaries of any of the Regeneration Corridors in the existing Core Strategy? Yes/No; If so, which boundaries and why?

We do not have any examples to give.

Question 11a - Do you support Strategic Option 1A? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If no, do you support Option 1B? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why.
If you support the release of further employment land for housing, what should the characteristics of these employment areas be?

Even if we accepted the figures we do not believe the evidence is good enough yet to make a fully informed choice. Further work needs to be done in the development of the Preferred Option to identify consistently how much employment land might be available across the boroughs and how likely it would be to remain in employment use. This work needs to come to conclusions as to the relative benefit of either use, so that a realistic figure of land that would be better in housing use can be produced. One important element in achieving this will be to ensure there are up to date registers of brownfield land for all the authorities.

Prior to that we favour an approach somewhere in the middle, albeit we do not believe the need for Green Belt release is likely to be as high as is being claimed.

Question 11b - Are there any current employment areas that might be considered suitable for redevelopment to housing? Yes/No; Please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form.

We have no sites we can comment on.

Question 12a - Do you support Spatial Option H1? Yes/No; What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. ability to create a defensible new green belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services.

We do not have a categorical view on either option, although it is important that both are considered on their merits and it may be the choice varies from location to location. While some small sites at the edge of the conurbation may have less impact on the aims of Green Belt, they can represent important community assets, they may have wildlife value and they may act as important Green wedges into the city. On the other hand SUEs can be highly intrusive and may not be close to existing transport networks. We would, therefore, suggest both are considered as options, should such land be needed, and that the criteria for sites should have strong ecological and transport elements as well as addressing the purposes of Green Belt.

Question 12b - Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).

We have no sites to offer.

Question 13a - Do you support Spatial Option H2? Yes/No; What should the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) be? e.g. minimum/ maximum size, mix of uses, mix of housing types, accessibility to other areas.

What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs, potential to support existing settlements / services, proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban regeneration.

See answer to Question 12a.

Question 13b - What infrastructure do you think would be needed for different sizes of SUEs?

Clearly it depends on size but access to services would be critical, as well as access to transport. Larger SUEs may be more at risk of poor connectivity so that would need to be addressed both in location and in terms of ensuring the internal design supported sustainable transport.

Question 13c - Are there any potential locations that should be considered for SUEs (please submit through the 'call for sites' form) and what infrastructure would be required to support these?

We have no sites to offer.

Question 13d - Do you think that the Core Strategy should set out detailed guidance for the development of SUEs (e.g. type and tenure of housing, specific infrastructure required), rather than details being determined at a local level in light of local policies? Yes/No; Any further comments?

Yes, if SUEs are developed there should be policy guidance in terms of tenure and infrastructure. In particular there should be identified provision for older households and their needs should be considered in the overall master-planning as well as affordable housing for young people. Furthermore, such master plans should be given force as planning documents by being adopted as Area Action Plans. This is particularly important where a SUE is involves multiple owners.

Question 14 - Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Housing Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

We have none to offer at this stage.

Question 15a - If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the 'export' of housing growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA? Yes/No; What factors should be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities in neighbouring authorities e.g. proximity to the edge of the urban area, proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs?

In most cases exporting homes is likely to exacerbate problems in other Local Authorities. However, where OANs in neighbouring authorities have been increased on the basis of migration trends, and those trends rely on migration from the Black Country, it may be that some of those OAN figures should actually be deemed to reduce need in the Black Country, thus avoiding double-counting.

Question 15b - Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

We have none to offers at this stage.

Question 15c - Do you think there are ways to ensure that exporting housing will meet the needs of people who would otherwise live in the Black Country? (e.g. transport improvements, provision of affordable housing, creation of employment opportunities) Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

It depends how far out the export is.

Question 16 - Do you support Spatial Option E1? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access)

If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).

Assuming land is needed, we do not support any one of these options in particular. The approach should be varied according to the landscape and transport impacts, as well as Green Belt aims. It will be important that any sites which are released are not just justified by numbers but serve a strategic need for the sub-region. This may mean restricting such releases to sites over 20 has.

Question 17 - Do you support Spatial Option E2? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites e.g. quick motorway access, good sustainable transport links?

See Question 16. Rail Access should be important in this case and access to public transport for employees.

If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).

We do not offer any sites.

Question 18 - Do you support Spatial Option E3? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access)

See Question 17.

If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).

See Question 17.

Question 19a - Do you support Spatial Option E4? Yes/No; Any further comments?

See Question 17.

Question 19b - Should any factors be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities? Yes/No; If yes, what should they be? (e.g. quick motorway access, strong transport links with the Black Country, good sustainable transport links with the Black Country)

See Question 17.

If you think there are any potential locations that should be considered, please provide details.

See Question 17.

Question 20 - Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Employment Land Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

See Question 17.

Question 21 - Do you think that changes are required to Policy DEL1 to ensure it covers both development within the existing urban area and any within the Green Belt?

Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

We do not have any suggestions to offer at this stage.

Question 22 - Do you have evidence of a requirement for new social infrastructure to serve existing needs?

Yes/No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.

Not at this stage. But note our concern about the aging population who will have specific needs.

Question 23 - Do you have evidence of social infrastructure that is no longer needed and where the site could be reallocated for alternative uses? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

Not at this stage. But note our concern about the aging population who will have specific needs.

Question 24 - Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current social infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new housing? Yes/No;

If yes, please provide details.

Not at this stage. But note our concern about the aging population who will have specific needs.

Question 25 - Will there be any new social infrastructure requirements necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, please explain the type and scale of any new social infrastructure required.

Not at this stage. But note our concern about the aging population who will have specific needs.

Question 26 - Do you have any evidence of a requirement for new physical infrastructure to serve existing needs? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.

See our later comments on transport infrastructure.

Question 27 - Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current physical infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

The rail network is under considerable pressure with lines such as the Chase Line carrying large increases in passengers. New development outside the conurbation could exacerbate this. There are issues of parking, for example at Stourbridge Junction, where it has reached capacity restricting passenger growth on that line. A balanced approach to the provision of car parking and public transport access is needed to ensure rail growth is maximised.

Question 28 - Do you think physical infrastructure is necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, what type and scale of physical infrastructure is necessary?

Yes, all types.

Question 29 - Do you think there are any other tools or interventions that could be used to ensure enough infrastructure is provided by developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

No comments at this stage.

Question 30 - Do you have any suggestions around how the strategy can be developed in order to maintain the urban regeneration focus of the Black Country while at the same time bringing forward sites in the green belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

Green Belt sites inevitably compete with brown field sites. One of the purposes of Green Belt is to support urban regeneration. We do not believe the need for Green Belt sites is as great as anticipated, but (if they are designated) phasing should be used to control how much land comes forward at once, thus supporting urban regeneration.

Question 31 - Do you think that the right scale and form of funding is available to support the delivery of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If no, what alternative sources of funding or delivery mechanisms should be investigated?

No comment at this stage.

Question 32 - Do you think that the proposed approach to incorporate health and wellbeing issues in the Core Strategy review is appropriate? Yes/No; If no, please provide details

We welcome the use of health impact assessments of the strategy. We would like to see a strategy to increase the health of the population from cradle to grave, which would include encouraging access to open space and the countryside for all members of the community and improving walking and cycling provision and take up.

We are less convinced of the reliance on sustainability appraisals for new sites, particularly large scale Green Belt incursions. SAs are likely to assume some sort of development will go ahead at the site and then seek the best option. SAs are useful in terms of how individual sites are developed but are not designed to answer the question: is releasing the site at all necessary or desirable?

Question 33 - Is there more that the Core Strategy can do to address health and wellbeing issues in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, is a new policy needed to address such issues for example?

There are a whole range of interventions which are needed to improve health and well being. The Garden City approach, with its emphasis on environmental improvement and enhancement, is one element. Providing improvements to sustainable transport modes is another key element. Addressing the quality of existing housing stock is also needed. Providing local facilities, for health, education and leisure is also key and ensuring these are accessible to all.

There is also a need to specifically address the needs of the increasing number of older people. This includes policies to ensure there is adequate supply of housing which is suitable for older people in locations where they have access to facilities. This will also reduce the prevalence of loneliness and other health issues among the elderly.

Question 34a - Do you agree that the health and wellbeing impacts of large development proposals should be considered at the Preferred Spatial Option stage of the Core Strategy review through a Health Impact Assessment approach? Yes/No; Any further comments?

Yes, provided there is a proper assessment of alternative approaches rather than just how to deliver the site.

Question 34b - What design features do you think are key to ensuring new development encourages healthy living, which could be accessed through the HIA process?

In terms of detailed design, environment, permeability and access to public transport are key. There is also a need to ensure enough housing is with design features for those less able.

Question 35 - Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

We support the reduction in the discount figure. We support a windfall allowance, although, as set out above, we believe the level of larger windfalls should assume a continuation of current trends. Consideration of how to achieve more mixed used development in centres and a reduction in vacancy rates should also be considered.

Question 36 - Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 should be changed? Yes/No; If yes, what standards should be applied instead, for example should the minimum net density of 35 dwellings per hectare be increased to maximise brownfield housing delivery?

Table 8 is useful but, given the issue of an aging population, the table should also include a provision for housing which is designed to meet that specific need.

We would support an increase to 40 dph, provided there was flexibility for sites where environmental or local character meant that was not appropriate.

Question 37a - Do you think that the existing Policy HOU2 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why

We are content with 15 homes but the policy needs to require all developers to establish that they have sought to use land in an efficient way, even under 15 homes.

Question 37b - If no, should it be reduced to 11 homes or more? Yes/No; If no what other threshold should be used and why?

While we are content with 15 homes the policy needs to require all developers to establish that they have sought to use land in an efficient way. If that is not deemed practical it may be worth reducing it to 11 homes.

Question 38 - Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards are appropriate for green belt release locations? Yes/No; If no, what standards should be applied in these locations and why?

We do not believe that Green Belt sites should have lower access standards. It is important that the inevitable impacts on sprawl and sustainability are mitigated by the provision of local facilities and by the use of good urban design. In particular, Green Belt developments have typically been poorly designed for public transport accessibility and walking and cycling. However, whatever standards are implemented, local character and environmental considerations must also be considered.

Question 39 - Do you think separate accessibility standards are needed for particular types of housing e.g. housing for the elderly or affordable housing (as occupiers may be less mobile and more dependent on public transport)? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

There is a need to ensure housing for the elderly and the disabled is fully accessible and takes account of the deterioration in mobility that may lead to people being unable to stay in their own home. However, this might be better resolved with a separate policy which sets out the requirement for housing for the elderly, along with the criteria for ensuring that meets their needs.

Question 40 - Do you agree that the 2017 SHMA findings should be used to set general house type targets for the Plan period? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

They can assist but the need is not only to identify how many houses with a particular number of bedrooms but to ensure new housing is provided to meet specific needs, such as the increase in older residents and the need for affordable homes for young people.

Question 41a - Do you support the introduction of a policy approach towards self and custom build housing in the Core Strategy? Yes/No; If yes, would you support:

Yes, a policy is required. This could help in a modest way to ensure small windfall sites come forward for development.

Question 41b - A target for each authority? Yes/No; Any further comments

We do not have a view.

Question 41c - A requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots? Yes/No; Any further comments?

We do not have a view.

Question 41d - Another approach altogether? Yes/No; If yes, please specify.

We do not have a view.

Question 41e - Do you support the use of a variety of local approaches to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) across the Black Country? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

This is an issue in some areas of the Black Country, which can undermine an area if there is not the infrastructure to support HMOs. Not only can it lead to traffic congestion, it can overwhelm local health and education provision. Some HMOs appear to be of poor quality and not necessarily managed in a way which benefits the local community. As we understand it Local Authorities have powers to require planning permission where there is a problem with HMOs. While, it is probably not for the Core Strategy to be prescriptive it could refer to those powers.

Question 42 - Do you agree that the annual affordable homes target should be increased to reflect the 2017 Black Country Strategic Housing Market Assessment? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

Yes, we agree there is a need for sufficient affordable homes.

Question 43a - Do you think that the existing Policy HOU3 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

We are concerned about the way in which thresholds work. If the threshold is 15, it encourages developers to bring forward schemes for 14 houses, so that they do not have to comply with the more onerous requirements above the threshold. Where there is an affordable housing requirement of 35% (and some councils are managing 40%) affordable, and the threshold is 15, the developer of a 15-house site will have to provide 5.25 affordable houses, but the developer of 14-house site will provide zero. Since affordable houses are less profitable, the threshold provides a perverse incentive not to build affordable houses. Given the need a lower threshold might be desirable, (always taking account of local character.) and this would be in line with NPPG but we would like to see consideration of how to ensure affordable homes on smaller sites.

Question 43b - If no, should it be reduced to 11 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, what threshold should be used?

Given the need a lower threshold would be desirable, taking account of local character. This seems to be in line with NPPG. We share the concerns expressed in the Preferred Option that an increase in the provision of starter homes which are not genuinely affordable may impact on other affordable tenures and would welcome work to try and address this issue within the current regulations.

Question 44a - Do you think that the affordable housing requirement for eligible sites in Question 43 should be kept at 25% of the total number of homes on the site?

Yes /No; Any further comments?

Consideration needs to be given to the location of the sites. See answer to Question 45.

Question 44b If no, should the percentage be increased to allow for the provision of affordable home ownership? Yes/No; If yes, what should the percentage be and why?

Consideration needs to be given to the location of the sites. See answer to Question 45.

Question 45 - Should an increased affordable housing requirement be set for green belt release sites, to reflect the likely financial viability of these sites? Yes/No; If yes, what should this be.

Yes, we would support this provided those Green Belt sites were also designed to be in sustainable locations with good access to local facilities as affordable housing is likely to be needed disproportionately by people with mobility issues or without access to a car.

Question 46 - Do you agree with the proposed new gypsy, traveller and travelling showpeople accommodation targets? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

Gypsies and other travelers are as entitled to a home as much as the settled community, but the location of their sites should be subject to the same criteria as for the settled community. The frequency of recent incursions on to public and other open space suggests there is a significant unmet need, which ought to be met. We are not able to comment on the specific figures but agree that sufficient sites need to be supplied to avoid illegal encampments. No Green Belt sites should be released unless exceptional circumstances can be proved.

Question 47 - Do you think that Policy HOU5 should be expanded to cover other types of built social infrastructure and to set out standards for built social infrastructure to serve major housing developments? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

Yes, there is a need to address the availability and funding of all relevant facilities. There is a need to identify in this policy the impact of provision of housing for the elderly so that locational decisions on facilities are taken in the light of where the less able may be living.

Question 48 - Do you agree that the requirement in HOU5, to demonstrate there is adequate alternative provision to meet the needs of the community served by a facility which is to be lost, should be reviewed? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why.

We support the current policy.

Question 49a - Is there still a need for existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

Yes. Since employment land may become vacant that is not allocated and there is a need to examine its potential for release for housing and balance the benefits of alternative uses. In some cases these may not be housing. It may even be the land would be better used for open space or nature conservation. Perhaps the policy should allow for that.

Question 49b - If yes, should this policy be used to assess the release of employment land to alternative uses, other than housing? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why.

See answer to 49a

Question 50 - Do you think that the Core Strategy should continue to set a target for the total employment land stock in Policy EMP1? Yes/No; Please explain why.

The overall provision of employment land may not be as relevant as the changing nature of jobs today means they are less dependent on land allocations. If land goes out of employment use because a factory closes, for example, it may not be as important to replace that land as to provide the kind of sites needed for new jobs.

Do you think that distinguishing between Strategic High Quality Employment Areas and Local Quality Employment Areas is still appropriate? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Yes, provided the Black Country is seeking to improve the quality of existing sites and not simply relying on new allocations.

Question 51 - Do you think that the criteria used to define Strategic High Quality Employment Areas are appropriate and reflect actual market requirements? Yes/No; If not, how do you think the criteria and/or terminology should be amended?

We do not have a view at this stage.

Question 52 - Do you think that the criteria used to define Local Quality Employment Areas are appropriate and reflect actual market requirements? Yes/No; If not, how do you think the criteria and/or terminology should be amended?

We do not have a view at this stage.

Question 53 - Do you think that Strategic High Quality Employment Areas should continue to be protected for manufacturing and logistics uses, with the other uses set out in Policy EMP3 discouraged? Yes/no; If not, what alternative approach do you recommend?

Yes, we support this approach. High Quality land should not be squandered, both because it is needed to high quality jobs and because it can lead to environmental and countryside impacts if it has to be replaced

Question 54 - Do you agree that the current approach in Policy EMP4 is no longer fit for purpose and should be amended to reflect a portfolio based approach? Yes/No; If no, what alternative approaches would you recommend?

We agree that a balanced portfolio is likely to be a better approach.

Question 55 - Do you agree with the proposal to retain Policy EMP5? Yes/No; If no please explain why.

Yes.

Question 56 - Do you agree with the proposal to update Policy EMP6 in line with current priorities? Yes/No; If no, please explain why

Yes.

Question 57 - Do you support the proposal to merge Policy CEN1 and Policy CEN2, given that both policies focus on the overall strategy in the Black Country, including the hierarchy of centres? Yes/No; If you have any comments on Policies CEN1 and CEN2 please provide details.

Yes, provided the emphasis is retained and not diluted.

Question 58 - Do you think there is any evidence to suggest that the hierarchy of centres is not appropriate going forward in the context of the regeneration strategy? Yes/No; If so, please provide details.

No. Depending on where new housing goes there may be a need for additional local provision but the main four centres should remain the backbone of the spatial strategy.

Question 59 - Have all the appropriate centres within the Black Country been identified? Yes/No; If not, please specify additional centres.

Yes.

Question 60 - Is there evidence to suggest that identified centres are no longer performing as a centre or at their identified level in the hierarchy? Yes/No; If yes, do you agree that they should be moved / removed within or out of the hierarchy?

No.

Please explain why.

Question 61 - In addition to para 4.33 of the current Core Strategy should the revised Core Strategy include criteria for the creation of new centres that might be needed as a result of any additional housing identified through the plan? Yes/No; Any further comments

No. Depending on where new housing goes there may be a need for additional local provision but the main four centres should remain the backbone of the spatial strategy.

Question 62 - Do you agree that the Strategic Centres should remain the focus for large scale comparison retail (clothes, white goods etc), office and major commercial leisure development in the Black Country? Yes/No; Any further comments?

Yes, as well as seeking to increase housing provision within and close to those centres.

Question 63 - Do you agree that the targets for comparison retail floorspace and office floorspace should be revisited as part of this review to take into account current and future trends? Yes/No; Any further comments?

We are not able to give a detailed response but in general we consider that the policy should encourage a balance of development in the centres so they are attractive places to visit which serve a variety of needs. This may even mean a reduction in retail and an increase in leisure. It is probably as important to consider the quality of the retail offer and ensure anchor stores remain or are introduced.

A key element in the future of the main centres (and smaller ones) will be masterplanning to ensure there is a balance of provision. The introduction of a variety of uses will help centres to thrive. It is probably not for the Core Strategy to be too prescriptive but it should also not assume the pattern of retail will remain the same.

Question 64 - Is there a need to set targets for convenience retail floorspace in the Core Strategy? Yes/No; Any further comments?

We are not able to give a detailled response. A balanced approach is required and in some cases it may be better to reduce retail floorspace on the edge of centres to encourage a balance of uses. In particular the role of larger supermarkets may change in the future and require less land allowing for more mixed use on those existing sites and the introduction of smaller convenience stores.

Question 65 - Should the Core Strategy set any targets or policy requirements for leisure development in the Strategic Centres? Yes/No; Any further comments?

The strategy should encourage leisure facilities to be located in centres where they are accessible to all. This should include night time facilities as long as there is suitable planning to avoid and manage any anti-social behaviour.

Question 66 - Should the Core Strategy set new housing targets for the Strategic Centres through the review? Yes/No; Any further comments?

The strategy should encourage housing in centres. It should not only consider how much is needed but what kind of housing will best support those centres and, more widely, the overall strategy. For example, encouraging young entrepreneurs or professional workers to move into the centres may be key to developing the future economy more widely. In general we would like to see more use of upper stories over shops for housing.

Question 67 - Do you think there are any other uses and/or developments that should be planned for in the Strategic Centres? Yes/No; Please provide details.

There is a need to encourage the greening of centres, including provision of trees and other green features which have been lost in many. Their links to local green space, (for example Walsall Arboretum,) should also be promoted.

There is also a need to ensure centres are walkable with access to centres by sustainable modes from surrounding areas encouraged.

Question 68 - Do you agree with the proposal to re-examine the detail and appropriateness of the existing conditions for retail growth at Merry Hill through the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; Do you have any further comment to make on this issue?

We support the current conditions.

Question 69 - Should more types of uses be encouraged and more flexibility be allowed to ensure the regeneration and vitality of the Black Country Town Centres? Yes / No; Please explain why.

Some flexibility is desirable provided it leads to a balance of uses and especially improves the quality of the centres.

Question 70 - Do you think there are any specific developments or uses that should be supported in any particular Town Centre? Yes/No; Please provide details.

We have no examples.

Question 71 - Should the Core Strategy set housing targets for the Town Centres? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Yes, the core strategy should seek housing within town centres but these might exceed any targets.

Question 72 - Should more types of uses be encouraged and more flexibility be allowed to ensure the regeneration and vitality of the Black Country District and Local Centres? Yes/No; Please explain why.

This will vary from centre to centre and some flexibility is required. In particular the contraction of the retail area may in some cases create a more viable centre, both by allowing for housing in the centre and other uses which may attract people to the centre, but it must still be able to accommodate sufficient retail needed to perform its function.

Question 73 - Are there are any specific developments or uses that should be supported in any particular District or Local Centre? Yes/No; Please provide details

We have no examples.

Question 74 - In the context of the 'centres first' strategy, should the threshold approach be reviewed to consider the appropriateness, scale and impact of development in and on the edge of Strategic, Town, District and Local Centres? Yes/No; Please explain why.

We support the threshold approach but have no comment on individual levels.

Question 75 - Should thresholds apply to all main town centre uses (Yes) or just retail uses (No)? Please explain why.

There is a case for considering thresholds for some leisure uses where these impact on other centres.

Question 76 - Is the approach set out in Policy CEN6 appropriate in the context of supporting local community needs? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Yes, it remains important to provide local facilities.

Question 77 - Does the wording of the criteria clearly achieve the objectives of the centres strategy? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Yes.

Question 78 - Should the policy clarify that this policy applies both to applications in edge-of-centre and out-of-centre locations, and should this also be referred to in the relevant centres policies? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Yes.

Question 79 - Should the policy set what types of uses this policy applies to and set out any further types of material considerations that could be relevant for the determination of certain proposals, for example, the location or concentration of hot food takeaways, premises selling alcohol or gambling operations? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Yes, this is important as the aim is to provide day to day facilities which support the community.

Question 80 - Should the policy clarify that those schemes of multiple units, where individual units are below the set figure, but the cumulative figure is above, also need to meet the relevant requirements of other centres policies? Yes/No; Please explain why

Yes.

Question 81 - Do you agree that the approach of strong control over out-of-centre development is still appropriate in the context of the strategy to ensure the vitality and viability of the Black Country Centres? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Yes, large out of centre retail is not likely to be sustainable and will not provide access for all parts of the community.

Question 82 - Is 200sqm (gross) an appropriate scale of development above which the impact tests should apply? Yes/No; Please explain why.

We do not have a view on the exact level.

Question 83 - Should Policy CEN7 provide more guidance on accessibility? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why .

Yes, that would be helpful, provided that guidance is to ensure a development is as sustainable as it can be and the guidance is not considered a justification for development in principle.

Question 84 - Do you think that Policy CEN8 is still appropriate for managing car parking in centres and will ensure the network of Black Country Centres are maintained and enhanced over the plan period? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Yes, in general. There is a need to ensure parking serves the whole of centres and to avoid restrictions, for example, of parking to individual supermarkets or leisure facilities which then harms a centre or adds to traffic movements in the centre. We raised concerns when the plan was originally devised that lower parking standards where public transport is poor could encourage developments which were very car dependent in those locations. We remain concerned about this and the review needs to consider the evidence in relations to this and whether parking standards at out of centre locations are tight enough to ensure there is an incentive to encourage use of alternative modes.

Question 85 - Should Policy CEN8, with regards to pricing of car parks, continue to be applied to Strategic Centres to ensure that pricing of parking is not used as a tool of competition? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Yes. And also to ensure car parks serve the whole of the centre and not a single retailer which reduces footfall across the centre and can lead to additional congestion if people park twice. The control of Long Stay car parking, in particular, remains critical to supporting public transport. Short stay car parking should not be so expensive it puts people off visiting a centre.

Question 86 - Do you think that there are other centre uses or centres issues that need to be addressed in the centres policies? Yes/No; Please provide details.

None come to mind.

Question 87 - As shopping, leisure and other commercial trends continue to change, should the revised Core Strategy have a policy to reallocate out-of-centre attractions that are no longer viable for town centre uses for alternative uses such as for employment uses or housing? Yes/No; If no, please explain.

Yes. The Core Strategy needs to consider this as well as anticipating a reduction in store size from major supermarkets and other stores as they refurbish or replenish their estate. In particular where new facilities in a centre reduce the need for out of centre uses alternative uses of those sites may be desirable.

Question 88 - Do you agree that the overall transport strategy supports all of the Core Strategy spatial objectives? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Yes, in general we support the strategic aims. However, we do not believe the ambition is adequate in terms of public transport improvements and support for walking and cycling.

As well as on-road provision for sustainable modes we would support extensions to the network of Green Routes offering links into the countryside (including across into Worcestershire and Staffordshire).

We also believe there is still a case to consider demand management options which will support modal change and also fund public transport improvements. However, without ongoing work on this it is hard to be more prescriptive.

Question 89 - Do you support the proposed changes to the priorities for the development of the transport network? Yes/No; Please explain why.

We generally support the proposals to improve public transport in the sub-region. However, we consider they lack the necessary ambition. In particular we would like to see a rail network developed systematically across the region, including the links centered round Walsall including to Wolverhampton, Sutton Coldfield, Brownhills as well as the through route from Lichfield to Stourbridge. This would require consideration of additional heavy rail lines on the Wednesbury to Brierley Hill section or alternatively Metro extensions along the whole route. We support improvements to the bus network but these need to be integrated with rail. We agree that rail freight should be encouraged but this needs to be at an appropriate level. We are not in favour of the massive Four Ashes Proposal in South Staffordshire.

We are concerned that hard shoulder running is being progressed simply to deal with congestion on motorways with little consideration of the impact of the additional traffic. While this is in many cases preferable to motorway widening we would like to see analysis of the comparative benefits of investing that money in public transport options.

Question 90 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to managing transport impacts of new developments? Yes/No; If no, please explain why

The provision of charging points is welcome. However, this does not address congestion issues so it is important that policies to change behaviour are pursued as well.

Question 91 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to the efficient movement of freight? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

We support the use of Bescot for a rail freight interchange, taking full account of the impacts on local people. We are not in favour of Four Ashes which we consider is too big. We regret the fact that the proposal is being taken through the NIC process rather than being subject to local scrutiny that would examine how well it fits in with the needs of the Black Country and whether its impact on Green Belt, the environment and local roads is acceptable.

Question 93 - Do you support the proposed changes to Policy TRAN5? Yes/No; Please explain why.
In general terms we support the development of a Key Route Network. The development of new technology is also welcome but should be seen alongside encouraging modal shift.

Question 94 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to environmental infrastructure and place-making? Yes/No; If you think that any other changes should be made to Policies CSP3 or CSP4, please provide details.

We support the emphasis placed on environmental enhancement and place making. However, CSP3 and CSP4 do not sufficiently emphasise the rural character of parts of the Black Country. Even if there is some development in the Green Belt the environmental policies should emphasise the value of this remaining countryside in terms of landscape, amenity, farming, environmental and biodiversity .

Question 95a - Do you think Garden City principles should be applied in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, how should they be applied?

We support the Garden City approach in general provided a balance is properly applied between landscape, biodiversity and other aspect of the environment.
Question 95b - Should the application of Garden City principles be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why.

In general we would like to see the application of similar approaches to density, character and environmental enhancement. However, this needs to be sensitive to local character and landscape which this may influence how specific sites are developed.

Question 96 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to nature conservation? Yes/No; If no, do you think that any other changes should be made to Policy ENV1?

We welcome the inclusion of ancient woodland.

Question 97 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to Historic Character and Local Distinctiveness? Yes/No; If no, please provide details of any other changes that should be made to Policy ENV2.

We support the need to protect historic assets, including those which are not designated. The review should include an assessment of the effectiveness of the current policy in relation to non-designated assets, for example, the integrity of areas of Victorian terracing. This should be used to review these policies and how they can be enhanced.

Question 98 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to Design Quality?

Yes/No; If you think that any other changes should be made to Policy ENV3 please provide details.

We support high quality design but are not able to comment on the details.

Question 99a - Do you think that national standards for housing development on water consumption should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.

We support the need to reduce water consumption but are not able to comment on the details.

Question 99b - Do you think that national access standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.

Yes, there is a need to ensure homes are fully accessible, taking account of local character. This will become more important with an aging population.

Question 99c - Do you think that national space standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.

Yes, there is a need to ensure homes have adequate space standards, taking account of local character. This will become more important with an aging population.

Question 99d - Do you think that the standards should be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No; If yes, please explain how and why.

Not in general, but may depend on local circumstances.

Question 100 - Do you support the removal of the reference made to canal projects? Yes/No; Do you think that any other changes should be made to Policy ENV4?
Please provide details.

No, we do not understand the removal of reference to canal projects. We agree they need to be determined at a local level, but the reference in the core strategy is important because the network is a strategic as well as a local asset. The policy could be up-dated to acknowledge the fine grained nature of such projects and allow flexibility within a broad approach.

The policy should also add that canals act as an important link between town and countryside in the sub-region.

Question 101a - Do you support the proposed changes relating to Flood Risk, Sustainable Drainage and Urban Heat Island effects? Yes/No; Further comments?

Question 101b - Do you think that any other changes should be made to Policy ENV5? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

We are not in a position to comment.

Question 102a - Do you support the proposed changes relating to open space, sport and recreation? Yes/No; If no, please explain

See 102c.

Question 102b - Do you think that Policy ENV6, taken together with national and local policies, provides sufficient protection from development for open space?

Yes/No; If no, please explain

See 102c

Question 102c - Do you think that any other criteria need to be added to Policy ENV6, or any other changes should be made. Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

We support the need for policies to protect and enhance open space across the sub-region. We believe it should be central to the policy for regeneration.

It needs to also be acknowledged that many open space areas on the edge of the conurbation act as links to the surrounding countryside and are often integral with it. Improvements to open space which have countryside benefits (such as the large scale tree planting creating a country park at the Grange in Walsall) should be encouraged as well as promoting planting in gardens and institutional grounds.

It is also important to stress the need to ensure these areas continue to be managed and not allowed to decay.

Question 103a - Do you think that Policy ENV7 should be changed to allow increased energy efficiency standards to be accepted in lieu of renewable energy provision for non-domestic buildings? Yes/No; If not, please explain

We are not in a position to comment.

Question 103b - Do you think that the 10% requirement should be changed?

Yes/No; If yes, please specify what percentage would be more appropriate and to what type of site it should apply.

We are not in a position to comment.

Question 104 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to Air Quality?

Yes/No; If you think that any other changes should be made to Policy ENV8 please provide details.

Improving air quality is critical to the health and well-being of the sub-region. We have no comments on the detail.

Question 105 - Do you think that Policy WM1 identifies all of the key waste issues that need to be addressed in the Core Strategy, in accordance with national policy?

Yes/No; If not, please specify what changes should be made to the Policy.

If you have any evidence that can be referred to in the Waste Study, please provide details.

We support the approach of aiming to reduce waste and deal with waste within the subregion as close to where it arises as is practical. New or extended waste sites should be assessed on their impact on the landscape and countryside.

Question 106a - Do you support the approach set out in Policy WM2? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
See 105

Question 106b - Are there any strategic waste management sites that no longer need to be protected? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details

Question 106c - Are there any new sites that do need to be protected? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

See 105

Question 107 - Do you think that there are any strategic waste management proposals that should either be removed from or added to the list in Policy WM3?

Yes/No; If so, please provide details.

See 105

Question 108 - Do you agree that Policy WM4 provides an appropriate level of control over the location and design of new waste management facilities? Yes/No;

If no, what changes do you think should be made to the Policy?

See 105

Question 109 - Do you agree that Policy WM5 provides an appropriate level of control over resource management for new developments? Yes/No; If no, what changes do you think should be made to the Policy?

We support the approach of aiming to reduce waste and deal with waste within the subregion as close to where it arises as is practical. New or extended waste sites should be assessed on their impact on the landscape and countryside.

Question 110 - Do you think that Policy MIN1 identifies all of the key minerals issues that need to be addressed in the Core Strategy, in accordance with national policy? Yes/no; If no, what changes should be made to the policy?

We do not have a comment at this stage.

Question 111 - Do you agree with the proposed change to 'prior extraction' requirements, to maintain a size threshold in urban areas and increase the threshold for green belt sites to 3 ha? Yes/No; If no, what evidence do you have to justify an alternative approach?

We have concerns about raising the threshold in Green Belt. Where development occurs in Green Belt it needs to take account of minerals. The policy does not imply mineral extraction will occur only be considered. The policy could be strengthened to take greater account of both the impact on the landscape/environment of extraction and any benefits to be gained.

Question 112a - Are there any key mineral related infrastructure sites that no longer need to be protected? Yes/No; Please provide details

We are not able to comment.

Question 112b - Are there any other sites that do need to be protected? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

We are not able to comment.

Question 114 - Do you have evidence of workable, viable deposits of brick clays outside the areas of search, which could justify defining new areas of search?

Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

We are not able to comment.

Question 115a - Do you have evidence of any realistic possibility of fracking in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

It seems unlikely that fracking sites would be realistic in the Black Country. Should they exist they would inevitably be in areas of countryside and policies to address them should take account of the impact on landscape and biodiversity as well as the safety and suitability of the access to the site (as defined in NPPF), especially given the reliance on OGVs (the heaviest form of HGVs) to carry equipment and waste water to and from the site. Any policy would need to clearly apply to testing and monitoring as well as production.

Question 115b - Do you think there are particular issues for the Black Country that would justify approaches different from those in national policy?

Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

See 115a

Question 116 - Do you think that Policy MIN5 identifies all of the key issues that need to be addressed in relation to new mineral developments in the Core Strategy, in accordance with national policy? Yes/No; If not, what changes should be made to the policy?

We do not have a comment.

Question 117 - Do you agree with the proposed approach to updating and amending Appendix 2 and Tables 2 and 3 of the existing Core Strategy? Yes/No; If not, what alternative approach would you suggest

We do not have a comment.

1.1 RPS Planning & Development (RPS) is instructed by Barratt Developments Plc (Barratt) to formally respond to the Black Country Core Strategy (BCCS) Review "Issues and Options Report" (July 2017) (IOR).

1.2 Barratt supports the decision of the four authorities to commence a review of the BCCS. As acknowledged in the IOR, the BCCS is now six years old and there is an urgent need for review to provide an up-to-date strategic development plan to identify and deliver growth requirements across the Black Country in the period to 2036. Barratt intend to take an active role in the BCCS Review process.

1.3 The representations are made in the context of Barratt's interest in land at Stencils Farm, Walsall. This land is promoted as a sustainable and deliverable site for residential development through the "Call for Sites" process, which has ran concurrently with the IOR consultation. Barratt's Call for Sites response has been submitted separately and comprises a covering letter, completed Questionnaire and a suite of supporting technical reports which includes a "Development Framework Plan" providing an indication of the site's development capacity; c.570 dwellings set within 18ha of green infrastructure.

1.4 Following the Council's consideration of these representations, Barratt would welcome the opportunity to meet with Officers of Walsall Council to present and discuss the emerging proposals for the land at Stencils Farm.

Statement Structure
1.5 This Statement is structured to provide a specific response to relevant Questions posed within the Council's IOR. Sections 2 to 15 respond to Questions 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11a, 12a, 12b, 13a, 13c, 13d and 15a.

Contact Details
1.6 Should any further information be required please contact:
Matthew Fox
Associate Director
T: 0121 213 5549
E: matt.fox@rpsgroup.com
 
2 QUESTION 1 - PARTIAL REVIEW
Q1 - Do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies?

2.1 Barratt supports the decision of the four authorities to commence a review of the BCCS. The BCCS is now six years old, pre-dating both the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), and sought to deliver growth targets based upon historic and outdated evidence, in particular the revoked West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (WMRSS) Phase Two Revision Panel Report. As acknowledged in the IOR, it is necessary to review the BCCS to provide an up-to-date strategic development plan to identify and deliver growth requirements across the Black Country in the period to 2036. Barratt intend to take an active role in the BCCS Review process.

2.2 Para. 1.6 of the IOR states that the BCCS "...will generally remain fit for purpose" and that it is "...proposed to carry out a partial review of the existing Core Strategy ... rather than carry out a wholescale review". Para. 3.61 states that a "selective" review is needed.

2.3 We recognise that many of the detailed "development management" type policies may be appropriate to carry forward as part of the BCCS Review. However, everything else in the adopted BCCS will need to be reviewed, particularly as strategic matters need to be revisited, namely; housing and employment need/requirements, spatial distribution strategy and land supply, with the latter inevitably requiring Green Belt releases based upon the scale of housing and employment need (IOR para. 3.17). The scale of the housing need is such that Green Belt releases will need to be delivered through strategic allocations within the BCCS Review rather than deferred to lower order development plan documents.

2.4 We highlight that the Inspectors appointed to review the BCCS were supportive of the "commitment to a full review" of the BCCS, rather than a partial review (emphasis added) (para. 236 of their Report, October 2010).

2.5 The scale of housing and employment growth identified in the IOR over the proposed plan period is significantly greater than that planned for in the BCCS and represents a step change on past rates of completion. The IOR acknowledges that the urban areas will not be capable of accommodating all of this growth. The spatial strategy in the BCCS review will therefore have to be fundamentally different to that within the adopted BCCS, so we consider it misleading to state that the existing spatial strategy will be "stretched". The growth requirements amount to an exceptional circumstance to justify the release of Green Belt land so this will have to form part of the new spatial strategy. Such releases were not necessary in the adopted BCCS, so it is important that the review acknowledges that the spatial strategy will be fundamentally different, rather than simply "stretched".

2.6 One could infer from the references to retaining and stretching the spatial strategy (para. 1.6), and "urban regeneration" (para. 1.19) remaining the focus, that the authorities have already agreed upon the spatial strategy. However, the spatial strategy forms part of the review and Questions 10 and 11 of the IOR seek views on strategic distribution options. It is therefore critical that the authorities do not commence the review process with a closed mind and predetermined spatial strategy. Rather, we urge the authorities to consider and assess all potential spatial options before settling upon a preferred option.

2.7 In summary, we consider references to a "partial" and "selective" review, and "stretching" the existing spatial strategy, to be wholly misleading. It should be acknowledged that an extensive review is required which will have to revisit the fundamental and strategic objectives/policies of the adopted BCCS.

2.8 The IOR does not include a question on the proposed plan period but we wish to record support for the 2014-36 timeframe (para. 1.17). 2014 aligns with the base date of the most up-to-date Household Projections and the end date provides a 15 year period from the envisaged date of adoption of the BCCS Review (2021).

2.9 We recognise that the preparation and examination of a joint development plan takes a considerable amount of work and agreement but we would urge the authorities to advance the review process as swiftly as possible. The authorities have acknowledged that the need for a review is urgent (para. 1.4 of the IOR) although adoption is not anticipated until Autumn 2021, with a five year review process when considering that it commenced in 2016. This would mean that the BCCS review will not be adopted until a decade after the BCCS, and will result in delays to the delivery of strategic allocations.

2.10 It is important that the identified development needs of the Black Country and wider Housing Market Area (HMA) are met as quickly as possible so we urge the authorities to progress the review as swiftly as possible, and to ensure that strategic allocations are delivered through the BCCS review rather than lower order development plan documents.

3 QUESTION 2 - EVIDENCE BASE

Q2 - Do you think that the key evidence set out in Table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy review?

3.1 Paragraph 159 of the NPPF advises that plan makers should have a clear understanding of housing needs in their area through the preparation of a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). It requires a SHMA to identify the scale, mix and tenures of housing that the population is likely to need over the plan period. The Black Country and South Staffordshire SHMA (March 2017) has been prepared to address this national policy requirement, and provides a critical piece of evidence for the BCCS review.

3.2 RPS has considerable experience when considering objectively assessed housing need (OAN) having participated in numerous local plan examinations on this matter. We provide detailed comments on the SHMA in response to Question 3 but wish to highlight here that it is critical that the SHMA is refreshed at appropriate points during the review process (potentially to 2021) to ensure it remains valid. In particular, we wish to highlight that:
* New 2016-based Household Projections are programmed for release in summer 2018, and further releases are likely if the review programme extends to 2020/21; and
* The DCLG has pledged to revise the way in which housing need is calculated, as noted in the Housing White Paper (February 2017). Its standard methodology for calculating OAN is expected to be published for consultation during September 2017 and it is likely that the review will need to reflect this.

3.3 The 2017 SHMA must not therefore be viewed as a settled document but, rather, will need to be refreshed at appropriate points to reflect new and up-to-date policy, guidance and evidence.

3.4 As stated in our response to Question 5, we support the need for a Green Belt Review to be commissioned and completed during 2018. The scale of housing need and existing supply position provides an exceptional circumstance to justify Green Belt land release.

4 QUESTION 3 - HOUSING NEED AND SUPPLY

Q3 - Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014-36 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance?
Housing Need

4.1 The IOR states that the Objectively Assessed Need for Housing (OAN) for the Black Country Housing Market Assessment (HMA) is 78,190 dwellings across the period 2014-2036. To inform this calculation, the authorities have undertaken an updated Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) (March 2017). In addition to the four Black Country authorities, the SHMA also covers the future housing need for South Staffordshire.

4.2 RPS has reviewed the SHMA in detail and questions whether a fair or proportionate approach has been adopted in deriving this figure. We consider that further adjustments are necessary in order to present a sound OAN that is capable of withstanding scrutiny through the Examination.

4.3 It is also recognised that the Government is intent on reforming the current approach for calculating housing need and, as a consequence, a consultation methodology is likely to be published in September 2017. These representations are made without the benefit of viewing the consultation methodology although they do reflect on what may be included.

4.4 In summary, RPS considers that the OAN for the Black Country is insufficient and needs to be increased. RPS has taken into account more robust assumptions than relied upon in the 2017 SHMA, arriving at an OAN of 85,930, or 3,906dpa which is considered a more appropriate figure. This is 9.9% higher than the Councils' calculation and should be accounted for to ensure that the Councils are planning for the correct level of growth.

4.5 In addition to the Councils' own OAN, RPS considers that more needs to be done in order to establish the housing requirement for the plan period. Whilst the OAN informs what is necessary to meet the forecast housing need, the requirement can be higher to take account of policy factors such as economic growth aspirations and unmet need from across the wider HMA. A testing provision of an additional 3,000 dwellings is proposed within the IOR, as a contribution towards the unmet needs Birmingham.

4.6 The evidence supporting RPS' approach to OAN including a wider critique of the Councils approach is detailed under the various headings below.
Demographic Starting Point

4.7 Although the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) recognises that there is no single approach to calculating OAN, it is recognised that the starting point should be the projections published by ONS which, presently, are updated biennially. The latest forecast published comprise the 2014-based Sub-national Population Projections (2014 SNPP) and the 2014-based Sub-national Household Projections (2014 SNHP). These projections will remain up-to-date until summer 2018, when ONS will publish the 2016-based projections.

4.8 The 2017 SHMA has utilised the 2014-based projections to establish the demographic starting point, which is the correct approach to take. Framed against the proposed plan period 2014-2036, the 2014 SNPP indicate that there will be a growth of 73,572 dwellings across the HMA. These are the unadjusted figures which the Councils rely upon by the 2017 SHMA.

4.9 In order to convert these from households into dwellings, it is necessary to apply a conversion factor, which accounts for second homes and vacant homes that exist in the dwelling stock. This information is not clearly presented in the 2017 SHMA. However, RPS has calculated the conversion factor taken from the latest data available . As illustrated in Table 4.1, applying this factor presents a total dwelling growth of 80,066 dwellings for the five authorities.

Table 4.1: SNHP 2014 Baseline Growth Projections
Growth 2014-2036 Vacancy Rate Second Home Rate Conversion Factor Dwellings
Dudley 11,727 2.5% 0.2% 2.7% 12,044
Sandwell 29,088 2.5% 0.0% 2.5% 29,815
Walsall 17,544 2.2% 0.2% 2.4% 17,962
Wolverhampton 15,213 2.9% 0.3% 3.2% 15,695
South Staffordshire 4,437 2.3% 0.3% 2.6% 4,550
Total 78,009 80,066

4.10 The 2017 SHMA includes a baseline dwelling increase of 80,055 across the five planning authorities. This is only 11 dwellings different from the figures in Table 4.1, so provides a good sense check against the baseline projections.

4.11 Although not currently modelled by RPS, it is recommended that the demographic forecasts are updated to reflect subsequent Mid-Year Population Estimates (MYEs) provided by ONS, which may differ from the baseline projections. In terms of the current data available, the 2015 and 2016 MYEs have been published and should be factored into the assessment of OAN as part of future iterations of the SHMA.
 
Demographic Adjustments

4.12 The PPG recognises that the population and household projections prepared by ONS are trend based, resulting from past changes in local demography. The PPG advises that the household projections may need to be adjusted to reflect factors not captured in past trends. This can be explored through the consideration of the components of the population projections, in relation to longer term trends and an assessment of household formation rates, which may have been constrained by a shortage of housing supply. The 2017 SHMA's approach to both of these issues is set out below.
Household Formation Rates

4.13 The 2017 SHMA takes a cursory view of Household Formation Rates (HFRs), presenting the latest 2014-based projections in relation to how these are expected to change over the plan period. The 2017 SHMA indicates (paragraph 4.33/4.34 refers) that the evidence does not suggest rates have been suppressed by a lack of supply, pointing instead to a lack of viability in the market to build new homes which young adults can access. RPS questions whether this is a robust assumption, and the assertion in the 2017 SHMA (paragraph 4.49) that HFRs in younger age cohorts are performing well. No evidence has been provided to consider past formation rates as part of the assessment, which is not consistent with the aims of the PPG.

4.14 Turning to the previous treatment of HFRs, RPS has considered these against the younger age cohorts in particular, to consider whether there has been any departures from trend. Figure 4.2 considers the formation rates for the 25-34 age cohort across the HMA. This indicates that across the board for this age group, the formation rates have significantly decreased from around the year 2000, and the projections have embedded this reduction into the forecasting years ahead.
Figure 4.2: 2014-based Household Formation Rates for Black Country and South Staffordshire

4.15 RPS considers that adjustments to HFRs for this age cohort are necessary and have been overlooked by the 2017 SHMA. In response to this, we propose that the 2017 SHMA should be amended to uplift the HFRs in the 25-34 age cohort to robustly capture any shortcomings of the household projections.

4.16 This departure from trend is consistent with the research of McDonald and Williams, who noted this in their 2014 report on behalf of the RTPI when they drew on evidence indicating that a major change to formation rates since 2001 has been the trend for young adults living in either the parental home or in shared accommodation, led in part to issues linked to housing shortage and affordability during the economic downturn.

4.17 We consider that there is compelling evidence to uplift the HFRs. Although this has not been modelled by RPS, this adjustment should be made as part of a future SHMA and for the purposes of this assessment, the OAN is presented as a minimum figure as it is expected that the actual OAN will be higher once this factor is accounted for.
Accounting for Past Delivery

4.18 The 2017 SHMA recognises the need for consistency throughout the wider HMA, recognising that the BCCS review sits in the context of the wider Greater Birmingham HMA.

4.19 The 2017 SHMA draws on the Strategic Housing Needs Study (SHNS) which identified the housing need in the wider HMA from 2011 onwards. The 2017 SHMA has taken the view that completions from 2011 up to the start of the Plan period (2014) should be considered against the projections in the SHNS to consider whether there have been any shortfalls in delivery. In total, a gap of 2,689 dwellings is identified (table 4.6 of the 2017 SHMA refers) across this three year period. This is added to the Councils' demographic starting point. This is considered a reasonable action to take, which is presented in Table 4.3:
Table 4.3: Accounting for Shortfalls in Delivery 2011-2014
Demographic Starting Point SHNS Shortfall Total
Dudley 12,044 125 12,169
Sandwell 29,815 2,047 31,862
Walsall 17,962 516 18,478
Wolverhampton 15,695 -85 15,610
South Staffordshire 4,550 86 4,636
Total 80,066 2,689 82,755

Market Signals

4.20 Section 5 of the 2017 SHMA reviews information associated with market signals in the Black Country, taking the view that the housing market in the HMA is relatively stable and other than South Staffordshire, there is no need for further adjustment to the OAN (paragraph 5.69 refers). RPS questions this conclusion and considers that the relationship of affordability pressures in the District warrant the need for further uplifts.

4.21 One approach to consider market signals across the HMA would be to apply the methodology recommended by the Local Plans Expert Group (LPEG) report to Government. The LPEG recommendations propose a methodology for the consideration of market signals, based on two indicators; median quartile housing affordability and lower quartile rental affordability. The LPEG recommendations indicates four brackets of potential market signals uplift ranging from 0% to 25% depending on the severity of affordability issues, which are replicated below:
* House Price Ratio less than 5.3 and Rental Affordability less than 25% = No uplift
* House Price Ratio at 5.3 - 6.9 and/or Rental Affordability between 25% - 29% = 10% uplift
* House Price Ratio at 7.0 - 8.6 and/or Rental Affordability between 30% - 34% = 20% uplift
* House Price Ratio at 8.7+ and/or Rental Affordability is +35%= 25% uplift

4.22 In terms of the median quartile House Price Ratio (HPR), the latest data published for 2016 has been published by ONS. ONS has provided two data sets for median affordability, based on "workplace" and "residence" based earnings. The residence based dataset is considered a more appropriate dataset to use, which aligns with the historical projections provided by DCLG. In terms of rental prices, this can be calculated using lower quartile wages taken from ONS data, aligned with monthly rental data from the Valuation Office Agency (VOA), which provides a Rental Affordability Ratio (RAR). This information for the Black Country Authorities is captured below:

Table 4.4: Market Signals Uplifts in Black Country and South Staffordshire
HPR RAR Uplift
South Staffordshire 7.67 31% 20%
Dudley 5.35 24% 10%
Sandwell 7.56 26% 10%
Walsall 5.39 25% 10%
Wolverhampton 5.31 24% 10%

4.23 Using the LPEG methodology, this suggests that 10% increases to the demographic baseline are necessary (and an uplift of 20% should be attributed to South Staffordshire where the market signal pressures are more acute). The figures suggest that Sandwell could also be qualified as a 20% market signals authority, though a conservative approach has been adopted at this stage of assessment.

4.24 Relating this data to the LPEG methodology, it is clear that market signals cannot simply be discounted for the Black Country and there is a need to ensure that there are appropriate increases to the OAN to reflect the balance between the supply and demand for housing. It is therefore proposed to apply the LPEG methodology to capture affordability related market signals in the Black Country area.

Table 4.5: Market Signals Uplift
Demographic OAN + Shortfall Uplift Market Signals Adjusted OAN
Dudley 12,169 10% 13,385
Sandwell 31,862 10% 35,048
Walsall 18,478 10% 20,325
Wolverhampton 15,610 10% 17,171
South Staffordshire 4,636 20% 5,563
Total 82,755 91,494

Accounting for Employment Growth

4.25 The SHMA has only taken a cursory review of employment data, relying on a single post-brexit forecast as part of the assessment to whether the future population balances the forecast growth in jobs. Additionally, we consider that the SHMA needs to give greater consideration to what can realistically be expected in terms of future economic activity rates, as this will impact on the translation of workplace job forecasts when considering the future availability of working age population. RPS would expect that this matter is more fully developed as part of a subsequent update.

Summary of OAN for Black Country and South Staffordshire

4.26 Taking into account the above steps, RPS' initial review of the OAN in the Black Country is presented in Table 4.6:
 
Table 4.6: Summary of Necessary Steps to Identify OAN for Black Country and South Staffordshire
Household Change 2014-2036 Dwelling Change 2014-2036 Unmet Need from SHNS Household Formation Rate Adjustment Market Signals Uplift
Dudley 11,727 12,044 12,169 TBC 13,385
Sandwell 29,088 29,815 31,862 TBC 35,048
Walsall 17,544 17,962 18,478 TBC 20,325
Wolverhampton 15,213 15,695 15,610 TBC 17,171
South Staffordshire 4,437 4,550 4,636 TBC 5,563
Total 78,009 80,066 82,755 TBC 91,494

4.27 Not accounting for growth in South Staffordshire, the above table indicates that the minimum OAN for the Black Country is 85,930 dwellings. This figure is 7,740 dwellings higher than the Council's proposed figure of 78,190, and has yet to account for the necessary uplifts to account for HFR suppression.

4.28 The RPS figure of "policy off" OAN is significantly higher than that presented in the 2017 SHMA. The adjustments made to reach the figure of 85,930 are not unreasonable and grounded in a robust set of assumptions. RPS therefore recommends that Black Country authorities consider the implications of these findings from an early stage, to ensure that the strategy for identifying sites is clear from the outset and delivers the level of growth that is required.

Housing Requirement

"Policy on" Employment Growth

4.29 The NPPF requires that authorities plan to meet their OAN in full, accounting for both market and affordable housing. In addition, the NPPF requires authorities to work together to work collaboratively to deliver sustainable economic growth, delivered through Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).

4.30 Beyond the OAN, the Black Country authorities should give consideration to how the BCCS Review can be used to support economic growth and the aims of the Black Country LEP (BCLEP) and West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) Strategic Economic Plan (SEP).

4.31 As part of Appendix B to the 2017 SHMA, a "Policy On" approach has been tested which seeks to translate the aspirations of the LEP to increase the number of jobs in the WMCA by 600,000 by 2030. The 2017 SHMA has translated this into the Black Country through the consideration of 80,000 jobs across the plan period.

4.32 RPS highlights that the Draft Black Country Strategic Economic Plan (SEP), which was published in May 2017, identifies a job growth of 103,000 additional jobs in the Black Country up to 2030. In terms of testing a "Policy On" scenario, future iterations of the SHMA should consider the implications of this more recently published figure which is specific to the Black Country.
Unmet Need from Outside the HMA

4.33 The Duty to Cooperate (DtC) places a legal mandate on local authorities to work together to address strategic cross-boundary issues through the local plan process. There is a clear and significant unmet need arising from the Birmingham Development Plan, which against a target of 89,000 dwellings, has a shortfall of 38,000 dwellings.

4.34 The GBSLEP has coordinated a number of Joint Strategic Housing Needs Studies (JSHNS) to consider where shortfalls arising from Birmingham could be met, taking into account the functional relationship to the City and the ability to accommodate further housing need. Presently three studies have been prepared, the latest dated August 2015 and a further "Stage 4" study has been commissioned (entitled "Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA Strategic Growth/Locations Study") which is expected to be published during autumn 2017.

4.35 As a response to the shortfalls arising from Birmingham, the IOR indicates that it will test whether 3,000 dwellings can be accommodated within the Black Country up to 2031 (following the Birmingham Local Plan timeframes) to contribute towards the shortfall in the wider HMA. RPS welcomes the authorities proactive stance towards accommodating cross-boundary needs particularly given that the Black Country shares clear functional relationships with Birmingham in terms of migration and commuting. It is, however, unclear how the 3,000 contribution has been arrived at and we request that the rationale behind this level of provision be explained.

Housing Supply

4.36 The Housing Supply Background Report (HSBP) (July 2017) summarises potential sources of housing supply across the Black Country. Completions since 2014 amount to 5,678 dwellings (2,839 per annum). Potential supply for the period 2016-36 from commitments and windfall sites included within the adopted/emerging development plan documents and four SHLAAs amounts to 45,416 dwellings. Finally, potential additional supply from both small and large windfall sites and from increased densities amounts to 5,426 dwellings. The total potential supply is therefore stated as 56,520 dwellings.

4.37 It is apparent that windfalls make up a significant portion of the identified supply; it is not possible to confirm the figure using the HSBP although the IOR states that the figure is 8,335 (Figure 6) equating to 15% of the identified supply. Relying on such a large windfall allowance attracts significant risks in relation to housing delivery because it relies upon a considerable number of unidentified sites coming forward, despite the fact that the SHLAAs will have already investigated the potential for large windfall sites. It is considered that the SHLAAs will have to be refreshed as part of the BCCS Review to provide a more definitive position on potential housing supply within the urban areas. Updates to the HSBP should also provide a clear breakdown of the supply categories for each authority for transparency; this will be critical in assessing the deliverable/developable housing supply.

4.38 Even when allowing for such a huge windfall allowance, the overall supply position is stark in the context of the emerging housing need; there is a shortfall of almost 22,000 dwellings against the 2017 SHMA OAN, which means that 28% of the Black Country's housing need to 2036 is currently unaccounted for. This shortfall would be even more pronounced against the OAN figure presented by RPS; 29,410 dwellings (34% of the need). Furthermore, this shortfall disregards the 3,000 dwellings which the authorities have committed to test as a contribution to Birmingham's unmet needs.

4.39 To put these shortfall figures into context, they equate to a need for 629 - 840ha of net developable housing land over and above all of the currently identified supply (assuming a net density of 35 dwellings per hectare as applied in the HSBP). Obviously, the gross land requirement would be even greater. It is therefore clear that significant Green Belt releases will be required.

Employment Land Release

4.40 Para. 3.16 of the IOR alludes to the potential release of additional surplus employment land for housing during the final decade of the proposed plan period (2026-36). A "maximum" figure of 10,400 dwellings is stated from this potential source, and whilst this has not been included within Figure 6 of the IOR as a potential source of supply, we urge caution in making assumptions around such additional employment land releases for the following reasons:
* The figure of 10,400 is crudely calculated on the basis of projecting forward the 300ha of employment land planned to be released between 2016 and 2026 and then applying a residential density of 35dph. This is a simplistic method of calculation which is not founded upon a robust evidence base on the need for employment land and the potential quantum of surplus employment land which is potentially suitable for residential development;
* The Economic Development Needs Assessment (May 2017) (EDNA) recommends that the review plans for the provision of up to 800ha of additional employment land to meet needs, with a "gap" of upto 300ha (IOR para. 3.27). This is obviously a huge requirement and appears to be in direct conflict with the suggestion that up to 600ha of existing surplus employment land will be released over the plan period; and
* The potential supply figures in Figure 6 of the IOR already provide a considerable windfall allowance which will inevitably include redevelopment of surplus employment sites, so seeking to add in a further employment land supply runs the risk of double-counting.

4.41 In summary, any potential for further release of surplus employment land beyond 2026 must be quantified based upon a robust evidence base which has regard to the need for employment land over the plan period. Such evidence must be aligned to the SHLAAs to ensure that each provides a thorough assessment of the supply from potentially surplus employment sites identified through the EDNA. The EDNA suggests that there will be a significant need for additional employment land to be allocated which flies in the face of the suggestion at para 3.16 of the IOR that further employment land could help to "close the gap" in the housing supply.
Conclusions on Overall Housing Supply

4.42 To conclude, the authorities are facing a considerable challenge in meeting their own housing needs, let alone any contribution towards the unmet needs of Birmingham. The authorities have identified potential supply within the urban areas which demonstrates a significant shortfall. The scale of the shortfall is huge - equating to approximately a third of the need - even when allowing for a large unidentified and speculative supply in the form of windfall sites. The authorities must therefore acknowledge that a fundamentally different spatial strategy is required compared to that enshrined in the BCCS.

4.43 With respect to para. 1.39 of the Housing White Paper (February 2017), it is evident that the authorities have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements and, as such, the shortfall must be acknowledged as an "exceptional circumstance" (NPPF para. 83). This justifies the alteration of the Black Country's Green Belt boundaries to allow land to be released (through a Green Belt Review) to accommodate sustainable housing development beyond the urban areas. Such releases and allocations must be delivered through the strategic plan rather than deferred to lower order development plan documents. We explore these issues in greater detail in response to Questions 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13.

4.44 Once the housing supply has been identified, the authorities ought to consider a contingency allowance (circa 20% uplift) to provide sufficient flexibility in responding to changing circumstances and in recognition that the housing requirement is a minimum, rather than maximum, figure.
Position relative to individual authority areas

4.45 The HSBP indicates that only Dudley has a supply which is capable of meeting its own needs (an excess of c.3,400 dwellings). This overprovision could therefore help to address shortfalls across the three other authorities, or Birmingham.

4.46 The most pronounced shortfall is within Sandwell; 13,500 dwellings. This Borough is almost entirely built-up with minimal opportunities to accommodate the shortfall through Green Belt releases. It is therefore likely that its unmet needs will need to be delivered in adjoining authority areas.

4.47 Wolverhampton is projected to have a current shortfall of c.3,300 dwellings. There are areas of Green Belt land around the peripheries of the City which could potentially accommodate this shortfall.

4.48 Finally, Walsall has an OAN of c.18,500 but an identified supply of only c.10,200 dwellings, resulting in a shortfall of c.8,200. This represents the second highest shortfall of the four authorities (if RPS' OAN figure (above) were to be applied this shortfall would increase to 10,000 dwellings). Walsall is unique in the Black Country context insofar as it encompasses an extensive area of Green Belt which lies in-between Walsall, Birmingham, Aldridge and Brownhills. It is understood that this amounts to c.70% of the Green Belt within the Black Country as a whole. Whilst not all of this will be suitable for release and development it should be recognised that Walsall has a significant area of undeveloped Green Belt land which provides an opportunity to accommodate its own shortfall (and potentially others) through selected Green Belt releases to permit sustainable urban extensions within the heart of the West Midlands conurbation, and in close proximity to Birmingham (which has the largest shortfall of all the authorities).

5 QUESTION 5 - GREEN BELT REVIEW

Q5 - Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt Review?

5.1 As explained in our response to Question 3, there can be no question of the need for a Green Belt Review across the Black Country given the identified scale of growth and current shortfalls in land supply within the urban areas (for both housing and employment). The housing shortfall from Birmingham only reinforces this need. Similar Green Belt reviews are/have taken place across the West Midlands including Bromsgrove, Solihull and Lichfield (releases are currently proposed in the latter two).

5.2 The scale of the potential shortfall is a matter of regional significance and the Green Belt Review must be addressed through the BCCS review, in order to formulate an appropriate spatial strategy to accommodate sustainable growth and identify the most appropriate sites for release from the Green Belt. We therefore welcome the recognition in the IOR at para. 3.42 of the need to identify sites on land outside of the urban area and that "nearly all such land is currently Green Belt". However, the IOR does not explicitly acknowledge that "exceptional circumstances" exist. We urge the authorities to accept this position and move forward proactively with a Green Belt Review as swiftly as possible and in a manner which provides a comprehensive and consistent assessment of the potential for sustainable land releases across the Black Country (and beyond), and which allows appropriate releases to be delivered through the BCCS review (as opposed to lower order development plan documents).

5.3 We recognise that the Greater Birmingham Strategic Growth/Locations ("Stage 4") Study includes a strategic Green Belt Review and this will inform the BCCS Green Belt Review. We understand that this will be strategic in scope and will not be subject to consultation, nor formally endorsed by each of the councils within the HMA. As such, we request that the Black Country Green Belt Review be subjected to consultation, prior to its finalisation/adoption and prior to the Preferred Option stage.

5.4 As stated in response to Question 3, Walsall is unique in the Black Country context insofar as it encompasses an extensive area of Green Belt which lies in-between Walsall, Birmingham, Aldridge and Brownhills. It is understood that this amounts to c.70% of the Green Belt within the Black Country as a whole. Whilst not all of this will be suitable for release the Green Belt Review must recognise that Walsall has a significant area of undeveloped Green Belt land which provides an opportunity to accommodate the authority's own shortfall and, potentially, that of others through selected releases to permit sustainable urban extensions within the heart of the West Midlands conurbation, and in close proximity to Birmingham (which has the largest shortfall of all the authorities). Walsall should therefore be a key focus of the Green Belt Review.

5.5 We attach as Appendix 1 an assessment of the strategic Green Belt sites in Walsall which have been promoted through previous rounds of development plan consultation for residential development. This has been completed by FPCR on behalf of Barratt and provides an evidence base which should be taken into account as part of the Green Belt Review.

6 QUESTION 7 - VISION AND SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLES

Q7 - Do you think that the Core Strategy vision and sustainability principles remain appropriate?

6.1 The Vision reflects the three dimensions of sustainable development within the NPPF and is therefore considered to be broadly appropriate. However, we would suggest that the first "major direction of change" - Sustainable Communities - should include reference to the delivery of sustainable urban extensions in the Green Belt, as it is currently focused upon "regeneration" (which we recognise will continue to be important).

6.2 Turning to the Sustainability Principles, these need to be amended to:
* Reflect the need for sustainable Green Belt releases. Number 4 includes a "brownfield first" principle which is inconsistent with national planning policy. It is recognised that national policy requires Councils to re-use previously developed land (PDL) but the BCCS Review should not be prioritising brownfield first. Furthermore, there needs to be recognition that significant Green Belt releases are necessary to meet the growth requirements. The scale of housing need is such that greenfield land will have to be delivered alongside brownfield land;
* Principle 5 proposes a comprehensive approach which remains appropriate but the references to Site Allocation Documents and AAPs documents as the "preferred mechanism" for "areas of large-scale change" needs to be updated to reflect the need for strategic Green Belt releases and allocations to be delivered through the BCCS Review, rather than deferred and delayed to other development plan documents; and
* Update the text at para. 2.4 as growth is unlikely to be concentrated within Strategic Centres and approximately a third of the housing requirement will need to be delivered on greenfield sites within the Green Belt.

7 QUESTION 8 - SPATIAL OBJECTIVES

Q8 - Do you think that the Core Strategy spatial objectives remain appropriate?

7.1 We agree with IOR para. 4.7; the Spatial Objectives provide a "sound basis" for the BCCS Review but some will inevitably need to be amended to reflect the new evidence base. In particular, the housing shortfall amounts to an "exceptional circumstance" to justify the release of land from the Green Belt and, based upon the Councils' own data, approximately a third of the housing requirement may need to be delivered from such releases, so this must be reflected in the Spatial Objectives.

7.2 The IOR (para. 3.18) states that the authorities have committed to "test" the accommodation of 3,000 homes to help address the shortfall from across the wider HMA. Any such provision will need to be reflected in the Spatial Objectives.
 
8 QUESTION 9 - STRATEGIC POLICIES

Q9 - Do you agree that Policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the Growth Network?

8.1 Policies CSP1 and CSP2 will need to be comprehensively rewritten to reflect the significant change in circumstances, principally the major shortfall in housing and employment land in the urban areas and the resultant need to introduce a fundamentally different spatial strategy which provides for a significant portion of new development to be delivered through Green Belt releases.

8.2 As outlined in our response to Question 8, based upon the Councils' own data, approximately a third of the housing requirement may need to be delivered through Green Belt releases, so this will need to be reflected in the strategic policies. Indeed, it is likely that there will need to be a specific strategic policy addressing the release of Green Belt land.
 
9 QUESTION 11A - SPATIAL STRATEGY

Q11a - Do you support Strategic Option 1A or 1B?

9.1 Para. 4.14 of the IOR states that the main variable between Options 1A and 1B is the availability of employment land within the Growth Network. The authorities are proposing to retain the Growth Network as the focus in meeting the "majority" of the development needs (para. 4.11).

9.2 Our response to Question 3 explains that any potential for further release of surplus employment land beyond 2026 must be quantified based upon a robust evidence base which has regard to the need for employment land over the plan period. Such evidence must be aligned to the SHLAAs to ensure that each provides a thorough assessment of the supply from potentially surplus employment sites identified through the EDNA. Significantly, the EDNA suggests that there will be a significant need for additional employment land to be allocated which flies in the face of the suggestion at para 3.16 of the IOR that further employment land could help to "close the gap" in the housing supply. In relation to the figure of 10,400 dwellings being released from additional employment land releases between 2026 and 2036 (Figure 9), please refer to our response to
Question 3 which identifies significant concerns with the assumptions underpinning this figure.

9.3 Having regard to the above, we consider that Option 1A will need to form the basis of "Stage 1" unless a robust evidence base can be produced, which differs from the existing EDNA and SHLAAs, to demonstrate that there is additional surplus employment land within the urban areas which is deliverable/developable for housing.

9.4 Either way, it is inevitable that significant Green Belt land release will be required to meet the housing shortfall, rather than "some" as stated in IOR para. 4.14.

9.5 The IOR asserts that Option 1B "...may allow more housing need to be met within the Black Country" (para. 4.18 and reiterated in the table on page 40). No explanation is provided for this statement and it is unclear why releasing additional employment land will have the effect of increasing housing supply compared to Option 1A. As acknowledged in the IOR, further Green Belt releases would be needed to offset the loss of existing employment land (para. 4.19) but under 1A this could be developed for housing instead. Figure 9 is deceptive in this regard as it does not explain that Green Belt land would need to be released to reprovide employment land.

9.6 Finally, there are deliverability issues associated with 1B with the need to redevelop existing employment land. Such redevelopment attracts significant costs in relation to demolition, site clearance and land remediation, often requiring assistance from public subsidy (and often at the expense of affordable housing delivery). This approach is therefore likely to cause significant delays to the delivery of housing land which will be contrary to the need to "boost significantly" housing land supply (NPPF para. 47).
 
10 QUESTION 12A - SPATIAL OPTION H1

Q12a - Do you support Strategic Option H1? What criteria should be used to select suitable sites?

10.1 Barratt considers that the identification of housing allocations beyond the Growth Network should be informed by the SHLAAs, Sustainability Assessment and the Green Belt Review. These will enable the identification of sites having regard to sustainability/accessibility, deliverability/developability ("suitability", "availability" and "achievability" tests (NPPF and PPG)) and Green Belt criteria (assessment against the five purposes of Green Belt in NPF para. 80).

10.2 The two Spatial Options are presented as mutually exclusive in the IOR which is unclear and considered to be a flawed assumption. Given the scale of the shortfall, it is likely that both small-medium (H1) and strategic Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUE) (H2) will need to be identified in order to meet the housing shortfall and it is necessary to provide a diverse range of housing allocations to ensure that all sectors of the housebuilding market are engaged in delivering housing simultaneously to meet needs as swiftly as possible.

10.3 To put the housing shortfall into context, 22,000 dwellings is the figure stated throughout the IOR purely to meet the Black Country's needs and will equate to 629ha of net developable housing land (over and above all of the currently identified supply) when assuming a net density of 35 dwellings per hectare (as applied in the HSBP). This requirement would obviously increase if the Black Country agrees to meet the unmet needs of the wider HMA, and RPS has presented a higher OAN figure in response to Question 3 which would also increase the land requirement significantly. The shortfall will need to be met primarily through Green Belt release and the scale of requirement means that strategic releases in the form of SUEs will have to be delivered through the BCCS review process, in addition to small-medium Green Belt releases (the scale of which is not defined in the IOR).

10.4 Strategic residential allocations are generally defined in Local Plans as developments of at least 500 dwellings, although SUEs can be smaller in scale. We suggest a minimum size of 250 units and such larger sites should be allocated through the BCCS Review.

10.5 We concur with the statements in para. 4.28 of the IOR which acknowledges that SUEs are better placed to comprehensively deliver, or contribute towards, supporting physical and social infrastructure.

11 QUESTION 12B - POTENTIAL LOCATIONS

Q12b - Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered?

11.1 Barratt has submitted a Call for Sites submission for land at Stencils Farm, Walsall, comprising a covering letter, completed Questionnaire and a suite of supporting technical reports which includes a "Development Framework Plan" providing an indication of the site's development capacity; c.570 dwellings set within 18ha of green infrastructure.

11.2 The land at Stencils Farm provides a highly sustainable option to assist in delivering Walsall's emerging housing need through the BCCS Review. Of the eight strategic residential Green Belt sites in the Borough previously promoted for residential development, Stencils Farm provides a limited contribution to the five national purposes of Green Belt (second to only one other site) (refer to Appendix 1). It lies close to Walsall town centre with good public transport and walking/cycling links to local facilities, and is well contained providing a valuable opportunity to create a robust settlement edge and Green Belt boundary with a soft transition to the countryside. This transition would comprise a strategic area of green infrastructure adjoining the canal, providing a linkage between two "Wildlife Corridors".

11.3 The site is deliverable and we respectfully request that it be considered as an allocation through the BCCS Review.

11.4 The potential scale of development on the land at Stencils Farm means that it would qualify as a Sustainable Urban Extension but it is presented in response to this question given that the scale of SUEs has yet to be determined.

11.5 Barratt intend to fully engage with Walsall Council and the local community over forthcoming months to discuss the site and proposed development in greater detail.
 
12 QUESTION 13A - SPATIAL OPTION H2

Q13a - Do you support Spatial Option H2? What should the characteristics of SUEs be? What criteria should be used to select suitable sites?

12.1 Barratt considers that the identification of housing allocations beyond the Growth Network should be informed by the SHLAAs, Sustainability Assessment and the Green Belt Review. These will enable the identification of sites having regard to sustainability/accessibility, deliverability/developability (suitability, availability and achievability test (NPPF and PPG)) and Green Belt criteria (assessment against the five purposes of Green Belt in NPF para. 80).

12.2 Barratt supports the identification of Strategic Urban Extensions (SUEs) under Spatial Option H2. However, the two Spatial Options are presented as mutually exclusive in the IOR which is unclear and considered to be a flawed assumption. Given the scale of the shortfall both small-medium (H1) and SUE (H2) will need to be identified in order to meet the housing shortfall and it is necessary to provide a diverse range of housing allocations to ensure that all sectors of the housebuilding market are engaged in delivering housing simultaneously to meet needs as swiftly as possible.

12.3 To put the housing shortfall into context, 22,000 dwellings is the figure stated throughout the IOR purely to meet the Black Country's needs and will equate to 629ha of net developable housing land (over and above all of the currently identified supply) when assuming a net density of 35 dwellings per hectare (as applied in the HSBP). This requirement would obviously increase if the Black Country agrees to meet the unmet needs of the wider HMA, and RPS has presented a higher OAN figure in response to Question 3 which would also increase the land requirement significantly. The shortfall will need to be met primarily through Green Belt release and the scale of requirement means that strategic releases in the form of SUEs will have to be delivered through the BCCS review process, in addition to small-medium Green Belt releases (the scale of which is not defined in the IOR).

12.4 Strategic residential allocations are generally defined in Local Plans as developments of at least 500 dwellings, although SUEs can be smaller in scale. We suggest a minimum size of 250 units and such larger sites should be allocated through the BCCS Review.

12.5 We concur with the statements in para. 4.28 of the IOR which acknowledges that SUEs are better placed to comprehensively deliver, or contribute towards, supporting physical and social infrastructure.

13 QUESTION 13C - POTENTIAL LOCATIONS

Q13c - Are there any potential locations that should be considered for SUEs and what infrastructure would be required to support these?

13.1 Barratt has submitted a Call for Sites submission for land at Stencils Farm, Walsall, comprising a covering letter, completed Questionnaire and a suite of supporting technical reports which includes a "Development Framework Plan" providing an indication of the site's development capacity; c.570 dwellings set within 18ha of green infrastructure.

13.2 The land at Stencils Farm provides a highly sustainable option to assist in delivering Walsall's emerging housing need through the BCCS Review. Of the eight strategic residential Green Belt sites in the Borough previously promoted for residential development, Stencils Farm provides a limited contribution to the five national purposes of Green Belt (second to only one other site) (refer to Appendix 1). It lies close to Walsall town centre with good public transport and walking/cycling links to local facilities, and is well contained providing a valuable opportunity to create a robust settlement edge and Green Belt boundary with a soft transition to the countryside. This transition would comprise a strategic area of green infrastructure adjoining the canal, providing a linkage between two "Wildlife Corridors".

13.3 The site's location to the east of Walsall adjoining the Aldridge Road (A454) means that minimal new infrastructure would be required - the site already benefits from a roundabout which can provide a primary point of access from the Aldridge Road, and this road is served by regular bus services linking both Walsall and Aldridge.

13.4 The site is deliverable and we respectfully request that it be considered as an allocation through the BCCS Review.

13.5 Barratt intend to fully engage with Walsall Council and the local community over forthcoming months to discuss the site and proposed development in greater detail.

14 QUESTION 13D - DETAILED SUE GUIDANCE

Q13d - Do you think that the Core Strategy should set out detailed guidance for the development of SUEs, rather than details being determined at a local level in light of local policies?

14.1 It is important that the identified development needs of the Black Country and wider Housing Market Area (HMA) are met as quickly as possible so we urge the authorities to progress the review as swiftly as possible, and to ensure that strategic allocations and SUEs are delivered through the BCCS review, rather than lower order development plan documents. It is essential that the strategic sites/SUEs are allocated through the BCCS review process as this is the strategic development plan and sites will be identified through the Green Belt Review which will cover the whole of the Black Country. Indeed, some of these sites may be cross-boundary allocations i.e. meeting the needs of one authority in another, so it is critical that the strategic development plan provides a clear policy framework for them.

14.2 We draw reference to the South Worcestershire Development Plan and Gloucester, Tewkesbury and Cheltenham Joint Core Strategy, both of which allocate strategic sites.

14.3 Deferring such allocations and/or detailed development guidance will only serve to delay the delivery of the developments which will fail to ensure that development needs are met as they arise.

15 QUESTION 15A - EXPORTING HOUSING NEEDS

Q15a - If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the "export" of housing growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA?

15.1 The NPPF requires that authorities plan to meet their objectively assessed housing need (OAN) (para. 14, 17, 47 and 182). As such, there needs to be a rigorous approach to the identification of potential housing sites with a view to providing all of the Black Country's needs within the Black Country. To date, the SHLAAs have focused upon the urban area to accord with the adopted BCCS spatial strategy but the BCCS Review must now undertake an assessment of capacity within the Green Belt.

15.2 The results of the Greater Birmingham HMA Strategic Growth/Locations Study are yet to be published and the Black Country Green Belt Review will not be completed until mid-2018. However, it is essential that the authorities now undertake a proactive and thorough approach to the assessment of potential Green Belt release because the only potential capacity within adjoining authorities to assist in meeting any shortfalls in the Black Country would be through Green Belt releases in those authorities.

15.3 Walsall is unique in the Black Country context insofar as it encompasses an extensive area of Green Belt which lies in-between Walsall, Birmingham, Aldridge and Brownhills. It is understood that this amounts to c.70% of the Green Belt within the Black Country as a whole. Whilst not all of this will be suitable for release and development the Green Belt Review must recognise that Walsall has a significant area of undeveloped Green Belt land which provides an opportunity to accommodate its own shortfall (and potentially others) through selected Green Belt releases to permit sustainable urban extensions within the heart of the West Midlands conurbation, and in close proximity to Birmingham (which has the largest shortfall of all the authorities).

Chapter 3 / Page 26 / Question 6.

It does appear that Key Issue 5 Environmental Considerations are
concentrating on national or international designations (eg SACs and SPAs).
This should also take account of more 'local' designations.

Chapter4 / Page35 / Question8 / Paragraph 4.6

Objective 10 represents a particular difficulty for this Company.
'Dormant' Planning permission exists for the extraction of Brick Clay on the
Highfields North Site in Walsall Wood, and this is acknowledged in Walsall's
submitted Site Allocations Document.

This accords with National planning policy which recognises that minerals are
a finite natural resource which can only be worked where they are found, and it
is necessary to make best use of these resources, to ensure there will continue
to be sufficient supplies remaining for future generations. Mineral planning
authorities are therefore required adopt policies to prevent other development
from needlessly compromising (sterilising) future exploitation of these
resources. This is emphasised as the Walsall Plan recognises the need to
maintain brick clay supplies to local brickworks and the potential shortfall
which is likely to occur.

It is acknowledged that this particular site offers various challenges, not least
of which is the designation of much of the site as an SSSI with the remainder
being included within a SLINC. Any application for modern working conditions
for this site will be expected to include a significant level of supporting
information including Ecological Assessment and a strategy for minimising
loss of the SSSI's special features, together with permanent retention of a
proportion of the SSSI's special features throughout the working phases of the
site (now set out in Walsall's submitted Site Allocations Document). Laudable
as this requirement is, it must be recognised that the imposition of severe
restrictions on working the site could seriously impact upon the viability of the
site. As the planning permission pre-dates the SSSI designation the policies
ought to acknowledge the potential implications of the viability/loss of value
which may result. The conflict which arises - need for the mineral versus
retention of valuable ecological features - will make this objective particularly
difficult to achieve.

Summary

This Company owns a site which has the benefit of planning permission for
clay extraction. Much of the land is also designated SSSI. Extraction of the
clays will totally destroy the area of the SSSI. Even if it were possible to
recreate the features of interest on restoration, which has to be doubtful, this
would be many years away, following an extended period of extraction and
backfill.

In this instance the two elements of Objective 10 are incompatible

Chapter4 / Page43 / Question 12a /

This would appear to offer the most flexible approach. Specifying rigid criteria
may not be the most appropriate way to achieve this - as every situation will be
different and ought to be treated on its merits. The need to ensure that
defensible boundaries remain is nonetheless considered to be of significant
importance.

Chapter 4 / Page 44 / Question 12b

The permitted clay extraction site at Highfields North (referred to elsewhere)
can only be worked at the expense of an SSSI. Protection of the SSSI could
render the operation of the site not viable to the serious commercial detriment
of this Company.
There is the prospect of securing built development on that part of the
permitted clay extraction site which falls outside the SSSI as an alternative to
the extraction operations. Land immediately adjoining was included in the
Walsall Local Plan SAD as a housing site but was removed from the
submission document because of the potential conflict with extraction. It is
therefore clearly considered an appropriate location for housing in other
respects.

Such development of this land as an alternative to extraction would secure the
SSSI and the remainder of the local Green Belt designations for the future.

Chapter 4/ Page 46/ Question 15a

Subject to the availability of suitable sites, reasonable access to employment
and continued inter-relationship with the Black Country

Chapter 4 / Page 46/ Question 15b

Telford and Wrekin District. Telford was established as a New Town with the
very intention of taking 'overspill' from the Black Country. It has never achieved
the targets originally envisaged in terms of population and households.
Significant areas of potential development land exist within the Authority area
and excellent communications already exist between the two authorities in the
form of rail and the M54.


Chapter 6/ Page 98/ Question 96

The apparent overriding need to protect and enhance biodiversity doesn't
address the conflict which can occur when two incompatible aspirations apply
to a single site, as at Highfields North in Walsall.

Here, an SSSI has been designated on land already with the benefit of planning
permission (dormant) for brick clay extraction. Any application for modern
working conditions for this site will be expected to include a significant level of
supporting information including Ecological Assessment and a strategy for
minimising loss of the SSSI's special features, together with permanent
retention of a proportion of the SSSI's special features throughout the working
phases of the site (now set out in Walsall's submitted Site Allocations
Document). Laudable as this requirement is, it must be recognised that the
imposition of severe restrictions on working the site could seriously impact
upon the viability of the site. As the planning permission pre-dates the SSSI
designation the policies ought to acknowledge the potential implications of the
viability/loss of value which may result.

Chapter 6/ Page 109/ Question 112a

There is potential for change at the Highfields North Site in Walsall. There are
challenges relating to its future operation - in addition to those set out
elsewhere relating to the SSSI. The passage of time since the original
permission has introduced other concerns with increased development in the
area and associated increased traffic movements (not insurmountable). The
balance between conflicting aspirations needs to be considered here and this
may be a site which can offer a more appropriate form of development than that
currently permitted.

The Strategic Challenges and Opportunities (Questions 2-6)
2.4 Taylor Wimpey generally agrees with the key issues identified but makes specific comment regarding relevant issues below.
Key Issue 1 - Updating the Evidence Base
Taylor Wimpey considers that the Key Evidence set out in Table 1 is broadly sufficient to support the BCCS review but notes that the Government is currently proposing material changes to the Framework and Practice Guidance to make the evidence requirements for Local Plans more proportionate1. Any such changes may lead to further additional work being necessary for the BCCS to be found sound when examined. Taylor Wimpey therefore reserves the right to make further comment on evidence requirements until such time that more detail is available on the proposed changes to national policy and guidance.
Key Issue 2 - Meeting the Housing Needs of a Growing Population
2.6 The CD identifies a housing need of 78,190 for the Black Country for the period 2014 to 2036; 3,554 dwellings per annum [dpa]. Taylor Wimpey considers that this is insufficient to meet the needs of the Black Country's growing population and is not in line with national guidance. The 'Black Country Housing Needs Assessment - Headroom Report' sets out the basis for this view.
2.7 The CD is based upon the March 2017 Strategic Housing Market Assessment [SHMA] which uses the 2014 Sub-National Population Projections [SNPP], with an allowance for vacancy rates and adjustment for past housing under-delivery. Finally the CD uplifts the target by 3,000 dwellings to accommodate some of Birmingham's unmet housing need. The SHMA has a flawed methodological approach, particularly: the lack of alternative household and populations projections such as using long term migration rates and no sensitivity adjustment for historic low household formation rates in younger age cohorts as required by the Framework [§159] and 1 Housing White Paper [§1.10 and A.19] Practice Guidance2; and an underestimate of the need to increase delivery in response to market signals (as recommended by the Practice Guidance3 and in recommendations made by the Local Plan Experts Group [LPEG]4).
2.8 Taylor Wimpey commissioned Lichfields to undertake an independent assessment of the Black Country's OAHN. This involved modelling a number of demographic and economic scenarios to forecast future population and household growth, following the Framework and recommendations of the Practice Guidance and LPEG. This found that the CD significantly underestimates the level of housing required to support the needs of the Black Country's growing population.
2.9 A more appropriate and robust OAHN for the Black Country (excluding South Staffordshire) is 4,518 to 5,473 dpa. This is based upon the long term migration trends seen in the Black Country, with an adjustment to household formation rates for younger age cohorts. The OAHN also includes uplifts to each local authority to reflect negative market signals and an increased affordable housing need in Dudley. Finally the OAHN sets out an increased requirement of up to 955 dpa to reflect the Black Country's proportionate 'fair share' of Birmingham's unmet housing need. The 'Black Country Housing Needs Assessment - Headroom Report' provides further detail on the approach and assumptions used to derive this OAHN.
Key Issue 3 - Supporting a Resurgent Economy
2.10 The Framework and Practice Guidance make it clear that economic growth needs and housing must align to promote sustainable patterns of development. An imbalance between housing and employment land growth could lead to unsustainable commuting patterns or constrain growth. The Practice Guidance5 makes clear that economic forecasts must have regard to the growth of working age population within the HMA, and consider demographically derived assessments of future employment needs6. This is particularly important as the economic growth ambitions of Birmingham will need to be supported by housing provision in the wider HMA, and the Black Country local authorities have an important role to play in supporting this. The Practice Guidance7 goes on to say that a failure to agree housing provision as part of the duty to cooperate would result in unmet housing need. The Framework sets out that Local Planning Authorities [LPAs] should ensure that their assessment of strategies for housing, employment and other uses are integrated, and that they take full account of relevant market and economic signals [§158].
2.11 The BCCS sets out the Economic Development Needs Assessment's [EDNA] recommendations for up to 800 ha of additional employment land to meet the Black Country's B1, B2 and B8 needs for the period 2014 to 2036. Taylor Wimpey welcomes the Black Country's aspirations for economic growth, though further evidence is required to ensure that there is sufficient housing provision to support these ambitions. The EDNA is based solely upon economic led scenarios (past delivery rates and economic growth forecasts) and does not consider the needs arising from anticipated housing growth. Further evidence is therefore required to determine the demographically led need for employment land in the Black Country to ensure that employment land supply and housing provision align, as the CD fails to align with national guidance. This evidence would need to demonstrate the anticipated employment land required to support
2 Practice Guidance Ref: 2a-015-20140306
3 Practice Guidance Ref: 2a-019-20140306
4 LPEG (March 2016) Report to the Communities Secretary and to the Minister of Housing and Planning
5 Practice Guidance Ref: 2a-018-20140306
6 Practice Guidance Ref: 2a-032-20140306
7 Practice Guidance Ref: 2a-018-20140306
demographically led scenarios, to ensure that it would not result in an over or under supply of employment land.
2.12 Taylor Wimpey welcomes the recognition in the CD that some employment sites may be unfit for purpose and could be considered for alternative uses such as housing. This aligns with the Framework [§22] which states that allocated employment sites for which there is no reasonable prospect of development should not be protected in the long term. Proposals for alternative uses on such sites should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities.
Key Issue 6 - Reviewing the Role and Extent of the Green Belt
2.13 Local planning authorities are currently required by the Framework [§14] to positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area. The Framework [§17] also sets out 12 core planning principles, including how planning should:
"...proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth. Plans should take account of market signals, such as land prices and housing affordability, and set out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in their area, taking account of the needs of the residential and business communities."
2.14 The Practice Guidance8 states that the need for housing refers to:
"...the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that is likely to be needed in the housing market area over the plan period - and should cater for the housing demand of the area and identify the scale of housing supply necessary to meet that demand."
2.15 Furthermore, as set out in Housing White Paper, the Government intends to extend the requirement to accommodate housing need to also include "any needs that genuinely cannot be met within neighbouring authorities."9
2.16 The CD [§3.42] recognises the need to identify new sites outside of the urban area and currently in the Green Belt, to accommodate the housing need of the Black Country. In addition to the housing needs of the Black Country local authorities, any additional identified need from the GBHMA must be accommodated within the Black Country. Housing sites must therefore be released from the Green Belt as there is insufficient available land within the urban areas to meet the requirements.
2.17 The Framework [§§83-85] sets out the need to demonstrate 'exceptional circumstances' when amending Green Belt boundaries and this is reinforced by the Housing White Paper [§§137- 140]. Taylor Wimpey considers that the scale of the housing required and the lack of land outwith the Green Belt constitutes the necessary 'exceptional circumstances' to justify that Green Belt land should be released for housing. The local authorities therefore need to provide a sound evidence base which is robust in demonstrating the 'exceptional circumstances case' and ensure it complies with the Housing White Paper [§139].
8 Practice Guidance Ref: 2a-003-20140306
9 Housing White Paper - Page 79: Box 2
2.18 In this context, Taylor Wimpey fully supports the carrying out of a Strategic Green Belt Review as this is necessary to ensure sufficient land is provided to meet the Black Country's and GBHMA's objectively assessed housing needs over the course of the plan period.
2.19 Taylor Wimpey supports the release of Green Belt sites, including specific allocations for development by 2036 through the Core Strategy review. It is critical that the Green Belt Review process is fully informed by the GBHMA Growth Study and that developers and other stakeholders are fully engaged both in terms of the proposed methodology and any site assessment work.
2.20 Call for Sites forms and Development Statements for the sites at Chester Road, Streetly and Bosty Lane, Aldridge are being submitted on behalf of Taylor Wimpey alongside these representations. The Call for Sites submission in relation to Chester Road, Streetly clearly demonstrates that the site no longer fulfils the purposes of including the land within the Green Belt; should be removed from it; and, should be allocated for housing development in the BCCS.
2.21 Furthermore, in addition to housing allocations, the BCCS should allocate safeguarded land to provide greater certainty over the Green Belt boundaries beyond the plan period.
2.22 Where housing delivery is failing to meet plan requirements, a partial or full plan review should normally be considered to allocate safeguarded land for housing development. However, it is imperative that the BCCS includes clear triggers for such a review to ensure that the plan is transparent and effective.
2.23 In accordance with the recommendations of the LPEG Report, the Council should provide a mechanism for the release of developable reserve sites equivalent to 20% of the housing requirement. Taylor Wimpey considers that reserve sites, to be taken out of the safeguarded land supply if certain triggers are met, should be identified in the BCCS. This approach has been taken by other local authorities in adopted Local Plans and such triggers would include the lack of a five year supply or delivery below the housing trajectory. A good example of this is the West Lancashire Local Plan [Policy RS6] which includes the following mechanism for releasing reserve sites after 5 years of the plan, namely:
"If less than 80% of the pro rata housing target has been delivered after 5 years of the Plan period, then the Council will release land from that safeguarded from development..."
2.24 Similar triggers are included in the policy for low delivery after 10 years or if new evidence emerges that the housing requirement should be higher. An extract of the West Lancashire Local Plan [Policy RS6] is included at Annex 1 for reference.
Key Issue 9 - Working Effectively With Neighbours
2.25 It is acknowledgement that the Black Country authorities are committed to working in partnership with neighbouring stakeholders and meeting the requirements of the Duty to Co- Operate set out in the Framework. However, significant emphasis should be put on the Black Country's role and responsibility for meeting any unmet housing need from the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area [GBHMA].
2.26 Any additional identified need from the GBHMA must be accommodated within the Black Country and additional sites allocated for housing.
Reviewing the Strategy to Meet New Challenges and Opportunities
Vision, Principles, Spatial Objectives and Strategic Policies (Questions 7-9)
2.27 It is considered that the BCCS vision and sustainability principles remain generally appropriate as they reflect the sustainability principles of the Framework and Practice Guidance. Taylor Wimpey however, reserves the right to make further comment on the specific wording at subsequent stages of consultation on the BCCS.
2.28 It is considered that the BCCS spatial objectives remain generally appropriate but an obvious omission is a specific objective for providing the necessary level of housing in the Black Country, including any unmet housing need from the GBHMA. Such an objective should be added and other relevant objectives (i.e. 1 and 8) also amended to reflect the need to provide sufficient high quality housing in the locations where it is needed.
2.29 Taylor Wimpey agrees that policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the growth network. In particular, the policies will need to reflect and provide for adequate levels of housing based on robust evidence and including any additional identified need from the GBHMA.
Reviewing the Spatial Strategy
Stage 1: Strategic Options 1A and 1B - Continuing the Role of the Growth Network (Questions 10 and 11)
2.30 The adopted BCCS spatial strategy focussed on the Growth Network, which was identified as having the ability to meet the 'majority of long term development needs' [BCCS §4.11]. Taylor Wimpey agreed that the Growth Network no longer has the ability to meet the majority of long term development needs and the CD identifies two strategic options to meeting the housing and employment requirements.
2.31 Strategic Option 1A would seek to meet all remaining housing and employment land growth needs outside the Growth Network, whilst Strategic Option 1B would seek to re-structure the Growth Network, releasing some existing employment land for housing within regeneration corridors.
2.32 The CD makes it clear that Option 1B would be 'very challenging' [§§4.18-4.20] and acknowledges that despite the previous aim to shrink the stock of employment land, the employment land stock has proved to be more resilient than predicted and sites have proved difficult to bring forward for housing [CD §5.19]. The adopted BCCS planned for a contraction in net employment land but there is now a recognised need to increase employment land stock. If any employment land were to be redeveloped for housing within the regeneration corridors, or any amendments to any regeneration corridor boundaries were proposed, the local authorities will need to ensure that any proposed development sites were sustainable and viable.
2.33 Further work is therefore required in order to assess the feasibility of Option 1B in terms of whether it would be viable and/or sustainable and determine how much employment land would realistically be available and developable for housing.
2.34 Any employment land displaced under Option 1B would need to be made up elsewhere
[CD §4.19]. Therefore, whilst Taylor Wimpey does not object to the retention of the Growth
Network, there is a need to provide additional land to accommodate the housing needs of the Black Country and the unmet needs of the GBHMA. The CD identifies that further land will be required to provide 22-25,000 new homes and up to 300ha of new employment land [§4.12]. Additionally, analysis undertaken by Lichfields indicates that the BCCS proposals to accommodate 3,000 dwellings of Birmingham's unmet needs significantly underestimates the proportionate 'fair share' expected of the Black Country based on the size of its population. The requirement could be as high as 955 dpa, though it is recognised that more recent evidence is needed to determine the feasibility of distributing Birmingham's unmet need across the wider GBHMA.
2.35 There is a clear and unquestionable need to provide significant amounts of housing land outwith the Growth Network within the Green Belt. Therefore the BCCS must identify and allocate suitable sites for release from the Green Belt for housing development, whichever strategic option is pursued. Taylor Wimpey however broadly supports Option 1A.
Stage 2: Strategic Options 2A and 2B - Housing and Employment Outside the Urban Area (Questions 12-20)
2.36 There is inadequate land within the Black Country urban area to meet emerging employment and housing needs and there is also a pressing need to assist Birmingham in meeting its acute housing shortfall. Additionally an independent assessment of the Black Country's OAHN indicates a much higher requirement than that proposed by the BCCS (further details are provided in the 'Black Country Housing Needs Assessment - Headroom Report'). This need cannot be met within the existing urban area of the Black Country and therefore exceptional circumstances exist to justify the release of enough sites from the Green Belt to boost the supply of housing to meet the identified needs.
2.37 The CD identifies two spatial housing options to achieve this, namely 'rounding off' (Spatial Option H1) and Sustainable Urban Extensions [SUEs] (Spatial Option H2).
2.38 Taylor Wimpey considers that strategic scale Sustainable Urban Extensions [SUE] would normally comprise approximately 700 or more dwellings and provide new strategic social and physical infrastructure such as major highways improvements, and community healthcare and education facilities such as GPs practices or schools. Sites of around 300-700 dwellings may also constitute SUEs where they would provide substantial elements of social and physical infrastructure but not to the same scale as strategic SUEs.

2.39 Allocating SUEs of different scales across the Black Country could contribute to a mix of uses and a wide range of house types to significantly boost the supply of housing and could provide for significant investment in new infrastructure. However, relying only on very large scale sites to deliver the housing needed would have associated risks. Strategic scale sites often have more complex issues associated with them such as multiple ownerships and/or significant infrastructure requirements, which can restrict and/or delay delivery. Releasing smaller sites would help promote choice and opportunity for those in need of housing and also for developers to ensure that sustainable developments in the right locations will be viable and actually delivered. Smaller sites would need to be largely supported by existing infrastructure but could also contribute improvements to and therefore boost the existing local infrastructure in appropriate sustainable locations.

2.40 Taylor Wimpey therefore considers that there is merit in both Spatial Options H1 (rounding off) and H2 (Sustainable Urban Extensions) and therefore the most appropriate overall spatial approach in the BCCS should be to combine the two approaches. Specifically, the local authorities should identify deliverable and viable sites of all range of sizes, in sustainable locations where the size of the site and range of house types can reflect the local need for housing and the character of the area.

2.41 The critical challenge facing the Black Country is that whichever approach is adopted, large areas of the Green Belt are required for housing. Any site released from the Green Belt for housing would need to be available, suitable, achievable and viable and well related to existing patterns of development. All sites will also need to be assessed and those which would cause the least harm to Green Belt purposes. The Black Country Green Belt Review (due to be published in 2019) is therefore a crucial piece of work to identify sustainable sites which can be allocated for housing in the BCCS.

2.42 In this context, Call for Sites submissions relating to land at Chester Road, Streetly, and Bosty Lane, Aldridge accompany these representations and set out how each site would; provide a sustainable location for residential development; no longer contribute to Green Belt purposes; and, should therefore be removed from the Green Belt and allocated for residential development.

2.43 Taylor Wimpey objects to the suggestion that the Black Country's housing growth could be exported to neighbouring authorities for a number of reasons:
1 The OAHN should be fully met within the Black Country HMA to meet the needs of its residents and its growing population. However it is recognised that HMAs do not align precisely with local authority boundaries and there are grey areas at the margins in particular. As such, there can be overlaps between HMAs and there are situations where sites fall within multiple HMAs. For example the wider Black Country & South Staffordshire HMA has some overlap between the LPAs of Wolverhampton and South Staffordshire. In such situations where sites abut the borders of HMAs and are well related and accessible to settlements in adjoining districts, they can practically help meet some of the neighbouring needs whilst also meeting the needs of their HMA.

2 The nearby areas in the GBHMA cannot accommodate additional housing growth; for example Birmingham is already looking to neighbouring authorities to accommodate its growth. It is therefore unfeasible to expect neighbouring authorities to also accommodate the needs of the Black Country HMA.

3 As detailed in the 'Black Country Housing Needs Assessment - Headroom Report' there is a significant need for housing growth in the Black Country HMA, above the target proposed by the CD. Homes need to be built in locations that meet the needs of the residents living within and moving to the Black Country HMA. Additionally the Black Country HMA has an important role to play in helping to accommodate the unmet needs of Birmingham that must be shared by neighbouring authorities. Housing growth must be physically accommodated somewhere and it is not realistic or feasible for the Black Country HMA's needs to be exported to neighbouring authorities, particularly in addition to Birmingham's needs being exported.
4 The CD does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it would not be able to accommodate its housing growth needs within the Black Country HMA.

2.44 Taylor Wimpey considers that there are sufficient sites and locations within the Black Country to accommodate housing growth and sustainable development, albeit not within the existing urban area.

2.45 Taylor Wimpey considers that exporting housing needs would not be realistic as it would primarily rely upon increased levels of commuting. This would fall on journeys by car, increasing traffic flows between authorities within and outside the Black Country HMA. This is considered to be both unsustainable and undesirable, exacerbating existing pressures on the road network. The proposed Wednesbury to Brierly Hill Metro extension is expected to be open for passenger services in 2023, providing connectivity to regional and national rail services and Dudley Town Centre10. The Metro extension would improve capacity, journey times and accessibility for residents and people working in Dudley and Sandwell.

2.46 Whilst Taylor Wimpey does not wish to comment in detail on the spatial options for accommodating employment land growth, it notes that the Practice Guidance11 requires that potential job growth is considered in the context of potential unsustainable commuting patterns and as such plan-makers should consider how the location of new housing could help address this. Ensuring a sufficient supply of homes within easy access of employment sources represents a central facet of any efficiently functioning economy and can help to minimise housing pressures and unsustainable levels of commuting (and therefore congestion and carbon emissions).
Delivering Growth - Infrastructure and Viability

2.47 The local authorities should ensure that any proposed changes to policy DEL1 accord with the Framework [§§173-177] and do not place any unnecessary additional burden on smaller development sites as a result of attempting to be applicable to SUEs. Requirements relating to infrastructure needed in association with SUEs could be detailed in a separate policy or policies specific to each SUE.

2.48 Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to provide a further response on any changes to policy DEL1 or other policies dealing with infrastructure requirements at later stages of the preparation of the BCCS.

Social Infrastructure (Questions 22-25)

2.49 Taylor Wimpey does not have any specific comments to make on social infrastructure at this time but accepts that new social infrastructure is often required in relation to housing developments in order to achieve sustainable, high quality development. However, the local authorities must ensure that the BCCS accords with the Framework [§§173-177] and does not place unnecessarily burdensome requirements on developments to the point that viability and deliverability is impacted. Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to comment on such issues at the next stage of preparing the BCCS.

Physical Infrastructure (Questions 26-28)

2.50 Taylor Wimpey does not wish to make detailed comments on physical infrastructure at this time but accepts that new physical infrastructure is often required in relation to housing developments in order to achieve sustainable, high quality development. However, the local authorities must ensure that the BCCS accords with the Framework [§§173-177] and does not place unnecessarily burdensome requirements on developments to the point that viability and deliverability is impacted. Any infrastructure requirements should be proportionate to the scale of development proposed. Taylor Wimpey notes that the requirement of new physical infrastructure to serve any needs should be based on robust evidence.

10 http://www.metroalliance.co.uk/wednesbury-brierley-hill/
11 Practice Guidance Ref: 2a-018-20140306
2.51 Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to comment on such issues at the next stage of preparing the BCCS.
Delivery and Viability (Questions 29-30)
2.52 The CD [§§5.22-5.23] states that the Black Country has a good track record of working with developers to address viability issues and deliver sites and that delivery work will be undertaken in relation to Green Belt sites to understand what is required to make them viable and deliver the necessary infrastructure. A pro-active approach to ensure that any sites released from the Green Belt are viable and deliverable is welcomed.
2.53 In terms of the possible impacts of Green Belt release on the deliverability of brownfield sites, Taylor Wimpey notes that the Housing White Paper sets out clear policy proposals which the Council needs to consider in terms of ensuring that its Local Plan evidence base is robust. This includes the Housing Delivery Test [Housing White Paper §1.10] and a need to ensure that it has examined fully all other reasonable options when considering the release of land from the Green Belt [Housing White Paper §1.39-1.40].
2.54 Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to comment on the appropriateness of infrastructure delivery mechanisms either through conditions, planning/highway obligations or CIL until the Government provides further advice following the publication of the White Paper and any amendments to CIL and S106 obligations which are anticipated in the Autumn Budget.
Funding for Site Development and Infrastructure (Question 31)
2.55 The mechanisms listed in the CD [§§5.35-5.38], for funding infrastructure associated with developments are considered appropriate.
2.56 Taylor Wimpey does not wish to comment on the specific sources of funding to make developments viable [CD §§5.26-5.32] but notes that 25% of the existing Black Country housing land supply is not viable under current market conditions [CD §5.28]. The CD states that the sources of funding identified 'should' provide enough support to ring forward a sufficient supply of land to meet short to medium term needs as set out in the existing local plan [§5.32]. However, housing needs in excess of those in the existing BCCS have now been identified including additional need from the GBHMA and the release of Green Belt land is needed to meet those needs. If the identified sources fail to deliver the anticipated level of funding, there will be extra pressure for viable and deliverable sites to provide for the increased levels of housing need.

2.57 It is essential therefore that viable, deliverable Green Belt sites are allocated through the BCCS and the local authorities should also consider identifying further safeguarded land as set out in the Framework [§85] in order to meet development needs stretching well beyond the plan period (see §§2.21- 2.24 above).
Review of Existing Core Strategy Policies and Proposals
Policy Area A - Health and Wellbeing (Questions 32-34)
2.58 Taylor Wimpey does not have any specific comments to make on health and wellbeing at this time but in terms of design features of new developments, the local authorities must ensure that the BCCS accords with the Framework [§§173-177] and does not place unnecessarily burdensome requirements on developments to the point that viability and deliverability is impacted. Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to comment on such issues at the next stage of preparing the BCCS.
Policy Area B - Creating Sustainable Communities in the Black Country (Questions 35 - 48)
HOU1 - Housing Land Supply
2.59 The Framework [§47] is clear that there is a need to boost significantly the supply of housing in order to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes and ensure that Local Plans meet the full and objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the relevant housing market area.
2.60 The BCCS should plan for a level of housing growth to support the economic aspirations of the local authorities, align with their growth objectives, and accommodate the unmet need from the GBHMA. The local authorities should ensure that the relevant evidence base documents and studies have regard to each other, and that the objectively assessed need [OAN] for employment land is aligned with the OAN for housing. Demand for housing land and demand for employment land are inherently linked, and provision of both should be well planned and promote sustainable travel.
2.61 There are substantial negative economic and social implications of not providing sufficient housing to meet identified needs and demand. It is therefore crucial that enough housing land is allocated in the BCCS for residential development.
2.62 In order to ensure robustness and flexibility, the BCCS must ensure that the local authorities are able to demonstrate a deliverable 5 year supply of housing land throughout the life of the plan. It is therefore important that the spatial distribution of development allows all sites identified for development to conform with the deliverability criteria set out in the Framework [§47 and footnote 11].
2.63 Taylor Wimpey has not carried out a detailed assessment of any sources of supply or had the opportunity to review any evidence on which the housing supply in the BCCS will be based but notes that the housing target for the new plan period (2014-36) will be established through the BCCS review. Taylor Wimpey therefore reserves the right to comment on these issues at a later stage but notes that the BCCS will need to accord with the Framework [§47] and meet the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area. In particular:
1 Any sites identified in the BCCS land supply will need to meet the tests set out at footnotes 11 and 12 of the Framework and if a small sites windfall allowance is to be included, it must be based on robust evidence of past delivery of such sites;
2 The CD [§6.22] proposes a reduction in the levels of discount for non-delivery on sites within the Growth Network. Taylor Wimpey notes that the levels of discount should not be reduced unless robust evidence on past delivery can be presented in support of this. The housing needs of the Black Country and GBHMA can only be met by releasing sites from the Green Belt, outside of the growth network where there will be less certainty and therefore an appropriate discount is necessary; and,
3 The housing requirement in the BCCS should be treated as a minimum rather than a maximum figure and an adequate surplus should be provided to give flexibility to deal with changing circumstances as required by the Framework [§153].
2.64 In summary, the BCCS must provide the necessary land to accommodate both the housing needs of the Black Country and the additional need from the GBHMA. The BCCS must also provide flexibility to deal with changing circumstances as required by the Framework [§153] and for the longer term needs of the Black Country. The local authorities therefore need to identify significant amounts of Green Belt land and allocate sites such as those at Bosty Lane, Aldridge and Chester Road, Streetly, through the BCCS.
HOU2 - Housing Density, Type and Accessibility
2.65 Taylor Wimpey supports parts of the existing text to policy HOU2 in so much as it recognises that the density and type of new housing provided on each site will be informed by:
1 The need for a range of types and sizes of accommodation to meet identified sub regional and local needs;
2 The level of accessibility by sustainable transport to residential services, including any improvements to be secured through development; and,
3 The need to achieve high quality design and minimise amenity impacts, taking into account the characteristics and mix of uses in the area where the proposal is located.
2.66 Taylor Wimpey supports the removal of the final paragraph of policy HOU2 [CD §6.28] which currently requires local plan documents to prescribe the density and house type mix for each allocation.
2.67 The Housing White Paper signals the Government's intention to minimise the use of local standards (through the Housing Standards Review) and therefore Taylor Wimpey does not support accessibility standards applied on a 'blanket' policy basis as this can lead to viability issues on developments.
2.68 Higher density development will be more appropriate in town centres and close to public transport nodes and local services but the current policy wording was adopted in the context of a spatial strategy which did not require substantial Green Belt release, as is now required. The policy should be updated to allow for the density and house type mix of any housing development site should reflect the local context in which the site is located.
2.69 The balance of new housing types and sizes should be based on an appropriate evidence base such as the 2017 SHMA findings. It is important however to also maintain a degree of flexibility to respond to changing local circumstances and more up-to-date evidence as time goes on.
2.70 Taylor Wimpey would not support a policy requirement for serviced plots on large housing sites if it threatened the viability and/or deliverability of the site. If such a requirement was introduced, there must be a mechanism to relax the requirement if it proved to not be viable on any given site.
2.71 Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to make more detailed comments on the specific wording of policy HOU2 at future stages in the preparation of the BCCS.
Policy HOU3 - Affordable Housing
2.72 The Council is querying whether the annual affordable homes target should be increased to reflect the 2017 Black Country Strategic Housing Market Assessment. Such an increase should only occur if the SHMA is robust.
2.73 Taylor Wimpey generally supports the provision of affordable housing, particularly in light of the Housing White Paper which sets out the Government's commitment to helping to support people to buy their own homes. Taylor Wimpey is supportive of the inclusion of starter homes as defined affordable housing provision and the Council should amend any evidence within the SHMA to meet emerging National Guidance. The White Paper [§4.15] states that there is a desire to deliver starter homes as part of a mixed package of affordable housing that can respond to local needs and markets.
2.74 The threshold in Policy HOU3 of sites of 15 or more dwellings should be reduced to sites of 11 or more dwellings to reflect the Practice Guidance12 and ensure that all major housing development proposals that can contribute to the provision of affordable housing, do contribute, particularly if the overall annual affordable homes target is increased.
2.75 Taylor Wimpey strongly objects to the proposal to increase the affordable housing requirement on future Green belt release sites. The 25% affordable housing requirement on private housing sites should not be increased, nor should a higher requirement set for Green Belt release housing sites, unless robust evidence shows that his would be viable and deliverable. The local authorities must ensure that the BCCS accords with the Framework [§173-177] and does not place unnecessarily burdensome requirements on developments to the point that viability and deliverability is impacted. In any case therefore, the final paragraph of Policy HOU3 must be retained so that on sites where the policy requirement for affordable housing is proven not to be viable, the maximum proportion of affordable housing will be sought which will not undermine the development's viability.
Policy HOU5 - Education and Health Care Facilities
2.76 If Policy HOU5 were to be expanded to include any other types of built social infrastructure, they would need to be adequately evidenced and viability tested to ensure that they would not place additional burdens on housing development sites to the point that viability and/or deliverability is threatened.
2.77 Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to comment further on this matter and any specific policy wording at subsequent stages in the preparation of the BCCS.
Policy Area B - Creating Sustainable Communities in the Black Country (Question 49)
Policy DEL2 - Managing the Balance between Employment Land and Housing
2.78 Taylor Wimpey does not wish to provide detailed comments at this point on whether policy DEL2 should be retained and/or amended as this will depend largely on the overall spatial strategic and strategic option pursued. Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to comment further on this matter and any specific policy wording at subsequent stages in the preparation of the BCCS.
Policy Area F - The Black Country Environment (Questions 94-103)
Policies CSP3 and CSP4 - Environmental Infrastructure and Placemaking
2.79 The proposed changes to Policies CSP3 and CSP4 set out in the CD [§6.1.46] are supported as they will simply make the policies consistent with the local authorities' adopted Development Plan Documents.
12 Practice Guidance Ref: 23b-031-20161116
2.80 If Garden City principles were to be introduced they would need to be fully viability tested so as not to threaten the viability and/or delivery of housing sites.
2.81 Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to make further detailed comments on the specific wording of these policies at subsequent stages in the preparation of the BCCS.
Policy ENV3 Design Quality
2.82 Taylor Wimpey agrees with the proposed change to Policy ENV3 to remove the requirement to meet Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 or above for residential development as this no longer accords with national policy and guidance.
2.83 Taylor Wimpey acknowledges the need to provide accessible accommodation but given the Government's intention to minimise the use of local standards (through the Housing Standards Review), Taylor Wimpey would not support the introduction of any additional accessibility standards introduced on a 'blanket' policy basis as this would lead to viability issues on developments. The same would be true for water consumption and space standards. The BCCS must accord with the Framework [§§173-177] and not place unnecessarily burdensome requirements on developments to the point that viability and deliverability is impacted.
2.84 Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to comment on these issues at the next stage of preparing the Local Plan.
ENV5 Flood Risk, Sustainable Drainage (SuDS) and Urban Heat Island Effects
2.85 Taylor Wimpey generally supports the proposed change to policy ENV5 to prioritise natural green space SuDS where it is "practical and viable" [CD §6.1.58]. The BCCS should also go further and define what is meant by 'practical' (i.e. where natural green space SuDS would not prevent the efficient use of land or achieving an overall high quality, well designed development).
2.86 Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to make further detailed comments on the specific wording of these policies at subsequent stages in the preparation of the BCCS.
ENV7 - Renewable Energy
2.87 Taylor Wimpey acknowledges and agrees with the recognition [CD §6.1.64] that any change to the % requirement would need to be justified with evidence. Taylor Wimpey therefore reserves the right to make further comment on any changes proposed at subsequent stages of the preparation of the BCCS.
Policy Are J - Growth Network Detailed Proposals (Question 117)
2.88 Taylor Wimpey agrees in principle with the proposed approach of updating and amending Appendix 2 and Tables 2 and 3 of the existing Core Strategy but reserves the right to make further comment on any specific changes proposed at subsequent stages of the preparation of the BCCS.
Policy Area K - Monitoring and Additional Policies (Question 118-119)
2.89 Taylor Wimpey supports the proposals to streamline and simplify the Core Strategy Monitoring Framework and focus on the key quantitative indicators, in particular 'net new homes'.
2.90 There is a clear and over-riding need to release sites from the Green Belt to meet the housing needs of the Black Country and GBHMA. Taylor Wimpey fully supports the recognition that a new section in the BCCS should allocate specific Green Belt sites for housing development [CD §6.2.6]. Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to make further detailed comments on such a section and the policies it contains at subsequent stages in the preparation of the BCCS.

These representations are made on behalf of clients who own land adjacent to the built up area of Aldridge at Barr Common Road as edged red on the attached drawing 4833.99: location plan. The land at Barr Common Road, Aldridge as edged red on drawing 4833.99 is being promoted for release from the Green Belt to accommodate new housing development.
Q1: Meeting Housing Needs
It is agreed that some or all of the extra new homes needed across the Black Country should be built on Green Belt. This does not necessitate the abandonment of the policy of promoting the development of Brownfield land, but the Black Country Core Strategy should recognise the need, in order to maintain a balanced portfolio of housing sites, to release land from the Green Belt.
In the adopted Black Country Joint Core Strategy, Policy HOU2 relates to housing density, type and accessibility. In the supporting text to Joint Core Strategy Policy HOU2 (paragraph 3.12) it states that the Black Country "suffers from a lack of housing choice, which limits its ability to attract more households and Social Groups A and B." The Joint Core Strategy recognises that one quarter of new market housing built in the Black Country is occupied by A and B households who are new to the area or who would otherwise have left. In this context, the Joint Core Strategy states "if the equivalent of national level A and B households in 2033 were to be achieved in the Black Country this would require all new market housing built over the Plan period to be occupied by A and B households". The Joint Core Strategy recognises that factors most likely to attract A and B households are "proximity to professional and managerial jobs" and "the appearance of the surrounding area and schools."
The Joint Core Strategy clearly recognises that throughout the Black Country there is a lack of aspirational housing. This was recognised by an Inspector who dealt with an appeal at Chester Road, Aldridge (APP/V4630/V/08/1202859). The Inspector identified the lack of aspirational houses within Walsall as being of very special circumstance to justify new dwellings in the Green Belt. The Inspector stated (paragraph 78):
"....there is little if any aspirational housing in Walsall and that the type of dwellings proposed would assist with the retention of entrepreneurs within the Borough."
In order to meet the housing requirement of the Black Country in the Plan period and also to address the evidential lack of aspirational houses, it is important to identify housing land to be taken from the Green Belt. This will improve housing choice, including the provision of aspirational housing and it will also ensure prompt delivery of housing.
Such an appropriate site to be released for housing will be land adjacent to 1 Barr Common Road, Aldridge as identified in red on the attached drawing 4833.99. Development of the site will provide for a range of housing in terms of its size, type, design and tenure. The site is not subject to any ecological or heritage constraints. There are no known technical constraints that would preclude the site being brought forward for development. The site is suitable, available and achievable for housing and is deliverable in the Plan period. Consideration should therefore be given to identifying the land at Barr Common Road within a general area to be released from the Green Belt to accommodate new housing.
The land at Barr Common Road is well related in terms of its scale and location to the existing pattern of development including the residential development north of Bosty Lane. The site is located such that it is within easy walking distance of all services and facilities within Aldridge. Barr Common Road in the vicinity of the site is a public transport route. Everyday activities can be undertaken on the site, where there is the need to travel, there is the opportunity to do so by sustainable means.
Q2: Supporting the Economy
As with the provision of housing, it is important that the Joint Core Strategy provides for a choice of employment sites in terms of their size, quality and location. In this context consideration should be given to the allocation of some employment land in the Green Belt to meet a self-evident shortage of premium industrial sites.
Q4: Protecting the Environment
Notwithstanding the fact that developers provide for commuted sums when delivering new parks, sports pitches etc. as part of development, this inevitably places a burden on Local Authorities in terms of the continuous maintenance of such facilities. As part of new development, consideration should also be given to maximising the use of existing parks, sports pitches, nature areas and walking and cycling routes. New development can facilitate the enhancement of existing facilities through financial contributions and improvement of facilities. Consequently the enhanced use of existing facilities should also be a priority.
Q7: Providing Community Facilities to Support Growth
Please see response in relation to Q4: Protecting the Environment.
Q9: Working with Our Neighbours
The situation in terms of housing provision for Birmingham and the shortfall of provision that was identified by Birmingham's Local Plan Inspector, means that it is inevitable that all adjoining Authorities, including the Black Country Authorities, will need to accommodate growth from Birmingham to meet its housing needs. The situation in Birmingham provides a clear indication that the pressure for housing in the Black Country is upwards. It therefore follows that there is a need to ensure that there is an adequate supply of housing land in the Black Country in terms of its style, location and quality to meet the housing requirements of Birmingham. This further reinforces the need for land to be released from the Green Belt in the Black Country to meet the development requirements of not only its area but that of Birmingham as well.
Q10: Regeneration Across the Black Country
The delivery of new homes and jobs in the Black Country could be expedited by an immediate recognition of the fact that there are insufficient sites available for housing of sufficient quality to provide for aspirational housing. Consideration should be given to the immediate release of land from the Green Belt to meet the requirement for aspirational housing (see Q1 above). The delivery of the aspirational housing on Green Belt land will deliver employment not only through the construction process but by ensuring that entrepreneurs and the captains of industry are retained within the Black Country thus maintaining existing employment and attracting new investment. Such a site for aspirational housing could include land adjacent to 1 Barr Common Road, Aldridge as edged red on drawing 4833.99.

Question 1: Do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies? Yes/No; If not, what do you think should be the scope of the review?
2.3 In response to Question 1 and whether it should be a partial review or not, whilst the existing strategy identifies the most sustainable locations for growth in the context of delivering development requirements identified by the Regional Strategy (RS), there is now a new and much bigger challenge ahead in meeting the arising needs for homes identified by the latest evidence and there is concern that the existing spatial strategy may not facilitate the delivery of these needs. The Black Country authorities, therefore, need to be mindful of this and not attempt to put "a square peg in a round hole".
2.4 It is our view that urban regeneration can be achieved whilst pursuing development on the urban edge. Indeed, the scale of housing need is so large that both must be encouraged in order to meet current and arising housing needs within the Black Country.
2.5 It is extremely important that in reviewing the Core Strategy it fully takes account of and facilitates the delivery of strategic economic plans, as recognised in paragraph 1.15. All too often these strategies are ignored and, accordingly, development plans could effectively frustrate economic growth from being realised.
2.6 In terms of the Plan period proposed in paragraph 1.17, whilst a 15 year time period from adoption is appropriate, there is concern that the preparation of plans is often delayed (due to reasons beyond the control of the LPAs) and it may be prudent to stretch the period further to prevent such an issue from occurring.
2.7 It is welcomed that the Issues and Options document recognises that it will not be possible to accommodate all future development needs within the urban area and that an examination of the potential for development land outside the existing urban area, which is effectively land within the Green Belt, will take place as part of the Core Strategy review process.
3. THE BLACK COUNTRY TODAY - THE EXISTING STRATEGY
3.1 As set out within this section, the delivery of both employment and housing land has not come forward as originally envisaged in part due to the after effects of the recession. Surplus employment land which might have been available for housing has not come forward due to a strengthening economy and local firms being more robust than anticipated. In addition, the range of locations available has not in all cases met with market expectations as to where people want to live.
3.2 In terms of the employment land, it is important that sufficient land is provided for new employment and that there is not an overreliance on land that is currently in use. It is impressive that despite generally poor economic performance local businesses have performed well. Should the economy significantly improve within the Plan period in line with LEP aspirations (considered later in this response), there is concern that it may become difficult to transfer existing employment locations to housing allocations. It is appropriate, therefore, for the Council to ensure the evidence contained in the Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment is reviewed and updated regularly. This will enable the land supply to be responsive to arising needs and not rigidly be wedded to delivering commitments that are unlikely to be realised.
3.3 What is further emphasised by the analysis in this section is that urban regeneration cannot be delivered quickly and that there are a number of factors beyond the control of the Black Country authorities that may have implications on the delivery of the strategy. This further emphasises the need for a mix of types of sites (brownfield, brownfield compulsory purchase, greenfield and Green Belt) of different forms of development (high density, mid and low density family homes) in a variety of locations, which will maximise the opportunities to deliver a successful Local Plan.
3.4 Finally, in respect of the proposal to maintain 300 hectares of employment land that will become vacant by way of general churn over the Plan period. Whilst the principle is considered acceptable, there should be appropriate evidence to support the assumption.
3.5 Our experience is that there are employment sites that clients are looking to secure a residential allocation on that have not been identified thus far. In light of these changing circumstances, the Black Country authorities should ensure that the policy approach is flexible to allow sites in appropriate locations to be brought forward for housing throughout the Plan period and likewise, sites that have been allocated for housing but have not come forward should be removed from the supply.
4. THE STRATEGIC CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
4.1 It is welcomed that the Black Country authorities are updating their evidence base. Indeed, the adopted Core Strategy took the development requirements from the adopted Regional Strategy (RS), which has since been revoked and is unquestionably out of date. Since the RS was published there has been a number of population and household projections published showing increasing dwelling requirements in the Black Country, which were largely ignored and, therefore, it should come as no surprise that there is a significant increase in forming households.
4.2 In terms of the list of evidence either prepared or due to be completed, it appears to be sufficiently comprehensive.
4.3 A separate review of the housing evidence based, including the Strategic Housing Market Assessment for the Black Country and South Staffordshire, is contained at Appendix A. The key conclusions arising from the report as summarised as follows:
* The OAN identified by the SHMA for the Black Country and South Staffordshire is generally supported, however, there are concerns with regard to the methodology and it is suggested a further scenario should be tested to consider long term growth which includes balanced periods of economic prosperity and decline.
* There is concern that the economic growth scenarios do not use the latest economic forecast data and that the methodology translating the job growth into dwelling growth is not sufficiently robust to accurately determine the impact of forecasts based on existing circumstances and also more aspirational job growth targets, such as those arising from the SEP.
* In terms of providing uplifts for market signals, a 25% uplift for South Staffs is appropriate. It is advised that dwelling requirements for the Black Country should not be reduced as a result of this and, accordingly, it should not count towards meeting any unmet needs outside of the HMA as the main function is to provide slack within the housing market and prevent house prices from increasing at an accelerated rate.
4.4 In addition, consideration of the Housing Background Report is also contained in the Housing Evidence Based Review Paper contained at Appendix A. The key findings from reviewing the evidence is set out below:
* Clearly a lot of work is yet to be done to determine what the housing land supply position is in the Black Country. Given that much of the existing evidence is based on the adopted Core Strategy, it is recognised that the SHLAAs across the four authorities will need to be updated, both in terms of revising the methodology and range of sites assessed, to reflect a potentially different approach to locating development.
* It is commendable that the Housing Background Report has examined existing sources of supply in an attempt to provide additional homes from sites within the urban area. There is concern, however, that by changing policies, for example, to increase the minimum density on sites has wider policy implications to take into account than simply increasing the number of homes.
* The Housing Background Report suggests a continued allowance for larger windfall sites. It is suggested that it is inappropriate to include an allowance for this source as there is no certainty that this land will come forward for development.
* Other sources, such as converting employment sites to residential sites, based on the evidence presented and feedback from the development industry, it is known that there are employment sites functioning well as employment sites but are to be converted to residential and other employment sites that are unoccupied and undesirable that are to be retained as employment sites. Clearly, there is a mismatch between employment land need and employment land supply. It is advised that the qualitative assessment of employment informs future land supply recommendations and allocations are revised where necessary.
4.5 As a result of the dwelling requirements generated by the SHMA and the land supply identified from the Housing Background Report, it is concluded that there in insufficient urban land to provide for the development requirements and that a Green Belt Review should be conducted. It is noted that scoping is underway and that the work is to be completed in mid 2018. It is hopeful that the development industry will be involved in defining the methodology of the work to ensure that it is conducted in a robust way.
4.6 Another very important piece of work to be taken into consideration will be the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA Strategic Growth Study. It is unclear at this stage what role the Black Country authorities will play in meeting the wider needs of Birmingham and, indeed, whether it can now contribute given that meeting the needs of the indigenous population will be a tall order. Further, there is uncertainty with regard to how far the study will go in identifying locations for growth and how this evidence will be taken forward in emerging Development Plans, particularly given that it is premature to the Green Belt Review for the wider Black Country area. It is our view that there are sites within the Green Belt that will provide sustainable locations for growth and that their removal will not compromise the purposes of the Green Belt and, accordingly it will remain purposeful and functional.
Question 2: Do you think that the key evidence set out in Table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If not, what further evidence is required and, if there are any particular issues that should be taken into account in considering development on any particular sites or in any particular areas, please provide details
4.7 It is considered that the evidence contained within Table 1 is comprehensive, however, as suggested above and below, a number of concerns have been highlighted and it is therefore suggested that these are addressed in order to improve the soundness of the next iteration of the Core Strategy Review.
4.8 It is welcomed that an updated qualitative assessment of employment land has been undertaken in order to identify if the sites are fit for purpose, alongside the quantitative employment land study. It has been identified that a number of employment land sites that have been suggested for residential land allocations remain in occupation as functioning employment sites. These sites should be removed from the housing land supply. Conversely, there are vacant employment land sites that have been marketed over a period of time where no market interest has been forthcoming and, therefore, it is recommended that these sites should be considered for housing delivery.
4.9 It is noted that Viability Studies are identified as evidence base documents that are still to be prepared. Whilst not specifically identified, it is recommended that affordable housing viability is a key matter that needs to be addressed as part of this evidence base to ensure the level suggested by the SHMA Part 2 is deliverable. If this is not the case, the delivery of both market and affordable housing could be compromised and prevent the successful delivery of any new strategy.
Question 3: Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014-36 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.
4.10 In terms of the extent of the sub market, which includes the Black Country and South Staffordshire, this is considered to be appropriate. It is recognised and welcomed that the Black Country authorities and South Staffordshire have jointly undertaken a SHMA for the sub area, which facilitates the preparation of an Issues and Options Core Strategy Review. There is concern, however, that the remaining constituent authorities within the wider Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area have not taken part and there is a danger that housing need for the whole HMA may not entirely be comprehensively captured due to the different time periods covered by the separate studies. It is advised that a SHMA, consistent with the guidance in the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance, is prepared for the entire HMA over the same Plan period (as opposed to a housing needs study), which will properly consider all relevant factors in a consistent and comprehensive manner.
4.11 The OAN arrived at by the SHMA is generally appropriate in identifying the starting point for determining the dwelling requirement, however, it is suggested a further scenario should be tested to consider long term growth which includes balanced periods of economic prosperity and decline. There is concern that the economic growth scenarios contain potentially out of date employment forecasts and the methodology to determine appropriate dwelling requirements is not sufficiently robust to accurately determine the impact of forecasts based on existing circumstances. In addition, more aspirational job growth targets, such as those arising from the SEP, may not necessarily be appropriate for the Black Country (as discussed later in these representations).
4.12 In terms of providing an uplift for market signals, a 25% uplift for South Staffs is agreed to be appropriate. It is advised that dwelling requirements for the Black Country should not be reduced as a result of this and, accordingly, the application of such an uplift in South Staffordshire should not count towards meeting any unmet needs outside of the HMA as the main function is to provide slack or headroom within the housing market and prevent house prices from increasing at an accelerated rate, exacerbating issues of affordability.
4.13 Clearly, the evidence contained in the SHMA does not consider the potential to accommodate any of Birmingham City's housing needs and that this could result in increased dwelling requirements. We reserve our position in respect of this matter and await the publication of the HMA wide Strategic Housing Needs Study.
4.14 We shortly await a consultation publication from central Government in relation to providing a standardised methodology for generating dwelling requirements. This is anticipated in Autumn 2017. The Black Country authorities will need to take account of any proposed national policy changes identified through the consultation paper. We reserve our position on this matter, until the full details and implications for the Back Country are known. It is considered that, whilst a standard methodology will be helpful in identifying a baseline dwelling requirement, the consideration of long term trends and economic forecasts cannot be carried out in a mathematical calculation outside a demographic/ economic model. In light of this, the SHMA prepared for the sub-area could remain useful as evidence to inform the review of the Black Country Core Strategy.
4.15 In terms of meeting the dwelling requirements, it is understood that the 'Call for Sites' consultation will inform an updated SHLAA, which will assess sites both within and outside the urban area to determine the maximum number of dwellings that can be realistically delivered within the Black Country over the proposed Plan period. The Housing Background Report that has been published as part of the evidence base for the Issues and Options Core Strategy Review has considered assumptions contained within the SHLAA based on adopted policies and considers changes to the policies to boost the delivery of housing on existing sites. Whilst it is a commendable that the Black Country authorities are exploring all potential options to boost housing on urban land, there are wider implications of doing so and accordingly, caution is expressed in response to a number of the identified approaches proposed.
4.16 As confirmed in paragraph 3.15, it is extremely important that the Black Country authorities 'firm up' the housing supply in order to ensure that there is sufficient provision to meet the dwelling requirements. It is also considered appropriate to provide an additional buffer of housing land supply to provide a contingency when sites are delayed. As explained earlier in the Issues and Options Report, sites providing a total of 3,000 homes have not come forward as anticipated. It is considered that additional supply is required to provide flexibility and minimise any durations within the Plan period where the housing trajectory would otherwise dip.
4.17 In terms of the extent of a buffer for housing land, the Local Plan Expert Group suggested that additional land, equivalent to delivering 20% of the overall dwelling requirement, is added to the supply, which will provide a contingency of land to be used as and when necessary during the Plan period. It is suggested that this additional land will help ensure the dwelling delivery targets and housing needs are met in a timely manner, which will reduce the opportunity for households to become concealed or shared. Given the issues experienced in respect of delivery in the past, it could be argued that an increased buffer of circa 25% could be applied.
4.18 It is also appropriate to ensure that, as well as identifying the right amount of land, there is sufficient variety in the types of sites (brownfield, greenfield, Green Belt) are identified, reflecting different sizes, in a range of locations. This variety in provision will allow the best opportunity for multiple sites to come forward at the same time without market constraint and hence ensuring delivery targets are met. In addition, this approach will also provide market choice to existing and arising households looking to move into a new home in the Black Country, which will have wider social benefits (i.e. allow families to live nearby one another and provide an opportunity to diversify existing communities through providing alternative homes to the existing housing stock).
4.19 Indeed, as previously documented in the adopted Core Strategy, it is considered that the ambition to retain the young and professional population within the Black Country should be maintained and that suitable and attractive housing and complementary environments are encouraged.
4.20 Finally, it is welcomed that the Black Country authorities have agreed to test the dwelling requirement figures on an ongoing basis. It is hoped that the suggested changes/alternative scenarios suggested above are implemented in order to ensure the evidence base is robust and the resultant policies and proposals soundly based.
Question 4: Do you consider the employment land requirement identified for the Black Country up to 2036 in the EDNA is appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.
4.21 The Core Strategy review intends to utilise the Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) for the Black Country, published in May 2017, to inform future employment land requirements. The EDNA uses forecasts produced as part of the West Midlands Combined Authority Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) to calculate long-term growth, noting that the 'Super SEP Economy+ Scenario' is the preferred aspirational scenario. This scenario assumes average annual growth in employment of 1.3% across the Combined Authority and presents an ambitious view of future growth in the area, with 500,000 jobs created between 2013 and 2030.
4.22 The SEP Technical Appendix breaks down the job forecasts for the three Local Enterprise Partnerships that form the Combined Authority (Black Country; Coventry & Warwickshire; and Greater Birmingham & Solihull). Jobs growth in the Black Country LEP is forecast to be around 1.1% per annum, whilst it is forecast at 1.5% per annum in the other two LEP areas. This averages out at annual growth of approximately 1.3%. Using data from the Business Register & Employment Survey, published by the Office for National Statistics, it is possible to look at employment trends over the last five to six years (2009-15) and this analysis suggests that the growth rate used in the aspirational growth scenario may be too ambitious for the Back Country:
4.23 Between 2009 and 2015, total employment in the Black Country LEP increased from around 450,000 to approximately 453,000. This equates to average annual growth of 0.1%. Walsall (1.5% p.a.) and Sandwell (0.9% p.a.) experienced jobs growth, although Dudley (-1.1% p.a.) and Wolverhampton (-0.8%) both suffered a fall in employment.
4.24 By contrast, both the Coventry & Warwickshire and Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEPs saw total job numbers increase by 1.3% p.a. from 2009-13. A number of districts in these LEPs saw particularly strong growth over the period, notably Solihull and Lichfield in Greater Birmingham & Solihull, where employment grew by at least 3.0% on an annual basis. In short, the 1.3% average across the West Midlands Combined Authority Area is substantially bolstered by Solihull and Lichfield and therefore it is very ambitious to suggest this will occur across the Black Country area.
4.25 That said, growth in the Black Country needs to be faster than in previous years and the new Core Strategy has a vital role to play in supporting this, however the analysis presented above suggests that the growth targets need to be lowered to better reflect the local economic climate. It is considered unlikely that an annual increase of 1.0% or more will happen in the area in the long-term, especially with the Coventry & Warwickshire and Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEPs capturing new job opportunities at a faster rate in recent years. Lowering the employment growth rate means the amount of employment floorspace needed would be lower. This would not reduce the demographically based housing targets for the area but it would potentially free up previously allocated employment sites for other uses such as residential. This would help the Black Country meet its future housing targets and ensure that it has enough homes for its future workforce to live in.
4.26 As identified in the supporting report and above, it is known that employment sites that had previously been identified for housing are still operational with businesses continuing to use the land and, conversely, there are sites allocated for employment that have been vacant and subsequently market, however, remain unoccupied, which could be transferred to a residential use. It is therefore recommended that the Councils ensure that updated EDNA qualitative review conclusions are taken into account and correct uses applied where appropriate.
Question 5: Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt Review? Yes/No; If not, what additional work do you think is necessary?
4.27 In respect of the Green Belt Review, on the basis of the evidence published setting out housing need and supply, it is agreed that it will be necessary to find sites outside of the existing urban area, which will require removing land from the Green Belt where it is appropriate to do so. This will provide an opportunity to identify strategic sites that can provide a significant amount of homes to contribute to meeting identified housing needs. It is considered that there are a number of locations whereby housing sites can be identified, without the purposes of the Green Belt being compromised, ensuring the function and integrity of the Green Belt will remain.
4.28 In addition, areas on the urban fringe have the potential to ensure new homes can be delivered in an established, well landscaped environment, which could be attractive to those young families and professionals that the Black Country authorities have had difficulty in retaining, often through out-migration to neighbouring Shire districts considered to represent more aspirational locations.
4.29 In terms of the process and methodology for undertaking a Green Belt Review, it is understood that the awaited Strategic Housing Needs Study (SHNS) will be accompanied by Strategic Green Belt Review across Greater Birmingham and that the Black Country authorities have been engaged in presenting potential opportunities. It is reassuring that this engagement between consultants and local planning authorities is taking place as there is a danger that logical locations fail to be identified due to a lack of understanding of environmental conditions and/ or local circumstances that are applicable to sites.
4.30 It is agreed and makes sense for the local planning authorities to conduct a Stage 2 Green Belt Assessment following the completion of the higher level work. Any input on reviewing the draft methodology for the Stage 3 Green Belt Review would be welcomed.
Question 6: Do you agree that the key issues set out in Part 3 are the key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy Review? Yes/No; If not, what other key issues should be taken into account?
4.31 The key issues presented are considered to be relevant, however, there are a number of inconsistencies relating to matters identified above against the previous questions raised.
5. REVIEWING THE STRATEGY TO MEET NEW CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
Question 7: Do you think that the Core Strategy vision and sustainability principles remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest?
5.1 In the main, the Core Strategy Vision and sustainability principles are considered to be appropriate, all except for the principle to 'put brownfield first'. It is understood that the NPPF, whilst it encourages an efficient use of land and for brown field land to be recycled, it does not suggest a sequential approach to development. The is no evidence to demonstrate that the development of greenfield land will compromise the development of brownfield land. Often the type of developers of the different land categories are different and, given the scale of the housing need, it is appropriate that the early delivery of housing is encouraged from all types of sites. In particular, the larger, potentially Green Belt, sites will have a longer lead in time due to the time it takes to plan for, determine and implement a comprehensive scheme. Indeed, a recent study entitled 'Start to Finish', prepared by NLP, supports this claim. When planning the housing trajectory for the Core Strategy, the larger sites should be planned in to come forward as soon as practically possible.
5.2 It is, therefore, suggested that the reference to 'putting brownfield first' is inappropriate and that it should be replaced by 'ensuring an efficient use of land to meet the identified housing needs', which encourages the recycling of land and recognises the contributions of greenfield/ Green Belt land to meeting housing delivery targets.
Question 8: Do you think that the Core Strategy spatial objectives remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest and how might these changes impact on individual Core Strategy policies?
5.3 Whilst the objectives outlined generally remain sound, there is concern that one of the NPPF's main priorities is absent. This is in relation to significantly boosting the supply of housing. It is suggested that an additional objective is added in order to ensure that meeting housing needs remains a priority within the Black Country. Once a preferred option is arrived at, spatial references as to where the housing growth will be delivered could be included (for example, meeting housing needs on urban (brownfield and greenfield) land and at extensions to the urban area).
5.4 Further, given the increased employment land requirements, the second objective relating to employment land being within the best locations within the Regeneration Corridors may no longer be appropriate. Indeed, as highlighted earlier, there is concern that there is a mismatch in land allocations, and it is appropriate for the Core Strategy review to ensure all employment sites are fit for purpose. This may conclude that employment opportunities should be identified on new land outside of the Regeneration Corridors. Should this be the case, the objective would be inappropriately worded.
Question 9: Do you agree that Policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the Growth Network? Yes/No; If not, what changes do you think should be made to Policies CSP1 and CSP2 in response to new challenges and opportunities?
5.5 It is agreed that the policies could remain, if the development requirements and related changes are made to ensure the policies are consistent with the overall strategy. The changes relate to both the quantum of development (homes, employment and retail space), the location of development (within and beyond the existing Regeneration Corridors) and the type of development (brownfield, greenfield and on land removed from the Green Belt). It is considered that references should be made to urban extensions (on land removed from the Green Belt) in Policy CSP2 specifically, to highlight the important contribution that such sites will make to meeting the development requirements of the Plan.
5.6 On a separate note, whilst a point mostly relating to the South Staffordshire Local Plan to which separate representations will be made, it is considered that the currently adopted approach to spatial distribution in South Staffordshire will need to be re-assessed. Given the huge housing requirements of the Black Country and the shared housing market between South Staffordshire and the Black Country, it is considered that suitable urban extension sites located within South Staffordshire District would be the logical and sensible locations to meet any remaining unmet housing need. In terms of the relevance of this point to the Black Country Review, it will be important for the Black Country authorities to collaborate with South Staffordshire on cross-boundary issues, and to identify suitable extension sites to the Black Country built area which fall within the planning jurisdiction of South Staffordshire District. It is welcomed that this approach is planned to be undertaken, by virtue of the forthcoming Green Belt Review which will be a joint exercise between the Black Country Authorities and South Staffordshire District.
Question 10: In continuing to promote growth within the Growth Network, is there a need to amend the boundaries of any of the Regeneration Corridors in the existing Core Strategy? Yes/No; If so, which boundaries and why?
Question 11a: Do you support Strategic Option 1A? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If no, do you support Option 1B? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If you support the release of further employment land for housing, what should the characteristics of these employment areas be?
Question 11b: Are there any current employment areas that might be considered suitable for redevelopment to housing? Yes/No; Please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form.
5.7 As highlighted previously, the key to understanding where the most appropriate employment/ housing locations are within the Growth Network and Corridors will be determined through a qualitative assessment of allocated employment sites. It is understood an updated assessment has been undertaken and such work, complete with responses to the Call for Sites consultation, will provide the Black Country authorities with evidence to determine the urban capacity for housing, which may include transferring some employment land to housing as well as housing land to employment. This work will then outline the number of dwellings to be accommodated beyond the existing Growth Network within the Green Belt.
5.8 It is welcomed that the Issues and Options Draft recognises the need to release Green Belt in all scenarios proposed.
Question 12a: Do you support Spatial Option H1? Yes/No; What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. ability to create a defensible new green belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services.
Question 12b: Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
Question 13a: Do you support Spatial Option H2? Yes/No; What should the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) be? e.g. minimum/ maximum size, mix of uses, mix of housing types, accessibility to other areas. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs, potential to support existing settlements / services, proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban regeneration.
5.9 Given the scale of the housing need, there is concern that the development requirements could not be met with just one of the suggested options presented and, therefore, a combination of both options will be necessary.
5.10 To be in the best possible position to significantly boost the amount of housing and meet the development requirements in the Black Country, in accordance with the NPPF, it is advised that opportunities to both round off edges of the Green Belt and Sustainable Urban Extensions are proposed in the Preferred Options Draft Core Strategy. As highlighted within the Issues and Options Draft, there are challenges and opportunities that come with both types of development, for example from a delivery perspective, smaller sites will come forward more quickly due to the nature of these being straight forward proposals (with limited infrastructure necessary and one or few land owners) and larger sites will ultimately take longer as they are more complex (with multiple land uses, infrastructure and land owners). This fact has been evidenced by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (now known as Lichfields) within their report 'Start to Finish' who concluded that the average planning approval period of schemes of 2,000+ dwellings is 6.1 years and the annual average build out rate is 161 dwellings per annum. These figures demonstrate the need to have a number of sites of different sizes and in different locations removed from the Green Belt. The report also identifies, with regard to housing delivery, that 50% more homes per annum are delivered on average on large greenfield sites than large brownfield sites. This is a significant benefit of including greenfield sites within the Preferred Option and will assist to secure its delivery.
5.11 In terms of the locations for removing land from the Green Belt, this should be informed by the Strategic Growth Study and a Black Country Review of the Green Belt. The more detailed study will provide an assessment of land parcels against the purposes of the Green Belt and is likely to recommend that those that compromise the purposes the least will be shortlisted for further consideration to be removed from the Green Belt. It is advised that the next stage should be a consideration of the shortlisted sites based on their suitability (i.e. are the neighbouring uses compatible, would any previous land uses prevent the development of the site), sustainability (i.e. proximity to/ ability to provide local services/ public transport/ employment opportunities) and deliverability (i.e. whether the site is available, being promoted for development, has no barriers to coming forward etc.) credentials. Clearly each site will fair differently against such criteria and the Call for Sites submission will assist the Council to come to a decision on the preferred sites. It is advised that the Black Country authorities should be mindful of the opportunities, through infrastructure and design, that development can bring that will enhance the diversity and character of a particular location.
5.12 In terms of the characteristics of a Sustainable Urban Extension, this is likely to vary depending on the location of each site. For example, some may be more urban and others suburban in their character and would, therefore, provide a different land use offer. It is important that each are considered on a site by site basis to ensure that any subsequent allocation delivers a successful development. It is important that the developer responsible for promoting the site helps to influence what is ultimately delivered. Often what is proposed on site has been informed by housing market intelligence undertaken by sales experts at development companies and, therefore, should be taken into account. Particularly given recent experience in the down turn in the apartment market, it is important that sites are allocated for the right type and mix of housing to ensure that it will be delivered, occupied and successful.
5.13 In the more suburban locations, it is suggested that Sustainable Urban Extensions should look to provide a different offer to potentially what exists in the Strategic Centres and Regeneration Corridors, such as a mix of larger and lower density homes, which will attract those households that in the past have migrated elsewhere. Given the emphasis on delivering more high density homes in the Strategic Centres, it is important that this housing mix is offset by more larger homes in appropriate locations. Otherwise, there is a concern that the Black Country will have a disproportional amount of small homes, which will further encourage more families to migrate elsewhere and not meet the aspiration to diversify the wider HMA.
Question 13b: What infrastructure do you think would be needed for different sizes of SUEs?
5.14 The type of infrastructure needed will vary depending on the different location and size of each site and must be compliant with paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations that requires planning obligations (which applies to most infrastructure) to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
5.15 With the above in mind, however, provision for open space (both formal and informal), local centre and potentially a primary school should be considered for sites in excess of 1,000 homes.
Question 13c: Are there any potential locations that should be considered for SUEs (please submit through the 'call for sites' form) and what infrastructure would be required to support these?
5.16 Land at Home Farm, Sandhills is a location on the edge of Brownhills in Walsall Borough that could accommodate in excess of 1,200 homes, complete with open space, al local centre and potentially a primary school if required. A Call for Sites form is included at Appendix B, which demonstrates the sites suitability, achievability and deliverability. In addition, a Technical Compendium is included at Appendix C, which includes evidence in relation to landscape and visual matters, cultural heritage and archaeology, transportation, agricultural circumstances, ecology, flood risk and drainage and ground conditions. All of which serves to demonstrate there are no constraints to the delivery of the site and that residential development of circa 1,200 homes can be successfully achieved.
Question 13d: Do you think that the Core Strategy should set out detailed guidance for the development of SUEs (e.g. type and tenure of housing, specific infrastructure required), rather than details being determined at a local level in light of local policies? Yes/No; Any further comments?
5.17 For the reasons outlined above, relating to considering existing local circumstances and CIL Regulation requirements in respect of any charging schedule and planning obligation requirements, it is advised that detailed guidance for the development of SUEs should not be specified within the Black Country Core Strategy as each site will vary and deserves a more detailed consideration, alongside the developer, at the local level.
Question 14: Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Housing Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details
5.18 There are no other sustainable and deliverable options that we are aware of within the Black Country administrative boundary that are capable of delivering the housing spatial options.
Question 15a: If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the 'export' of housing growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA? Yes/No; What factors should be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities in neighbouring authorities e.g. proximity to the edge of the urban area, proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs?
5.19 If, once all realistically deliverable options have been considered, there remains an unmet need for housing it is agreed that the Black Country authorities should consider the possibility of exporting growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA. In particular, there are options to expand existing settlements that are close to the administrative boundary (for example, in both the Black Country and South Staffordshire) across authorities and, therefore, once all options within the HMA have been explored, these could help deliver growth in a sustainable and deliverable manner. These opportunities should be explored first prior to exporting further growth to other authorities within the HMA where there is less of a spatial connection.
Question 15c: Do you think there are ways to ensure that exporting housing will meet the needs of people who would otherwise live in the Black Country? (e.g. transport improvements, provision of affordable housing, creation of employment opportunities) Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.21 It is important to consider a number of factors, including migration and travel to work patterns, which have been used to identify the extent of the HMA, to determine where households relocate to when leaving the Black Country in order to understand where and why those moves are taking place. Whilst planning can attempt to influence where people relocate to, there is no mechanism to guide or restrict people moving to or from certain locations. Once knowledge of movers can be understood can the planning system can attempt to recreate those attractive characteristics (homes that are more affordable, good public transport links, employment opportunities etc.) in locations where there is capacity for the homes to be delivered. It is advised that an additional analysis of the data, where necessary, is undertaken to provide the Black Country authorities with the relevant intelligence to deliver a successful strategy for growth outside the administrative area.
Question 16: Do you support Spatial Option E1? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access) If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
Question 17: Do you support Spatial Option E2? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites e.g. quick motorway access, good sustainable transport links? If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
Question 18: Do you support Spatial Option E3? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access) If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
Question 19a: Do you support Spatial Option E4? Yes/No; Any further comments?
Question 19b: Should any factors be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities? Yes/No; If yes, what should they be? (e.g. quick motorway access, strong transport links with the Black Country, good sustainable transport links with the Black Country) If you think there are any potential locations that should be considered, please provide details.
Question 20: Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Employment Land Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.22 As previously outlined, there is concern that some of the employment sites currently identified are potentially not fit for purpose and others that are identified to be transferred to housing remain in employment occupation. In light of this mismatch, it is welcomed that an updated qualitative assessment has been undertaken and has informed how much employment land is has be found outside the urban area.
5.23 In terms of where the employment land should be located outside the urban area, as with housing, decisions should be based on the results of the Green Belt Review and the suitability, sustainability and deliverability of sites. For employment land sites, the suitability of a site may well include good transportation links for goods and people. The Call for Sites consultation will assist in putting forward suggestions for sites.
5.24 In terms of exporting employment land, it is considered that a proportionate amount of employment land to housing land exported should be made in an attempt to create more sustainable communities, that is unless there is good reason not to do so (i.e. due to improved public transport links between exported housing and employment sites). As evidenced in work supporting the Issues and Options Draft, whilst the Black Country is a sufficiently self-contained labour market there are strong linkages with Birmingham and South Staffordshire. This would therefore suggest that these locations should be first explored for transporting any employment land growth, however, given the land capacity issues in Birmingham it is more likely that South Staffordshire would be able to assist.
6. DELIVERING GROWTH - INFRASTRUCTURE & VIABILITY
Question 21: Do you think that changes are required to Policy DEL1 to ensure it covers both development within the existing urban area and any within the Green Belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.1 Policy DEL1 is considered to be sound on the basis that it is sufficiently flexible to deal with different circumstances on different sites across the Black Country, including sites that are to be removed from the Green Belt.
Question 22: Do you have evidence of a requirement for new social infrastructure to serve existing needs? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.
6.2 We are in consultation with the relevant authorities to explore any requirements for social infrastructure to serve any need relating to the development proposals proposed at Home Farm, Sandhills.
Question 23: Do you have evidence of social infrastructure that is no longer needed and where the site could be reallocated for alternative uses? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.3 No comment.
Question 28: Do you think physical infrastructure is necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, what type and scale of physical infrastructure is necessary?
6.8 As set out above, the need for infrastructure will vary for each site. Given such different circumstances, it would be inappropriate and potentially unlawful (as it would conflict with paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations) to incorporate a blanket policy requiring specific infrastructure on every large housing site.
Question 29: Do you think there are any other tools or interventions that could be used to ensure enough infrastructure is provided by developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.9 It is considered that the existing national framework (which includes the NPPF and CIL Regulations) provides a sufficient tool to ensure the relevant infrastructure is delivered. In addition, the CIL Charging Schedule allows authorities to raise funds for named infrastructure projects, which should be updated in line with the Core Strategy. Therefore, it is considered that there are existing provisions to deliver infrastructure and no additional interventions in the Black Country Core Strategy Review are needed.
Question 30: Do you have any suggestions around how the strategy can be developed in order to maintain the urban regeneration focus of the Black Country while at the same time bringing forward sites in the green belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.10 There is no a need for any specific interventions, such as phasing, to protect the delivery of urban regeneration in the Black Country. Indeed, it is considered that development of green field and Green Belt sites can very much compliment urban regeneration through the provision of a more varied form of development that will help diversify the housing stock and profile of residents in the wider area, which will assist to sustain and improve the vitality of existing communities. Further, as highlighted above, given the priority to significantly boost the delivery of housing green field and Green Belt sites should come forward for development as soon as practically possible. In light of the lead in and build out rates of larger sites, the land should be encouraged to be developed as soon as possible so to ensure the homes are delivered in the plan period and the needs are met.
Question 31: Do you think that the right scale and form of funding is available to support the delivery of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If no, what alternative sources of funding or delivery mechanisms should be investigated?
6.11 When delivering green field/ Green Belt sites, there is an opportunity to deliver infrastructure to meet the needs arising from the proposal, which may have wider benefits for the local community. In addition, it is likely that the communities created by the Sustainable Urban Extensions will potentially be more affluent and share their wealth using local shops and services within the wider Black Country, which will contribute to more successful and prosperous community.
7. REVIEW OF EXISTING CORE STRATEGY POLICIES & PROPOSALS
Housing
Question 35: Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No; If no, please explain why
7.1 As identified above, it is important that a range of sites in different locations are identified to be in the best possible position of delivering the development requirements. In terms of presenting these sites in the Core Strategy, whilst it is useful to identify a housing trajectory, it is important that there is not a phasing policy as such that would prevent the delivery of housing, given the current housing crisis. As stated above, the delivery of housing on greenfield and Green Belt land will not compromise the delivery of urban regeneration as the development on the urban edge will complement and rejuvenate the environment in a different way.
7.2 In terms of the proposed level of discounting, it is considered that if the LPA adopt an approach to identify a further 20% of sites in accordance with the LPEG recommendations identified above, there would not necessarily be a need for the application of discounting in determining the overall level of supply. It is interesting to note that the level of discounting proposed by LPEG is suggested for all LPAs, not necessarily those which have experienced difficulty in delivery. It could therefore be argued that an increased buffer of 25% could be applied in order to take a cautious approach.
Question 36: Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 should be changed? Yes/No; If yes, what standards should be applied instead, for example should the minimum net density of 35 dwellings per hectare be increased to maximise brownfield housing delivery?
7.3 It is clear that the current accessibility and density standards outlined in the adopted Core Strategy were formulated in the context of the vast majority of development taking place on brownfield sites within the defined urban area. As reiterated throughout these representations, there is now a clear need for Green Belt release as part of the Local Plan Review to meet emerging, objectively assessed housing needs. We outline in further detail below why the adopted accessibility and densities would not be applicable to Green Belt sites, however would suggest that the current standards do not allow sufficient flexibility on brownfield sites. A blanket application of prescriptive accessibility and density standards across the Black Country, be it brownfield or greenfield, does not allow sufficient flexibility which take into account site specific characteristics. The Council should allow for greater flexibility when assessing accessibility and density standards, with a more pragmatic approach which allows appropriate assessment for site-specific characteristics and also an assessment of market demand which may vary significantly across the large Black Country area.
7.4 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF outlines how local authorities should set out their own approach towards density. It is suggested that the currently adopted approach does not allow for sufficient assessment of local characteristics. It is clear that the chosen approach must be reflective of local circumstances, including the matters outlined above as well as infrastructure and services available in the locality. It is advocated that a more flexible approach to density and accessibility standards is taken as part of the emerging Local Plan Review.
Question 37a: Do you think that the existing Policy HOU2 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why
7.5 In line with the comments above, it is suggested that the Council should assess each site on a case by case basis in terms of accessibility and density standards. This approach would suggest that the numerical baseline trigger of 15 homes or more will not always be appropriate or applicable, and as advocated throughout these representations it suggested that there should be a complete re-assessment on accessibility and density standards as part of the emerging Local Plan Review.
Question 38: Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards are appropriate for green belt release locations? Yes/No; If no, what standards should be applied in these locations and why?
7.6 No, it is not considered that the current standards would be applicable to Green Belt release locations. The adopted standards are overly prescriptive, and as previously discussed were written in the context of brownfield land. Green Belt release sites have a completely different type of character, therefore consideration of accessibility and density standards in relation to these sites should be reflective of local character and site characteristics. The more suburban settings of Green Belt release land lends itself to lower densities which are more appropriate to the Green Belt setting, which typically deliver more family homes. The Council must provide robust evidence to test any forthcoming accessibility and density standards in relation to Green Belt release locations, which allows for a flexible and pragmatic approach.
Question 39: Do you think separate accessibility standards are needed for particular types of housing e.g. housing for the elderly or affordable housing (as occupiers may be less mobile and more dependent on public transport)? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
7.7 It is clear that separate accessibility standards will apply to particular types of housing such as affordable and for the elderly population, however in line with the sentiment expressed above, any forthcoming standards should be based on robust evidence and allow for sufficient flexibility to avoid any unnecessary constraints to development coming forward.
Question 40: Do you agree that the 2017 SHMA findings should be used to set general house type targets for the Plan period? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.8 A general and blanket application for house types across the Black Country should not be advanced as part of the Local Plan Review. Paragraph 50 is clear that local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends and market trends. It is therefore notable that the NPPF specifically highlights 'market trends' in this context, which acknowledges that the market must inform such decisions.
7.9 Whilst the 2017 SHMA does provide an assessment of demographic and market trends, it is notable that it looks at a wider area assessment and is focused at a higher level. This assessment therefore does not draw out sub-market trends, and cover smaller areas within the vast Black Country area. Again, a blanket policy of house type targets across the Black Country area would not allow for sufficient flexibility to assess each site on a site by site basis, taking into consideration local market trends and demand. The NPPF does not state that specific policies should be set to enforce that local demand is met. As such, it is considered that this should be left for the market to decide, as opposed to applying rigid and prescriptive house size standards.
7.10 It is suggested that the evidence presented in the SHMA should be put into the Plan as an informative and general guide, but should not feed into a specific policy requirement which outlines housing mix percentages that should be applied across the Black Country. A policy containing general house type targets could present as a significant constraint to the delivery of a site where there is no local market demand for this house type, which in turn would have a negative impact on achieving the necessary housing growth targets to be delivered in the Black Country over the Plan period.
Question 41a: Do you support the introduction of a policy approach towards self and custom build housing in the Core Strategy? Yes/No; If yes, would you support:
7.11 It is not considered that there is a policy need for the Core Strategy to address self and custom build housing in the emerging Review. Paragraph 6.32 indicates that there are only nine records on self and custom build registers in the Black Country. It is evident that that there is very limited demand in the Black Country, which is unsurprising given that self and custom build housing is often more popular in rural areas. Given the limited demand it is therefore not considered necessary to take a policy approach towards self and custom build housing within the Local Plan Review.
Question 41b: A target for each authority? Yes/No; Any further comments
7.12 Given that there is evidence of little market demand, it is not considered necessary for the Core Strategy to set targets for each of the Black Country authorities. If it was considered to be necessary as the Local Plan Review progresses, any targets being set should be formulated on the basis of robust evidence such as monitoring of the registers, to provide an indication of how many self-build homes will be needed.
Question 41c: A requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots? Yes/No; Any further comments?
7.13 There should not be a requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots. This can pose an unnecessary market constraint for large housebuilders when there may be limited or no market demand for self-build plots. Self and custom build plots are often unusual and unique in character, therefore would not be best suited to be located within a large housing development with more uniform house types. If deemed necessary, self and custom build housing should be allocated specific site allocations, as discussed below.
Question 41d: Another approach altogether? Yes/No; If yes, please specify.
7.14 If it is considered necessary for the Review to address self and custom build housing, this should be addressed by the Council's identifying and allocating specific plots for these uses. Identifying site-specific plots would ensure that the most appropriate and suitable locations for self and custom-build will be allocated, via the assessment of appropriate evidence and market demand. In addition, this might be more likely to be achieved on surplus publicly owned land.
Question 42: Do you agree that the annual affordable homes target should be increased to reflect the 2017 Black Country Strategic Housing Market Assessment? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.15 As a general principle, the notion of applying different affordable housing ratios to different parts of the Black Country, based on an understanding of needs and viability, is acceptable. Given that the Black Country represents a vast area, there will not be a uniform housing market, and there will be sub-market trends within this wider area. As such, a more flexible approach which assesses local housing market evidence on a case by case basis could be justified. That said, there is an inherent simplicity and attraction to a single rate figure, which is easy for the development industry to understand.
7.16 In terms of the annual affordable housing target, it is unclear how the Issues and Options document has calculated the figure of 832 homes per year. At paragraph 7.42 of the June 2017 SHMA Part Two- affordable housing document, it is stated that the total annual affordable housing need is 677 dwellings, which represents 19.8% of the annual projected household growth. This differs to paragraph 6.36 of the Issues and Options document, which states that the affordable housing target is 23.4% of total housing need or 832 homes per year. From paragraph 7.47 of the SHMA, it appears that this figure may have been calculated by adding the overall requirement of 16.6% of housing to be affordable rented and 6.7% shared ownership. Clarity is sought on how this figure has been calculated, and we reserve the right to comment further on this matter.
Question 43a: Do you think that the existing Policy HOU3 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.17 We have not undertaken detailed analysis of the findings and assumptions of the SHMA and affordable housing delivery matters, therefore would like to reserve the right to comment on this matter further. However, on face value, it appears to be a reasonable threshold and is not dissimilar to other locations.
Question 44a: Do you think that the affordable housing requirement for eligible sites in Question 43 should be kept at 25% of the total number of homes on the site? Yes /No; Any further comments?
7.18 Based on the current evidence, a blanket rate of 25% affordable housing would appear to be sound.
7.19 However, irrespective of the final rate, any amendments to the currently adopted affordable housing policy must continue to have a clause in it which stipulates that this requirement is subject to viability tests. Any revised affordable housing requirements will also need to carefully consider the implications of adopted Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regimes. Both Sandwell and Dudley Councils have adopted CIL Charging Schedules. These will have implications on viability, therefore if revised affordable housing targets are to progressed then these CIL tariffs will need to re-assessed and re-visited.
Question 44b: If no, should the percentage be increased to allow for the provision of affordable home ownership? Yes/No; If yes, what should the percentage be and why?
7.20 At paragraph 6.39 of the Issues and Options Paper, it is stated that options need to be explored to increase affordable housing delivery of private sites. One option would be to increase the overall affordable housing proportion, which would require developers to provide affordable home ownership products plus an appropriate proportion of other affordable tenures. This paragraph follows on from commentary relating to the Housing White Paper.
7.21 The Housing White Paper discusses Starter Homes at Chapter 4, and explains how the government intend to amend the NPPF to introduce a clear policy expectation that housing sites deliver a minimum of 10% affordable home ownership units. It is later stated that it will be for local areas to work with developers to agree an appropriate level of delivery of starter homes, alongside other affordable home ownership and rented tenures.
7.22 The policy position on Starter Homes is not yet fully clear, and has yet to be formally established through a formal amendment and update to the NPPF. Until the national policy position on Starter Homes has been made clear, it would be premature for the Core Strategy Review to suggest an uplift in the affordable housing requirement to include affordable home ownership such as Starter Homes. Any suggestion to uplift the affordable housing requirement to include Starter
Homes should be reflective of the national policy position, as well as founded upon a robust evident base which dictates exactly what percentage this element should be of the overall affordable housing requirement.
Question 45: Should an increased affordable housing requirement be set for green belt release sites, to reflect the likely financial viability of these sites? Yes/No; If yes, what should this be.
7.23 The likely financial viability of Green Belt sites will vary across different areas of the Black Country, therefore any affordable housing requirements for Green Belt sites will need to be reflective of these circumstances. Any affordable housing targets for Green Belt sites should be based on robust evidence, and acknowledge that many sites may need to support and deliver other infrastructure requirements.
7.24 Ultimately, any affordable housing strategy will need to address the affordable housing need as well as the need for market housing. Bearing in mind that the SHMA confirms over 70% of homes required are for homes to be sold on the open market, any affordable housing policy must not dilute the delivery of these needs/requirements. A higher figure on Green Belt sites over and above a standard blanket figure would potentially do this.
Employment
Question 49a: Is there still a need for existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.25 The Black Country is to be the subject of large levels of both employment and housing growth over the Plan Period. These uses are very much inter-linked with one another, and will drive each other's need for growth. The Local Plan Review, in order to meet emerging employment and housing needs, must identify a significant number of specific sites for employment and housing uses. By planning proactively and identifying suitable sites for both employment land and housing land, this should reduce the pressures to manage the release of poorer quality employment land, which may not always be suitable for release. The Local Plan Review should also seek to undertake a further review of poorer quality employment land to make it available for other suitable uses, if it proves to no longer be viable for employment land use. This is in line with policy provisions of the NPPF, which at Paragraph 22 outlines that planning policies should avoid the long-term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose.
Question 50: Do you think that the Core Strategy should continue to set a target for the total employment land stock in Policy EMP1? Yes/No; Please explain why.
7.26 The continuation of setting a target for employment land stock would be supported. Policy EMP1 should make it clear that these are not maximum figures, to encourage further flexibility for additional growth.
Retail
Question 61: In addition to para 4.33 of the current Core Strategy should the revised Core Strategy include criteria for the creation of new centres that might be needed as a result of any additional housing identified through the plan? Yes/No; Any further comments?
7.28 Criteria would be a useful policy tool to help assess the designation of new centres, and should be in line with previous methodologies used which set out clear thresholds.
Question 71: Should the Core Strategy set housing targets for the Town Centres?
7.29 Housing within Town Centres should be supported, in line with paragraph 23 of the NPPF which discusses the important role that residential development can play in ensuring the vitality of Town Centres. Any housing targets should be based on what sites are known to be readily available, suitable and viable for residential development. Market demand for housing in these areas will also need to be fully assessed. It is notable from the outcome of the 2017 SHMA that there is most demand for three bedroom properties (40%). The highest demand is therefore for family housing, and not for flats which are often the most popular within Town Centre locations. Any housing targets set for the Town Centre would therefore need to consider the findings of the SHMA, and be reflective of the fact that family housing is often more suitable for delivery on larger sites, including on sites which are currently located within the Green Belt.
Environment
Question 99a: Do you think that national standards for housing development on water consumption should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.30 When referring to water consumption paragraph 6.1.52 of the Issues and Options document states that the Black Country does not currently lie in an area of serious water stress, therefore clear need may be difficult to demonstrate. This evidence suggests that there is limited or no need to introduce such a policy, therefore it is not considered that the Core Strategy Review should seek to introduce water consumption standards for housing development.
Question 99b: Do you think that national access standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.31 The introduction of any national access standards, with the Issues and Options document referring specifically to Lifetime Homes, again must be based on a robust evidence base which can demonstrate market demand. It is noted that Paragraph 50 of the NPPF states that planning authorities must plan for a mix of housing to meet a range of needs. In the same paragraph, it is later stated that these must be based on current and future market trends. If Lifetime Home standards are to be introduced these will therefore need to be based on robust evidence, to ensure that the standards are not overly onerous and prevent the delivery of other types of housing which have higher levels of market demand.
Question 99c: Do you think that national space standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.32 As reiterated throughout these representations, it is not considered that a blanket approach of prescriptive standards across the Black Country allows sufficient flexibility to assess local market and site considerations in an appropriate manner. Whilst it is recognised that space standards can be an important tool to ensure that high quality of homes are delivered, we agree with the sentiment expressed in the recent Housing White Paper. The Paper explains that the government are concerned that a one size fits all approach may not reflect the needs and aspirations of a wider range of households. The White Paper also states that the Government will be undertaking a review of the Nationally Described Space Standards. It is suggested that the Core Strategy Review should await the outcome of this national review of national space standards, to ensure compliance with national policy and to ensure that the most appropriate approach to space standards, if required, is taken.
Question 99d: Do you think that the standards should be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No; If yes, please explain how and why.
7.33 As discussed above, prescriptive standards do not always allow sufficient flexibility for local market needs, so we would not advocate a blanket approach of different standards to brownfield and greenfield sites.
Open Space, Sport and Recreation
Question 102a: Do you support the proposed changes relating to open space, sport and recreation? Yes/No; If no, please explain
7.34 Paragraph 6.1.60 of the Issues and Options paper outlines how adopted Policy ENV6 creates the framework for open space policies at the local level. The Issues and Options paper outlines how this is in line with national guidance, and that it is proposed to retain this policy and update some references in the supporting text to reflect changing circumstances. It is agreed that the local level remains the appropriate place to set open space policies, and that Policy ENV6 should continue to endorse this approach.

r!

r 1

r 1







( )








I I
ll
l I
l I
l I



2. Landscape and Visual Context


2.1 Introduction


2.1.1 Pegasus Design has undertaken a preliminary appraisalof the landscape and visual constraints and opportunities for the land at Home Farm, Sandhills Site. A summary of this landscape and visual work is provided below.

2.2 Site Context and Description


2.2.1 The site is located on the eastern edge of Brownhills. Open countryside extends to the north and east, which is also designated Green Belt. It is generally characterised by large arable field enclosures , but also populated by a number of elements of built form, and in particular major highways infrastructure including the M6 Toll and the A5. Chasetown lies further to the north. To the south lies further development , typically residential, extending down towards A ldridge. To the east is the urban area of Brownhills, including the Wyrley and Essington Canal.

2.2.2 The site itself also lies within Green Belt land and forms part of land covered by the Forest of Mercia community forest. Within the wider landscape there is an area of open access land to the south at Shire Oak Hill and to the north at Brownhills Common. Public rights of way are limited in the local landscape, although there is a tow path along the eastern edge of the canal.


2.3 Site Description


2.3.1 The site is irregular in plan form and comprises approximately 12 no. field enclosures of different sizes. It is defined to the north-west by the canal, including a mature hedgerow with the occasional tree; and to the south-west by the rear garden curtilages of residential properties on the eastern side of the A452 Chester Road. It is defined to the south-east by the A461 Lichfield Road (A461), which includes a number of private properties fronting on to it. This boundary is also characterised by some mature vegetation infrastructure along its length, including a small woodland copse. It is defined to the north-east by a number of elements including farm tracks, a water course and topographical change. The district boundary between Walsall Council and Lichfield District Council, which is coincidental with this boundary, follows a track that extends across the north-eastern section of the site.

2.3.2 There are two building groupings on site, both in close proximity to the A461 Lichfield Road. To the north is Sandhills Farm, including a number of small brick buildings and some large agriculturalsheds. Access to it is from Lichfield Road. Slightly further south is Home Farm, including the red brick Farmhouse itself, with other associated farm buildings behind. Access to it is from the Lichfield Road,


and the access track extends past Home Farm to a series of other buildings, in private residential use. A farm track links these two groups of buildings. No elements of the built form are listed.

2.3.3 In terms of topography, the site is located on an area of gently sloping agricultural land between approximately +170m AOD at the junction of the Chester Road and Lichfield Road, to approximately
+140m AOD beyond the district boundary of Walsall. Beyond this, the landform rises to approximately
+150m AOD to the north.

2.3.4 Land on site is currently in arable production, with the exception of two small field enclosures at the eastern end off Barracks Lane that remain in pasture. The field enclosures vary in size and shape. On the southern, eastern and northern parts, the enclosures are generally small to medium sized and rectangular; in the central part of the site and extending west of the canal, there is a much larger, irregularly shaped enclosure that occupies the lowest lying land.

2.3.5 Vegetation is generally confined to the southern and eastern parts of the site. This includes a triangular shaped woodland copse just west of the private buildings behind Home Farm; a treed hedgerow just south of Home Farm; and a mature woodland copse j ust south of Home Farm on the Lichfield Road frontage . Both the access tracks to Home Farm and Sandhills Farm are tree lined, and the track that links the two buildings groupings is also tree lined. There is also some vegetation associated with the back gardens of properties fronting Chester Road on the south-western site boundary.

2.3.6 The site is currently included as part of the West Midlands Green Belt. There are no landscape specific designations which cover the site or the immediate area. A site location and planning designations plan is contained at the end of this Chapter, which provides further details.

2.4 Landscape Character


2.4.1 In terms of national landscape character, the site is located within National Character Area Profile 67: Cannock Chase and Cank Wood, as published by Natural England (2012). At a more local level, Walsall Council does not have a published landscape/townscape character assessment. The site is located at the boundary of Walsall and Lichfield District and displays many similarities to the Sandstone Estatelands: Farmland Landscape Character Type/Subtype of the Staffordshire Landscape Character Assessment, 'Planning for Landscape Change' Supplementary Planning Guidance (2001).

2.5 Views and Visual Receptors

2.5.1 Several representative viewpoint photographs from local visual receptors have been taken from the surrounding landscape. The location of these is shown on Figure 2.1 on the following page. The photographs taken from these viewpoints are contained at the end of this Chapter.




Figure 2.1- Viewpoint Photographs








'*
'
Spr111eh 1ff ,;)' * ' *

\ -lo
























2.5 .2 The following section describes the visual relationship between the site and the surrounding landscape in relation to the inter-visibility of the area and the nature and extent of potential views. In visual terms the site and its context are relatively well contained with views towards it generally being of short distance. Whilst inter-visibility across the site is possible, it is well contained by the surrounding built form and topography .

2.5.3 From the north, the visual envelope of the site is limited by local undulations in landform combined with adjacent built form along the B4155, Lichfield Road and Barracks Lane. From areas to the east, the visual envelope is contained by Barracks Lane and the localised ridgeline that lies between Whitacre Lane and Cartersfield Lane. From the south rising landform and existing properties along the A461 (Lichfield Road) and along Chester Road (which line the south-western site boundary) limit views across the site. From the west, the existing settlement area of Brownhills lies immediately adjacent to the Wyrley and Essington Canal which follows the north-western site boundary and serves to limit views of the site from beyond those available immediately adjacent to it.

2.5.4 From the north, there are views available from Barracks Lane however these are limited by boundary vegetation and topography. Views from the east are both public and private and look across the site from the A461 Lichfield Road, from where the Home Farm and Sandhills Farm buildings are visible, together with their tree lined access tracks. In these views, the combination of farm buildings and mature trees is characteristic,with more extensive views looking northwards beyond the site across


open countryside. Views from the southern end of Barracks Lane are more limited as the agricultural sheds within the Sandhills Farm complex serve to screen views in combination with rising topography. However, there are views from the central parts of Barracks Lane, with the urban edge of Brownhills in the background.

2.5.5 From the north-east, the site is not visible from where the A5 and M6 toll roads cross over at the Boat Lane junction. This is mainly due to the rising topography and existing vegetation in the direction of Brownhills to the south. Views from the Muckley Corner area are similarly limited.

2.5.6 From the south, there are both public and private views from Lichfield Road looking into the southern part of the site, and further across it to the north with more elevated countryside in the distance including the south-east fringes of Cannock Chase. There will also be private views from the residencies backing on to the site from Chester Road. From the west, there are views looking across the site from the path alongside the Canal, notably where the localised elevation of this path rises and where the hedgerow is absent. In these views, the central parts of the site can be seen, with the urban edge of Brownhills on rising land beyond, characterised in part by mature vegetation.

2.5.7 Overall, views towards the site are limited to a number of localised visual receptors that include residential receptors at the existing settlement edge of Brownhills, users of the canal tow path, and users of the local road network.


2.6 Landscape and Visual Analysis


2.6.1 The contextual landscape and visual analysis can be summarised as follows:

* The context comprises a functional landscape , generally consistent with local landscape character studies, however heavily influenced by urban areas and elements of built form, notably major highways infrastructure;

* The local landscape character is also degraded in part, primarily showing the effects of the removal of hedgerows following intensification of arable farming practices;

* It well visually contained to the north and west by built form. The only exception to this are the views form the towpath along the canal which runs along the western site boundary; and

* In contrast, the site is more visually open to the south and east although many of these views are limited to short and mid distance views, typically influenced by the urban edge;

2.6.2 The site landscape and visual analysis can be summarised as follows :

* The site topography is such that it forms a localised 'topographical bowl' in its central and northern parts, formed by rising topography both to the north and south;



* This 'bowl' is more visually contained in the wider landscape;

* The southern part of the site adjacent to Brownhills gives the perception of being more enclosed, notwithstanding its higher elevation, primarily due to the vegetation structure on and adjacent to it;

* The central and northern parts of the site contrast with this, and retain a distinct lack of vegetation infrastructure;

* The triangular copse, in combination with the Home Farm buildings complex serve to define a 'threshold' between the differing characters of the south and central/northern parts of the site;

* The Farm buildings complexes, in combination with mature tree planting, generate a pleasant visual composition when viewed from the A461 Lichfield Road corridor; and

* The Wyrley and Essington Canal corridor retains pleasant amenity value and good visual connectivity with the site where the adjacent hedgerow is absent and does not channel views along the corridor.

2.6.3 A contextual Landscape and Visual Analysis drawing is contained at the end of this Chapter.


2.7 Impact on the Green Belt

2.7.1 The site is located in part of the Green Belt that extends between Lichfield to the north-east, with Burntwood, Brownhills and Aldridge to the south-west forming a more or less continuous ribbon of development extending south towards Walsall. It is also bisected by the M6 Toll; the A5; the A5190 and the A461 ; and includes the Villages of Shenstone, Wall and Hammerwich together with numerous elements of 'ribbon' development along highways routes.
2.7.2 Extending across and around these elements, the majority of the landscape is in arable production and is very gently undulating. The land is not covered by any other form of amenity planning designation. Openness therefore in this instance comprises combinations of this agricultural landscape populated quite consistently with development in terms of both highways infrastructure and built form to a greater or lesser degree. Various combinations of these elements will vary in views across the Green Belt.
2.7.3 In accordance with the NPPF, Green Belt boundaries should be defined clearly, using physical features that are readily recognised and likely to be permanent. It is considered that the north-eastern and south-eastern boundaries of the site, in combination with the existing triangular woodland and proposed woodland belts this could form a clearly defined Green Belt boundary by the nature of them being defined by mature vegetation . The landscape and green infrastructure strategy for the site also proposes new planting throughout the site area.._--af!G-particularly along the south-eastern boundary where there is an interface with the existing ribbon development along the A461 Lichfield Road. These



mitigation measure will help to establish and enhance a robust landscaped edge to the proposed development and provide a definitive new Green Belt boundary.

2.7.4 Table 2 on the following page sets out a summary of the likely impacts on Green Belt purpose, in landscape and visual terms, using the five purposes set out by the NPPF.



Table 2: Summary of LikelyImpacts on Green Belt Purpose - Green Belt Review Criteria



NPPF Purposes of the Green Belt Summary






To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.
The site is located on the eastern edge of the settlement of 8rownhills. An area of which extends as ribbon development a long the A461 Lichfield Road, running in parallel with the majority of the south-eastern boundary. There are a number of built elements already existing within the site and these combine with an area of triangular woodla nd copse to contribute to the definition of the boundary of 8rownhills, and serve to contain it both physically and visua lly. Development of the site will not lead to unrestricted sprawl of the built-up area as it will be contained within this framewo rk. The extent of development will not project built form further into the countryside as it sits directly adjacent to the existing settlement edge and includes new landscape infrastructure planting along its boundaries. The proposals outline the intention to provide strong green infrastructure along the eastern boundaries of the development envelope that will provide a
closed edge to the development that extends no further east than the existing settlement along the A461 (Lichfield Road) to the south-east and along the 85011 and the 84155 to the north and north-east. The development will also serve to rationa lise in part the existing ribbon development along the A416, Lichfield Road, to better incorporate it into the settlement pattern of 8rownhills.



To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another.
The closest settlement to the eastern edge of 8rownhills is the small v illage of Stonna ll, located ca. 1.2km to the south-east of the site. The ribbon development along the A461 Lichfield Road,
lies closer to the village of Stonnall that the proposed development . The next closest settlement is the village of Shenstone that lies ca. 4.45km to the east. Development of the site will represent a relatively small scale extension on the eastern edge of 8rownhills which will not extend further east than the existing settlement pattern. Overall, development of the site will not lead to coalescence ('merging') of neighbouring settlements.




To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment .
Development of the site will result in a small loss of open land in the context of the edge of 8rownhills. However, the majority of the existing vegetation will be retained, and together with a robust green infrastructure strategy, development can be located within a comprehensive
la ndscape setting which wou ld be located along, and consistent with, the ex isting settlement edge. Furthermore, development of the site will not extend the existing settlement edge further east than the alignment of the settlement pattern created by the A461 (Lichfield Road) to the south-east and along the 85011 and the 84155 to the north and north-east. The site has already been encroached upon by built development, including large scale agricultural buildings and




individual residential properties. There is no public access on site, nor is there any evidence to suggest informal use of the site for recreation.



To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.
There are no conservatio n areas w ithin the study area and the closest scheduled monument is the fort located in Shire Oak Park Nature Reserve, ca . .4km to the south. The park and fort form a loca l hill characterised by wood la nd that prevents any visual relationship between it and the site.
As such, the appropriate design of development on the site is unlikely to cause undue effect to any historic features within or surrounding the town.



To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
The site is influenced by a number of urbanising features such as the settlement edge of
Brownhills; a number of major transport routes and their associated infrastructure, including the M6 Toll road,A461Lichfield Road and the AS; and existing built form on site.
It is considered that all areas of Green Belt by their nature and designation should contribute to the recycling of derelict and urban land as Green Belt is generally a prohibitive designation where development is rarely acceptable, thus development is focused into urban areas.



























2.8 Landscape and Visually Led Development Process


2.8.1 With respect to development proposals on site, a landscape and visually led process has been adopted in order to identify the initial parameters for development. This includes the formulation of a comprehensive Green Infrastructure (GI) strategy and the identificat ion of a Development Envelope, the details of which are outlined below.

Development Envelope

2.8.2 The initial landscape and visual analysis has identified areas which retain good capacity for development. It essentially comprises two overall parts. The highways analysis has identified two points of access: a primary one from the A461 ; linking to a secondary access off the Chester Road. These will serve the first part of the development envelope which extends across the south-western part of the site. Although the land is slightly elevated in this location, it remains quite well enclosed and relates well to the existing urban edge. This part of the envelope is again broken down into two parcels, with a significant area of open space between them, which may function in part as primary school/community use, and will offer long distance views northwards.

Green Infrastruc ture (GI) strategy

2.8.3 The development envelope has been identified integrally with a comprehensive GI strategy. Creation of a robust green infrastructure (GI) network across the site is a key component of the proposed development and will not only provide landscape and visual mitigation, but will also enhance the landscape resource and add value to it.

2.8.4 The analysis identified the general lack of GI across the site and it is considered important to build on the existing elements of vegetation and consider more opportunities in terms of access and permeability, as well as the recreational and biodiversity benefits that extend form this.

2.8.5 The green infrastructure strategy will be robust, including links to existing and proposed vegetation belts, and will include the following:

* Creation of a comprehensive open space hierarchy, including a linear park along the canal, and a series of three large linked linear open spaces between the development parcels;

* Retention of all the vegetation across the site, in particular that along the A461 Lichfield Road frontage, with supplementary planting where necessary;

* Creation of a series of new, linked woodland belts which are consistent in character with the existing ones on site and in the local area. These include:

- The A461 frontage, south of Home Farm, to reinforce the visualenclosure in this area;



- Supplementary planting adjacent to the retained triangular copes to extend a green link down towards the secondary site access on Chester Road;

- Along the eastern edge of the northern section of the development envelope, behind Home Farm, for both visual containment and to enhance the setting and amen ity of the Farm;

- Along the north-eastern edge of the southern section of the development envelope, again for visual containments and setting and amenity value; and

- To the north of the northern edge of the northern section of the development envelope, up to circa, 10 metres in width, that will provide a robust and well defined edge to the Green Belt.

* Safe and easy public access through the series of newly created spaces;

* Provision of open spaces with drainage features in appropriate locations, including the north­ eastern corner of the site; and

* Creation of a natural parkland landscape design in the open space that will be created along the canalfrontage.

2.8.6 The introduction of woodland belts along the eastern edge of the development envelope, combined with the remaining agricultural parcels around existing built form and localised undulation in topography will serve to continue views of open space when approaching Sandhills along the A461 Lichfield Road and filter views of the proposed development.

2.8.7 The proposed, indicative Green Infrastructure Strategy is shown on a Plan contained at the end of this Chapter.

KEY
[Z] Site boundary
EJ LPA boundary*
Urban Open Space (LC1)*

D Green belt**
SSSI..


Ancient Woodland**

[]Scheduled Monuments**
D CROW land **
Country parks **


Forest of Mercia ***



Sources:
* Walsall Council UDP (2005)
** www. magic.gov.uk
*** www.forestry.gov .uk

















Home Farm, Sandhills, Walsall
Fig. 1 Site Location and Planning Designations







PLANNING IDESIGN IENVIRONMENT IECONOMICS
Copyright Pegas.us Planning Group Ltd. Crown copyright,Al oghts reserved. 2015. Ordnance Survey Copyright Lpnce number 100042093. Promap LIC8nce number 100020449 and X.XXXXXXX.X .
Pegasus accepts noilablity for any use of this document other thanfor its originalpurpose, or by the original client,or following Pegasus'ex.press agreement to such use. T 01285641717 www.pegasuspg..co.u









lkm

Drawing Ref: BIR.4327 06 Client : Gallagher Estates
Date : 09/03/2017
Drawn by : LG Pegasus
Checked by : KM Design .
Scale : 1:25000 @ A3 ....-'

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A-p--p-r-o-x--im--a--te---e-x-t-e-n--t-o-f- s-i-te------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------...

North-east boundary North-west boundary Sandhills Farm Propert ies on
Lichfield Road

Home Farm




Nor th-west boundary H F Property on Barracks ome arm
Lane


North-west boundary Properties on
Chester Road






















Viewpoint 2 View f rom north-western boundary looking east Camera type Nikon D3300 with 50mm lens Iequivalent focal length)
Date 9th March 2017
Approx grid ref SK 05405 04975
Approx elevation + 146m AOD Distance to site c.2m
PLANNING I IENVIRONMENT IECONOMICS
Copyrtght Pequu5> Aarming Group ltd. CtoNnCoVftighl. All rights reserved. 2015.Ontnoc* SurvtY Copynght l.Jcence nu 100042093. Promap Licence number 100020449 Peguosaccepts not111b111ty for ny u ot this document other thanfor its ori91nalpurpose. or by the ongmalchen1, or f0Uow1n9 Pegasus* ex.press aqrutnenlto such use. T 0128564 1717 www.pegasuspg.co.uk

Home Farm, Sandhills, Brownhills
Fig. 3: Viewpoint Photographs
Drawing Ref: BIR.4327 07A Client: Gallagher Estates
Date : 24/08/ 17 Pegasus
Drawn by : LWE/LG/CW Env1ronmert .
Checked by : KM


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A--p-p-r-o-x--i-m-a--te---e-x-t-e-n--t -o-f--s-i-t-e------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------.------------------------- -----------------------------------.
Properties on Paterson Place Lichfield Road





















Viewpoint 3 View f rom Lichfield Road. looking west
Camera type Nikon D3300 with 50mm lens !equivalent focal length) Date 91h March 2017
Approx grid ref SK 05686 04350
Approx elevation +161m AOD
Distance to site c. 21m
--------------------------------------------------------.---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------A--p-p-r-o-x--im---a-t-e--e-x-te-n--t-o-f--s-i-t-e -----------------------------------------------------------------------------.----------------------------------------------------------*
- .
Properties on Home Farm Properties on Sandhills Farm Lichfield Road Property on Barracks Chester Road Catshill Road La ne








)














Viewpoint 4 View from Lichfield Road. looking wesl


Home Fa rm, Sand hi lls,

Camera type
Date

Nikon D3300 wilh 50mm lens !equivalent f ocal length!
91h March 2017

Brown h ills
Fig. 3: Viewpo i nt Photog ra phs

Approx grid ref SK 06347 04846
Approx elevation +130m AOD
Distance to site c. 20m

Drawing Ref : BI R.4327 07A Client: Gallagh er Estates
Date : 24/08/ 17 Pegasus

PLANNING I

IENVIRONMENT IECONOMICS

Drawn by : LW E/LG/CW Environm enl .
Checked by : KM --'

Copyn9ht Ptguus Planning Group Ltd. CroNn copy right. All ri9hts reseNed, 201S. Ordnance Survty Copyright l.Jc ttice number 100042093. Promap licence number 100020449 Peg asus acceptsno b1t11y lo.- any use of thisdocumtnl other then for rts ong1nal purpose, or trf the Ofl9H'I M dtent. or tollowmg Pegasus*express agreement to such us.. T 01285641717 www.ptgasuspg.to.uk

*--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ * _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ £1?!?.i_f!!_'! i:_i: !_n_ ?!_ li:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ *_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ *_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


Sandhills Farm Home Farm Properties on Chester Road

Tower block on Lindon Drive

Properties on Catshill Barracks Lane
Road and Sadler Road


















\









Residential area off Castle Road and Catshill Road
1._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .P-l?!?_ i_r:i_'!i:.i:!.!!sit li:-_ _ _ _ _
..
.
'

"'"_1,*r-- "'Jil1i
















Viewpoint 6 View from Greenwood Road, looking north
Camera type Nikon 03300 with 50mm lens Iequivalent local length I


Home Farm, Sandhills, Brownhills

Dale

9th March 2017

Fig. 3: Viewpo int Photographs

Approx grid ref SK 05818 02761
Approx elevation +170m AOD

Drawing Ref : BIR.4327 07A C lient: Gallagher Estates

Distance to site
PLANNING I

c. 1.Skm
IENVIRONMENT IECONOMICS

Date : 24/08/17 Pegasus
Drawn by : LWE/ LG/CW Environment .
Checked by : KM _--'

Copynghl Pegasus P\anning Group Ltd. CroHO c:opyrhl. All rights reserved. 2015. Ordnance SYrte, Copynght licence number- HX:Xl420V3. Promap Ucence number 10002040 Pega!.Vs <tct!'pls no l1ab1l11y lor*ny use ol th1s document other than for rtsong1 nal purpose. or by tht onginal cl..nt. ortottow.ng re98sus* upr1!$S tgrHmtnt 10 !tuch use.. 1012856& 1711 www. isuspg.co.u

Approximate extent of site









\.






















PLANNIN G I IENVIRONMENT IECONOMICS
Copyright Pasus PlannmQ Group ltd, Crt1ovn toptnght, Alt rights reserved.2015.Ordnance Sur'1eyCopynght Licence number 100042093. Prorn;ap Licence number 100020449 Pegas atupts no liab1l11y tor any use ol t his document other than for its tmgrnalpurpose. or bythe onq1nal client, or t0Uow1 Pegasus' expre-ss agreemeni 10 such us.. T 01285641117 www.pegsuspg..co.uk

Home Farm, Sandhills, Brownhills
Fig. 3: Viewpoint Photographs
Drawing Ref : BIR.4327 07A Client: Gallagher Estates
Date : 24/0B/17 Pegasus
Drawn by : LWE/LG/CW Environment .
Checked by : KM




AOO

Section AA Seal* 1:2000@!'0












32 *..

-*



140m
!.<:'On
/\00
Section BB Salle *:2!JOOGAO

155m 150m





\..






3 '::: Li:iicG:ih>ifiie&i1.d..;i ieij::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=
'"°' hern-stttdy-&ree-bounda





Section Locations Scale 1:100CJ@AO

won
'

rni"tn '"

, ,"Q" and ton


;, ""!
, ....... --1 -1- 11- t-;- -lr--t ;- ;--
,.,,,;:::::::=t::::tt:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::'.:J=::t==t===================================================== :::::':::: ::::::::=t=::+::

ILCm--
12Cn\
A:xl

I *A A* A*A A-& & A*A*- < A.A .


Section CC Salle 1 2000@AO


Notes
* Proposed andexisting bui ding heights shownat 9m to r dge.
* Proposed plantingshown at 8 to 10 m.
.Existing planting shown at 10 to 20m. Home Farm,Sandhills, Walsall
Fig. 6 Site ocation and
Planning Designations





t t UH"'gt.'"". ....,Jl(tJdl C'
*./ ....................* .l










Copp ce La
f r


KEY





Site boundary


Existing settlement area

----* -*
.i



...




i--a




'l>Crw ch Place Farm


Br :lg







M
B Existing vegetation
providing containment Public rights of way

Visually exposed edge of Brownhills


Localised Ridgeline


Sloping landform




*..
Crancbrook *****
Fa m *-..


07
:::

***

Existing farm buildings on-site
1. Home Farm
2. Sandhills Farm
Wyrley and Essington Canal


Local/short distance views across site





Sewa
W s









>elsail

34
\* Far-n /*** -*

**::::1: *
..*!'..::**

*
...
*,*.
*

. ..,
::
. r, Crea1:*
** .

\ N w B ns
'\*..
***








PLANNING I DESIGN IENVIRONMENT IECONOM ICS
Copynght Pegasus ptanning Group Ltd, Crown copyright,All rights reserved.2015. Ordnance Survey Copyright Licence number 100042093.Ptomap Licence number 100020449 andXX.XXXXXX.X .
Pegasus acceptS no iabrlityfor any use of this document other than for its ortginal purpose, or by the originalcllent.or fol1ow ng Pegasus'express agreement to such use. T 01285641717 www.pegasuspg.co.uk





Sand
P t



Co
Copp ce

\..**.,

Fig. 4 Contextua l Landscape and Visual Analysis

Drawing Ref: BIR.4327 06 Client : Gallagher Estates
Date : 15/03/2017
Drawn by : JT Pegasus Checked by : KM Design . Scale : 1:20000 @ A3 --'






AVE
w : \

_ _,,, ,..
_,.. Nursery * -

KEY
[ZJ



Site boundary

''!; >
0
15

ti *
!! !!I
-.....P;.v ,_;;;. O
. {]
Holland




Sports
* Ground

B c:.-tA.sE R.J::
' :Ii-
u

i!
Wks

* Park
\

Sch 151m
""'.p

2.Sandhills Farm


1. \



, , -* J
/ 'tG.RE:.A r Ckli.R L[$ STRJC. n-


153m







SPorts
Ground













Scrap Yd

D Proposed development cells
Retained and enhanced woodland with additional proposed
infrastructure planting

I c:rc::=::;z_ GREA T CHAHlf:.S s1A[n

School ' GYd


141m



The .o
Springhill .

l**I

Proposed green infrastructure
corridor network

p _,ef' Farm ..Springhill _ ....-**

Proposed key open spaces




---!
W;p>!'-"*v.c,
... . l .


; ..Sinks.
\
Whitacre
Farm




Issues








Rose
Cotlage

Potential location for play areas


Proposed main access




, 140m 120,,,

0 Potential secondary access

Existing Wyrley and Essington Canal towpath





129m Cartersfield Lane

BExisting contours

Farm















111


Proposed new green belt boundary


1*,,.I LPA boundary
[]Retained agricultural land


Track




Maybrook Industrial Estate



_,,.**

150m


Cac


Mauray Lodge

.park School *
(J


Home Farm, Sandhills, Walsall

,. *'

170m

*.
Fig 5. Green Infrastructure Strategy








PLANNING IDESIGN IENVIRONMENT IECONOMICS
Copynght Pegasus Planning Group Ltd. Crowncopyrighl,All rights rese!"od._ 2_015.Ordnance Susvey Cpyrigh Licence nun:ibef 100042093.Promap Licence number 100020449 andXXX.X.XX.XX.X .
Pegasus accepts no liability for any use of this document other than for its ongmalpurposo.or by the onglnat chent.or followlt'lg Pegasus' exp<es.s agfeement to such use. T 01285641717 www.pegasuspg.co uk.


Drawing Ref: BIR.4327 09 Client :Gallagher Estates
Date : 23/03/2017
Drawn by :JT Pegasus Checked by : KM Design. Scale : 1:10000 @ A3
N.B- Some of the visuals are missing from the main text so please refer to attachment.

T e c h n i c a I C o m p e n d i u m I Home Farm, Sandhills

3. Indicative Development Framework


3.1 Masterplan Components


3.1.1 The Indicative Development Framework Plan, included as the end of this Chapter, works within the parameters identified as part of the landscape and visually led process, and begins to progress some of the design principles. In summary, the process has generated the following statistics in terms of the components and mix of uses within the development framework:

* Up to 1,280 residential dwellings (36.50ha @ approx. 35dph) ;

* Mixed use localcentre (0.5ha);

* One form entry primary school (0.7ha) plus primary school playing fields/commu nity open space (0.55ha);

* Public open space including landscape buffers and attenuation features (16 ha); and

* Land retained as existing use (53 ha).

3.1.2 The proposed development will create housing choice, community facilities and new amenity spaces for the existing and new community whilst improving public access across the site.

3.2 Development Parcels

3.2.1 Four distinct areas of development that are separated by areas of public open space have been
:,
defined within the Development Framework Plan. Each of these areas will have their own character, but will share common design principles and elements in order to provide a cohesive design response to the scheme. These four areas are as follows:

Parcel 1: Woodland Setting

3.2.2 Located to the south of the development proposals and adjacent to existing woodland planting and tree belts, this area of development provides the entrance feature to the design proposals. It is proposed to extend the existing woodland planting along Lichfield Road and to provide the primary site access through this point. Dwellings will be set behind these t ree belts. This area will be of lower density, consisting of predominately detached and semi-detached properties. The proposed dwellings will provide a strong frontage along the route of the main access street.

Parcel 2: Commun i ty Focal Point

3.2.3 The development area contains a mix of uses including residential, mixed-use local centre and potential primary school. The play areas to serve the school could be integrated with the proposed woodland park and provide community areas. The central location of this area will provide a





T e c h n i c a I C o m p e n d i u m I Home Farm, Sandhills

community focal point, which would also provide benefit for the existing community. It is intended that this area will contain medium density areas that include a mix of short terraces , semi-detached and smaller units. It is proposed that the Local Centre will be located to the north of the Primary School, and will be approximately 0.5ha.

Parcel 3: Canal Si de Development

3.2.4 The canal side development is contained within the lower lying levels within the site adjacent to the canal the corridor. A linear park has been created between the proposed development envelope and the canal in order to maintain the open aspect of the towpath. Dwellings will front onto the canal side park and incorporate a more landscape dominated environment in order to provide the appropriate transition between the built environment and the area of open space. The house types proposed in this location will be short terraces , semi-detached and detached units within the medium low density area.

Parcel 4 : Urban - Rural Transition

3.2.5 The most northern parcel of development creates the transitional area between the built form edge and the adjacent countryside. A new Green Belt boundary is created through the provision of a substantial woodland belt and a potential linear swale park. This parcel will be a lower density area so as to provide an appropr iate landscape dominated environment.

3.2.6 The development proposals achieve an average density of approximately 35 dwellings per hectare, which accords with Government guidance on ensuring the efficient use of land, yet is reflective of the scale of the local area.A variety of house types,tenures and sizes of dwellings are to be provided within the development in order to assist in creating a balanced community as a variety of households can be accommodated.

Site Access

3.2.7 Two access points are proposed to serves the development. The primary access point being located via Lichfield Road to the south of the proposed development. The secondary access is located off Chester Road and has the potential to be a bus/emergency access point only. A bus loop is also proposed to serve the development.




i
1.
*o
c

"0'

,;;
§
I
1
c. .
::;


.l!

I0
i:
8.

ll
::;

KEY

STUDY AREA

LAND RETAINED WITHIN EXISTING LAND USE

INDICATIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

MIXED USE LOCAL CENTRE


POTENTIAL PRIMARY SCHOOL

POTENTIAL PRIMARY SCHOOL PLAYING FIELDS/COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE


POTENTIAL PRIMARY ACCESS POINT

POTENTIAL SECONDARY ACCESS/EMERGENCY ONLY ACCESS


11
;;-
<(

mil


INDICATIVE MAIN ACCESS ROUTE POTENTIAL BUS LOOP
BUS ONLY/EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY
ROUTE


EXISTING VEGETATION TO BE RETAINED [SUBJECT TO DETAILED SURVEY]


INDICATIVE PLANTING


PUBLIC OPEN SPACE

POTENTIAL LOCATION FOR ATTENUATI ON FEATURE

POTENTIAL LOCATION FOR CHILDRENS PLAY SPACE








HOME FAR M, SA NDHILLS, WALSALL - INDICATIVE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN
I T 01285 641717 I F 01285 642348 I www.p egasuspg.co.uk I Team MCC/AMW I Date: 16 DECEMBER 2013 I Scale: 1:2500 ra AO I drwg: BIR.4327_03C I Client: GALLAGHER ESTATES I



Pegasus
Urban °?

N.B-Some visuals have not been scanned so please refer to the Attachement.

9. Agricultural Land

Agr ic ultural Land Classification

9.1.1 This section presents the initial Agricultural Land Classification assessment which has been undertaken by Kernon Countryside Consultants Limited (KCC) to identify any major constraint to development on the site.

9.1.2 There are two principal agricultural considerations in the selection of development sites. These are:
* The effect on land and its quality ; and
* The effect on farm businesses.


9.1.3 National Policy Guidance governing the non-agricultural development of agricultural land is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF). Paragraph 112 of the NPPF notes that local planning authorities:

"should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poor er quality land in preference to that of a higher quality."

9.1.4 The best and most versatile agricultural land (BMV) is defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF as land of Grades 1, 2 and 3a in the Ministry of Agriculture , Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) Agricultural Land Classification (ALC).

9.1.5 The Agricultura l Land Classification Survey (ALC) system divides land into five grades according to the extent to which its inherent characteristics can be exploited for agricultural production. Grade 1 is described as being of excellent quality and Grade 5, at the other end of the scale, is described as being of very poor quality. ALC is based upon an assessment of limitingfactors including soils, climate, and other physical limitations and the way in which these factors interact.

9.1.6 The provisional agricultural land classification map (MAFF 1983), as attached overleaf at Figure 9.1, shows undifferentiated Grade 3 land over the site. The map is provisional and was designed to be used for areas larger than about 80 hectares in extent and boundaries on this plan do not necessarily reflect the detailed situation. Since the map was constructed there has been changes to the classification. In particular Grade 3 has been subdivided into sub Grades 3a and 3b and the effects of the interaction between climate and soils are now more clearly stated which puts the land quality more clearly into the local context. The current Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food ALC system was last revised in 1988.







Agricultural Land
r
Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
Non-Agricultural Land
Land predominantly Other land primarily
in urban use in non-agricultural use


NORTH
t FIGURE 9.1
TITLE Extract from the ProvisionalALC Plan (1983)
SITE Home Farm, Sandhill
CLIENT Gallagher Estates
NUMBER KCC2116/0110/15/vmd
DATE October 2015 SCALE NTS
KERNON COUNTRYSIDE CONSULTANTS LIMITED GREENACRES BARN,STOKE COMMON LANE, PURTON STOKE,SWINDON,
WILTSHIRE, SNS 4LL Tel 01793 771333
This planis reproduced from the Ordnance Survey under copyright licence
100015226


9.1.7 A review of www.MAGIC.gov . uk has identified that the site has been the subject of a detailed ALC survey which was carried out in February and March 1994, in accordance with the current MAFF Guidelines (1988). A copy of the survey is attached at Appendix 9.1. It should be noted that the conclusions of the report relate to the wider site area, of which only part of the land is proposed for development. The survey has identified the site to comprise mainly of sub Grade 3a land, with a swathe of sub Grade 3b land running through the middle of the site in an east - west direction. There are also areas of woodland and agricultural buildings within the site.

9.1.8 Table 9.1 below sets out a breakdown of the grading across the site.


Table 9.1: ALC Grading across the Site


Grade Description Area (Ha) Area (%)
3a Good 62.1 74
3b Moderate 15.7 19
Ag Buildings Ag Buildings 2.2 2
Woodland Woodland 1.7 2
Non-Ag Non-Ag 1.9 2
TOTAL 83.6 100
* The table above relates to the grading across the wider site and, as set out on the indicative Masterplan, a smaller proportion of the site is proposed for development,which includes all of the 3b graded land identified.

9.1.9 The wider site area comprises predominately of sub Grade 3a and Grade 3.b land. The developable area proposed, however, includes a smaller proportion of Grade 3a land and all of the Grade 3b land.
\
A review of land quality in and around Brownhills indicates that this site actually comprises some of the lower quality land in the locality. Surveys to both the north and west of the site identify areas of Grade 2 land, i.e. land of a higher quality than that found at Home Farm, as illustrated at Appendix 9.2. Please note that Append ix 9.2 relates to the wider site and not the development area, which is proposed on the Indicative Masterplan.

9.1.10 Although the site comprises of sub Grade 3a land with an area of sub Grade 3b, the presence of "best and most versatile land" around Brownhills is common place. Indeed, much of the surveyed land to the north and east of Brownhills has been identified as being of Grade 2 quality.

9.1.11 The NPPF requires that, where "significant" development of BMV land is demonstrated to be necessary , poorer quality land is used in preference. In this case, the development of sub Grade 3a land will represent the development of poorer quality land in the area with much of the land around Brownhills comprising of Grade 2 land.



Existing Farming Business

9.1.12 Gallagher Estates has engaged with the owner of the existing farming business on site. The owner of the farming business has confirmed that the business would not be severely affected by the development proposals which are being promoted through this Background Document. The owner currently farms around 2,000 acres, and it is notable that the promotional agreement to secure development on this site does not include the farm houses and associated buildings. Therefore, from a practical perspective the farming business will be able to continue to operate as normal after any residential development is secured and implemented . The promotional agreement covers approximately 200 acres, so even if all of this area was withdrawn from the current farming land base, this would only represent a 10% reduction in the farmed area,which would not be a significant change. As such, development proposals will not prejudice the existing farm business.

9.2 Summary


9.2.2 With regards to Agricultural Land Classification, the wider site has been found to comprise land of sub Grade 3a and Grade 3b. The site proposed for development includes a smaller proportion of Grade 3a land and all of the 3b land. Although sub Grade 3a is considered to be "best and most versatile agricultural land", a review of land quality in and around Brownhills indicates that the site actually comprises some of the lower quality land in the locality, with surrounding areas being identified as being of Grade 2 quality . The development of this site would therefore represent use of poorer quality land in accordance with the NPPF, which states where significant development of BMV land is demonstrated to be necessary, poorer quality land is used in preference.

9.2.3 This Chapter has also demonstrated that development proposals will not prejudice the existing farm business, as outlined at paragraph 9.1.12.

9.2.4 In conclusion, having undertaken the above initial work in relation to the site's agricultural land quality, it is considered that the site is suitable for residential development.




APPENDIX 9.1 MAFF ALC SURVEY REPORT



























AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSIFICATION LAND AT HOME FARM, SANDBILLS
















R D METCALFE
Resource Planning Team ADAS Statutory Group WOLVERHAMPTON

ADAS Ref: 25/RPT/0617 Job No: 8194
MAli'F Ref: EL46/10407












AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSIFICATION REPORT FOR
LAND AT HOME FARM, SANDBILLS


I. SUMMARY

I .I The Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) Survey for this site shows that the following proportions of ALC grades are present:

Grade/Subgrade

3a ha
64.0 % of site

76
3b 15.7 19
Other land Agricultural buildings
2.0
2
Non-Agricultural 1.9 2

1.2 The main limitation to the agricultural use ofland in Subgrades 3a and 3b is topsoil stone content.

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 The site was surveyed by the Resource Planning Team in February and March 1994. An Agricultural Land Classification survey was undertaken according to the guidelines laid down in the "Agrirultural Land Classification of England and Wales - Revised Guidelines and Criteria for Grading the Quality of Agricultural Land" (MAFF 1988).

2.2 The 83.6 ha site is situated to the cast of Brownhills and north west of the A46 I road. The land in the north adjoins a canal, and the west boundary adjoins housing, while the nonh eastern boundary adjoins farmland.

2.3 The survey was requested by MAFF in connection with an ad-hoc development proposal for an industrial development.

2.4 At MAFF Land Use Planning Unit's request this was a detailed grid survey at l :I 0000 with a minimum auger boring density of I per hectare. The attached map is only accurate at the base map scale and any enlargemenl would be misleading.

2.5 At the time of the survey the site was mostly under cereals, brassicas with some fallow land.









3. CLIMATE

3.I The following interpolated data are relevant for the site
Average Annual Rainfall (mm) 725
Accumulated Temperature above 0°C January to June (day °C) 1315
3.2 There is no overall climatic limitation on the site.
3.3 Other relevant data for classifying land include:

Field Capacity Days (days) Moisture Deficit Wheat (mm) Moisture Deficit Potatoes (mm)


170
91
77


4. SITE

4.1 Three site factors of gradient, micro relief and flooding are considered when classifying land.

4.2 These factors do not impose any limitations on the agricultural use of the land.

5. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

5.1 The solid geology of the area is shown as Soft Sandstone with Pebble Beds - British Geological Survey Sheet 154 I inch.

5.2 The underlying geology influences the soils which have a sandy loam texture overlying loamy sand and sand. *

6. AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSIFICATION

6.1 Subgrade 3a - occupies 64.0 ha (76%) of the survey area.

6. I .I The soil has a sandy loam texture over loamy sand and sand to depth and with up to 15% stones greater than 2cm size present.

6. 1.2 The main limitation to the agricultural use of this land is topsoil stone content.

6.2 Subgrade 3b - occupies 15.7 ha (19%) of the survey area and is found in the northern and eastern parts of the site.

6.2.1 The soil typically has a sandy loam texture overlying loamy sand and sand to depth. The topsoil content with stones greater than 6cm in size is up to 10%.

6.2.2 The main limitation to the agricultural use of this land is topsoil stone content.












6.3 OLher land includes agricultural buildings and farm tracks.

6.4 SUMMARY OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSIFICATION
GRADES

Grade/Sub-grade Areas in Hectares % of Survey Area % of Agricu ltural
Land
3a 64.0 76 80
3b 15.7 19 20
Other land
Agricultural buildings 2.0 2
Non-Agricu ltural 1.9 2
Totals 83.6 100.0 100.0







March 1994




















...,









































APPENDIX 9.2 MAFF ALC SURVEY RESULTS FOR LAND AROUND BROWNHILLS






























CJ
*

Question 1: Do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies? Yes/No; If not, what do you think should be the scope of the review?
2.4 In response to Question 1 and whether it should be a partial review or not, whilst the existing strategy identifies the most sustainable locations for growth in the context of delivering development requirements identified by the Regional Strategy (RS), there is now a new and much bigger challenge ahead in meeting the arising needs for homes identified by the latest evidence and there is concern that the existing spatial strategy may not facilitate the delivery of these needs. The Black Country authorities, therefore, need to be mindful of this and not attempt to put "a square peg in a round hole".
2.5 It is our view that urban regeneration can be achieved whilst pursuing development on the urban edge. Indeed, the scale of housing need is so large that both must be encouraged in order to meet current and arising housing needs within the Black Country.
2.6 It is extremely important that in reviewing the Core Strategy it fully takes account of and facilitates the delivery of strategic economic plans, as recognised in paragraph 1.15. All too often these strategies are ignored and, accordingly, development plans could effectively frustrate economic growth from being realised.
2.7 In terms of the Plan period proposed in paragraph 1.17, whilst a 15-year time period from adoption is appropriate, there is concern that the preparation of plans is often delayed (due to reasons beyond the control of the LPAs) and it may be prudent to stretch the period further to prevent such an issue from occurring.
2.8 It is welcomed that the Issues and Options document recognises that it will not be possible to accommodate all future development needs within the urban area and that an examination of the potential for development land outside the existing urban area, which is effectively land within the Green Belt, will take place as part of the Core Strategy review process.
3. THE BLACK COUNTRY TODAY - THE EXISTING STRATEGY
3.1 As set out within this section, the delivery of both employment and housing land has not come forward as originally envisaged in part due to the after effects of the recession. Surplus employment land which might have been available for housing has not come forward due to a strengthening economy and local firms being more robust than anticipated. In addition, the range of locations available has not in all cases met with market expectations as to where people want to live.
3.2 In terms of the employment land, it is important that sufficient land is provided for new employment and that there is not an overreliance on land that is currently in use. It is impressive that despite generally poor economic performance local businesses have performed well. Should the economy significantly improve within the Plan period in line with LEP aspirations (considered later in this response), there is concern that it may become difficult to transfer a wide range of existing employment locations to housing allocations. It is appropriate, therefore, for the Council to ensure the evidence contained within the Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment is reviewed and updated regularly. This will enable the land supply to be responsive to arising needs and not rigidly be wedded to delivering commitments that are unlikely to be realised.
3.3 What is further emphasised by the analysis in this section is that urban regeneration cannot be delivered quickly and that there are a number of factors beyond the control of the Black Country authorities that may have implications for the delivery of the strategy. This further emphasises the need for a mix of types of sites (brownfield, brownfield compulsory purchase, greenfield and Green Belt) of different forms of development (high density, mid and low density family homes) in a variety of locations, which will maximise the opportunities to deliver a successful Local Plan.
3.4 Finally, in respect of the proposal to maintain 300 hectares of employment land that will become vacant by way of general churn over the Plan period. Whilst the principle is considered acceptable, there should be appropriate evidence to support the assumption.
3.5 Our experience is that there are employment sites that clients are looking to secure a residential allocation on that have not been identified thus far. In light of these changing circumstances, the Black Country authorities should ensure that the policy approach is flexible to allow sites in appropriate locations to be brought forward for housing throughout the Plan period and likewise, sites that have been allocated for housing but have not come forward should be removed from the supply.
4. THE STRATEGIC CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
4.1 It is welcomed that the Black Country authorities are updating their evidence base. Indeed, the adopted Core Strategy took the development requirements from the adopted Regional Strategy (RS), which has since been revoked and is unquestionably out of date. Since the RS was published there has been a number of population and household projections published showing increasing dwelling requirements in the Black Country, which were largely ignored and, therefore, it should come as no surprise that there is a significant increase in forming households.
4.2 In terms of the list of evidence either prepared or due to be completed, it appears to be sufficiently comprehensive.
4.3 A separate review of the housing evidence based, including the Strategic Housing Market Assessment for the Black Country and South Staffordshire, is contained at Appendix A. The key conclusions arising from the report as summarised as follows:
* In determining the OAN, there are concerns with regard to the SHMA methodology and it is suggested a further scenario should be tested to consider long term growth which includes balanced periods of economic prosperity and decline.
* There is concern that the economic growth scenarios do not use the latest economic forecast data and that the methodology translating the job growth into dwelling growth is not sufficiently robust to accurately determine the impact of forecasts based on existing circumstances and also more aspirational job growth targets, such as those arising from the SEP.
* In terms of providing uplifts for market signals, a 25% uplift for South Staffs is appropriate. It is advised that dwelling requirements for the Black Country should not be reduced as a result of this and, accordingly, it should not count towards meeting any unmet needs outside of the HMA as the main function is to provide slack within the housing market and prevent house prices from increasing at an accelerated rate.
4.4 In addition, consideration of the Housing Background Report is also contained in the Housing Evidence Based Review Paper contained at Appendix A. The key findings from reviewing the evidence is set out below:
* Clearly a lot of work is yet to be done to determine what the housing land supply position is in the Black Country. Given that much of the existing evidence is based on the adopted Core Strategy, it is recognised that the SHLAAs across the four authorities will need to be updated, both in terms of revising the methodology and range of sites assessed, to reflect a potentially different approach to locating development.
* It is commendable that the Housing Background Report has examined existing sources of supply in an attempt to provide additional homes from sites within the urban area. There is concern, however, that by changing policies, for example, to increase the minimum density on sites has wider policy implications to take into account than simply increasing the number of homes.
* The Housing Background Report suggests a continued allowance for larger windfall sites. It is suggested that it is inappropriate to include an allowance for this source as there is no certainty that this land will come forward for development.
* Other sources, such as converting employment sites to residential sites, based on the evidence presented and feedback from the development industry, it is known that there are employment sites functioning well as employment sites but are to be converted to residential and other employment sites that are unoccupied and undesirable that are to be retained as employment sites. Clearly, there is a mismatch between employment land need and employment land supply. It is advised that the qualitative assessment of employment informs future land supply recommendations and allocations are revised where necessary.
4.5 As a result of the dwelling requirements generated by the SHMA and the land supply identified from the Housing Background Report, it is concluded that there in insufficient urban land to provide for the development requirements and that a Green Belt Review should be conducted. It is noted that scoping is underway and that the work is to be completed in mid-2018. It is hopeful that the development industry will be involved in defining the methodology of the work to ensure that it is conducted in a robust way.
4.6 Another very important piece of work to be taken into consideration will be the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA Strategic Growth Study. It is unclear at this stage what role the Black Country authorities will play in meeting the wider needs of Birmingham and, indeed, whether it can now contribute given that meeting the needs of the indigenous population will be a tall order. Further, there is uncertainty with regard to how far the study will go in identifying locations for growth and how this evidence will be taken forward in emerging Development Plans, particularly given that it is premature to the Green Belt Review for the wider Black Country area. It is our view that there are sites within the Green Belt that will provide sustainable locations for growth and that their removal will not compromise the purposes of the Green Belt and, accordingly it will remain purposeful and functional.
Question 2: Do you think that the key evidence set out in Table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If not, what further evidence is required and, if there are any particular issues that should be taken into account in considering development on any particular sites or in any particular areas, please provide details
4.7 It is considered that the evidence contained within Table 1 is comprehensive, however, as suggested above and below, a number of concerns have been highlighted and it is therefore suggested that these are addressed in order to improve the soundness of the next iteration of the Core Strategy Review.
4.8 It is welcomed that an updated qualitative assessment of employment land has been undertaken in order to identify if the sites are fit for purpose, alongside the quantitative employment land study. It has been identified that a number of employment land sites that have been suggested for residential land allocations remain in occupation as functioning employment sites. These sites should be removed from the housing land supply. Conversely, there are vacant employment land sites that have been marketed over a period of time where no market interest has been forthcoming and, therefore, it is recommended that these sites should be considered for housing delivery.
4.9 It is noted that Viability Studies are identified as evidence base documents that are still to be prepared. Whilst not specifically identified, it is recommended that affordable housing viability is a key matter that needs to be addressed as part of this evidence base to ensure the level suggested by the SHMA Part 2 is deliverable. If this is not the case, the delivery of both market and affordable housing could be compromised and prevent the successful delivery of any new strategy.
Question 3: Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014-36 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.
4.10 In terms of the extent of the sub market, which includes the Black Country and South Staffordshire, this is considered to be appropriate. It is recognised and welcomed that the Black Country authorities and South Staffordshire have jointly undertaken a SHMA for the sub area, which facilitates the preparation of an Issues and Options Core Strategy Review. There is concern, however, that the remaining constituent authorities within the wider Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area have not taken part and there is a danger that housing need for the whole HMA may not entirely be comprehensively captured due to the different time periods covered by the separate studies. It is advised that a SHMA, consistent with the guidance in the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance, is prepared for the entire HMA over the same Plan period (as opposed to a housing needs study), which will properly consider all relevant factors in a consistent and comprehensive manner.
4.11 The OAN arrived at by the SHMA is generally appropriate in identifying the starting point for determining the dwelling requirement, however, it is suggested a further scenario should be tested to consider long term growth which includes balanced periods of economic prosperity and decline. There is concern that the economic growth scenarios contain potentially out of date employment forecasts and the methodology to determine appropriate dwelling requirements is not sufficiently robust to accurately determine the impact of forecasts based on existing circumstances. In addition, more aspirational job growth targets, such as those arising from the SEP, may not necessarily be appropriate for the Black Country (as discussed later in these representations).
4.12 In terms of providing an uplift for market signals, a 25% uplift for South Staffs is agreed to be appropriate. It is advised that dwelling requirements for the Black Country should not be reduced as a result of this and, accordingly, the application of such an uplift in South Staffordshire should not count towards meeting any unmet needs outside of the HMA as the main function is to provide slack or headroom within the housing market and prevent house prices from increasing at an accelerated rate, exacerbating issues of affordability.
4.13 Clearly, the evidence contained in the SHMA does not consider the potential to accommodate any of Birmingham City's housing needs and that this could result in increased dwelling requirements. We reserve our position in respect of this matter and await the publication of the HMA wide Strategic Housing Needs Study.
4.14 We shortly await a consultation publication from central Government in relation to providing a standardised methodology for generating dwelling requirements. This is anticipated in Autumn 2017. The Black Country authorities will need to take account of any proposed national policy changes identified through the consultation paper. We reserve our position on this matter, until the full details and implications for the Back Country are known. It is considered that, whilst a standard methodology will be helpful in identifying a baseline dwelling requirement, the consideration of long term trends and economic forecasts cannot be carried out in a mathematical calculation outside a demographic/ economic model. In light of this, the SHMA prepared for the sub-area could remain useful as evidence to inform the review of the Black Country Core Strategy.
4.15 In terms of meeting the dwelling requirements, it is understood that the 'Call for Sites' consultation will inform an updated SHLAA, which will assess sites both within and outside the urban area to determine the maximum number of dwellings that can be realistically delivered within the Black Country over the proposed Plan period. The Housing Background Report that has been published as part of the evidence base for the Issues and Options Core Strategy Review has considered assumptions contained within the SHLAA based on adopted policies and considers changes to the policies to boost the delivery of housing on existing sites. Whilst it is a commendable that the Black Country authorities are exploring all potential options to boost housing on urban land, there are wider implications of doing so and accordingly, caution is expressed in response to a number of the identified approaches proposed.
4.16 As confirmed in paragraph 3.15, it is extremely important that the Black Country authorities 'firm up' the housing supply in order to ensure that there is sufficient provision to meet the dwelling requirements. It is also considered appropriate to provide an additional buffer of housing land supply to provide a contingency when sites are delayed. As explained earlier in the Issues and Options Report, sites providing a total of 3,000 homes have not come forward as anticipated. It is considered that additional supply is required to provide flexibility and minimise any durations within the Plan period where the housing trajectory would otherwise dip.
4.17 In terms of the extent of a buffer for housing land, the Local Plan Expert Group suggested that additional land, equivalent to delivering 20% of the overall dwelling requirement, is added to the supply, which will provide a contingency of land to be used as and when necessary during the Plan period. It is suggested that this additional land will help ensure the dwelling delivery targets and housing needs are met in a timely manner, which will reduce the opportunity for households to become concealed or shared. Given the issues experienced in respect of delivery in the past, it could be argued that an increased buffer of circa 25% could be applied.
4.18 It is also appropriate to ensure that, as well as identifying the right amount of land, there is sufficient variety in the types of sites (brownfield, greenfield, Green Belt) are identified, reflecting different sizes, in a range of locations. This variety in provision will allow the best opportunity for multiple sites to come forward at the same time without market constraint and hence ensuring delivery targets are met. In addition, this approach will also provide market choice to existing and arising households looking to move into a new home in the Black Country, which will have wider social benefits (i.e. allow families to live nearby one another and provide an opportunity to diversify existing communities through providing alternative homes to the existing housing stock).
4.19 Indeed, as previously documented in the adopted Core Strategy, it is considered that the ambition to retain the young and professional population within the Black Country should be maintained and that suitable and attractive housing and complementary environments are encouraged.
4.20 Finally, it is welcomed that the Black Country authorities have agreed to test the dwelling requirement figures on an ongoing basis. It is hoped that the suggested changes/alternative scenarios suggested above are implemented in order to ensure the evidence base is robust and the resultant policies and proposals soundly based.
Question 4: Do you consider the employment land requirement identified for the Black Country up to 2036 in the EDNA is appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.
4.21 The Core Strategy review intends to utilise the Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) for the Black Country, published in May 2017, to inform future employment land requirements. The EDNA uses forecasts produced as part of the West Midlands Combined Authority Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) to calculate long-term growth, noting that the 'Super SEP Economy+ Scenario' is the preferred aspirational scenario. This scenario assumes average annual growth in employment of 1.3% across the Combined Authority and presents an ambitious view of future growth in the area, with 500,000 jobs created between 2013 and 2030.
4.22 The SEP Technical Appendix breaks down the job forecasts for the three Local Enterprise Partnerships that form the Combined Authority (Black Country; Coventry & Warwickshire; and Greater Birmingham & Solihull). Jobs growth in the Black Country LEP is forecast to be around 1.1% per annum, whilst it is forecast at 1.5% per annum in the other two LEP areas. This averages out at annual growth of approximately 1.3%. Using data from the Business Register & Employment Survey, published by the Office for National Statistics, it is possible to look at employment trends over the last five to six years (2009-15) and this analysis suggests that the growth rate used in the aspirational growth scenario may be too ambitious for the Back Country:
4.23 Between 2009 and 2015, total employment in the Black Country LEP increased from around 450,000 to approximately 453,000. This equates to average annual growth of 0.1%. Walsall (1.5% p.a.) and Sandwell (0.9% p.a.) experienced jobs growth, although Dudley (-1.1% p.a.) and Wolverhampton (-0.8%) both suffered a fall in employment.
4.24 By contrast, both the Coventry & Warwickshire and Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEPs saw total job numbers increase by 1.3% p.a. from 2009-13. A number of districts in these LEPs saw particularly strong growth over the period, notably Solihull and Lichfield in Greater Birmingham & Solihull, where employment grew by at least 3.0% on an annual basis. In short, the 1.3% average across the West Midlands Combined Authority Area is substantially bolstered by Solihull and Lichfield and therefore it is very ambitious to suggest this will occur across the Black Country area.
4.25 That said, growth in the Black Country needs to be faster than in previous years and the new Core Strategy has a vital role to play in supporting this, however the analysis presented above suggests that the growth targets need to be lowered to better reflect the local economic climate. It is considered unlikely that an annual increase of 1.0% or more will happen in the area in the long-term, especially with the Coventry & Warwickshire and Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEPs capturing new job opportunities at a faster rate in recent years. Lowering the employment growth rate means the amount of employment floorspace needed would be lower. This would not reduce the demographically based housing targets for the area but it would potentially free up previously allocated employment sites for other uses such as residential. This would help the Black Country meet its future housing targets and ensure that it has enough homes for its future workforce to live in.
4.26 As identified in the supporting report and above, it is known that employment sites that had previously been identified for housing are still operational with businesses continuing to use the land and, conversely, there are sites allocated for employment that have been vacant and subsequently market, however, remain unoccupied, which could be transferred to a residential use. It is therefore recommended that the Councils ensure that updated EDNA qualitative review conclusions are taken into account and correct uses applied where appropriate.
Question 5: Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt Review? Yes/No; If not, what additional work do you think is necessary?
4.27 In respect of the Green Belt Review, on the basis of the evidence published setting out housing need and supply, it is agreed that it will be necessary to find sites outside of the existing urban area, which will require removing land from the Green Belt where it is appropriate to do so. This will provide an opportunity to identify strategic sites that can provide a significant amount of homes to contribute to meeting identified housing needs. It is considered that there are a number of locations whereby housing sites can be identified, without the purposes of the Green Belt being compromised, ensuring the function and integrity of the Green Belt will remain.
4.28 In addition, areas on the urban fringe have the potential to ensure new homes can be delivered in an established, well landscaped environment, which could be attractive to those young families and professionals that the Black Country authorities have had difficulty in retaining, often through out-migration to neighbouring Shire districts considered to represent more aspirational locations.
4.29 In terms of the process and methodology for undertaking a Green Belt Review, it is understood that the awaited Strategic Housing Needs Study (SHNS) will be accompanied by Strategic Green Belt Review across Greater Birmingham and that the Black Country authorities have been engaged in presenting potential opportunities. It is reassuring that this engagement between consultants and local planning authorities is taking place as there is a danger that logical locations fail to be identified due to a lack of understanding of environmental conditions and/ or local circumstances that are applicable to sites.
4.30 It is agreed and makes sense for the local planning authorities to conduct a Stage 2 Green Belt Assessment following the completion of the higher-level work. Any input on reviewing the draft methodology for the Stage 3 Green Belt Review would be welcomed.
Question 6: Do you agree that the key issues set out in Part 3 are the key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy Review? Yes/No; If not, what other key issues should be taken into account?
4.31 The key issues presented are considered to be relevant, however, there are a number of inconsistencies relating to matters identified above against the previous questions raised.
5. REVIEWING THE STRATEGY TO MEET NEW CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
Question 7: Do you think that the Core Strategy vision and sustainability principles remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest?
5.1 In the main, the Core Strategy Vision and sustainability principles are considered to be appropriate, with exception to the principle of 'brownfield first'. It is understood that the NPPF, whilst it encourages an efficient use of land and for brown field land to be recycled, it does not suggest a sequential approach to development. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the development of greenfield land will compromise the development of brownfield land. Often the type of developers of the different land categories are different and, given the scale of the housing need, it is appropriate that the early delivery of housing is encouraged from all types of sites. In particular, the larger, potentially Green Belt, sites will have a longer lead in time due to the time it takes to plan for, determine and implement a comprehensive scheme. Indeed, a recent study entitled 'Start to Finish', prepared by NLP, supports this claim. When planning the housing trajectory for the Core Strategy, the larger sites should be planned in to come forward as soon as practically possible.
5.2 It is therefore suggested that the reference to 'putting brownfield first' is inappropriate and that it should be replaced by 'ensuring an efficient use of land to meet the identified housing needs', which encourages the recycling of land and recognises the contributions of greenfield/ Green Belt land to meeting housing delivery targets.
Question 8: Do you think that the Core Strategy spatial objectives remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest and how might these changes impact on individual Core Strategy policies?
5.3 Whilst the objectives outlined generally remain sound, there is concern that one of the NPPFs main priorities is absent. This is in relation to significantly boosting the supply of housing. It is suggested that an additional objective is added in order to ensure that meeting housing needs remains a priority within the Black Country. Once a preferred option is arrived at, spatial references as to where the housing growth will be delivered could be included (for example, meeting housing needs on urban (brownfield and greenfield) land and at extensions to the urban area).
5.4 Further, given the increased employment land requirements, the second objective relating to employment land being within the best locations within the Regeneration Corridors may no longer be appropriate. Indeed, as highlighted earlier, there is concern that there is a mismatch in land allocations, and it is appropriate for the Core Strategy review to ensure all employment sites are fit for purpose. This may conclude that employment opportunities should be identified on new land outside of the Regeneration Corridors. Should this be the case, the objective would be inappropriately worded.
Question 9: Do you agree that Policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the Growth Network? Yes/No; If not, what changes do you think should be made to Policies CSP1 and CSP2 in response to new challenges and opportunities?
5.5 It is agreed that the policies could remain, if the development requirements and related changes are made to ensure the policies are consistent with the overall strategy. The changes relate to both the quantum of development (homes, employment and retail space), the location of development (within and beyond the existing Regeneration Corridors) and the type of development (brownfield, greenfield and on land removed from the Green Belt). It is considered that references should be made to urban extensions (on land removed from the Green Belt) in Policy CSP2 specifically, to highlight the important contribution that such sites will make to meeting the development requirements of the Plan.
5.6 As touched upon above and throughout these Representations, it is clear that given the significant amounts of housing that will need to be delivered across the Black Country, there will be a need for a switch from a sole focus on brownfield regeneration to a need for a dual approach that focuses on both brownfield and strategic greenfield/green belt release. The focus on Regeneration Corridors and Strategic Centres was very much a product of the times and housing needs of when the Core Strategy was first adopted in 2011. In light of the emerging, higher housing requirements, it is clear that there is a need for a fresh approach to the spatial distribution of growth across the Black Country. Whilst reference to strategic centres and regeneration corridors could remain, this remit needs to be expanded to reflect the evident need for urban extensions outside of the existing growth networks. Indeed, Sustainable Urban Extensions both within the Black Country administrative boundaries and within the adjacent South Staffordshire District will be required to meet emerging housing requirements. These policies should therefore be expanded to include references to urban extensions in the form of green field land outside of the defined urban area, to ensure that sufficient certainty is built into the plan that the housing needs of the area will be met. Amending these policies to make it clear that both brown field and green field land is required will ensure that a fresh approach to spatial distribution across the Black Country Area would be secured and delivered.
5.7 On a separate note, whilst a point mostly relating to the South Staffordshire Local Plan to which separate representations will be made, it is considered that the currently adopted approach to spatial distribution in South Staffordshire will need to be re-assessed. Given the huge housing requirements of the Black Country and the shared housing market between South Staffordshire and the Black Country, it is considered that suitable urban extension sites located within South Staffordshire District would be the logical and sensible locations to meet any remaining unmet housing need. In terms of the relevance of this point to the Black Country Review, it will be important for the Black Country authorities to collaborate with South Staffordshire on cross boundary issues, and to identify suitable extension sites to the Black Country built area which fall within the planning jurisdiction of South Staffordshire District. It is welcomed that this approach is planned to be undertaken, by virtue of the forthcoming Green Belt Review which will be a joint exercise between the Black Country Authorities and South Staffordshire District.

Question 10: In continuing to promote growth within the Growth Network, is there a need to amend the boundaries of any of the Regeneration Corridors in the existing Core Strategy? Yes/No; If so, which boundaries and why?
Question 11a: Do you support Strategic Option 1A? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If no, do you support Option 1B? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If you support the release of further employment land for housing, what should the characteristics of these employment areas be?
Question 11b: Are there any current employment areas that might be considered suitable for redevelopment to housing? Yes/No;
5.8 As highlighted previously, the key to understanding where the most appropriate employment/ housing locations are within the Growth Network and Corridors will be determined through a qualitative assessment of allocated employment sites. It is understood an updated assessment has been undertaken and such work, complete with responses to the Call for Sites consultation, will provide the Black Country authorities with evidence to determine the urban capacity for housing, which may include transferring some employment land to housing as well as housing land to employment. This work will then outline the number of dwellings to be accommodated beyond the existing Growth Network within the Green Belt.
5.9 It is welcomed that the Issues and Options Draft recognises the need to release Green Belt in all scenarios proposed.
Question 12a: Do you support Spatial Option H1? Yes/No; What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. ability to create a defensible new green belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services.
Question 12b: Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
Question 13a: Do you support Spatial Option H2? Yes/No; What should the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) be? e.g. minimum/ maximum size, mix of uses, mix of housing types, accessibility to other areas. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs, potential to support existing settlements / services, proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban regeneration.
5.10 Given the scale of the housing need, there is concern that the development requirements could not be met with just one of the suggested options presented and, therefore, a combination of both options will be necessary.
5.11 To be in the best possible position to significantly boost the amount of housing and meet the development requirements in the Black Country, in accordance with the NPPF, it is advised that opportunities to both round off edges of the Green Belt and Sustainable Urban Extensions are proposed in the Preferred Options Draft Core Strategy. As highlighted within the Issues and Options Draft, there are challenges and opportunities that come with both types of development, for example from a delivery perspective, smaller sites will come forward more quickly due to the nature of these being straight forward proposals (with limited infrastructure necessary and one or few land owners) and larger sites will ultimately take longer as they are more complex (with multiple land uses, infrastructure and land owners). This fact has been evidenced by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (now known as Lichfields) within their report 'Start to Finish' who concluded that the average planning approval period of schemes of 2,000+ dwellings is 6.1 years and the annual average build out rate is 161 dwellings per annum. These figures demonstrate the need to have a number of sites of different sizes and in different locations removed from the Green Belt. The report also identifies, with regard to housing delivery, that 50% more homes per annum are delivered on average on large greenfield sites than large brownfield sites. This is a significant benefit of including greenfield sites within the Preferred Option and will assist to secure its delivery.
5.12 In terms of the locations for removing land from the Green Belt, this should be informed by the Strategic Growth Study and a Black Country Review of the Green Belt. The more detailed study will provide an assessment of land parcels against the purposes of the Green Belt and is likely to recommend that those that compromise the purposes the least will be shortlisted for further consideration to be removed from the Green Belt. It is advised that the next stage should be a consideration of the shortlisted sites based on their suitability (i.e. are the neighbouring uses compatible, would any previous land uses prevent the development of the site), sustainability (i.e. proximity to/ ability to provide local services/ public transport/ employment opportunities) and deliverability (i.e. whether the site is available, being promoted for development, has no barriers to coming forward etc.) credentials. Clearly each site will fair differently against such criteria and the Call for Sites submission will assist the Council to come to a decision on the preferred sites. It is advised that the Black Country authorities should be mindful of the opportunities, through infrastructure and design, that development can bring that will enhance the diversity and character of a particular location.
5.13 In terms of the characteristics of a Sustainable Urban Extension, this is likely to vary depending on the location of each site. For example, some may be more urban and others suburban in their character and would, therefore, provide a different land use offer. It is important that each are considered on a site by site basis to ensure that any subsequent allocation delivers a successful development. It is important that the developer responsible for promoting the site helps to influence what is ultimately delivered. Often what is proposed on site has been informed by housing market intelligence undertaken by sales experts at development companies and, therefore, should be taken into account. Particularly given recent experience in the down turn in the apartment market, it is important that sites are allocated for the right type and mix of housing to ensure that it will be delivered, occupied and successful.
5.14 In the more suburban locations, it is suggested that Sustainable Urban Extensions should look to provide a different offer to potentially what exists in the Strategic Centres and Regeneration Corridors, such as a mix of larger and lower density homes, which will attract those households that in the past have migrated elsewhere. Given the emphasis on delivering more high density homes in the Strategic Centres, it is important that this housing mix is offset by more larger homes in appropriate locations. Otherwise, there is a concern that the Black Country will have a disproportional amount of small homes, which will further encourage more families to migrate elsewhere and not meet the aspiration to diversify the wider HMA.
Question 13b: What infrastructure do you think would be needed for different sizes of SUEs?
5.15 The type of infrastructure needed will vary depending on the different location and size of each site and must be compliant with paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations that requires planning obligations (which applies to most infrastructure) to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
5.16 With the above in mind, however, provision for open space (both formal and informal), local centre and potentially a primary school should be considered for sites in excess of 1,000 homes.
Question 13d: Do you think that the Core Strategy should set out detailed guidance for the development of SUEs (e.g. type and tenure of housing, specific infrastructure required), rather than details being determined at a local level in light of local policies? Yes/No; Any further comments?
5.19 For the reasons outlined above, relating to considering existing local circumstances and CIL Regulation requirements in respect of any charging schedule and planning obligation requirements, it is advised that detailed guidance for the development of SUEs should not be specified within the Black Country Core Strategy as each site will vary and deserves a more detailed consideration, alongside the developer, at the local level.
Question 14: Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Housing Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details
5.18 There are no other sustainable and deliverable options that we are aware of within the Black Country administrative boundary that are capable of delivering the housing spatial options.
Question 15a: If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the 'export' of housing growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA? Yes/No; What factors should be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities in neighbouring authorities e.g. proximity to the edge of the urban area, proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs?
5.19 If, once all realistically deliverable options have been considered, there remains an unmet need for housing it is agreed that the Black Country authorities should consider the possibility of exporting growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA. In particular, there are options to expand existing settlements that are close to the administrative boundary (for example, in South Staffordshire) across authorities and could help deliver the necessary growth in a sustainable and deliverable manner. These opportunities should be explored first prior to exporting further growth to other authorities within the HMA where there is less of a spatial connection.
Question 15c: Do you think there are ways to ensure that exporting housing will meet the needs of people who would otherwise live in the Black Country? (e.g. transport improvements, provision of affordable housing, creation of employment opportunities) Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.20 It is important to consider a number of factors, including migration and travel to work patterns, which have been used to identify the extent of the HMA, to determine where households relocate to when leaving the Black Country in order to understand where and why those moves are taking place. Whilst planning can attempt to influence where people relocate to, there is no mechanism to guide or restrict people moving to or from certain locations. Once knowledge of movers can be understood can the planning system can attempt to recreate those attractive characteristics (homes that are more affordable, good public transport links, employment opportunities etc.) in locations where there is capacity for the homes to be delivered. It is advised that an additional analysis of the data, where necessary, is undertaken to provide the Black Country authorities with the relevant intelligence to deliver a successful strategy for growth outside the administrative area.
Question 16: Do you support Spatial Option E1? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access). If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
Question 17: Do you support Spatial Option E2? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites e.g. quick motorway access, good sustainable transport links? If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
Question 18: Do you support Spatial Option E3? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access). If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
Question 19a: Do you support Spatial Option E4? Yes/No; Any further comments?
Question 19b: Should any factors be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities? Yes/No; If yes, what should they be? (e.g. quick motorway access, strong transport links with the Black Country, good sustainable transport links with the Black Country) If you think there are any potential locations that should be considered, please provide details.
Question 20: Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Employment Land Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.21 As previously outlined, there is concern that some of the employment sites currently identified are potentially not fit for purpose and others that are identified to be transferred to housing remain in employment occupation. In light of this mismatch, it is welcomed that an updated qualitative assessment has been undertaken and has informed how much employment land is has be found outside the urban area.
5.22 In terms of where the employment land should be located outside the urban area, as with housing, decisions should be based on the results of the Green Belt Review and the suitability, sustainability and deliverability of sites. For employment land sites, the suitability of a site may well include good transportation links for goods and people. Indeed, there is likely to be a significant growth in the need for logistics floorspace to accommodate rapid increases in the dot.com purchasing of goods and demand for next day delivery. Efficient access to motorway junctions and the strategic road network and the availability of large sites will therefore take priority, as well as other considerations such as the ability to operate 24 hours. Placing such sites directly next to the existing urban area may therefore be impractical. The Call for Sites consultation will assist in putting forward suggestions for sites.
5.23 In terms of exporting employment land, it is considered that a proportionate amount of employment land to housing land exported should be made in an attempt to create more sustainable communities, that is unless there is good reason not to do so (i.e. due to improved public transport links between exported housing and employment sites). As evidenced in work supporting the Issues and Options Draft, whilst the Black Country is a sufficiently self-contained labour market there are strong linkages with Birmingham and South Staffordshire. This would therefore suggest that these locations should be first explored for transporting any employment land growth, however, given the land capacity issues in Birmingham it is more likely that South Staffordshire would be able to assist.
6. DELIVERING GROWTH - INFRASTRUCTURE & VIABILITY
Question 21: Do you think that changes are required to Policy DEL1 to ensure it covers both development within the existing urban area and any within the Green Belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.1 Policy DEL1 is considered to be sound on the basis that it is sufficiently flexible to deal with different circumstances on different sites across the Black Country, including sites that are to be removed from the Green Belt.
Question 23: Do you have evidence of social infrastructure that is no longer needed and where the site could be reallocated for alternative uses? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.2 No comment.
Question 24: Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current social infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new housing? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.3 No comment.
Question 25: Will there be any new social infrastructure requirements necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, please explain the type and scale of any new social infrastructure required.
6.4 No comment.
Question 26: Do you have any evidence of a requirement for new physical infrastructure to serve existing needs? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.
6.5 No comment.
Question 27: Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current physical infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.6 No comment.
Question 28: Do you think physical infrastructure is necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, what type and scale of physical infrastructure is necessary?
6.7 As set out above, the need for infrastructure will vary for each site. Given such different circumstances, it would be inappropriate and potentially unlawful (as it would conflict with paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations) to incorporate a blanket policy requiring specific infrastructure on every large housing site.
Question 29: Do you think there are any other tools or interventions that could be used to ensure enough infrastructure is provided by developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.8 It is considered that the existing national framework (which includes the NPPF and CIL Regulations) provides a sufficient tool to ensure the relevant infrastructure is delivered. In addition, the CIL Charging Schedule allows authorities to raise funds for named infrastructure projects, which should be updated in line with any Core Strategy advanced. Therefore, it is considered that there are existing provisions to deliver infrastructure and no additional interventions through the Black Country Core Strategy Review are needed.
Question 30: Do you have any suggestions around how the strategy can be developed in order to maintain the urban regeneration focus of the Black Country while at the same time bringing forward sites in the green belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.9 There is no a need for any specific interventions, such as phasing, to protect the delivery of urban regeneration in the Black Country. Indeed, it is considered that development of greenfield and Green Belt sites can very much compliment urban regeneration through the provision of a more varied form of development that will help diversify the housing stock and profile of residents in the wider area, which will assist to sustain and improve the vitality of existing communities. Further, as highlighted above, given the priority to significantly boost the delivery of housing greenfield and Green Belt sites should come forward for development as soon as practically possible. Given lead in and build out rates of larger sites, the land should be encouraged to be developed as soon as possible so to ensure the homes are delivered in the Plan period and the needs are met.
Question 31: Do you think that the right scale and form of funding is available to support the delivery of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If no, what alternative sources of funding or delivery mechanisms should be investigated?
6.10 When delivering greenfield/ Green Belt sites, there is an opportunity to deliver infrastructure to meet the needs arising from the proposal, which may have wider benefits for the local community. In addition, it is likely that the communities created by the Sustainable Urban Extensions will potentially be more affluent and share their wealth using local shops and services within the wider Black Country, which will contribute to more successful and prosperous communities.
7. REVIEW OF EXISTING CORE STRATEGY POLICIES & PROPOSALS
Housing Question 35: Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No; If no, please explain why
7.1 As identified above, it is important that a range of sites in different locations are identified to be in the best possible position of delivering the development requirements. In terms of presenting these sites in the Core Strategy, whilst it is useful to identify a housing trajectory, it is important that there is not a phasing policy as such that would prevent the delivery of housing, given the current housing crisis. As stated above, the delivery of housing on greenfield and Green Belt land will not compromise the delivery of urban regeneration as the development on the urban edge will complement and rejuvenate the environment in a different way.
7.2 In terms of the proposed level of discounting, it is considered that if the LPA adopt an approach to identify a further 20% of sites in accordance with the LPEG recommendations identified above, there would not necessarily be a need for the application of discounting in determining the overall level of supply. It is interesting to note that the level of discounting proposed by LPEG is suggested for all LPAs, not necessarily those which have experienced difficulty in delivery. It could therefore be argued that an increased buffer of 25% could be applied in order to take a cautious approach.
Question 36: Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 should be changed? Yes/No; If yes, what standards should be applied instead, for example should the minimum net density of 35 dwellings per hectare be increased to maximise brownfield housing delivery?
7.3 It is clear that the current accessibility and density standards outlined in the adopted Core Strategy were formulated in the context of the vast majority of development taking place on brownfield sites within the defined urban area. As reiterated throughout these representations, there is now a clear need for Green Belt release as part of the Local Plan Review to meet emerging, objectively assessed housing needs. We outline in further detail below why the adopted accessibility and densities would not be applicable to Green Belt sites, however would suggest that the current standards do not allow sufficient flexibility on brownfield sites. A blanket application of prescriptive accessibility and density standards across the Black Country, be it brownfield or greenfield, does not allow sufficient flexibility which take into account site specific characteristics. The Council should allow for greater flexibility when assessing accessibility and density standards, with a more pragmatic approach which allows appropriate assessment for site-specific characteristics and also an assessment of market demand which may vary significantly across the large Black Country area.
7.4 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF outlines how local authorities should set out their own approach towards density. It is suggested that the currently adopted approach does not allow for sufficient assessment of local characteristics. It is clear that the chosen approach must be reflective of local circumstances, including the matters outlined above as well as infrastructure and services available in the locality. It is advocated that a more flexible approach to density and accessibility standards is taken as part of the emerging Local Plan Review.
Question 37a: Do you think that the existing Policy HOU2 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why
7.5 In line with the comments above, it is suggested that the Council should assess each site on a case by case basis in terms of accessibility and density standards. This approach would suggest that the numerical baseline trigger of 15 homes or more will not always be appropriate or applicable, and as advocated throughout these representations it suggested that there should be a complete reassessment on accessibility and density standards as part of the emerging Local Plan Review.
Question 38: Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards are appropriate for green belt release locations? Yes/No; If no, what standards should be applied in these locations and why?
7.6 No, it is not considered that the current standards would be applicable to Green Belt release locations. The adopted standards are overly prescriptive, and as previously discussed were written in the context of brownfield land. Green Belt release sites have a completely different type of character, therefore consideration of accessibility and density standards in relation to these sites should be reflective of local character and site characteristics. The more suburban settings of Green Belt release land lends itself to lower densities which are more appropriate to the Green Belt setting, which typically deliver more family homes. The Council must provide robust evidence to test any forthcoming accessibility and density standards in relation to Green Belt release locations, which allows for a flexible and pragmatic approach.
Question 39: Do you think separate accessibility standards are needed for particular types of housing e.g. housing for the elderly or affordable housing (as occupiers may be less mobile and more dependent on public transport)? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
7.7 It is clear that separate accessibility standards will apply to particular types of housing such as affordable and for the elderly population, however in line with the sentiment expressed above, any forthcoming standards should be based on robust evidence and allow for sufficient flexibility to avoid any unnecessary constraints to development coming forward.
Question 40: Do you agree that the 2017 SHMA findings should be used to set general house type targets for the Plan period? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.8 A general and blanket application for house types across the Black Country should not be advanced as part of the Local Plan Review. Paragraph 50 is clear that local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends and market trends. It is therefore notable that the NPPF specifically highlights 'market trends' in this context, which acknowledges that the market must inform such decisions.
7.9 Whilst the 2017 SHMA does provide an assessment of demographic and market trends, it is notable that it looks at a wider area assessment and is focused at a higher level. This assessment therefore does not draw out sub-market trends, and cover smaller areas within the vast Black Country area. Again, a blanket policy of house type targets across the Black Country area would not allow for sufficient flexibility to assess each site on a site by site basis, taking into consideration local market trends and demand. The NPPF does not state that specific policies should be set to enforce that local demand is met. As such, it is considered that this should be left for the market to decide, as opposed to applying rigid and prescriptive house size standards.
7.10 It is suggested that the evidence presented in the SHMA should be put into the Plan as an informative and general guide, but should not feed into a specific policy requirement which outlines housing mix percentages that should be applied across the Black Country. A policy containing general house type targets could present as a significant constraint to the delivery of a site where there is no local market demand for this house type, which in turn would have a negative impact on achieving the necessary housing growth targets to be delivered in the Black Country over the Plan period.
Question 41a: Do you support the introduction of a policy approach towards self and custom build housing in the Core Strategy? Yes/No; If yes, would you support:
7.11 It is not considered that there is a policy need for the Core Strategy to address self and custom build housing in the emerging Review. Paragraph 6.32 indicates that there are only nine records on self and custom build registers in the Black Country. It is evident that that there is very limited demand in the Black Country, which is unsurprising given that self and custom build housing is often more popular in rural areas. Given the limited demand it is therefore not considered necessary to take a policy approach towards self and custom build housing within the Local Plan Review.
Question 41b: A target for each authority? Yes/No; Any further comments
7.12 Given that there is evidence of little market demand, it is not considered necessary for the Core Strategy to set targets for each of the Black Country authorities. If it was considered to be necessary as the Local Plan Review progresses, any targets being set should be formulated on the basis of robust evidence such as monitoring of the registers, to provide an indication of how many self-build homes will be needed.
Question 41c: A requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots? Yes/No; Any further comments?
7.13 There should not be a requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots. This can pose an unnecessary market constraint for large housebuilders when there may be limited or no market demand for self-build plots. Self and custom build plots are often unusual and unique in character, therefore would not be best suited to be located within a large housing development with more uniform house types. If deemed necessary, self and custom build housing should be allocated specific site allocations, as discussed below.
Question 41d: Another approach altogether? Yes/No; If yes, please specify.
7.14 If it is considered necessary for the Review to address self and custom build housing, this should be addressed by the Council's identifying and allocating specific plots for these uses. Identifying site-specific plots would ensure that the most appropriate and suitable locations for self and custom-build will be allocated, via the assessment of appropriate evidence and market demand. In addition, this might be more likely to be achieved on surplus publicly owned land.
Question 42: Do you agree that the annual affordable homes target should be increased to reflect the 2017 Black Country Strategic Housing Market Assessment? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.15 As a general principle, the notion of applying different affordable housing ratios to different parts of the Black Country, based on an understanding of needs and viability, is acceptable. Given that the Black Country represents a vast area, there will not be a uniform housing market, and there will be sub-market trends within this wider area. As such, a more flexible approach which assesses local housing market evidence on a case by case basis could be justified. That said, there is an inherent simplicity and attraction to a single rate figure, which is easy for the development industry to understand.
7.16 In terms of the annual affordable housing target, it is unclear how the Issues and Options document has calculated the figure of 832 homes per year. At paragraph 7.42 of the June 2017 SHMA Part Two- affordable housing document, it is stated that the total annual affordable housing need is 677 dwellings, which represents 19.8% of the annual projected household growth. This differs to paragraph 6.36 of the Issues and Options document, which states that the affordable housing target is 23.4% of total housing need or 832 homes per year. From paragraph 7.47 of the SHMA, it appears that this figure may have been calculated by adding the overall requirement of 16.6% of housing to be affordable rented and 6.7% shared ownership. Clarity is sought on how this figure has been calculated, and we reserve the right to comment further on this matter.
Question 43a: Do you think that the existing Policy HOU3 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.17 We have not undertaken detailed analysis of the findings and assumptions of the SHMA and affordable housing delivery matters, therefore would like to reserve the right to comment on this matter further. However, on face value, it appears to be a reasonable threshold and is not dissimilar to other locations.
Question 44a: Do you think that the affordable housing requirement for eligible sites in Question 43 should be kept at 25% of the total number of homes on the site? Yes /No; Any further comments?
7.18 Based on the current evidence, a blanket rate of 25% affordable housing would appear to be sound.
7.19 However, irrespective of the final rate, any amendments to the currently adopted affordable housing policy must continue to have a clause in it which stipulates that this requirement is subject to viability tests. Any revised affordable housing requirements will also need to carefully consider the implications of adopted Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regimes. Both Sandwell and Dudley Councils have adopted CIL Charging Schedules. These will have implications on viability, therefore if revised affordable housing targets are to progressed then these CIL tariffs will need to re-assessed and re-visited.
Question 44b: If no, should the percentage be increased to allow for the provision of affordable home ownership? Yes/No; If yes, what should the percentage be and why?
7.20 At paragraph 6.39 of the Issues and Options Paper, it is stated that options need to be explored to increase affordable housing delivery of private sites. One option would be to increase the overall affordable housing proportion, which would require developers to provide affordable home ownership products plus an appropriate proportion of other affordable tenures. This paragraph follows on from commentary relating to the Housing White Paper.
7.21 The Housing White Paper discusses Starter Homes at Chapter 4, and explains how the government intend to amend the NPPF to introduce a clear policy expectation that housing sites deliver a minimum of 10% affordable home ownership units. It is later stated that it will be for local areas to work with developers to agree an appropriate level of delivery of starter homes, alongside other affordable home ownership and rented tenures.
7.22 The policy position on Starter Homes is not yet fully clear, and has yet to be formally established through a formal amendment and update to the NPPF. Until the national policy position on Starter Homes has been made clear, it would be premature for the Core Strategy Review to suggest an uplift in the affordable housing requirement to include affordable home ownership such as Starter Homes. Any suggestion to uplift the affordable housing requirement to include Starter Homes should be reflective of the national policy position, as well as founded upon a robust evident base which dictates exactly what percentage this element should be of the overall affordable housing requirement.
Question 45: Should an increased affordable housing requirement be set for green belt release sites, to reflect the likely financial viability of these sites? Yes/No; If yes, what should this be.
7.23 The likely financial viability of Green Belt sites will vary across different areas of the Black Country, therefore any affordable housing requirements for Green Belt sites will need to be reflective of these circumstances. Any affordable housing targets for Green Belt sites should be based on robust evidence, and acknowledge that many sites may need to support and deliver other infrastructure requirements.
7.24 Ultimately, any affordable housing strategy will need to address the affordable housing need as well as the need for market housing. Bearing in mind that the SHMA confirms over 70% of homes required are for homes to be sold on the open market, any affordable housing policy must not dilute the delivery of these needs/requirements. A higher figure on Green Belt sites over and above a standard blanket figure would potentially do this.
Employment Question 49a: Is there still a need for existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.25 The Black Country is to be the subject of large levels of both employment and housing growth over the Plan period. These uses are very much inter-linked with one another, and will drive each other's need for growth. The Local Plan Review, in order to meet emerging employment and housing needs, must identify a significant number of specific sites for employment and housing uses. By planning proactively and identifying suitable sites for both employment land and housing land, this should reduce the pressures to manage the release of poorer quality employment land, which may not always be suitable for release. The Local Plan Review should also seek to undertake a further review of poorer quality employment land to make it available for other suitable uses, if it proves to no longer be viable for employment land use. This is in line with policy provisions of the NPPF, which at Paragraph 22 outlines that planning policies should avoid the long-term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose.
Question 50: Do you think that the Core Strategy should continue to set a target for the total employment land stock in Policy EMP1? Yes/No; Please explain why.
7.26 The continuation of setting a target for employment land stock would be supported. Policy EMP1 should make it clear that these are not maximum figures, to encourage further flexibility for additional growth.
Retail Question 59: Have all the appropriate centres within the Black Country been identified? Yes/No; If not, please specify additional centres
7.27 Figure 11 and Table 6 of the Issues and Options Paper make no reference to Hardwick. We have replicated Figure 11 on the following page [SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT FOR IMAGE], and labelled Hardwick which we consider should be identified as a Local Centre within the retail hierarchy. There are a number of local facilities in Hardwick, including a cluster of shops, public houses and restaurants centred around the Chester Road/Hardwick Road junction. There are 9 facilities located at this junction, which comprise of 2 no. restaurants, 1 no. public house, 5 no retail units and 1 no. A5 unit. Hardwick is therefore well served by a number of local facilities, and should therefore be a designated centre within the Core Strategy Review. This is particularly the case given that Hardwick is well-suited to accommodate future housing growth as explained in other sections of these Representations, therefore Hardwick should be designated as a centre to reflect future growth in the area.
Question 61: In addition to para 4.33 of the current Core Strategy should the revised Core Strategy include criteria for the creation of new centres that might be needed as a result of any additional housing identified through the plan? Yes/No; Any further comments?
7.28 As discussed above, it is suggested that through the Local Plan Review, there will be a need to designate new centres (such as Hardwick) as a result of additional housing growth. Criteria would be a useful policy tool to help assess the designation of new centres, and should be in line with previous methodologies used which set out clear thresholds.
Question 71: Should the Core Strategy set housing targets for the Town Centres?
7.29 Housing within Town Centres should be supported, in line with paragraph 23 of the NPPF which discusses the important role that residential development can play in ensuring the vitality of Town Centres. Any housing targets should be based on what sites are known to be readily available, suitable and viable for residential development. Market demand for housing in these areas will also need to be fully assessed. It is notable from the outcome of the 2017 SHMA that there is most demand for three bedroom properties (40%). The highest demand is therefore for family housing, and not for flats which are often the most popular within Town Centre locations. Any housing targets set for the Town Centre would therefore need to consider the findings of the SHMA, and be reflective of the fact that family housing is often more suitable for delivery on larger sites, including on sites which are currently located within the Green Belt.
Environment Question 99a: Do you think that national standards for housing development on water consumption should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.30 When referring to water consumption paragraph 6.1.52 of the Issues and Options document states that the Black Country does not currently lie in an area of serious water stress, therefore clear need may be difficult to demonstrate. This evidence suggests that there is limited or no need to introduce such a policy, therefore it is not considered that the Core Strategy Review should seek to introduce water consumption standards for housing development.
Question 99b: Do you think that national access standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.31 The introduction of any national access standards, with the Issues and Options document referring specifically to Lifetime Homes, again must be based on a robust evidence base which can demonstrate market demand. It is noted that Paragraph 50 of the NPPF states that planning authorities must plan for a mix of housing to meet a range of needs. In the same paragraph, it is later stated that these must be based on current and future market trends. If Lifetime Home standards are to be introduced these will therefore need to be based on robust evidence, to ensure that the standards are not overly onerous and prevent the delivery of other types of housing which have higher levels of market demand.
Question 99c: Do you think that national space standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.32 As reiterated throughout these representations, it is not considered that a blanket approach of prescriptive standards across the Black Country allows sufficient flexibility to assess local market and site considerations in an appropriate manner. Whilst it is recognised that space standards can be an important tool to ensure that high quality of homes are delivered, we agree with the sentiment expressed in the recent Housing White Paper. The Paper explains that the government are concerned that a one size fits all approach may not reflect the needs and aspirations of a wider range of households. The White Paper also states that the Government will be undertaking a review of the Nationally Described Space Standards. It is suggested that the Core Strategy Review should await the outcome of this national review of national space standards, to ensure compliance with national policy and to ensure that the most appropriate approach to space standards, if required, is taken.
Question 99d: Do you think that the standards should be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No; If yes, please explain how and why.
7.33 As discussed above, prescriptive standards do not always allow sufficient flexibility for local market needs, so we would not advocate a blanket approach of different standards to brownfield and greenfield sites.
Open Space, Sport and Recreation Question 102a: Do you support the proposed changes relating to open space, sport and recreation? Yes/No; If no, please explain
7.34 Paragraph 6.1.60 of the Issues and Options paper outlines how adopted Policy ENV6 creates the framework for open space policies at the local level. The Issues and Options paper outlines how this is in line with national guidance, and that it is proposed to retain this policy and update some references in the supporting text to reflect changing circumstances. It is agreed that the local level remains the appropriate place to set open space policies, and that Policy ENV6 should continue to endorse this approach.

8. CONCLUSION
8.1 Wallace Land Investments are actively pursuing land promotion opportunities across the Black
Country. Wallace fully support the Black Country Authorities' decision to review the currently adopted Core Strategy.
8.2 It is clear that there will be a need for Green Belt release to accommodate the housing needs of both the Black Country and indeed the overspill needs of Birmingham. There will therefore be a clear switch from the adopted Core Strategy focusing on development within the urban area, to exploring sustainable opportunities outside of the existing urban area.
8.3 Wallace are of the view that the evidently large housing needs of the Black Country can and should be partly delivered on sites suitable for Green Belt release.
8.4 Wallace look forward to future opportunities to engage with the Black Country Authorities to identify suitable sites for allocation in the emerging Core Strategy Review, in order to ensure that future housing needs will be met.

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Bruton Knowles have been instructed by Mr and Mrs Lees to prepare a representation to the Black Country Core Strategy Issues and Options document (June 2017). The clients are aware the land forms part of a larger representation, submitted by Taylor Wimpey, but want to ensure the local authority is aware the site is available either as a stand-alone parcel of land or as part of Taylor Wimpey's submission.
1.2 The report therefore has been written from the perspective of a far smaller site coming forward and not all questions will be relevant. It is considered only the some of the questions are considered directly applicable insofar as my clients individual site is concerned.
2
2. ISSUES AND OPTIONS
2.1 Question 1 - Do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a
partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and
updating existing policies? Yes/No; If not, what do you think should be
the scope of the review?
2.2 The Core Strategy was adopted prior to the publication of the National
Planning Policy Framework, and therefore is likely to be considered out of date
which provides an additional layer of uncertainty should the review be
adopted. That said, if the review is as comprehensive as it appears to be the
case so far, this may limit any questioning of the Development Plan.
2.3 Question 3 - Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black
Country over the period 2014-36 in the SHMA, and the anticipated
amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance?
Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line
with national guidance
2.4 There is the risk that the numbers required for the whole of the Housing
Market Area may not have been included within the plan period, and it
probably won't be known if these numbers are appropriate until the results of
the current call for sites are analysed.
2.5 Question 5 - Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black
Country Green Belt Review? Yes/No; If not, what additional work do you
think is necessary?
2.6 It is agreed there will be a significant housing need within the Black Country
and the wider HMA, since the Core Strategy was adopted and a need for
employment land, which will require the identification of new sites on land
outside the urban area that is not currently proposed for development.
3
2.7 Question 6 - Do you agree that the key issues set out in Part 3 are the
key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy
Review? Yes/No; If not, what other key issues should be taken into
account?
2.8 Yes, these issues reflect the needs which are required within the Core
Strategy Review.
2.9 Question 7 - Do you think that the Core Strategy vision and sustainability
principles remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would
you suggest?
2.10 We are not aware that the NPPF provides a sequential test for Brownfield land
but clearly encouragement of the use of Previously Developed Land is
welcome.
2.11 Perhaps the Core Principles of the NPPF could be worked into the
sustainability principles.
2.12 Question 8 - Do you think that the Core Strategy spatial objectives
remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest
and how might these changes impact on individual Core Strategy
policies?
2.13 The 10 objectives do not refer to the 'golden thread' of sustainable
development which could be emphasised, and a boost of housing is not
referred to as per paragraph 47 of the NPPF. Both of these are considered to
be relevant if the review is not going to be challenged upon adoption.
4
2.14 Question 12a - Do you support Spatial Option H1? Yes/No; what criteria
should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. ability to create a defensible
new green belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services
2.15 Our client's land could either "Round off" the edge of the green belt, as per H1,
or could be part of a wider urban extension (H2). However for the purposes of
this representation our client prefers H1.
2.16 Question 12b - Do you think there are any potential locations that should
be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details (please submit
specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
2.17 Yes our client's site has been submitted as part of the call for sites.
2.18 Question 13a - Do you support Spatial Option H2? Yes/No; what should
the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) be? e.g. minimum/
maximum size, mix of uses, mix of housing types, accessibility to other
areas. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g.
proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy
access to jobs, potential to support existing settlements / services,
proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban
regeneration.
2.19 Q 13(a-d) and Q14, It is understood my clients' site has been submitted as a
wider SUE and detailed answers will be provided.
5
2.20 Question 15a - If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the 'export' of housing growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA? Yes/No; What factors should be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities in neighbouring authorities e.g. proximity to the edge of the urban area, proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs?
2.21 Only if all opportunities to release land such as my clients' site has been fully located.
6
3. LAND OF CANNOCK ROAD (SUBJECT SITE)
3.1 The subject site is approximately 3.2 hectares and is located on the outskirts of Wolverhampton and is positioned opposite to Cannock Road, which provides direct access onto the M54 (1.3 miles distance). Wolverhampton City Centre is located 2.5 miles south of the site.
(Subject Site Outlined in Red, Google Maps 2017)
3.2 The area in which the site is located has a high level of public transport provision and a high level of service/facility provisions. Included within a 0.5 mile radius is: a supermarket, various restaurants, a petrol filling station and various educational and child care facilities.
3.3 Directly adjacent to the site is the Old Hampton Lane Bus Stop, which provides frequent direct services to both Wolverhampton City Centre and Cannock Town Centre.
3.4 A desktop search of planning designations has been undertaken to inform this paper. Information has been sourced utilising the Multi Agency Geographic Information System ('MAGIC' GIS) and the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and Wolverhampton Proposals Map.
7
3.5 The findings have outlined that a large portion of the site is located within the Wolverhampton City Centre Boundary. The northern corner of the site falls just outside (illustrated below).
(Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and Wolverhampton Proposals Map)
3.6 The site is also located within a Green Belt designation.
3.7 Environment Agency Flood Risk mapping for land-use planning, indicates that the site is located in a Flood Risk Zone 1. This indicates that the site has a low probability of flooding (less than 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river flooding).
3.8 We consider that the above information demonstrates that proposed site is sustainably located and will therefore meet the 'golden thread' running through the National Planning Policy Framework.
3.9 The subject site would offer a sustainable urban extension and is promoted as a suitable, deliverable and an available site, subject to its release from the Green Belt.
8
4. CONCLUSION
4.1 Bruton Knowles would like to consider that the scale of the housing required in the Black Country, along with the lack of sufficient land available, means that 'exceptional circumstances' exist to justify that Green Belt land should be released for housing.
4.2 The subject site has no physical constraints and is sustainably located on the outskirts of the existing urban area of Wolverhampton. And subject to the site's release from the Green Belt it would offer a deliverable and an available site that should be allocated for housing development.

Question 1: Do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies? Yes/No; If not, what do you think should be the scope of the review?
2.4 In response to Question 1 and whether it should be a partial review or not, whilst the existing strategy identifies the most sustainable locations for growth in the context of delivering development requirements identified by the Regional Strategy (RS), there is now a new and much bigger challenge ahead in meeting the arising needs for homes identified by the latest evidence and there is concern that the existing spatial strategy may not facilitate the delivery of these needs. The Black Country authorities, therefore, need to be mindful of this and not attempt to put "a square peg in a round hole".
2.5 It is our view that urban regeneration can be achieved whilst pursuing development on the urban edge. Indeed, the scale of housing need is so large that both must be encouraged in order to meet current and arising housing needs within the Black Country.
2.6 It is extremely important that in reviewing the Core Strategy it fully takes account of and facilitates the delivery of strategic economic plans, as recognised in paragraph 1.15. All too often these strategies are ignored and, accordingly, development plans could effectively frustrate economic growth from being realised.
2.7 In terms of the Plan period proposed in paragraph 1.17, whilst a 15-year time period from adoption is appropriate, there is concern that the preparation of plans is often delayed (due to reasons beyond the control of the LPAs) and it may be prudent to stretch the period further to prevent such an issue from occurring.
2.8 It is welcomed that the Issues and Options document recognises that it will not be possible to accommodate all future development needs within the urban area and that an examination of the potential for development land outside the existing urban area, which is effectively land within the Green Belt, will take place as part of the Core Strategy review process.
3. THE BLACK COUNTRY TODAY - THE EXISTING STRATEGY
3.1 As set out within this section, the delivery of both employment and housing land has not come forward as originally envisaged in part due to the after effects of the recession. Surplus employment land which might have been available for housing has not come forward due to a strengthening economy and local firms being more robust than anticipated. In addition, the range of locations available has not in all cases met with market expectations as to where people want to live.
3.2 In terms of the employment land, it is important that sufficient land is provided for new employment and that there is not an overreliance on land that is currently in use. It is impressive that despite generally poor economic performance local businesses have performed well. Should the economy significantly improve within the Plan period in line with LEP aspirations (considered later in this response), there is concern that it may become difficult to transfer a wide range of existing employment locations to housing allocations. It is appropriate, therefore, for the Council to ensure the evidence contained within the Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment is reviewed and updated regularly. This will enable the land supply to be responsive to arising needs and not rigidly be wedded to delivering commitments that are unlikely to be realised.
3.3 What is further emphasised by the analysis in this section is that urban regeneration cannot be delivered quickly and that there are a number of factors beyond the control of the Black Country authorities that may have implications for the delivery of the strategy. This further emphasises the need for a mix of types of sites (brownfield, brownfield compulsory purchase, greenfield and Green Belt) of different forms of development (high density, mid and low density family homes) in a variety of locations, which will maximise the opportunities to deliver a successful Local Plan.
3.4 Finally, in respect of the proposal to maintain 300 hectares of employment land that will become vacant by way of general churn over the Plan period. Whilst the principle is considered acceptable, there should be appropriate evidence to support the assumption.
3.5 Our experience is that there are employment sites that clients are looking to secure a residential allocation on that have not been identified thus far. In light of these changing circumstances, the Black Country authorities should ensure that the policy approach is flexible to allow sites in appropriate locations to be brought forward for housing throughout the Plan period and likewise, sites that have been allocated for housing but have not come forward should be removed from the supply.
4. THE STRATEGIC CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
4.1 It is welcomed that the Black Country authorities are updating their evidence base. Indeed, the adopted Core Strategy took the development requirements from the adopted Regional Strategy (RS), which has since been revoked and is unquestionably out of date. Since the RS was published there has been a number of population and household projections published showing increasing dwelling requirements in the Black Country, which were largely ignored and, therefore, it should come as no surprise that there is a significant increase in forming households.
4.2 In terms of the list of evidence either prepared or due to be completed, it appears to be sufficiently comprehensive.
4.3 In respect of the Strategic Market Assessment for the Black Country and South Staffordshire Richborough Estates would wish to raise the following key comments:
* In determining the OAN, there are concerns with regard to the SHMA methodology and it is suggested a further scenario should be tested to consider long term growth which includes balanced periods of economic prosperity and decline.
* There is concern that the economic growth scenarios do not use the latest economic forecast data and that the methodology translating the job growth into dwelling growth is not sufficiently robust to accurately determine the impact of forecasts based on existing circumstances and also more aspirational job growth targets, such as those arising from the SEP.
* In terms of providing uplifts for market signals, a 25% uplift for South Staffs is appropriate. It is advised that dwelling requirements for the Black Country should not be reduced as a result of this and, accordingly, it should not count towards meeting any unmet needs outside of the HMA as the main function is to provide slack within the housing market and prevent house prices from increasing at an accelerated rate.
4.4 In respect of the Housing Background Report, Richborough Estates would wish to make the following key comments:
* Clearly a lot of work is yet to be done to determine what the housing land supply position is in the Black Country. Given that much of the existing evidence is based on the adopted Core Strategy, it is recognised that the SHLAAs across the four authorities will need to be updated, both in terms of revising the methodology and range of sites assessed, to reflect a potentially different approach to locating development.
* It is commendable that the Housing Background Report has examined existing sources of supply in an attempt to provide additional homes from sites within the urban area. There is concern, however, that by changing policies, for example, to increase the minimum density on sites has wider policy implications to take into account than simply increasing the number of homes.
* The Housing Background Report suggests a continued allowance for larger windfall sites. It is suggested that it is inappropriate to include an allowance for this source as there is no certainty that this land will come forward for development.
* Other sources, such as converting employment sites to residential sites, based on the evidence presented and feedback from the development industry, it is known that there are employment sites functioning well as employment sites but are to be converted to residential and other employment sites that are unoccupied and undesirable that are to be retained as employment sites. Clearly, there is a mismatch between employment land need and employment land supply. It is advised that the qualitative assessment of employment informs future land supply recommendations and allocations are revised where necessary.
4.5 As a result of the dwelling requirements generated by the SHMA and the land supply identified from the Housing Background Report, it is concluded that there in insufficient urban land to provide for the development requirements and that a Green Belt Review should be conducted. It is noted that scoping is underway and that the work is to be completed in mid-2018. It is hopeful that the development industry will be involved in defining the methodology of the work to ensure that it is conducted in a robust way.
4.6 Another very important piece of work to be taken into consideration will be the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA Strategic Growth Study. It is unclear at this stage what role the Black Country authorities will play in meeting the wider needs of Birmingham and, indeed, whether it can now contribute given that meeting the needs of the indigenous population will be a tall order. Further, there is uncertainty with regard to how far the study will go in identifying locations for growth and how this evidence will be taken forward in emerging Development Plans, particularly given that it is premature to the Green Belt Review for the wider Black Country area. It is our view that there are sites within the Green Belt that will provide sustainable locations for growth and that their removal will not compromise the purposes of the Green Belt and, accordingly it will remain purposeful and functional.
Question 2: Do you think that the key evidence set out in Table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If not, what further evidence is required and, if there are any particular issues that should be taken into account in considering development on any particular sites or in any particular areas, please provide details
4.7 It is considered that the evidence contained within Table 1 is comprehensive, however, as suggested above and below, a number of concerns have been highlighted and it is therefore suggested that these are addressed in order to improve the soundness of the next iteration of the Core Strategy Review.
4.8 It is welcomed that an updated qualitative assessment of employment land has been undertaken in order to identify if the sites are fit for purpose, alongside the quantitative employment land study. It has been identified that a number of employment land sites that have been suggested for residential land allocations remain in occupation as functioning employment sites. These sites should be removed from the housing land supply. Conversely, there are vacant employment land sites that have been marketed over a period of time where no market interest has been forthcoming and, therefore, it is recommended that these sites should be considered for housing delivery.
4.9 It is noted that Viability Studies are identified as evidence base documents that are still to be prepared. Whilst not specifically identified, it is recommended that affordable housing viability is a key matter that needs to be addressed as part of this evidence base to ensure the level suggested by the SHMA Part 2 is deliverable. If this is not the case, the delivery of both market and affordable housing could be compromised and prevent the successful delivery of any new strategy.
Question 3: Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014-36 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.
4.10 In terms of the extent of the sub market, which includes the Black Country and South Staffordshire, this is considered to be appropriate. It is recognised and welcomed that the Black Country authorities and South Staffordshire have jointly undertaken a SHMA for the sub area, which facilitates the preparation of an Issues and Options Core Strategy Review. There is concern, however, that the remaining constituent authorities within the wider Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area have not taken part and there is a danger that housing need for the whole HMA may not entirely be comprehensively captured due to the different time periods covered by the separate studies. It is advised that a SHMA, consistent with the guidance in the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance, is prepared for the entire HMA over the same Plan period (as opposed to a housing needs study), which will properly consider all relevant factors in a consistent and comprehensive manner.
4.11 The OAN arrived at by the SHMA is generally appropriate in identifying the starting point for determining the dwelling requirement, however, it is suggested a further scenario should be tested to consider long term growth which includes balanced periods of economic prosperity and decline. There is concern that the economic growth scenarios contain potentially out of date employment forecasts and the methodology to determine appropriate dwelling requirements is not sufficiently robust to accurately determine the impact of forecasts based on existing circumstances. In addition, more aspirational job growth targets, such as those arising from the SEP, may not necessarily be appropriate for the Black Country (as discussed later in these representations).
4.12 In terms of providing an uplift for market signals, a 25% uplift for South Staffs is agreed to be appropriate. It is advised that dwelling requirements for the Black Country should not be reduced as a result of this and, accordingly, the application of such an uplift in South Staffordshire should not count towards meeting any unmet needs outside of the HMA as the main function is to provide slack or headroom within the housing market and prevent house prices from increasing at an accelerated rate, exacerbating issues of affordability.
4.13 Clearly, the evidence contained in the SHMA does not consider the potential to accommodate any of Birmingham City's housing needs and that this could result in increased dwelling requirements. We reserve our position in respect of this matter and await the publication of the HMA wide Strategic Housing Needs Study.
4.14 We shortly await a consultation publication from central Government in relation to providing a standardised methodology for generating dwelling requirements. This is anticipated in Autumn 2017. The Black Country authorities will need to take account of any proposed national policy changes identified through the consultation paper. We reserve our position on this matter, until the full details and implications for the Back Country are known. It is considered that, whilst a standard methodology will be helpful in identifying a baseline dwelling requirement, the consideration of long term trends and economic forecasts cannot be carried out in a mathematical calculation outside a demographic/ economic model. In light of this, the SHMA prepared for the sub-area could remain useful as evidence to inform the review of the Black Country Core Strategy.
4.15 In terms of meeting the dwelling requirements, it is understood that the 'Call for Sites' consultation will inform an updated SHLAA, which will assess sites both within and outside the urban area to determine the maximum number of dwellings that can be realistically delivered within the Black Country over the proposed Plan period. The Housing Background Report that has been published as part of the evidence base for the Issues and Options Core Strategy Review has considered assumptions contained within the SHLAA based on adopted policies and considers changes to the policies to boost the delivery of housing on existing sites. Whilst it is a commendable that the Black Country authorities are exploring all potential options to boost housing on urban land, there are wider implications of doing so and accordingly, caution is expressed in response to a number of the identified approaches proposed.
4.16 As confirmed in paragraph 3.15, it is extremely important that the Black Country authorities 'firm up' the housing supply in order to ensure that there is sufficient provision to meet the dwelling requirements. It is also considered appropriate to provide an additional buffer of housing land supply to provide a contingency when sites are delayed. As explained earlier in the Issues and Options Report, sites providing a total of 3,000 homes have not come forward as anticipated. It is considered that additional supply is required to provide flexibility and minimise any durations within the Plan period where the housing trajectory would otherwise dip.
4.17 In terms of the extent of a buffer for housing land, the Local Plan Expert Group suggested that additional land, equivalent to delivering 20% of the overall dwelling requirement, is added to the supply, which will provide a contingency of land to be used as and when necessary during the Plan period. It is suggested that this additional land will help ensure the dwelling delivery targets and housing needs are met in a timely manner, which will reduce the opportunity for households to become concealed or shared. Given the issues experienced in respect of delivery in the past, it could be argued that an increased buffer of circa 25% could be applied.
4.18 It is also appropriate to ensure that, as well as identifying the right amount of land, there is sufficient variety in the types of sites (brownfield, greenfield, Green Belt) are identified, reflecting different sizes, in a range of locations. This variety in provision will allow the best opportunity for multiple sites to come forward at the same time without market constraint and hence ensuring delivery targets are met. In addition, this approach will also provide market choice to existing and arising households looking to move into a new home in the Black Country, which will have wider social benefits (i.e. allow families to live nearby one another and provide an opportunity to diversify existing communities through providing alternative homes to the existing housing stock).
4.19 Indeed, as previously documented in the adopted Core Strategy, it is considered that the ambition to retain the young and professional population within the Black Country should be maintained and that suitable and attractive housing and complementary environments are encouraged.
4.20 Finally, it is welcomed that the Black Country authorities have agreed to test the dwelling requirement figures on an ongoing basis. It is hoped that the suggested changes/alternative scenarios suggested above are implemented in order to ensure the evidence base is robust and the resultant policies and proposals soundly based.
Question 4: Do you consider the employment land requirement identified for the Black Country up to 2036 in the EDNA is appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.
4.21 The Core Strategy review intends to utilise the Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) for the Black Country, published in May 2017, to inform future employment land requirements. The EDNA uses forecasts produced as part of the West Midlands Combined Authority Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) to calculate long-term growth, noting that the 'Super SEP Economy+ Scenario' is the preferred aspirational scenario. This scenario assumes average annual growth in employment of 1.3% across the Combined Authority and presents an ambitious view of future growth in the area, with 500,000 jobs created between 2013 and 2030.
4.22 The SEP Technical Appendix breaks down the job forecasts for the three Local Enterprise Partnerships that form the Combined Authority (Black Country; Coventry & Warwickshire; and Greater Birmingham & Solihull). Jobs growth in the Black Country LEP is forecast to be around 1.1% per annum, whilst it is forecast at 1.5% per annum in the other two LEP areas. This averages out at annual growth of approximately 1.3%. Using data from the Business Register & Employment Survey, published by the Office for National Statistics, it is possible to look at employment trends over the last five to six years (2009-15) and this analysis suggests that the growth rate used in the aspirational growth scenario may be too ambitious for the Back Country:
4.23 Between 2009 and 2015, total employment in the Black Country LEP increased from around 450,000 to approximately 453,000. This equates to average annual growth of 0.1%. Walsall (1.5% p.a.) and Sandwell (0.9% p.a.) experienced jobs growth, although Dudley (-1.1% p.a.) and Wolverhampton (-0.8%) both suffered a fall in employment.
4.24 By contrast, both the Coventry & Warwickshire and Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEPs saw total job numbers increase by 1.3% p.a. from 2009-13. A number of districts in these LEPs saw particularly strong growth over the period, notably Solihull and Lichfield in Greater Birmingham & Solihull, where employment grew by at least 3.0% on an annual basis. In short, the 1.3% average across the West Midlands Combined Authority Area is substantially bolstered by Solihull and Lichfield and therefore it is very ambitious to suggest this will occur across the Black Country area.
4.25 That said, growth in the Black Country needs to be faster than in previous years and the new Core Strategy has a vital role to play in supporting this, however the analysis presented above suggests that the growth targets need to be lowered to better reflect the local economic climate. It is considered unlikely that an annual increase of 1.0% or more will happen in the area in the long-term, especially with the Coventry & Warwickshire and Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEPs capturing new job opportunities at a faster rate in recent years. Lowering the employment growth rate means the amount of employment floorspace needed would be lower. This would not reduce the demographically based housing targets for the area but it would potentially free up previously allocated employment sites for other uses such as residential. This would help the Black Country meet its future housing targets and ensure that it has enough homes for its future workforce to live in.
4.26 As identified in the supporting report and above, it is known that employment sites that had previously been identified for housing are still operational with businesses continuing to use the land and, conversely, there are sites allocated for employment that have been vacant and subsequently market, however, remain unoccupied, which could be transferred to a residential use. It is therefore recommended that the Councils ensure that updated EDNA qualitative review conclusions are taken into account and correct uses applied where appropriate.
Question 5: Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt Review? Yes/No; If not, what additional work do you think is necessary?
4.27 In respect of the Green Belt Review, on the basis of the evidence published setting out housing need and supply, it is agreed that it will be necessary to find sites outside of the existing urban area, which will require removing land from the Green Belt where it is appropriate to do so. This will provide an opportunity to identify strategic sites that can provide a significant amount of homes to contribute to meeting identified housing needs. It is considered that there are a number of locations whereby housing sites can be identified, without the purposes of the Green Belt being compromised, ensuring the function and integrity of the Green Belt will remain.
4.28 In addition, areas on the urban fringe have the potential to ensure new homes can be delivered in an established, well landscaped environment, which could be attractive to those young families and professionals that the Black Country authorities have had difficulty in retaining, often through out-migration to neighbouring Shire districts considered to represent more aspirational locations.
4.29 In terms of the process and methodology for undertaking a Green Belt Review, it is understood that the awaited Strategic Housing Needs Study (SHNS) will be accompanied by Strategic Green Belt Review across Greater Birmingham and that the Black Country authorities have been engaged in presenting potential opportunities. It is reassuring that this engagement between consultants and local planning authorities is taking place as there is a danger that logical locations fail to be identified due to a lack of understanding of environmental conditions and/ or local circumstances that are applicable to sites.
4.30 It is agreed and makes sense for the local planning authorities to conduct a Stage 2 Green Belt Assessment following the completion of the higher-level work. Any input on reviewing the draft methodology for the Stage 3 Green Belt Review would be welcomed.
Question 6: Do you agree that the key issues set out in Part 3 are the key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy Review? Yes/No; If not, what other key issues should be taken into account?
4.31 The key issues presented are considered to be relevant, however, there are a number of inconsistencies relating to matters identified above against the previous questions raised.
5. REVIEWING THE STRATEGY TO MEET NEW CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
Question 7: Do you think that the Core Strategy vision and sustainability principles remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest?
5.1 In the main, the Core Strategy Vision and sustainability principles are considered to be appropriate, with exception to the principle of 'brownfield first'. It is understood that the NPPF, whilst it encourages an efficient use of land and for brown field land to be recycled, it does not suggest a sequential approach to development. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the development of greenfield land will compromise the development of brownfield land. Often the type of developers of the different land categories are different and, given the scale of the housing need, it is appropriate that the early delivery of housing is encouraged from all types of sites. In particular, the larger, potentially Green Belt, sites will have a longer lead in time due to the time it takes to plan for, determine and implement a comprehensive scheme. Indeed, a recent study entitled 'Start to Finish', prepared by NLP, supports this claim. When planning the housing trajectory for the Core Strategy, the larger sites should be planned in to come forward as soon as practically possible.
5.2 It is therefore suggested that the reference to 'putting brownfield first' is inappropriate and that it should be replaced by 'ensuring an efficient use of land to meet the identified housing needs', which encourages the recycling of land and recognises the contributions of greenfield/ Green Belt land to meeting housing delivery targets.
Question 8: Do you think that the Core Strategy spatial objectives remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest and how might these changes impact on individual Core Strategy policies?
5.3 Whilst the objectives outlined generally remain sound, there is concern that one of the NPPFs main priorities is absent. This is in relation to significantly boosting the supply of housing. It is suggested that an additional objective is added in order to ensure that meeting housing needs remains a priority within the Black Country. Once a preferred option is arrived at, spatial references as to where the housing growth will be delivered could be included (for example, meeting housing needs on urban (brownfield and greenfield) land and at extensions to the urban area).
5.4 Further, given the increased employment land requirements, the second objective relating to employment land being within the best locations within the Regeneration Corridors may no longer be appropriate. Indeed, as highlighted earlier, there is concern that there is a mismatch in land allocations, and it is appropriate for the Core Strategy review to ensure all employment sites are fit for purpose. This may conclude that employment opportunities should be identified on new land outside of the Regeneration Corridors. Should this be the case, the objective would be inappropriately worded.
Question 9: Do you agree that Policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the Growth Network? Yes/No; If not, what changes do you think should be made to Policies CSP1 and CSP2 in response to new challenges and opportunities?
5.5 It is agreed that the policies could remain, if the development requirements and related changes are made to ensure the policies are consistent with the overall strategy. The changes relate to both the quantum of development (homes, employment and retail space), the location of development (within and beyond the existing Regeneration Corridors) and the type of development (brownfield, greenfield and on land removed from the Green Belt). It is considered that references should be made to urban extensions (on land removed from the Green Belt) in Policy CSP2 specifically, to highlight the important contribution that such sites will make to meeting the development requirements of the Plan.
Question 10: In continuing to promote growth within the Growth Network, is there a need to amend the boundaries of any of the Regeneration Corridors in the existing Core Strategy? Yes/No; If so, which boundaries and why?
5.6 No comment

Question 11a: Do you support Strategic Option 1A? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If no, do you support Option 1B? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If you support the release of further employment land for housing, what should the characteristics of these employment areas be?
5.7 No comment.
Question 11b: Are there any current employment areas that might be considered suitable for redevelopment to housing? Yes/No;
5.8 As highlighted previously, the key to understanding where the most appropriate employment/ housing locations are within the Growth Network and Corridors will be determined through a qualitative assessment of allocated employment sites. It is understood an updated assessment has been undertaken and such work, complete with responses to the Call for Sites consultation, will provide the Black Country authorities with evidence to determine the urban capacity for housing, which may include transferring some employment land to housing as well as housing land to employment. This work will then outline the number of dwellings to be accommodated beyond the existing Growth Network within the Green Belt.
5.9 It is welcomed that the Issues and Options Draft recognises the need to release Green Belt in all scenarios proposed.
Question 12a: Do you support Spatial Option H1? Yes/No; What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. ability to create a defensible new green belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services.
Question 12b: Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.11 Richborough Estates considers that land at Pedmore Lane, Stourbridge should be considered. A call for sites submission has been undertaken in respect of this site to demonstrate availability, suitability and deliverability. This site would represent sustainable options for meeting housing needs arising from within the Black Country.
Question 13a: Do you support Spatial Option H2? Yes/No; What should the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) be? e.g. minimum/ maximum size, mix of uses, mix of housing types, accessibility to other areas. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs, potential to support existing settlements / services, proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban regeneration.
5.12 Given the scale of the housing need, there is concern that the development requirements could not be met with just one of the suggested options presented and, therefore, a combination of both options will be necessary.
5.13 To be in the best possible position to significantly boost the amount of housing and meet the development requirements in the Black Country, in accordance with the NPPF, it is advised that opportunities to both round off edges of the Green Belt and Sustainable Urban Extensions are proposed in the Preferred Options Draft Core Strategy. As highlighted within the Issues and Options Draft, there are challenges and opportunities that come with both types of development, for example from a delivery perspective, smaller sites will come forward more quickly due to the nature of these being straight forward proposals (with limited infrastructure necessary and one or few land owners) and larger sites will ultimately take longer as they are more complex (with multiple land uses, infrastructure and land owners). This fact has been evidenced by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (now known as Lichfields) within their report 'Start to Finish' who concluded that the average planning approval period of schemes of 2,000+ dwellings is 6.1 years and the annual average build out rate is 161 dwellings per annum. These figures demonstrate the need to have a number of sites of different sizes and in different locations removed from the Green Belt. The report also identifies, with regard to housing delivery, that 50% more homes per annum are delivered on average on large greenfield sites than large brownfield sites. This is a significant benefit of including greenfield sites within the Preferred Option and will assist to secure its delivery.
5.14 In terms of the locations for removing land from the Green Belt, this should be informed by the Strategic Growth Study and a Black Country Review of the Green Belt. The more detailed study will provide an assessment of land parcels against the purposes of the Green Belt and is likely to recommend that those that compromise the purposes the least will be shortlisted for further consideration to be removed from the Green Belt. It is advised that the next stage should be a consideration of the shortlisted sites based on their suitability (i.e. are the neighbouring uses compatible, would any previous land uses prevent the development of the site), sustainability (i.e. proximity to/ ability to provide local services/ public transport/ employment opportunities) and deliverability (i.e. whether the site is available, being promoted for development, has no barriers to coming forward etc.) credentials. Clearly each site will fair differently against such criteria and the Call for Sites submission will assist the Council to come to a decision on the preferred sites. It is advised that the Black Country authorities should be mindful of the opportunities, through infrastructure and design, that development can bring that will enhance the diversity and character of a particular location.
5.15 In terms of the characteristics of a Sustainable Urban Extension, this is likely to vary depending on the location of each site. For example, some may be more urban and others suburban in their character and would, therefore, provide a different land use offer. It is important that each are considered on a site by site basis to ensure that any subsequent allocation delivers a successful development. It is important that the developer responsible for promoting the site helps to influence what is ultimately delivered. Often what is proposed on site has been informed by housing market intelligence undertaken by sales experts at development companies and, therefore, should be taken into account. Particularly given recent experience in the down turn in the apartment market, it is important that sites are allocated for the right type and mix of housing to ensure that it will be delivered, occupied and successful.
5.16 In the more suburban locations, it is suggested that Sustainable Urban Extensions should look to provide a different offer to potentially what exists in the Strategic Centres and Regeneration Corridors, such as a mix of larger and lower density homes, which will attract those households that in the past have migrated elsewhere. Given the emphasis on delivering more high density homes in the Strategic Centres, it is important that this housing mix is offset by more larger homes in appropriate locations. Otherwise, there is a concern that the Black Country will have a disproportional amount of small homes, which will further encourage more families to migrate elsewhere and not meet the aspiration to diversify the wider HMA.
Question 13b: What infrastructure do you think would be needed for different sizes of SUEs?
5.17 The type of infrastructure needed will vary depending on the different location and size of each site and must be compliant with paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations that requires planning obligations (which applies to most infrastructure) to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
With the above in mind, however, provision for open space (both formal and informal), local centre and potentially a primary school should be considered for sites in excess of 1,000 homes.
Question 13c: Are there any potential locations that should be considered for SUEs (please submit through the 'call for sites' form) and what infrastructure would be required to support these?
5.18 No comment.
Question 13d: Do you think that the Core Strategy should set out detailed guidance for the development of SUEs (e.g. type and tenure of housing, specific infrastructure required), rather than details being determined at a local level in light of local policies? Yes/No; Any further comments?
5.19 For the reasons outlined above, relating to considering existing local circumstances and CIL Regulation requirements in respect of any charging schedule and planning obligation requirements, it is advised that detailed guidance for the development of SUEs should not be specified within the Black Country Core Strategy as each site will vary and deserves a more detailed consideration, alongside the developer, at the local level.
Question 14: Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Housing Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details
5.20 There are no other sustainable and deliverable options that we are aware of within the Black Country administrative boundary that are capable of delivering the housing spatial options.
Question 15a: If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the 'export' of housing growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA? Yes/No; What factors should be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities in neighbouring authorities e.g. proximity to the edge of the urban area, proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs?
5.21 Even if all realistically deliverable options have been considered within the Black Country, there will remain an unmet need for housing. Therefore, it is necessary for the Black Country authorities to consider the possibility of exporting growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA. In particular, there are options to expand existing settlements that are close to the administrative boundary (for example, in South Staffordshire) across authorities and could help deliver the necessary growth in a sustainable and deliverable manner. These opportunities should be explored first prior to exporting further growth to other authorities within the HMA where there is less of a spatial connection.
Question 15b: Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.22 Richborough Estates considers there are a number of locations within South Staffordshire that provide geographically strong links with the Black Country and would represent sustainable housing sites. This includes land at Sneyd Lane, Essington and land at High Hill, Essington. A call for sites submission has been undertaken in respect of these sites to demonstrate availability, suitability and deliverability. These sites would represent sustainable options for meeting housing needs arising from within the Black Country.
Question 15c: Do you think there are ways to ensure that exporting housing will meet the needs of people who would otherwise live in the Black Country? (e.g. transport improvements, provision of affordable housing, creation of employment opportunities) Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.23 It is important to consider a number of factors, including migration and travel to work patterns, which have been used to identify the extent of the HMA, to determine where households relocate to when leaving the Black Country in order to understand where and why those moves are taking place. Whilst planning can attempt to influence where people relocate to, there is no mechanism to guide or restrict people moving to or from certain locations. Once knowledge of movers can be understood can the planning system can attempt to recreate those attractive characteristics (homes that are more affordable, good public transport links, employment opportunities etc.) in locations where there is capacity for the homes to be delivered. It is advised that an additional analysis of the data, where necessary, is undertaken to provide the Black Country authorities with the relevant intelligence to deliver a successful strategy for growth outside the administrative area.
Question 16: Do you support Spatial Option E1? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access). If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.24 No comment.
Question 17: Do you support Spatial Option E2? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites e.g. quick motorway access, good sustainable transport links? If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.25 No comment
Question 18: Do you support Spatial Option E3? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access). If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.26 No comment.
Question 19a: Do you support Spatial Option E4? Yes/No; Any further comments?
5.27 No comment
Question 19b: Should any factors be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities? Yes/No; If yes, what should they be? (e.g. quick motorway access, strong transport links with the Black Country, good sustainable transport links with the Black Country) If you think there are any potential locations that should be considered, please provide details.
5.28 No comment.
Question 20: Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Employment Land Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.29 As previously outlined, there is concern that some of the employment sites currently identified are potentially not fit for purpose and others that are identified to be transferred to housing remain in employment occupation. In light of this mismatch, it is welcomed that an updated qualitative assessment has been undertaken and has informed how much employment land is has be found outside the urban area.
5.30 In terms of where the employment land should be located outside the urban area, as with housing, decisions should be based on the results of the Green Belt Review and the suitability, sustainability and deliverability of sites. For employment land sites, the suitability of a site may well include good transportation links for goods and people. Indeed, there is likely to be a significant growth in the need for logistics floorspace to accommodate rapid increases in the dot.com purchasing of goods and demand for next day delivery. Efficient access to motorway junctions and the strategic road network and the availability of large sites will therefore take priority, as well as other considerations such as the ability to operate 24 hours. Placing such sites directly next to the existing urban area may therefore be impractical. The Call for Sites consultation will assist in putting forward suggestions for sites.
5.31 In terms of exporting employment land, it is considered that a proportionate amount of employment land to housing land exported should be made in an attempt to create more sustainable communities, that is unless there is good reason not to do so (i.e. due to improved public transport links between exported housing and employment sites). As evidenced in work supporting the Issues and Options Draft, whilst the Black Country is a sufficiently self-contained labour market there are strong linkages with Birmingham and South Staffordshire. This would therefore suggest that these locations should be first explored for transporting any employment land growth, however, given the land capacity issues in Birmingham it is more likely that South Staffordshire would be able to assist.
6. DELIVERING GROWTH - INFRASTRUCTURE & VIABILITY
Question 21: Do you think that changes are required to Policy DEL1 to ensure it covers both development within the existing urban area and any within the Green Belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.1 Policy DEL1 is considered to be sound on the basis that it is sufficiently flexible to deal with different circumstances on different sites across the Black Country, including sites that are to be removed from the Green Belt.
Question 22: Do you have evidence of a requirement for new social infrastructure to serve existing needs? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.
6.2 Richborough Estates is in consultation with the relevant authorities to explore any requirements for social infrastructure to serve any need relating to the development proposals.
Question 23: Do you have evidence of social infrastructure that is no longer needed and where the site could be reallocated for alternative uses? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.3 No comment.
Question 24: Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current social infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new housing? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.4 No comment.
Question 25: Will there be any new social infrastructure requirements necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, please explain the type and scale of any new social infrastructure required.
6.5 It is recognised that delivery of new housing developments may give rise to the need to deliver supporting infrastructure. Richborough Estates is committed to working with the relevant authorities and service providers to determine the capacity of existing infrastructure and determine the level of mitigatory provision necessary to support an increase in the population in this location. It is however important that each potential large new housing development is given independent consideration in respect of any infrastructure obligations, recognising that pressures will be dependent on location and existing infrastructure capacity.
Question 26: Do you have any evidence of a requirement for new physical infrastructure to serve existing needs? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.
6.6 No comment.
Question 27: Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current physical infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.7 No comment.
Question 28: Do you think physical infrastructure is necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, what type and scale of physical infrastructure is necessary?
6.8 As set out above, the need for infrastructure will vary for each site. Given such different circumstances, it would be inappropriate and potentially unlawful (as it would conflict with paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations) to incorporate a blanket policy requiring specific infrastructure on every large housing site.
Question 29: Do you think there are any other tools or interventions that could be used to ensure enough infrastructure is provided by developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.9 It is considered that the existing national framework (which includes the NPPF and CIL Regulations) provides a sufficient tool to ensure the relevant infrastructure is delivered. In addition, the CIL Charging Schedule allows authorities to raise funds for named infrastructure projects, which should be updated in line with any Core Strategy advanced. Therefore, it is considered that there are existing provisions to deliver infrastructure and no additional interventions through the Black Country Core Strategy Review are needed.
Question 30: Do you have any suggestions around how the strategy can be developed in order to maintain the urban regeneration focus of the Black Country while at the same time bringing forward sites in the green belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.10 There is no a need for any specific interventions, such as phasing, to protect the delivery of urban regeneration in the Black Country. Indeed, it is considered that development of greenfield and Green Belt sites can very much compliment urban regeneration through the provision of a more varied form of development that will help diversify the housing stock and profile of residents in the wider area, which will assist to sustain and improve the vitality of existing communities. Further, as highlighted above, given the priority to significantly boost the delivery of housing greenfield and Green Belt sites should come forward for development as soon as practically possible. Given lead in and build out rates of larger sites, the land should be encouraged to be developed as soon as possible so to ensure the homes are delivered in the Plan period and the needs are met.
Question 31: Do you think that the right scale and form of funding is available to support the delivery of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If no, what alternative sources of funding or delivery mechanisms should be investigated?
6.11 When delivering greenfield/ Green Belt sites, there is an opportunity to deliver infrastructure to meet the needs arising from the proposal, which may have wider benefits for the local community. In addition, it is likely that the communities created by the Sustainable Urban Extensions will potentially be more affluent and share their wealth using local shops and services within the wider Black Country, which will contribute to more successful and prosperous communities.
7. REVIEW OF EXISTING CORE STRATEGY POLICIES & PROPOSALS
Housing Question 35: Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No; If no, please explain why
7.1 As identified above, it is important that a range of sites in different locations are identified to be in the best possible position of delivering the development requirements. In terms of presenting these sites in the Core Strategy, whilst it is useful to identify a housing trajectory, it is important that there is not a phasing policy as such that would prevent the delivery of housing, given the current housing crisis. As stated above, the delivery of housing on greenfield and Green Belt land will not compromise the delivery of urban regeneration as the development on the urban edge will complement and rejuvenate the environment in a different way.
7.2 In terms of the proposed level of discounting, it is considered that if the LPA adopt an approach to identify a further 20% of sites in accordance with the LPEG recommendations identified above, there would not necessarily be a need for the application of discounting in determining the overall level of supply. It is interesting to note that the level of discounting proposed by LPEG is suggested for all LPAs, not necessarily those which have experienced difficulty in delivery. It could therefore be argued that an increased buffer of 25% could be applied in order to take a cautious approach.
Question 36: Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 should be changed? Yes/No; If yes, what standards should be applied instead, for example should the minimum net density of 35 dwellings per hectare be increased to maximise brownfield housing delivery?
7.3 It is clear that the current accessibility and density standards outlined in the adopted Core Strategy were formulated in the context of the vast majority of development taking place on brownfield sites within the defined urban area. As reiterated throughout these representations, there is now a clear need for Green Belt release as part of the Local Plan Review to meet emerging, objectively assessed housing needs. We outline in further detail below why the adopted accessibility and densities would not be applicable to Green Belt sites, however would suggest that the current standards do not allow sufficient flexibility on brownfield sites. A blanket application of prescriptive accessibility and density standards across the Black Country, be it brownfield or greenfield, does not allow sufficient flexibility which take into account site specific characteristics. The Council should allow for greater flexibility when assessing accessibility and density standards, with a more pragmatic approach which allows appropriate assessment for site-specific characteristics and also an assessment of market demand which may vary significantly across the large Black Country area.
7.4 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF outlines how local authorities should set out their own approach towards density. It is suggested that the currently adopted approach does not allow for sufficient assessment of local characteristics. It is clear that the chosen approach must be reflective of local circumstances, including the matters outlined above as well as infrastructure and services available in the locality. It is advocated that a more flexible approach to density and accessibility standards is taken as part of the emerging Local Plan Review.
Question 37a: Do you think that the existing Policy HOU2 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why
7.5 In line with the comments above, it is suggested that the Council should assess each site on a case by case basis in terms of accessibility and density standards. This approach would suggest that the numerical baseline trigger of 15 homes or more will not always be appropriate or applicable, and as advocated throughout these representations it suggested that there should be a complete reassessment on accessibility and density standards as part of the emerging Local Plan Review.
Question 38: Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards are appropriate for green belt release locations? Yes/No; If no, what standards should be applied in these locations and why?
7.6 No, it is not considered that the current standards would be applicable to Green Belt release locations. The adopted standards are overly prescriptive, and as previously discussed were written in the context of brownfield land. Green Belt release sites have a completely different type of character, therefore consideration of accessibility and density standards in relation to these sites should be reflective of local character and site characteristics. The more suburban settings of Green Belt release land lends itself to lower densities which are more appropriate to the Green Belt setting, which typically deliver more family homes. The Council must provide robust evidence to test any forthcoming accessibility and density standards in relation to Green Belt release locations, which allows for a flexible and pragmatic approach.
Question 39: Do you think separate accessibility standards are needed for particular types of housing e.g. housing for the elderly or affordable housing (as occupiers may be less mobile and more dependent on public transport)? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
7.7 It is clear that separate accessibility standards will apply to particular types of housing such as affordable and for the elderly population, however in line with the sentiment expressed above, any forthcoming standards should be based on robust evidence and allow for sufficient flexibility to avoid any unnecessary constraints to development coming forward.
Question 40: Do you agree that the 2017 SHMA findings should be used to set general house type targets for the Plan period? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.8 A general and blanket application for house types across the Black Country should not be advanced as part of the Local Plan Review. Paragraph 50 is clear that local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends and market trends. It is therefore notable that the NPPF specifically highlights 'market trends' in this context, which acknowledges that the market must inform such decisions.
7.9 Whilst the 2017 SHMA does provide an assessment of demographic and market trends, it is notable that it looks at a wider area assessment and is focused at a higher level. This assessment therefore does not draw out sub-market trends, and cover smaller areas within the vast Black Country area. Again, a blanket policy of house type targets across the Black Country area would not allow for sufficient flexibility to assess each site on a site by site basis, taking into consideration local market trends and demand. The NPPF does not state that specific policies should be set to enforce that local demand is met. As such, it is considered that this should be left for the market to decide, as opposed to applying rigid and prescriptive house size standards.
7.10 It is suggested that the evidence presented in the SHMA should be put into the Plan as an informative and general guide, but should not feed into a specific policy requirement which outlines housing mix percentages that should be applied across the Black Country. A policy containing general house type targets could present as a significant constraint to the delivery of a site where there is no local market demand for this house type, which in turn would have a negative impact on achieving the necessary housing growth targets to be delivered in the Black Country over the Plan period.
Question 41a: Do you support the introduction of a policy approach towards self and custom build housing in the Core Strategy? Yes/No; If yes, would you support:
7.11 It is not considered that there is a policy need for the Core Strategy to address self and custom build housing in the emerging Review. Paragraph 6.32 indicates that there are only nine records on self and custom build registers in the Black Country. It is evident that that there is very limited demand in the Black Country, which is unsurprising given that self and custom build housing is often more popular in rural areas. Given the limited demand it is therefore not considered necessary to take a policy approach towards self and custom build housing within the Local Plan Review.
Question 41b: A target for each authority? Yes/No; Any further comments
7.12 Given that there is evidence of little market demand, it is not considered necessary for the Core Strategy to set targets for each of the Black Country authorities. If it was considered to be necessary as the Local Plan Review progresses, any targets being set should be formulated on the basis of robust evidence such as monitoring of the registers, to provide an indication of how many self-build homes will be needed.
Question 41c: A requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots? Yes/No; Any further comments?
7.13 There should not be a requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots. This can pose an unnecessary market constraint for large housebuilders when there may be limited or no market demand for self-build plots. Self and custom build plots are often unusual and unique in character, therefore would not be best suited to be located within a large housing development with more uniform house types. If deemed necessary, self and custom build housing should be allocated specific site allocations, as discussed below.
Question 41d: Another approach altogether? Yes/No; If yes, please specify.
7.14 If it is considered necessary for the Review to address self and custom build housing, this should be addressed by the Council's identifying and allocating specific plots for these uses. Identifying site-specific plots would ensure that the most appropriate and suitable locations for self and custom-build will be allocated, via the assessment of appropriate evidence and market demand. In addition, this might be more likely to be achieved on surplus publicly owned land.
Question 42: Do you agree that the annual affordable homes target should be increased to reflect the 2017 Black Country Strategic Housing Market Assessment? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.15 As a general principle, the notion of applying different affordable housing ratios to different parts of the Black Country, based on an understanding of needs and viability, is acceptable. Given that the Black Country represents a vast area, there will not be a uniform housing market, and there will be sub-market trends within this wider area. As such, a more flexible approach which assesses local housing market evidence on a case by case basis could be justified. That said, there is an inherent simplicity and attraction to a single rate figure, which is easy for the development industry to understand.
7.16 In terms of the annual affordable housing target, it is unclear how the Issues and Options document has calculated the figure of 832 homes per year. At paragraph 7.42 of the June 2017 SHMA Part Two- affordable housing document, it is stated that the total annual affordable housing need is 677 dwellings, which represents 19.8% of the annual projected household growth. This differs to paragraph 6.36 of the Issues and Options document, which states that the affordable housing target is 23.4% of total housing need or 832 homes per year. From paragraph 7.47 of the SHMA, it appears that this figure may have been calculated by adding the overall requirement of 16.6% of housing to be affordable rented and 6.7% shared ownership. Clarity is sought on how this figure has been calculated, and we reserve the right to comment further on this matter.
Question 43a: Do you think that the existing Policy HOU3 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.17 We have not undertaken detailed analysis of the findings and assumptions of the SHMA and affordable housing delivery matters, therefore would like to reserve the right to comment on this matter further. However, on face value, it appears to be a reasonable threshold and is not dissimilar to other locations.
Question 44a: Do you think that the affordable housing requirement for eligible sites in Question 43 should be kept at 25% of the total number of homes on the site? Yes /No; Any further comments?
7.18 Based on the current evidence, a blanket rate of 25% affordable housing would appear to be sound.
7.19 However, irrespective of the final rate, any amendments to the currently adopted affordable housing policy must continue to have a clause in it which stipulates that this requirement is subject to viability tests. Any revised affordable housing requirements will also need to carefully consider the implications of adopted Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regimes. Both Sandwell and Dudley Councils have adopted CIL Charging Schedules. These will have implications on viability, therefore if revised affordable housing targets are to progressed then these CIL tariffs will need to re-assessed and re-visited.
Question 44b: If no, should the percentage be increased to allow for the provision of affordable home ownership? Yes/No; If yes, what should the percentage be and why?
7.20 At paragraph 6.39 of the Issues and Options Paper, it is stated that options need to be explored to increase affordable housing delivery of private sites. One option would be to increase the overall affordable housing proportion, which would require developers to provide affordable home ownership products plus an appropriate proportion of other affordable tenures. This paragraph follows on from commentary relating to the Housing White Paper.
7.21 The Housing White Paper discusses Starter Homes at Chapter 4, and explains how the government intend to amend the NPPF to introduce a clear policy expectation that housing sites deliver a minimum of 10% affordable home ownership units. It is later stated that it will be for local areas to work with developers to agree an appropriate level of delivery of starter homes, alongside other affordable home ownership and rented tenures.
7.22 The policy position on Starter Homes is not yet fully clear, and has yet to be formally established through a formal amendment and update to the NPPF. Until the national policy position on Starter Homes has been made clear, it would be premature for the Core Strategy Review to suggest an uplift in the affordable housing requirement to include affordable home ownership such as Starter Homes. Any suggestion to uplift the affordable housing requirement to include Starter Homes should be reflective of the national policy position, as well as founded upon a robust evident base which dictates exactly what percentage this element should be of the overall affordable housing requirement.
Question 45: Should an increased affordable housing requirement be set for green belt release sites, to reflect the likely financial viability of these sites? Yes/No; If yes, what should this be.
7.23 The likely financial viability of Green Belt sites will vary across different areas of the Black Country, therefore any affordable housing requirements for Green Belt sites will need to be reflective of these circumstances. Any affordable housing targets for Green Belt sites should be based on robust evidence, and acknowledge that many sites may need to support and deliver other infrastructure requirements.
7.24 Ultimately, any affordable housing strategy will need to address the affordable housing need as well as the need for market housing. Bearing in mind that the SHMA confirms over 70% of homes required are for homes to be sold on the open market, any affordable housing policy must not dilute the delivery of these needs/requirements. A higher figure on Green Belt sites over and above a standard blanket figure would potentially do this.
Employment Question 49a: Is there still a need for existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.25 The Black Country is to be the subject of large levels of both employment and housing growth over the Plan period. These uses are very much inter-linked with one another, and will drive each other's need for growth. The Local Plan Review, in order to meet emerging employment and housing needs, must identify a significant number of specific sites for employment and housing uses. By planning proactively and identifying suitable sites for both employment land and housing land, this should reduce the pressures to manage the release of poorer quality employment land, which may not always be suitable for release. The Local Plan Review should also seek to undertake a further review of poorer quality employment land to make it available for other suitable uses, if it proves to no longer be viable for employment land use. This is in line with policy provisions of the NPPF, which at Paragraph 22 outlines that planning policies should avoid the long-term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose.
Question 50: Do you think that the Core Strategy should continue to set a target for the total employment land stock in Policy EMP1? Yes/No; Please explain why.
7.26 The continuation of setting a target for employment land stock would be supported. Policy EMP1 should make it clear that these are not maximum figures, to encourage further flexibility for additional growth.
Retail Question 59: Have all the appropriate centres within the Black Country been identified? Yes/No; If not, please specify additional centres
7.27 No comment
Question 61: In addition to para 4.33 of the current Core Strategy should the revised Core Strategy include criteria for the creation of new centres that might be needed as a result of any additional housing identified through the plan? Yes/No; Any further comments?
7.28 Criteria would be a useful policy tool to help assess the designation of new centres, and should be in line with previous methodologies used which set out clear thresholds.
Question 71: Should the Core Strategy set housing targets for the Town Centres?
7.29 Housing within Town Centres should be supported, in line with paragraph 23 of the NPPF which discusses the important role that residential development can play in ensuring the vitality of Town Centres. Any housing targets should be based on what sites are known to be readily available, suitable and viable for residential development. Market demand for housing in these areas will also need to be fully assessed. It is notable from the outcome of the 2017 SHMA that there is most demand for three bedroom properties (40%). The highest demand is therefore for family housing, and not for flats which are often the most popular within Town Centre locations. Any housing targets set for the Town Centre would therefore need to consider the findings of the SHMA, and be reflective of the fact that family housing is often more suitable for delivery on larger sites, including on sites which are currently located within the Green Belt.
Environment Question 99a: Do you think that national standards for housing development on water consumption should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.30 When referring to water consumption paragraph 6.1.52 of the Issues and Options document states that the Black Country does not currently lie in an area of serious water stress, therefore clear need may be difficult to demonstrate. This evidence suggests that there is limited or no need to introduce such a policy, therefore it is not considered that the Core Strategy Review should seek to introduce water consumption standards for housing development.
Question 99b: Do you think that national access standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.31 The introduction of any national access standards, with the Issues and Options document referring specifically to Lifetime Homes, again must be based on a robust evidence base which can demonstrate market demand. It is noted that Paragraph 50 of the NPPF states that planning authorities must plan for a mix of housing to meet a range of needs. In the same paragraph, it is later stated that these must be based on current and future market trends. If Lifetime Home standards are to be introduced these will therefore need to be based on robust evidence, to ensure that the standards are not overly onerous and prevent the delivery of other types of housing which have higher levels of market demand.
Question 99c: Do you think that national space standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.32 As reiterated throughout these representations, it is not considered that a blanket approach of prescriptive standards across the Black Country allows sufficient flexibility to assess local market and site considerations in an appropriate manner. Whilst it is recognised that space standards can be an important tool to ensure that high quality of homes are delivered, we agree with the sentiment expressed in the recent Housing White Paper. The Paper explains that the government are concerned that a one size fits all approach may not reflect the needs and aspirations of a wider range of households. The White Paper also states that the Government will be undertaking a review of the Nationally Described Space Standards. It is suggested that the Core Strategy Review should await the outcome of this national review of national space standards, to ensure compliance with national policy and to ensure that the most appropriate approach to space standards, if required, is taken.
Question 99d: Do you think that the standards should be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No; If yes, please explain how and why.
7.33 As discussed above, prescriptive standards do not always allow sufficient flexibility for local market needs, so we would not advocate a blanket approach of different standards to brownfield and greenfield sites.
Open Space, Sport and Recreation Question 102a: Do you support the proposed changes relating to open space, sport and recreation? Yes/No; If no, please explain
7.34 Paragraph 6.1.60 of the Issues and Options paper outlines how adopted Policy ENV6 creates the framework for open space policies at the local level. The Issues and Options paper outlines how this is in line with national guidance, and that it is proposed to retain this policy and update some references in the supporting text to reflect changing circumstances. It is agreed that the local level remains the appropriate place to set open space policies, and that Policy ENV6 should continue to endorse this approach.

8. CONCLUSION
8.1 Richborough Estates has acquired an interest in a number of sites either within the Black Country or within neighbouring authority areas that are geographically well related to the Major Urban Area. All sites are sustainably located adjacent to the existing urban area as demonstrated on the appended Site Location Plans.
8.2 These sites are promoted as suitable, deliverable and available options, subject to release from the Green Belt. The development of these sites would constitute sustainable development and would assist in meeting housing needs arising within the Black Country and the wider Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area.
8.3 Richborough Estates fully support the Black Country Authorities' decision to review the currently adopted Core Strategy, however wish to raise the following concerns:
* Whilst the OAN is generally appropriate as a starting point, a number of concerns have been identified with the SHMA and it is recommended that it is updated to address the issues raised. Further, evidence is awaited with regard to unmet need in the wider HMA. Once this has been concluded, the Black Country authorities can arrive at an appropriate dwelling requirement for the Black Country.
* It is acknowledged that the housing land supply in the Black Country has not yet been identified as the authorities need to undertake further work upon receiving the Call for Sites submissions. After which, the shortfall in housing supply can be confirmed.
* It is welcomed that the Black Country authorities acknowledge the need to remove land from the Green Belt to meet emerging development requirements and that a Green Belt Review is soon to be prepared.
* In terms of selecting sites for development, it is advised that a range of types sites, of different sizes, in different locations need to be identified to be in the best possible position to deliver the dwelling requirements.
* Land at: Pedmore Lane, Stourbrige; Sneyd Lane, Essington; and High Hill, Essington, represent appropriate locations for residential development as supported by the Call for Sites submissions.
8.4 Richborough Estates look forward to engaging with the Black Country Authorities and providing additional information, as required, to assist the Council in progressing the preparation of an up to date Local Plan.

Question 1: Do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies? Yes/No; If not, what do you think should be the scope of the review?
2.4 In response to Question 1 and whether it should be a partial review or not, whilst the existing strategy identifies the most sustainable locations for growth in the context of delivering development requirements identified by the Regional Strategy (RS), there is now a new and much bigger challenge ahead in meeting the arising needs for homes identified by the latest evidence and there is concern that the existing spatial strategy may not facilitate the delivery of these needs. The Black Country authorities, therefore, need to be mindful of this and not attempt to put "a square peg in a round hole".
2.5 It is our view that urban regeneration can be achieved whilst pursuing development on the urban edge. Indeed, the scale of housing need is so large that both must be encouraged in order to meet current and arising housing needs within the Black Country.
2.6 It is extremely important that in reviewing the Core Strategy it fully takes account of and facilitates the delivery of strategic economic plans, as recognised in paragraph 1.15. All too often these strategies are ignored and, accordingly, development plans could effectively frustrate economic growth from being realised.
2.7 In terms of the Plan period proposed in paragraph 1.17, whilst a 15-year time period from adoption is appropriate, there is concern that the preparation of plans is often delayed (due to reasons beyond the control of the LPAs) and it may be prudent to stretch the period further to prevent such an issue from occurring.
2.8 It is welcomed that the Issues and Options document recognises that it will not be possible to accommodate all future development needs within the urban area and that an examination of the potential for development land outside the existing urban area, which is effectively land within the Green Belt, will take place as part of the Core Strategy review process.
3. THE BLACK COUNTRY TODAY - THE EXISTING STRATEGY
3.1 As set out within this section, the delivery of both employment and housing land has not come forward as originally envisaged in part due to the after effects of the recession. Surplus employment land which might have been available for housing has not come forward due to a strengthening economy and local firms being more robust than anticipated. In addition, the range of locations available has not in all cases met with market expectations as to where people want to live.
3.2 In terms of the employment land, it is important that sufficient land is provided for new employment and that there is not an overreliance on land that is currently in use. It is impressive that despite generally poor economic performance local businesses have performed well. Should the economy significantly improve within the Plan period in line with LEP aspirations (considered later in this response), there is concern that it may become difficult to transfer a wide range of existing employment locations to housing allocations. It is appropriate, therefore, for the Council to ensure the evidence contained within the Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment is reviewed and updated regularly. This will enable the land supply to be responsive to arising needs and not rigidly be wedded to delivering commitments that are unlikely to be realised.
3.3 What is further emphasised by the analysis in this section is that urban regeneration cannot be delivered quickly and that there are a number of factors beyond the control of the Black Country authorities that may have implications for the delivery of the strategy. This further emphasises the need for a mix of types of sites (brownfield, brownfield compulsory purchase, greenfield and Green Belt) of different forms of development (high density, mid and low density family homes) in a variety of locations, which will maximise the opportunities to deliver a successful Local Plan.
3.4 Finally, in respect of the proposal to maintain 300 hectares of employment land that will become vacant by way of general churn over the Plan period. Whilst the principle is considered acceptable, there should be appropriate evidence to support the assumption.
3.5 Our experience is that there are employment sites that clients are looking to secure a residential allocation on that have not been identified thus far. In light of these changing circumstances, the Black Country authorities should ensure that the policy approach is flexible to allow sites in appropriate locations to be brought forward for housing throughout the Plan period and likewise, sites that have been allocated for housing but have not come forward should be removed from the supply.
4. THE STRATEGIC CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
4.1 It is welcomed that the Black Country authorities are updating their evidence base. Indeed, the adopted Core Strategy took the development requirements from the adopted Regional Strategy (RS), which has since been revoked and is unquestionably out of date. Since the RS was published there has been a number of population and household projections published showing increasing dwelling requirements in the Black Country, which were largely ignored and, therefore, it should come as no surprise that there is a significant increase in forming households.
4.2 In terms of the list of evidence either prepared or due to be completed, it appears to be sufficiently comprehensive.
4.3 In respect of the Strategic Market Assessment for the Black Country and South Staffordshire Richborough Estates would wish to raise the following key comments:
* In determining the OAN, there are concerns with regard to the SHMA methodology and it is suggested a further scenario should be tested to consider long term growth which includes balanced periods of economic prosperity and decline.
* There is concern that the economic growth scenarios do not use the latest economic forecast data and that the methodology translating the job growth into dwelling growth is not sufficiently robust to accurately determine the impact of forecasts based on existing circumstances and also more aspirational job growth targets, such as those arising from the SEP.
* In terms of providing uplifts for market signals, a 25% uplift for South Staffs is appropriate. It is advised that dwelling requirements for the Black Country should not be reduced as a result of this and, accordingly, it should not count towards meeting any unmet needs outside of the HMA as the main function is to provide slack within the housing market and prevent house prices from increasing at an accelerated rate.
4.4 In respect of the Housing Background Report, Richborough Estates would wish to make the following key comments:
* Clearly a lot of work is yet to be done to determine what the housing land supply position is in the Black Country. Given that much of the existing evidence is based on the adopted Core Strategy, it is recognised that the SHLAAs across the four authorities will need to be updated, both in terms of revising the methodology and range of sites assessed, to reflect a potentially different approach to locating development.
* It is commendable that the Housing Background Report has examined existing sources of supply in an attempt to provide additional homes from sites within the urban area. There is concern, however, that by changing policies, for example, to increase the minimum density on sites has wider policy implications to take into account than simply increasing the number of homes.
* The Housing Background Report suggests a continued allowance for larger windfall sites. It is suggested that it is inappropriate to include an allowance for this source as there is no certainty that this land will come forward for development.
* Other sources, such as converting employment sites to residential sites, based on the evidence presented and feedback from the development industry, it is known that there are employment sites functioning well as employment sites but are to be converted to residential and other employment sites that are unoccupied and undesirable that are to be retained as employment sites. Clearly, there is a mismatch between employment land need and employment land supply. It is advised that the qualitative assessment of employment informs future land supply recommendations and allocations are revised where necessary.
4.5 As a result of the dwelling requirements generated by the SHMA and the land supply identified from the Housing Background Report, it is concluded that there in insufficient urban land to provide for the development requirements and that a Green Belt Review should be conducted. It is noted that scoping is underway and that the work is to be completed in mid-2018. It is hopeful that the development industry will be involved in defining the methodology of the work to ensure that it is conducted in a robust way.
4.6 Another very important piece of work to be taken into consideration will be the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA Strategic Growth Study. It is unclear at this stage what role the Black Country authorities will play in meeting the wider needs of Birmingham and, indeed, whether it can now contribute given that meeting the needs of the indigenous population will be a tall order. Further, there is uncertainty with regard to how far the study will go in identifying locations for growth and how this evidence will be taken forward in emerging Development Plans, particularly given that it is premature to the Green Belt Review for the wider Black Country area. It is our view that there are sites within the Green Belt that will provide sustainable locations for growth and that their removal will not compromise the purposes of the Green Belt and, accordingly it will remain purposeful and functional.
Question 2: Do you think that the key evidence set out in Table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If not, what further evidence is required and, if there are any particular issues that should be taken into account in considering development on any particular sites or in any particular areas, please provide details
4.7 It is considered that the evidence contained within Table 1 is comprehensive, however, as suggested above and below, a number of concerns have been highlighted and it is therefore suggested that these are addressed in order to improve the soundness of the next iteration of the Core Strategy Review.
4.8 It is welcomed that an updated qualitative assessment of employment land has been undertaken in order to identify if the sites are fit for purpose, alongside the quantitative employment land study. It has been identified that a number of employment land sites that have been suggested for residential land allocations remain in occupation as functioning employment sites. These sites should be removed from the housing land supply. Conversely, there are vacant employment land sites that have been marketed over a period of time where no market interest has been forthcoming and, therefore, it is recommended that these sites should be considered for housing delivery.
4.9 It is noted that Viability Studies are identified as evidence base documents that are still to be prepared. Whilst not specifically identified, it is recommended that affordable housing viability is a key matter that needs to be addressed as part of this evidence base to ensure the level suggested by the SHMA Part 2 is deliverable. If this is not the case, the delivery of both market and affordable housing could be compromised and prevent the successful delivery of any new strategy.
Question 3: Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014-36 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.
4.10 In terms of the extent of the sub market, which includes the Black Country and South Staffordshire, this is considered to be appropriate. It is recognised and welcomed that the Black Country authorities and South Staffordshire have jointly undertaken a SHMA for the sub area, which facilitates the preparation of an Issues and Options Core Strategy Review. There is concern, however, that the remaining constituent authorities within the wider Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area have not taken part and there is a danger that housing need for the whole HMA may not entirely be comprehensively captured due to the different time periods covered by the separate studies. It is advised that a SHMA, consistent with the guidance in the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance, is prepared for the entire HMA over the same Plan period (as opposed to a housing needs study), which will properly consider all relevant factors in a consistent and comprehensive manner.
4.11 The OAN arrived at by the SHMA is generally appropriate in identifying the starting point for determining the dwelling requirement, however, it is suggested a further scenario should be tested to consider long term growth which includes balanced periods of economic prosperity and decline. There is concern that the economic growth scenarios contain potentially out of date employment forecasts and the methodology to determine appropriate dwelling requirements is not sufficiently robust to accurately determine the impact of forecasts based on existing circumstances. In addition, more aspirational job growth targets, such as those arising from the SEP, may not necessarily be appropriate for the Black Country (as discussed later in these representations).
4.12 In terms of providing an uplift for market signals, a 25% uplift for South Staffs is agreed to be appropriate. It is advised that dwelling requirements for the Black Country should not be reduced as a result of this and, accordingly, the application of such an uplift in South Staffordshire should not count towards meeting any unmet needs outside of the HMA as the main function is to provide slack or headroom within the housing market and prevent house prices from increasing at an accelerated rate, exacerbating issues of affordability.
4.13 Clearly, the evidence contained in the SHMA does not consider the potential to accommodate any of Birmingham City's housing needs and that this could result in increased dwelling requirements. We reserve our position in respect of this matter and await the publication of the HMA wide Strategic Housing Needs Study.
4.14 We shortly await a consultation publication from central Government in relation to providing a standardised methodology for generating dwelling requirements. This is anticipated in Autumn 2017. The Black Country authorities will need to take account of any proposed national policy changes identified through the consultation paper. We reserve our position on this matter, until the full details and implications for the Back Country are known. It is considered that, whilst a standard methodology will be helpful in identifying a baseline dwelling requirement, the consideration of long term trends and economic forecasts cannot be carried out in a mathematical calculation outside a demographic/ economic model. In light of this, the SHMA prepared for the sub-area could remain useful as evidence to inform the review of the Black Country Core Strategy.
4.15 In terms of meeting the dwelling requirements, it is understood that the 'Call for Sites' consultation will inform an updated SHLAA, which will assess sites both within and outside the urban area to determine the maximum number of dwellings that can be realistically delivered within the Black Country over the proposed Plan period. The Housing Background Report that has been published as part of the evidence base for the Issues and Options Core Strategy Review has considered assumptions contained within the SHLAA based on adopted policies and considers changes to the policies to boost the delivery of housing on existing sites. Whilst it is a commendable that the Black Country authorities are exploring all potential options to boost housing on urban land, there are wider implications of doing so and accordingly, caution is expressed in response to a number of the identified approaches proposed.
4.16 As confirmed in paragraph 3.15, it is extremely important that the Black Country authorities 'firm up' the housing supply in order to ensure that there is sufficient provision to meet the dwelling requirements. It is also considered appropriate to provide an additional buffer of housing land supply to provide a contingency when sites are delayed. As explained earlier in the Issues and Options Report, sites providing a total of 3,000 homes have not come forward as anticipated. It is considered that additional supply is required to provide flexibility and minimise any durations within the Plan period where the housing trajectory would otherwise dip.
4.17 In terms of the extent of a buffer for housing land, the Local Plan Expert Group suggested that additional land, equivalent to delivering 20% of the overall dwelling requirement, is added to the supply, which will provide a contingency of land to be used as and when necessary during the Plan period. It is suggested that this additional land will help ensure the dwelling delivery targets and housing needs are met in a timely manner, which will reduce the opportunity for households to become concealed or shared. Given the issues experienced in respect of delivery in the past, it could be argued that an increased buffer of circa 25% could be applied.
4.18 It is also appropriate to ensure that, as well as identifying the right amount of land, there is sufficient variety in the types of sites (brownfield, greenfield, Green Belt) are identified, reflecting different sizes, in a range of locations. This variety in provision will allow the best opportunity for multiple sites to come forward at the same time without market constraint and hence ensuring delivery targets are met. In addition, this approach will also provide market choice to existing and arising households looking to move into a new home in the Black Country, which will have wider social benefits (i.e. allow families to live nearby one another and provide an opportunity to diversify existing communities through providing alternative homes to the existing housing stock).
4.19 Indeed, as previously documented in the adopted Core Strategy, it is considered that the ambition to retain the young and professional population within the Black Country should be maintained and that suitable and attractive housing and complementary environments are encouraged.
4.20 Finally, it is welcomed that the Black Country authorities have agreed to test the dwelling requirement figures on an ongoing basis. It is hoped that the suggested changes/alternative scenarios suggested above are implemented in order to ensure the evidence base is robust and the resultant policies and proposals soundly based.
Question 4: Do you consider the employment land requirement identified for the Black Country up to 2036 in the EDNA is appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.
4.21 The Core Strategy review intends to utilise the Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) for the Black Country, published in May 2017, to inform future employment land requirements. The EDNA uses forecasts produced as part of the West Midlands Combined Authority Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) to calculate long-term growth, noting that the 'Super SEP Economy+ Scenario' is the preferred aspirational scenario. This scenario assumes average annual growth in employment of 1.3% across the Combined Authority and presents an ambitious view of future growth in the area, with 500,000 jobs created between 2013 and 2030.
4.22 The SEP Technical Appendix breaks down the job forecasts for the three Local Enterprise Partnerships that form the Combined Authority (Black Country; Coventry & Warwickshire; and Greater Birmingham & Solihull). Jobs growth in the Black Country LEP is forecast to be around 1.1% per annum, whilst it is forecast at 1.5% per annum in the other two LEP areas. This averages out at annual growth of approximately 1.3%. Using data from the Business Register & Employment Survey, published by the Office for National Statistics, it is possible to look at employment trends over the last five to six years (2009-15) and this analysis suggests that the growth rate used in the aspirational growth scenario may be too ambitious for the Back Country:
4.23 Between 2009 and 2015, total employment in the Black Country LEP increased from around 450,000 to approximately 453,000. This equates to average annual growth of 0.1%. Walsall (1.5% p.a.) and Sandwell (0.9% p.a.) experienced jobs growth, although Dudley (-1.1% p.a.) and Wolverhampton (-0.8%) both suffered a fall in employment.
4.24 By contrast, both the Coventry & Warwickshire and Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEPs saw total job numbers increase by 1.3% p.a. from 2009-13. A number of districts in these LEPs saw particularly strong growth over the period, notably Solihull and Lichfield in Greater Birmingham & Solihull, where employment grew by at least 3.0% on an annual basis. In short, the 1.3% average across the West Midlands Combined Authority Area is substantially bolstered by Solihull and Lichfield and therefore it is very ambitious to suggest this will occur across the Black Country area.
4.25 That said, growth in the Black Country needs to be faster than in previous years and the new Core Strategy has a vital role to play in supporting this, however the analysis presented above suggests that the growth targets need to be lowered to better reflect the local economic climate. It is considered unlikely that an annual increase of 1.0% or more will happen in the area in the long-term, especially with the Coventry & Warwickshire and Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEPs capturing new job opportunities at a faster rate in recent years. Lowering the employment growth rate means the amount of employment floorspace needed would be lower. This would not reduce the demographically based housing targets for the area but it would potentially free up previously allocated employment sites for other uses such as residential. This would help the Black Country meet its future housing targets and ensure that it has enough homes for its future workforce to live in.
4.26 As identified in the supporting report and above, it is known that employment sites that had previously been identified for housing are still operational with businesses continuing to use the land and, conversely, there are sites allocated for employment that have been vacant and subsequently market, however, remain unoccupied, which could be transferred to a residential use. It is therefore recommended that the Councils ensure that updated EDNA qualitative review conclusions are taken into account and correct uses applied where appropriate.
Question 5: Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt Review? Yes/No; If not, what additional work do you think is necessary?
4.27 In respect of the Green Belt Review, on the basis of the evidence published setting out housing need and supply, it is agreed that it will be necessary to find sites outside of the existing urban area, which will require removing land from the Green Belt where it is appropriate to do so. This will provide an opportunity to identify strategic sites that can provide a significant amount of homes to contribute to meeting identified housing needs. It is considered that there are a number of locations whereby housing sites can be identified, without the purposes of the Green Belt being compromised, ensuring the function and integrity of the Green Belt will remain.
4.28 In addition, areas on the urban fringe have the potential to ensure new homes can be delivered in an established, well landscaped environment, which could be attractive to those young families and professionals that the Black Country authorities have had difficulty in retaining, often through out-migration to neighbouring Shire districts considered to represent more aspirational locations.
4.29 In terms of the process and methodology for undertaking a Green Belt Review, it is understood that the awaited Strategic Housing Needs Study (SHNS) will be accompanied by Strategic Green Belt Review across Greater Birmingham and that the Black Country authorities have been engaged in presenting potential opportunities. It is reassuring that this engagement between consultants and local planning authorities is taking place as there is a danger that logical locations fail to be identified due to a lack of understanding of environmental conditions and/ or local circumstances that are applicable to sites.
4.30 It is agreed and makes sense for the local planning authorities to conduct a Stage 2 Green Belt Assessment following the completion of the higher-level work. Any input on reviewing the draft methodology for the Stage 3 Green Belt Review would be welcomed.
Question 6: Do you agree that the key issues set out in Part 3 are the key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy Review? Yes/No; If not, what other key issues should be taken into account?
4.31 The key issues presented are considered to be relevant, however, there are a number of inconsistencies relating to matters identified above against the previous questions raised.
5. REVIEWING THE STRATEGY TO MEET NEW CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
Question 7: Do you think that the Core Strategy vision and sustainability principles remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest?
5.1 In the main, the Core Strategy Vision and sustainability principles are considered to be appropriate, with exception to the principle of 'brownfield first'. It is understood that the NPPF, whilst it encourages an efficient use of land and for brown field land to be recycled, it does not suggest a sequential approach to development. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the development of greenfield land will compromise the development of brownfield land. Often the type of developers of the different land categories are different and, given the scale of the housing need, it is appropriate that the early delivery of housing is encouraged from all types of sites. In particular, the larger, potentially Green Belt, sites will have a longer lead in time due to the time it takes to plan for, determine and implement a comprehensive scheme. Indeed, a recent study entitled 'Start to Finish', prepared by NLP, supports this claim. When planning the housing trajectory for the Core Strategy, the larger sites should be planned in to come forward as soon as practically possible.
5.2 It is therefore suggested that the reference to 'putting brownfield first' is inappropriate and that it should be replaced by 'ensuring an efficient use of land to meet the identified housing needs', which encourages the recycling of land and recognises the contributions of greenfield/ Green Belt land to meeting housing delivery targets.
Question 8: Do you think that the Core Strategy spatial objectives remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest and how might these changes impact on individual Core Strategy policies?
5.3 Whilst the objectives outlined generally remain sound, there is concern that one of the NPPFs main priorities is absent. This is in relation to significantly boosting the supply of housing. It is suggested that an additional objective is added in order to ensure that meeting housing needs remains a priority within the Black Country. Once a preferred option is arrived at, spatial references as to where the housing growth will be delivered could be included (for example, meeting housing needs on urban (brownfield and greenfield) land and at extensions to the urban area).
5.4 Further, given the increased employment land requirements, the second objective relating to employment land being within the best locations within the Regeneration Corridors may no longer be appropriate. Indeed, as highlighted earlier, there is concern that there is a mismatch in land allocations, and it is appropriate for the Core Strategy review to ensure all employment sites are fit for purpose. This may conclude that employment opportunities should be identified on new land outside of the Regeneration Corridors. Should this be the case, the objective would be inappropriately worded.
Question 9: Do you agree that Policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the Growth Network? Yes/No; If not, what changes do you think should be made to Policies CSP1 and CSP2 in response to new challenges and opportunities?
5.5 It is agreed that the policies could remain, if the development requirements and related changes are made to ensure the policies are consistent with the overall strategy. The changes relate to both the quantum of development (homes, employment and retail space), the location of development (within and beyond the existing Regeneration Corridors) and the type of development (brownfield, greenfield and on land removed from the Green Belt). It is considered that references should be made to urban extensions (on land removed from the Green Belt) in Policy CSP2 specifically, to highlight the important contribution that such sites will make to meeting the development requirements of the Plan.
Question 10: In continuing to promote growth within the Growth Network, is there a need to amend the boundaries of any of the Regeneration Corridors in the existing Core Strategy? Yes/No; If so, which boundaries and why?
5.6 No comment

Question 11a: Do you support Strategic Option 1A? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If no, do you support Option 1B? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If you support the release of further employment land for housing, what should the characteristics of these employment areas be?
5.7 No comment.
Question 11b: Are there any current employment areas that might be considered suitable for redevelopment to housing? Yes/No;
5.8 As highlighted previously, the key to understanding where the most appropriate employment/ housing locations are within the Growth Network and Corridors will be determined through a qualitative assessment of allocated employment sites. It is understood an updated assessment has been undertaken and such work, complete with responses to the Call for Sites consultation, will provide the Black Country authorities with evidence to determine the urban capacity for housing, which may include transferring some employment land to housing as well as housing land to employment. This work will then outline the number of dwellings to be accommodated beyond the existing Growth Network within the Green Belt.
5.9 It is welcomed that the Issues and Options Draft recognises the need to release Green Belt in all scenarios proposed.
Question 12a: Do you support Spatial Option H1? Yes/No; What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. ability to create a defensible new green belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services.
Question 12b: Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.11 Richborough Estates considers that land at Pedmore Lane, Stourbridge should be considered. A call for sites submission has been undertaken in respect of this site to demonstrate availability, suitability and deliverability. This site would represent sustainable options for meeting housing needs arising from within the Black Country.
Question 13a: Do you support Spatial Option H2? Yes/No; What should the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) be? e.g. minimum/ maximum size, mix of uses, mix of housing types, accessibility to other areas. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs, potential to support existing settlements / services, proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban regeneration.
5.12 Given the scale of the housing need, there is concern that the development requirements could not be met with just one of the suggested options presented and, therefore, a combination of both options will be necessary.
5.13 To be in the best possible position to significantly boost the amount of housing and meet the development requirements in the Black Country, in accordance with the NPPF, it is advised that opportunities to both round off edges of the Green Belt and Sustainable Urban Extensions are proposed in the Preferred Options Draft Core Strategy. As highlighted within the Issues and Options Draft, there are challenges and opportunities that come with both types of development, for example from a delivery perspective, smaller sites will come forward more quickly due to the nature of these being straight forward proposals (with limited infrastructure necessary and one or few land owners) and larger sites will ultimately take longer as they are more complex (with multiple land uses, infrastructure and land owners). This fact has been evidenced by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (now known as Lichfields) within their report 'Start to Finish' who concluded that the average planning approval period of schemes of 2,000+ dwellings is 6.1 years and the annual average build out rate is 161 dwellings per annum. These figures demonstrate the need to have a number of sites of different sizes and in different locations removed from the Green Belt. The report also identifies, with regard to housing delivery, that 50% more homes per annum are delivered on average on large greenfield sites than large brownfield sites. This is a significant benefit of including greenfield sites within the Preferred Option and will assist to secure its delivery.
5.14 In terms of the locations for removing land from the Green Belt, this should be informed by the Strategic Growth Study and a Black Country Review of the Green Belt. The more detailed study will provide an assessment of land parcels against the purposes of the Green Belt and is likely to recommend that those that compromise the purposes the least will be shortlisted for further consideration to be removed from the Green Belt. It is advised that the next stage should be a consideration of the shortlisted sites based on their suitability (i.e. are the neighbouring uses compatible, would any previous land uses prevent the development of the site), sustainability (i.e. proximity to/ ability to provide local services/ public transport/ employment opportunities) and deliverability (i.e. whether the site is available, being promoted for development, has no barriers to coming forward etc.) credentials. Clearly each site will fair differently against such criteria and the Call for Sites submission will assist the Council to come to a decision on the preferred sites. It is advised that the Black Country authorities should be mindful of the opportunities, through infrastructure and design, that development can bring that will enhance the diversity and character of a particular location.
5.15 In terms of the characteristics of a Sustainable Urban Extension, this is likely to vary depending on the location of each site. For example, some may be more urban and others suburban in their character and would, therefore, provide a different land use offer. It is important that each are considered on a site by site basis to ensure that any subsequent allocation delivers a successful development. It is important that the developer responsible for promoting the site helps to influence what is ultimately delivered. Often what is proposed on site has been informed by housing market intelligence undertaken by sales experts at development companies and, therefore, should be taken into account. Particularly given recent experience in the down turn in the apartment market, it is important that sites are allocated for the right type and mix of housing to ensure that it will be delivered, occupied and successful.
5.16 In the more suburban locations, it is suggested that Sustainable Urban Extensions should look to provide a different offer to potentially what exists in the Strategic Centres and Regeneration Corridors, such as a mix of larger and lower density homes, which will attract those households that in the past have migrated elsewhere. Given the emphasis on delivering more high density homes in the Strategic Centres, it is important that this housing mix is offset by more larger homes in appropriate locations. Otherwise, there is a concern that the Black Country will have a disproportional amount of small homes, which will further encourage more families to migrate elsewhere and not meet the aspiration to diversify the wider HMA.
Question 13b: What infrastructure do you think would be needed for different sizes of SUEs?
5.17 The type of infrastructure needed will vary depending on the different location and size of each site and must be compliant with paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations that requires planning obligations (which applies to most infrastructure) to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
With the above in mind, however, provision for open space (both formal and informal), local centre and potentially a primary school should be considered for sites in excess of 1,000 homes.
Question 13c: Are there any potential locations that should be considered for SUEs (please submit through the 'call for sites' form) and what infrastructure would be required to support these?
5.18 No comment.
Question 13d: Do you think that the Core Strategy should set out detailed guidance for the development of SUEs (e.g. type and tenure of housing, specific infrastructure required), rather than details being determined at a local level in light of local policies? Yes/No; Any further comments?
5.19 For the reasons outlined above, relating to considering existing local circumstances and CIL Regulation requirements in respect of any charging schedule and planning obligation requirements, it is advised that detailed guidance for the development of SUEs should not be specified within the Black Country Core Strategy as each site will vary and deserves a more detailed consideration, alongside the developer, at the local level.
Question 14: Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Housing Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details
5.20 There are no other sustainable and deliverable options that we are aware of within the Black Country administrative boundary that are capable of delivering the housing spatial options.
Question 15a: If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the 'export' of housing growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA? Yes/No; What factors should be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities in neighbouring authorities e.g. proximity to the edge of the urban area, proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs?
5.21 Even if all realistically deliverable options have been considered within the Black Country, there will remain an unmet need for housing. Therefore, it is necessary for the Black Country authorities to consider the possibility of exporting growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA. In particular, there are options to expand existing settlements that are close to the administrative boundary (for example, in South Staffordshire) across authorities and could help deliver the necessary growth in a sustainable and deliverable manner. These opportunities should be explored first prior to exporting further growth to other authorities within the HMA where there is less of a spatial connection.
Question 15b: Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.22 Richborough Estates considers there are a number of locations within South Staffordshire that provide geographically strong links with the Black Country and would represent sustainable housing sites. This includes land at Sneyd Lane, Essington and land at High Hill, Essington. A call for sites submission has been undertaken in respect of these sites to demonstrate availability, suitability and deliverability. These sites would represent sustainable options for meeting housing needs arising from within the Black Country.
Question 15c: Do you think there are ways to ensure that exporting housing will meet the needs of people who would otherwise live in the Black Country? (e.g. transport improvements, provision of affordable housing, creation of employment opportunities) Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.23 It is important to consider a number of factors, including migration and travel to work patterns, which have been used to identify the extent of the HMA, to determine where households relocate to when leaving the Black Country in order to understand where and why those moves are taking place. Whilst planning can attempt to influence where people relocate to, there is no mechanism to guide or restrict people moving to or from certain locations. Once knowledge of movers can be understood can the planning system can attempt to recreate those attractive characteristics (homes that are more affordable, good public transport links, employment opportunities etc.) in locations where there is capacity for the homes to be delivered. It is advised that an additional analysis of the data, where necessary, is undertaken to provide the Black Country authorities with the relevant intelligence to deliver a successful strategy for growth outside the administrative area.
Question 16: Do you support Spatial Option E1? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access). If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.24 No comment.
Question 17: Do you support Spatial Option E2? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites e.g. quick motorway access, good sustainable transport links? If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.25 No comment
Question 18: Do you support Spatial Option E3? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access). If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.26 No comment.
Question 19a: Do you support Spatial Option E4? Yes/No; Any further comments?
5.27 No comment
Question 19b: Should any factors be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities? Yes/No; If yes, what should they be? (e.g. quick motorway access, strong transport links with the Black Country, good sustainable transport links with the Black Country) If you think there are any potential locations that should be considered, please provide details.
5.28 No comment.
Question 20: Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Employment Land Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.29 As previously outlined, there is concern that some of the employment sites currently identified are potentially not fit for purpose and others that are identified to be transferred to housing remain in employment occupation. In light of this mismatch, it is welcomed that an updated qualitative assessment has been undertaken and has informed how much employment land is has be found outside the urban area.
5.30 In terms of where the employment land should be located outside the urban area, as with housing, decisions should be based on the results of the Green Belt Review and the suitability, sustainability and deliverability of sites. For employment land sites, the suitability of a site may well include good transportation links for goods and people. Indeed, there is likely to be a significant growth in the need for logistics floorspace to accommodate rapid increases in the dot.com purchasing of goods and demand for next day delivery. Efficient access to motorway junctions and the strategic road network and the availability of large sites will therefore take priority, as well as other considerations such as the ability to operate 24 hours. Placing such sites directly next to the existing urban area may therefore be impractical. The Call for Sites consultation will assist in putting forward suggestions for sites.
5.31 In terms of exporting employment land, it is considered that a proportionate amount of employment land to housing land exported should be made in an attempt to create more sustainable communities, that is unless there is good reason not to do so (i.e. due to improved public transport links between exported housing and employment sites). As evidenced in work supporting the Issues and Options Draft, whilst the Black Country is a sufficiently self-contained labour market there are strong linkages with Birmingham and South Staffordshire. This would therefore suggest that these locations should be first explored for transporting any employment land growth, however, given the land capacity issues in Birmingham it is more likely that South Staffordshire would be able to assist.
6. DELIVERING GROWTH - INFRASTRUCTURE & VIABILITY
Question 21: Do you think that changes are required to Policy DEL1 to ensure it covers both development within the existing urban area and any within the Green Belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.1 Policy DEL1 is considered to be sound on the basis that it is sufficiently flexible to deal with different circumstances on different sites across the Black Country, including sites that are to be removed from the Green Belt.
Question 22: Do you have evidence of a requirement for new social infrastructure to serve existing needs? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.
6.2 Richborough Estates is in consultation with the relevant authorities to explore any requirements for social infrastructure to serve any need relating to the development proposals.
Question 23: Do you have evidence of social infrastructure that is no longer needed and where the site could be reallocated for alternative uses? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.3 No comment.
Question 24: Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current social infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new housing? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.4 No comment.
Question 25: Will there be any new social infrastructure requirements necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, please explain the type and scale of any new social infrastructure required.
6.5 It is recognised that delivery of new housing developments may give rise to the need to deliver supporting infrastructure. Richborough Estates is committed to working with the relevant authorities and service providers to determine the capacity of existing infrastructure and determine the level of mitigatory provision necessary to support an increase in the population in this location. It is however important that each potential large new housing development is given independent consideration in respect of any infrastructure obligations, recognising that pressures will be dependent on location and existing infrastructure capacity.
Question 26: Do you have any evidence of a requirement for new physical infrastructure to serve existing needs? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.
6.6 No comment.
Question 27: Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current physical infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.7 No comment.
Question 28: Do you think physical infrastructure is necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, what type and scale of physical infrastructure is necessary?
6.8 As set out above, the need for infrastructure will vary for each site. Given such different circumstances, it would be inappropriate and potentially unlawful (as it would conflict with paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations) to incorporate a blanket policy requiring specific infrastructure on every large housing site.
Question 29: Do you think there are any other tools or interventions that could be used to ensure enough infrastructure is provided by developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.9 It is considered that the existing national framework (which includes the NPPF and CIL Regulations) provides a sufficient tool to ensure the relevant infrastructure is delivered. In addition, the CIL Charging Schedule allows authorities to raise funds for named infrastructure projects, which should be updated in line with any Core Strategy advanced. Therefore, it is considered that there are existing provisions to deliver infrastructure and no additional interventions through the Black Country Core Strategy Review are needed.
Question 30: Do you have any suggestions around how the strategy can be developed in order to maintain the urban regeneration focus of the Black Country while at the same time bringing forward sites in the green belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.10 There is no a need for any specific interventions, such as phasing, to protect the delivery of urban regeneration in the Black Country. Indeed, it is considered that development of greenfield and Green Belt sites can very much compliment urban regeneration through the provision of a more varied form of development that will help diversify the housing stock and profile of residents in the wider area, which will assist to sustain and improve the vitality of existing communities. Further, as highlighted above, given the priority to significantly boost the delivery of housing greenfield and Green Belt sites should come forward for development as soon as practically possible. Given lead in and build out rates of larger sites, the land should be encouraged to be developed as soon as possible so to ensure the homes are delivered in the Plan period and the needs are met.
Question 31: Do you think that the right scale and form of funding is available to support the delivery of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If no, what alternative sources of funding or delivery mechanisms should be investigated?
6.11 When delivering greenfield/ Green Belt sites, there is an opportunity to deliver infrastructure to meet the needs arising from the proposal, which may have wider benefits for the local community. In addition, it is likely that the communities created by the Sustainable Urban Extensions will potentially be more affluent and share their wealth using local shops and services within the wider Black Country, which will contribute to more successful and prosperous communities.
7. REVIEW OF EXISTING CORE STRATEGY POLICIES & PROPOSALS
Housing Question 35: Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No; If no, please explain why
7.1 As identified above, it is important that a range of sites in different locations are identified to be in the best possible position of delivering the development requirements. In terms of presenting these sites in the Core Strategy, whilst it is useful to identify a housing trajectory, it is important that there is not a phasing policy as such that would prevent the delivery of housing, given the current housing crisis. As stated above, the delivery of housing on greenfield and Green Belt land will not compromise the delivery of urban regeneration as the development on the urban edge will complement and rejuvenate the environment in a different way.
7.2 In terms of the proposed level of discounting, it is considered that if the LPA adopt an approach to identify a further 20% of sites in accordance with the LPEG recommendations identified above, there would not necessarily be a need for the application of discounting in determining the overall level of supply. It is interesting to note that the level of discounting proposed by LPEG is suggested for all LPAs, not necessarily those which have experienced difficulty in delivery. It could therefore be argued that an increased buffer of 25% could be applied in order to take a cautious approach.
Question 36: Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 should be changed? Yes/No; If yes, what standards should be applied instead, for example should the minimum net density of 35 dwellings per hectare be increased to maximise brownfield housing delivery?
7.3 It is clear that the current accessibility and density standards outlined in the adopted Core Strategy were formulated in the context of the vast majority of development taking place on brownfield sites within the defined urban area. As reiterated throughout these representations, there is now a clear need for Green Belt release as part of the Local Plan Review to meet emerging, objectively assessed housing needs. We outline in further detail below why the adopted accessibility and densities would not be applicable to Green Belt sites, however would suggest that the current standards do not allow sufficient flexibility on brownfield sites. A blanket application of prescriptive accessibility and density standards across the Black Country, be it brownfield or greenfield, does not allow sufficient flexibility which take into account site specific characteristics. The Council should allow for greater flexibility when assessing accessibility and density standards, with a more pragmatic approach which allows appropriate assessment for site-specific characteristics and also an assessment of market demand which may vary significantly across the large Black Country area.
7.4 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF outlines how local authorities should set out their own approach towards density. It is suggested that the currently adopted approach does not allow for sufficient assessment of local characteristics. It is clear that the chosen approach must be reflective of local circumstances, including the matters outlined above as well as infrastructure and services available in the locality. It is advocated that a more flexible approach to density and accessibility standards is taken as part of the emerging Local Plan Review.
Question 37a: Do you think that the existing Policy HOU2 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why
7.5 In line with the comments above, it is suggested that the Council should assess each site on a case by case basis in terms of accessibility and density standards. This approach would suggest that the numerical baseline trigger of 15 homes or more will not always be appropriate or applicable, and as advocated throughout these representations it suggested that there should be a complete reassessment on accessibility and density standards as part of the emerging Local Plan Review.
Question 38: Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards are appropriate for green belt release locations? Yes/No; If no, what standards should be applied in these locations and why?
7.6 No, it is not considered that the current standards would be applicable to Green Belt release locations. The adopted standards are overly prescriptive, and as previously discussed were written in the context of brownfield land. Green Belt release sites have a completely different type of character, therefore consideration of accessibility and density standards in relation to these sites should be reflective of local character and site characteristics. The more suburban settings of Green Belt release land lends itself to lower densities which are more appropriate to the Green Belt setting, which typically deliver more family homes. The Council must provide robust evidence to test any forthcoming accessibility and density standards in relation to Green Belt release locations, which allows for a flexible and pragmatic approach.
Question 39: Do you think separate accessibility standards are needed for particular types of housing e.g. housing for the elderly or affordable housing (as occupiers may be less mobile and more dependent on public transport)? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
7.7 It is clear that separate accessibility standards will apply to particular types of housing such as affordable and for the elderly population, however in line with the sentiment expressed above, any forthcoming standards should be based on robust evidence and allow for sufficient flexibility to avoid any unnecessary constraints to development coming forward.
Question 40: Do you agree that the 2017 SHMA findings should be used to set general house type targets for the Plan period? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.8 A general and blanket application for house types across the Black Country should not be advanced as part of the Local Plan Review. Paragraph 50 is clear that local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends and market trends. It is therefore notable that the NPPF specifically highlights 'market trends' in this context, which acknowledges that the market must inform such decisions.
7.9 Whilst the 2017 SHMA does provide an assessment of demographic and market trends, it is notable that it looks at a wider area assessment and is focused at a higher level. This assessment therefore does not draw out sub-market trends, and cover smaller areas within the vast Black Country area. Again, a blanket policy of house type targets across the Black Country area would not allow for sufficient flexibility to assess each site on a site by site basis, taking into consideration local market trends and demand. The NPPF does not state that specific policies should be set to enforce that local demand is met. As such, it is considered that this should be left for the market to decide, as opposed to applying rigid and prescriptive house size standards.
7.10 It is suggested that the evidence presented in the SHMA should be put into the Plan as an informative and general guide, but should not feed into a specific policy requirement which outlines housing mix percentages that should be applied across the Black Country. A policy containing general house type targets could present as a significant constraint to the delivery of a site where there is no local market demand for this house type, which in turn would have a negative impact on achieving the necessary housing growth targets to be delivered in the Black Country over the Plan period.
Question 41a: Do you support the introduction of a policy approach towards self and custom build housing in the Core Strategy? Yes/No; If yes, would you support:
7.11 It is not considered that there is a policy need for the Core Strategy to address self and custom build housing in the emerging Review. Paragraph 6.32 indicates that there are only nine records on self and custom build registers in the Black Country. It is evident that that there is very limited demand in the Black Country, which is unsurprising given that self and custom build housing is often more popular in rural areas. Given the limited demand it is therefore not considered necessary to take a policy approach towards self and custom build housing within the Local Plan Review.
Question 41b: A target for each authority? Yes/No; Any further comments
7.12 Given that there is evidence of little market demand, it is not considered necessary for the Core Strategy to set targets for each of the Black Country authorities. If it was considered to be necessary as the Local Plan Review progresses, any targets being set should be formulated on the basis of robust evidence such as monitoring of the registers, to provide an indication of how many self-build homes will be needed.
Question 41c: A requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots? Yes/No; Any further comments?
7.13 There should not be a requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots. This can pose an unnecessary market constraint for large housebuilders when there may be limited or no market demand for self-build plots. Self and custom build plots are often unusual and unique in character, therefore would not be best suited to be located within a large housing development with more uniform house types. If deemed necessary, self and custom build housing should be allocated specific site allocations, as discussed below.
Question 41d: Another approach altogether? Yes/No; If yes, please specify.
7.14 If it is considered necessary for the Review to address self and custom build housing, this should be addressed by the Council's identifying and allocating specific plots for these uses. Identifying site-specific plots would ensure that the most appropriate and suitable locations for self and custom-build will be allocated, via the assessment of appropriate evidence and market demand. In addition, this might be more likely to be achieved on surplus publicly owned land.
Question 42: Do you agree that the annual affordable homes target should be increased to reflect the 2017 Black Country Strategic Housing Market Assessment? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.15 As a general principle, the notion of applying different affordable housing ratios to different parts of the Black Country, based on an understanding of needs and viability, is acceptable. Given that the Black Country represents a vast area, there will not be a uniform housing market, and there will be sub-market trends within this wider area. As such, a more flexible approach which assesses local housing market evidence on a case by case basis could be justified. That said, there is an inherent simplicity and attraction to a single rate figure, which is easy for the development industry to understand.
7.16 In terms of the annual affordable housing target, it is unclear how the Issues and Options document has calculated the figure of 832 homes per year. At paragraph 7.42 of the June 2017 SHMA Part Two- affordable housing document, it is stated that the total annual affordable housing need is 677 dwellings, which represents 19.8% of the annual projected household growth. This differs to paragraph 6.36 of the Issues and Options document, which states that the affordable housing target is 23.4% of total housing need or 832 homes per year. From paragraph 7.47 of the SHMA, it appears that this figure may have been calculated by adding the overall requirement of 16.6% of housing to be affordable rented and 6.7% shared ownership. Clarity is sought on how this figure has been calculated, and we reserve the right to comment further on this matter.
Question 43a: Do you think that the existing Policy HOU3 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.17 We have not undertaken detailed analysis of the findings and assumptions of the SHMA and affordable housing delivery matters, therefore would like to reserve the right to comment on this matter further. However, on face value, it appears to be a reasonable threshold and is not dissimilar to other locations.
Question 44a: Do you think that the affordable housing requirement for eligible sites in Question 43 should be kept at 25% of the total number of homes on the site? Yes /No; Any further comments?
7.18 Based on the current evidence, a blanket rate of 25% affordable housing would appear to be sound.
7.19 However, irrespective of the final rate, any amendments to the currently adopted affordable housing policy must continue to have a clause in it which stipulates that this requirement is subject to viability tests. Any revised affordable housing requirements will also need to carefully consider the implications of adopted Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regimes. Both Sandwell and Dudley Councils have adopted CIL Charging Schedules. These will have implications on viability, therefore if revised affordable housing targets are to progressed then these CIL tariffs will need to re-assessed and re-visited.
Question 44b: If no, should the percentage be increased to allow for the provision of affordable home ownership? Yes/No; If yes, what should the percentage be and why?
7.20 At paragraph 6.39 of the Issues and Options Paper, it is stated that options need to be explored to increase affordable housing delivery of private sites. One option would be to increase the overall affordable housing proportion, which would require developers to provide affordable home ownership products plus an appropriate proportion of other affordable tenures. This paragraph follows on from commentary relating to the Housing White Paper.
7.21 The Housing White Paper discusses Starter Homes at Chapter 4, and explains how the government intend to amend the NPPF to introduce a clear policy expectation that housing sites deliver a minimum of 10% affordable home ownership units. It is later stated that it will be for local areas to work with developers to agree an appropriate level of delivery of starter homes, alongside other affordable home ownership and rented tenures.
7.22 The policy position on Starter Homes is not yet fully clear, and has yet to be formally established through a formal amendment and update to the NPPF. Until the national policy position on Starter Homes has been made clear, it would be premature for the Core Strategy Review to suggest an uplift in the affordable housing requirement to include affordable home ownership such as Starter Homes. Any suggestion to uplift the affordable housing requirement to include Starter Homes should be reflective of the national policy position, as well as founded upon a robust evident base which dictates exactly what percentage this element should be of the overall affordable housing requirement.
Question 45: Should an increased affordable housing requirement be set for green belt release sites, to reflect the likely financial viability of these sites? Yes/No; If yes, what should this be.
7.23 The likely financial viability of Green Belt sites will vary across different areas of the Black Country, therefore any affordable housing requirements for Green Belt sites will need to be reflective of these circumstances. Any affordable housing targets for Green Belt sites should be based on robust evidence, and acknowledge that many sites may need to support and deliver other infrastructure requirements.
7.24 Ultimately, any affordable housing strategy will need to address the affordable housing need as well as the need for market housing. Bearing in mind that the SHMA confirms over 70% of homes required are for homes to be sold on the open market, any affordable housing policy must not dilute the delivery of these needs/requirements. A higher figure on Green Belt sites over and above a standard blanket figure would potentially do this.
Employment Question 49a: Is there still a need for existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.25 The Black Country is to be the subject of large levels of both employment and housing growth over the Plan period. These uses are very much inter-linked with one another, and will drive each other's need for growth. The Local Plan Review, in order to meet emerging employment and housing needs, must identify a significant number of specific sites for employment and housing uses. By planning proactively and identifying suitable sites for both employment land and housing land, this should reduce the pressures to manage the release of poorer quality employment land, which may not always be suitable for release. The Local Plan Review should also seek to undertake a further review of poorer quality employment land to make it available for other suitable uses, if it proves to no longer be viable for employment land use. This is in line with policy provisions of the NPPF, which at Paragraph 22 outlines that planning policies should avoid the long-term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose.
Question 50: Do you think that the Core Strategy should continue to set a target for the total employment land stock in Policy EMP1? Yes/No; Please explain why.
7.26 The continuation of setting a target for employment land stock would be supported. Policy EMP1 should make it clear that these are not maximum figures, to encourage further flexibility for additional growth.
Retail Question 59: Have all the appropriate centres within the Black Country been identified? Yes/No; If not, please specify additional centres
7.27 No comment
Question 61: In addition to para 4.33 of the current Core Strategy should the revised Core Strategy include criteria for the creation of new centres that might be needed as a result of any additional housing identified through the plan? Yes/No; Any further comments?
7.28 Criteria would be a useful policy tool to help assess the designation of new centres, and should be in line with previous methodologies used which set out clear thresholds.
Question 71: Should the Core Strategy set housing targets for the Town Centres?
7.29 Housing within Town Centres should be supported, in line with paragraph 23 of the NPPF which discusses the important role that residential development can play in ensuring the vitality of Town Centres. Any housing targets should be based on what sites are known to be readily available, suitable and viable for residential development. Market demand for housing in these areas will also need to be fully assessed. It is notable from the outcome of the 2017 SHMA that there is most demand for three bedroom properties (40%). The highest demand is therefore for family housing, and not for flats which are often the most popular within Town Centre locations. Any housing targets set for the Town Centre would therefore need to consider the findings of the SHMA, and be reflective of the fact that family housing is often more suitable for delivery on larger sites, including on sites which are currently located within the Green Belt.
Environment Question 99a: Do you think that national standards for housing development on water consumption should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.30 When referring to water consumption paragraph 6.1.52 of the Issues and Options document states that the Black Country does not currently lie in an area of serious water stress, therefore clear need may be difficult to demonstrate. This evidence suggests that there is limited or no need to introduce such a policy, therefore it is not considered that the Core Strategy Review should seek to introduce water consumption standards for housing development.
Question 99b: Do you think that national access standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.31 The introduction of any national access standards, with the Issues and Options document referring specifically to Lifetime Homes, again must be based on a robust evidence base which can demonstrate market demand. It is noted that Paragraph 50 of the NPPF states that planning authorities must plan for a mix of housing to meet a range of needs. In the same paragraph, it is later stated that these must be based on current and future market trends. If Lifetime Home standards are to be introduced these will therefore need to be based on robust evidence, to ensure that the standards are not overly onerous and prevent the delivery of other types of housing which have higher levels of market demand.
Question 99c: Do you think that national space standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.32 As reiterated throughout these representations, it is not considered that a blanket approach of prescriptive standards across the Black Country allows sufficient flexibility to assess local market and site considerations in an appropriate manner. Whilst it is recognised that space standards can be an important tool to ensure that high quality of homes are delivered, we agree with the sentiment expressed in the recent Housing White Paper. The Paper explains that the government are concerned that a one size fits all approach may not reflect the needs and aspirations of a wider range of households. The White Paper also states that the Government will be undertaking a review of the Nationally Described Space Standards. It is suggested that the Core Strategy Review should await the outcome of this national review of national space standards, to ensure compliance with national policy and to ensure that the most appropriate approach to space standards, if required, is taken.
Question 99d: Do you think that the standards should be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No; If yes, please explain how and why.
7.33 As discussed above, prescriptive standards do not always allow sufficient flexibility for local market needs, so we would not advocate a blanket approach of different standards to brownfield and greenfield sites.
Open Space, Sport and Recreation Question 102a: Do you support the proposed changes relating to open space, sport and recreation? Yes/No; If no, please explain
7.34 Paragraph 6.1.60 of the Issues and Options paper outlines how adopted Policy ENV6 creates the framework for open space policies at the local level. The Issues and Options paper outlines how this is in line with national guidance, and that it is proposed to retain this policy and update some references in the supporting text to reflect changing circumstances. It is agreed that the local level remains the appropriate place to set open space policies, and that Policy ENV6 should continue to endorse this approach.

8. CONCLUSION
8.1 Richborough Estates has acquired an interest in a number of sites either within the Black Country or within neighbouring authority areas that are geographically well related to the Major Urban Area. All sites are sustainably located adjacent to the existing urban area as demonstrated on the appended Site Location Plans.
8.2 These sites are promoted as suitable, deliverable and available options, subject to release from the Green Belt. The development of these sites would constitute sustainable development and would assist in meeting housing needs arising within the Black Country and the wider Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area.
8.3 Richborough Estates fully support the Black Country Authorities' decision to review the currently adopted Core Strategy, however wish to raise the following concerns:
* Whilst the OAN is generally appropriate as a starting point, a number of concerns have been identified with the SHMA and it is recommended that it is updated to address the issues raised. Further, evidence is awaited with regard to unmet need in the wider HMA. Once this has been concluded, the Black Country authorities can arrive at an appropriate dwelling requirement for the Black Country.
* It is acknowledged that the housing land supply in the Black Country has not yet been identified as the authorities need to undertake further work upon receiving the Call for Sites submissions. After which, the shortfall in housing supply can be confirmed.
* It is welcomed that the Black Country authorities acknowledge the need to remove land from the Green Belt to meet emerging development requirements and that a Green Belt Review is soon to be prepared.
* In terms of selecting sites for development, it is advised that a range of types sites, of different sizes, in different locations need to be identified to be in the best possible position to deliver the dwelling requirements.
* Land at: Pedmore Lane, Stourbrige; Sneyd Lane, Essington; and High Hill, Essington, represent appropriate locations for residential development as supported by the Call for Sites submissions.
8.4 Richborough Estates look forward to engaging with the Black Country Authorities and providing additional information, as required, to assist the Council in progressing the preparation of an up to date Local Plan.

see attachment

see attachment

Question 1: Do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies? Yes/No; If not, what do you think should be the scope of the review?
2.4 In response to Question 1 and whether it should be a partial review or not, whilst the existing strategy identifies the most sustainable locations for growth in the context of delivering development requirements identified by the Regional Strategy (RS), there is now a new and much bigger challenge ahead in meeting the arising needs for homes identified by the latest evidence and there is concern that the existing spatial strategy may not facilitate the delivery of these needs. The Black Country authorities, therefore, need to be mindful of this and not attempt to put "a square peg in a round hole".
2.5 It is our view that urban regeneration can be achieved whilst pursuing development on the urban edge. Indeed, the scale of housing need is so large that both must be encouraged in order to meet current and arising housing needs within the Black Country.
2.6 It is extremely important that in reviewing the Core Strategy it fully takes account of and facilitates the delivery of strategic economic plans, as recognised in paragraph 1.15. All too often these strategies are ignored and, accordingly, development plans could effectively frustrate economic growth from being realised.
2.7 In terms of the Plan period proposed in paragraph 1.17, whilst a 15-year time period from adoption is appropriate, there is concern that the preparation of plans is often delayed (due to reasons beyond the control of the LPAs) and it may be prudent to stretch the period further to prevent such an issue from occurring.
2.8 It is welcomed that the Issues and Options document recognises that it will not be possible to accommodate all future development needs within the urban area and that an examination of the potential for development land outside the existing urban area, which is effectively land within the Green Belt, will take place as part of the Core Strategy review process.
3. THE BLACK COUNTRY TODAY - THE EXISTING STRATEGY
3.1 As set out within this section, the delivery of both employment and housing land has not come forward as originally envisaged in part due to the after effects of the recession. Surplus employment land which might have been available for housing has not come forward due to a strengthening economy and local firms being more robust than anticipated. In addition, the range of locations available has not in all cases met with market expectations as to where people want to live.
3.2 In terms of the employment land, it is important that sufficient land is provided for new employment and that there is not an overreliance on land that is currently in use. It is impressive that despite generally poor economic performance local businesses have performed well. Should the economy significantly improve within the Plan period in line with LEP aspirations (considered later in this response), there is concern that it may become difficult to transfer a wide range of existing employment locations to housing allocations. It is appropriate, therefore, for the Council to ensure the evidence contained within the Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment is reviewed and updated regularly. This will enable the land supply to be responsive to arising needs and not rigidly be wedded to delivering commitments that are unlikely to be realised.
3.3 What is further emphasised by the analysis in this section is that urban regeneration cannot be delivered quickly and that there are a number of factors beyond the control of the Black Country authorities that may have implications for the delivery of the strategy. This further emphasises the need for a mix of types of sites (brownfield, brownfield compulsory purchase, greenfield and Green Belt) of different forms of development (high density, mid and low density family homes) in a variety of locations, which will maximise the opportunities to deliver a successful Local Plan.
3.4 Finally, in respect of the proposal to maintain 300 hectares of employment land that will become vacant by way of general churn over the Plan period. Whilst the principle is considered acceptable, there should be appropriate evidence to support the assumption.
3.5 Our experience is that there are employment sites that clients are looking to secure a residential allocation on that have not been identified thus far. In light of these changing circumstances, the Black Country authorities should ensure that the policy approach is flexible to allow sites in appropriate locations to be brought forward for housing throughout the Plan period and likewise, sites that have been allocated for housing but have not come forward should be removed from the supply.
4. THE STRATEGIC CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
4.1 It is welcomed that the Black Country authorities are updating their evidence base. Indeed, the adopted Core Strategy took the development requirements from the adopted Regional Strategy (RS), which has since been revoked and is unquestionably out of date. Since the RS was published there has been a number of population and household projections published showing increasing dwelling requirements in the Black Country, which were largely ignored and, therefore, it should come as no surprise that there is a significant increase in forming households.
4.2 In terms of the list of evidence either prepared or due to be completed, it appears to be sufficiently comprehensive.
4.3 A separate review of the Objectively Assessed Housing Need (OAHN) has been undertaken by Lichfields on behalf of Taylor Wimpey (Appendix 2) which identifies the following conclusions:
* 3,545 dpa equates to the 2014-based SNHP. With suitable adjustments to include an allowance for second/vacant homes; the latest 2016 MYE; and necessary adjustments being made to headship rates in the younger age categories, this would generate a need for 4,077 dpa. Factoring in long term migration rates would increase this further to 4,201 dpa (4,057 dpa without South Staffordshire). It is considered that this represents the suitable demographic starting point for the Black Country HMA.
* A modest worsening of some market signals and consistent under-delivery of housing in the Black Country HMA suggests the need to improve affordability to stabilise increasing house prices and high affordability ratios. This would justify an uplift to the figures over and above the level suggested by the demographic projections. The Practice Guidance23 states that this should be set at a level which could be reasonably expected to improve affordability. A modest 10% uplift is considered appropriate in this instance. Applying this level of uplift to the demographic starting point would indicate a minimum demographic OAHN of 4,622 dpa (4,462 dpa without South Staffordshire).
* The scale of affordable housing needs, when considered as a proportion of market housing delivery, implies higher levels of need over and above the OAHN figure for Dudley and South Staffordshire. It is considered that to make a meaningful contribution to addressing the level of affordable housing need identified by the SHMA (770 dpa), a further 10% uplift should be applied. This would increase the OAHN to 4,692 dpa (4,518 dpa without South Staffordshire); significantly above the SHMA's proposed OAHN of 3,824 dpa and the CD proposed target of 3,554 dpa.
* In addition to the Black Country HMA's OAHN there is a need to accommodate Birmingham's unmet housing need. The CD proposes to accommodate 3,000 dwellings of Birmingham's needs up to 2031. However, a proportionate 'fair share' approach based on the population distribution across the wider HMA, and accounting for fixed commitments made by Solihull, North Warwickshire and Stratford on Avon, suggests that the Black Country HMA should accommodate up to 20,931 dwellings for the period to 2031 (19,107 without South Staffordshire). This equates to an additional 1,047 dpa above the OAHN, giving a revised OAHN of 4,692 dpa to 5,473 dpa (4,518 dpa to 5,473 dpa without South Staffordshire).
4.4 In addition, consideration of the Housing Background Report is also contained in set out below. Taylor Wimpey's comments are as follows:
* Clearly a lot of work is yet to be done to determine what the housing land supply position is in the Black Country. Given that much of the existing evidence is based on the adopted Core Strategy, it is recognised that the SHLAAs across the four authorities will need to be updated, both in terms of revising the methodology and range of sites assessed, to reflect a potentially different approach to locating development.
* It is commendable that the Housing Background Report has examined existing sources of supply in an attempt to provide additional homes from sites within the urban area. There is concern, however, that by changing policies, for example, to increase the minimum density on sites has wider policy implications to take into account than simply increasing the number of homes.
* The Housing Background Report suggests a continued allowance for larger windfall sites. It is suggested that it is inappropriate to include an allowance for this source as there is no certainty that this land will come forward for development.
* Other sources, such as converting employment sites to residential sites, based on the evidence presented and feedback from the development industry, it is known that there are employment sites functioning well as employment sites but are to be converted to residential and other employment sites that are unoccupied and undesirable that are to be retained as employment sites. Clearly, there is a mismatch between employment land need and employment land supply. It is advised that the qualitative assessment of employment informs future land supply recommendations and allocations are revised where necessary.
4.5 As a result of the dwelling requirements generated by the SHMA and the land supply identified from the Housing Background Report, it is concluded that there in insufficient urban land to provide for the development requirements and that a Green Belt Review should be conducted. It is noted that scoping is underway and that the work is to be completed in mid-2018. It is hopeful that the development industry will be involved in defining the methodology of the work to ensure that it is conducted in a robust way.
4.6 Another very important piece of work to be taken into consideration will be the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA Strategic Growth Study. It is unclear at this stage what role the Black Country authorities will play in meeting the wider needs of Birmingham and, indeed, whether it can now contribute given that meeting the needs of the indigenous population will be a tall order. Further, there is uncertainty with regard to how far the study will go in identifying locations for growth and how this evidence will be taken forward in emerging Development Plans, particularly given that it is premature to the Green Belt Review for the wider Black Country area. It is our view that there are sites within the Green Belt that will provide sustainable locations for growth and that their removal will not compromise the purposes of the Green Belt and, accordingly it will remain purposeful and functional.
Question 2: Do you think that the key evidence set out in Table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If not, what further evidence is required and, if there are any particular issues that should be taken into account in considering development on any particular sites or in any particular areas, please provide details
4.7 It is considered that the evidence contained within Table 1 is comprehensive, however, as suggested above and below, a number of concerns have been highlighted and it is therefore suggested that these are addressed in order to improve the soundness of the next iteration of the Core Strategy Review.
4.8 It is welcomed that an updated qualitative assessment of employment land has been undertaken in order to identify if the sites are fit for purpose, alongside the quantitative employment land study. It has been identified that a number of employment land sites that have been suggested for residential land allocations remain in occupation as functioning employment sites. These sites should be removed from the housing land supply. Conversely, there are vacant employment land sites that have been marketed over a period of time where no market interest has been forthcoming and, therefore, it is recommended that these sites should be considered for housing delivery.
4.9 It is noted that Viability Studies are identified as evidence base documents that are still to be prepared. Whilst not specifically identified, it is recommended that affordable housing viability is a key matter that needs to be addressed as part of this evidence base to ensure the level suggested by the SHMA Part 2 is deliverable. If this is not the case, the delivery of both market and affordable housing could be compromised and prevent the successful delivery of any new strategy.
4.10 In respect of Green Belt, the two-stage approach of considering Green Belt, both locally and as part of the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA Strategic Growth Study, is supported by Taylor Wimpey.
4.11 Consideration of the Green Belt should identify Green Belt 'parcels' around the Black Country which do not fulfil Green Belt purposes as strongly as others. As part of this two-stage exercise, it will be important to have regard to proposals submitted through the call for sites process to ensure the parcels identified as fit for purpose.
Question 3: Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014-36 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.
4.12 In terms of the extent of the sub market, which includes the Black Country and South Staffordshire, this is considered to be appropriate. It is recognised and welcomed that the Black Country authorities and South Staffordshire have jointly undertaken a SHMA for the sub area, which facilitates the preparation of an Issues and Options Core Strategy Review. There is concern, however, that the remaining constituent authorities within the wider Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area have not taken part and there is a danger that housing need for the whole HMA may not entirely be comprehensively captured due to the different time periods covered by the separate studies. It is advised that a SHMA, consistent with the guidance in the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance, is prepared for the entire HMA over the same Plan period (as opposed to a housing needs study), which will properly consider all relevant factors in a consistent and comprehensive manner.
4.13 The dwelling requirements arrived at by the SHMA is generally appropriate in identifying the starting point for determining the dwelling requirement, however, it is suggested a further scenario should be tested to consider long term growth which includes balanced periods of economic prosperity and decline. There is concern that the economic growth scenarios contain potentially out of date employment forecasts and the methodology to determine appropriate dwelling requirements is not sufficiently robust to accurately determine the impact of forecasts based on existing circumstances. In addition, more aspirational job growth targets, such as those arising from the SEP, may not necessarily be appropriate for the Black Country (as discussed later in these representations).
4.14 In terms of providing an uplift for market signals, a 25% uplift for South Staffs is agreed to be appropriate. It is advised that dwelling requirements for the Black Country should not be reduced as a result of this and, accordingly, the application of such an uplift in South Staffordshire should not count towards meeting any unmet needs outside of the HMA as the main function is to provide slack or headroom within the housing market and prevent house prices from increasing at an accelerated rate, exacerbating issues of affordability.
4.15 We shortly await a consultation publication from central Government in relation to providing a standardised methodology for generating dwelling requirements. This is anticipated in Autumn 2017. The Black Country authorities will need to take account of any proposed national policy changes identified through the consultation paper. We reserve our position on this matter, until the full details and implications for the Back Country are known. It is considered that, whilst a standard methodology will be helpful in identifying a baseline dwelling requirement, the consideration of long term trends and economic forecasts cannot be carried out in a mathematical calculation outside a demographic/ economic model. In light of this, the SHMA prepared for the sub-area could remain useful as evidence to inform the review of the Black Country Core Strategy.
4.16 In terms of meeting the dwelling requirements, it is understood that the 'Call for Sites' consultation will inform an updated SHLAA, which will assess sites both within and outside the urban area to determine the maximum number of dwellings that can be realistically delivered within the Black Country over the proposed Plan period. The Housing Background Report that has been published as part of the evidence base for the Issues and Options Core Strategy Review has considered assumptions contained within the SHLAA based on adopted policies and considers changes to the policies to boost the delivery of housing on existing sites. Whilst it is a commendable that the Black Country authorities are exploring all potential options to boost housing on urban land, there are wider implications of doing so and accordingly, caution is expressed in response to a number of the identified approaches proposed.
4.17 As confirmed in paragraph 3.15, it is extremely important that the Black Country authorities 'firm up' the housing supply in order to ensure that there is sufficient provision to meet the dwelling requirements. It is also considered appropriate to provide an additional buffer of housing land supply to provide a contingency when sites are delayed. As explained earlier in the Issues and Options Report, sites providing a total of 3,000 homes have not come forward as anticipated. It is considered that additional supply is required to provide flexibility and minimise any durations within the Plan period where the housing trajectory would otherwise dip.
4.18 In terms of the extent of a buffer for housing land, the Local Plan Expert Group suggested that additional land, equivalent to delivering 20% of the overall dwelling requirement, is added to the supply, which will provide a contingency of land to be used as and when necessary during the Plan period. It is suggested that this additional land will help ensure the dwelling delivery targets and housing needs are met in a timely manner, which will reduce the opportunity for households to become concealed or shared.
4.19 It is also appropriate to ensure that, as well as identifying the right amount of land, there is sufficient variety in the types of sites (brownfield, greenfield, Green Belt) are identified, reflecting different sizes, in a range of locations. This variety in provision will allow the best opportunity for multiple sites to come forward at the same time without market constraint and hence ensuring delivery targets are met. In addition, this approach will also provide market choice to existing and arising households looking to move into a new home in the Black Country, which will have wider social benefits (i.e. allow families to live nearby one another and provide an opportunity to diversify existing communities through providing alternative homes to the existing housing stock).
4.20 Indeed, as previously documented in the adopted Core Strategy, it is considered that the ambition to retain the young and professional population within the Black Country should be maintained and that suitable and attractive housing and complementary environments are encouraged.
4.21 Finally, it is welcomed that the Black Country authorities have agreed to test the dwelling requirement figures on an ongoing basis. It is hoped that the suggested changes/alternative scenarios suggested above are implemented in order to ensure the evidence base is robust and the resultant policies and proposals soundly based.
Question 4: Do you consider the employment land requirement identified for the Black Country up to 2036 in the EDNA is appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.
4.22 The Core Strategy review intends to utilise the Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) for the Black Country, published in May 2017, to inform future employment land requirements. The EDNA uses forecasts produced as part of the West Midlands Combined Authority Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) to calculate long-term growth, noting that the 'Super SEP Economy+ Scenario' is the preferred aspirational scenario. This scenario assumes average annual growth in employment of 1.3% across the Combined Authority and presents an ambitious view of future growth in the area, with 500,000 jobs created between 2013 and 2030. The SEP Technical Appendix breaks down the job forecasts for the three Local Enterprise Partnerships that form the Combined Authority (Black Country; Coventry & Warwickshire; and Greater Birmingham & Solihull). Jobs growth in the Black Country LEP is forecast to be around 1.1% per annum, whilst it is forecast at 1.5% per annum in the other two LEP areas. This averages out at annual growth of approximately 1.3%. Using data from the Business Register & Employment Survey, published by the Office for National Statistics, it is possible to look at employment trends over the last five to six years (2009-15) and this analysis suggests that the growth rate used in the aspirational growth scenario may be too ambitious for the Back Country:
4.23 Between 2009 and 2015, total employment in the Black Country LEP increased from around 450,000 to approximately 453,000. This equates to average annual growth of 0.1%. Walsall (1.5% p.a.) and Sandwell (0.9% p.a.) experienced jobs growth, although Dudley (-1.1% p.a.) and Wolverhampton (-0.8%) both suffered a fall in employment.
4.24 By contrast, both the Coventry & Warwickshire and Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEPs saw total job numbers increase by 1.3% p.a. from 2009-13. A number of districts in these LEPs saw particularly strong growth over the period, notably Solihull and Lichfield in Greater Birmingham & Solihull, where employment grew by at least 3.0% on an annual basis.
4.25 Growth in the Black Country needs to be faster than in previous years and the new Core Strategy has a vital role to play in supporting this, however the analysis presented above suggests that the growth targets need to be lowered to better reflect the local economic climate. It is considered unlikely that an annual increase of 1.0% or more will happen in the area in the long-term, especially with the Coventry & Warwickshire and Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEPs capturing new job opportunities at a faster rate in recent years. Lowering the employment growth rate means the amount of employment floorspace needed would be lower. This would not reduce the demographically based housing targets for the area but it would potentially free up previously allocated employment sites for other uses such as residential. This would help the Black Country meet its future housing targets and ensure that it has enough homes for its future workforce to live in.
4.26 As identified in the supporting report and above, it is known that employment sites that had previously been identified for housing are still operational with businesses continuing to use the land and, conversely, there are sites allocated for employment that have been vacant and subsequently market, however, remain unoccupied, which could be transferred to a residential use. It is therefore recommended that the Councils ensure that updated EDNA qualitative review conclusions are taken into account and correct uses applied where appropriate.
Question 5: Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt Review? Yes/No; If not, what additional work do you think is necessary?
4.27 In respect of the Green Belt Review, on the basis of the evidence published setting out housing need and supply, it is agreed that it will be necessary to find sites outside of the existing urban area, which will require removing land from the Green Belt where it is appropriate to do so. This will provide an opportunity to identify strategic sites that can provide a significant amount of homes to contribute to meeting identified housing needs. It is considered that there are a number of locations whereby housing sites can be identified, without the purposes of the Green Belt being compromised, ensuring the function and integrity of the Green Belt will remain.
4.28 In addition, areas on the urban fringe have the potential to ensure new homes can be delivered in an established, well landscaped environment, which could be attractive to those young families and professionals that the Black Country authorities have had difficulty in retaining, often through out-migration to neighbouring Shire districts considered to represent more aspirational locations.
4.29 In terms of the process and methodology for undertaking a Green Belt Review, it is understood that the awaited Strategic Housing Needs Study (SHNS) will be accompanied by Strategic Green Belt Review across Greater Birmingham and that the Black Country authorities have been engaged in presenting potential opportunities. It is reassuring that this engagement between consultants and local planning authorities is taking place as there is a danger that logical locations fail to be identified due to a lack of understanding of environmental conditions and/ or local circumstances that are applicable to sites.
4.30 It is agreed and makes sense for the local planning authorities to conduct a Stage 2 Green Belt Assessment following the completion of the higher-level work. Any input on reviewing the draft methodology for the Stage 3 Green Belt Review would be welcomed.
Question 6: Do you agree that the key issues set out in Part 3 are the key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy Review? Yes/No; If not, what other key issues should be taken into account?
4.31 The key issues presented are considered to be relevant, however, there are a number of inconsistencies relating to matters identified above against the previous questions raised. These include:
* The need for the Core Strategy to continue to plan for a growing population
* The need to address the significant housing shortfall identified within the Black Country and the wider Housing Market Area, which will need to be considered through the Duty to Cooperate; and
* The urgency to look beyond the Growth Network in the short term in accommodating housing growth, which will inevitably require the release of land from the Green Belt to meet needs in the longer term.
5. REVIEWING THE STRATEGY TO MEET NEW CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
5.1 Question 7: Do you think that the Core Strategy vision and sustainability principles remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest?
5.2 In the main, the Core Strategy Vision and sustainability principles are considered to be appropriate, with exception to the principle of 'brownfield first'. It is understood that the NPPF, whilst it encourages an efficient use of land and for brown field land to be recycled, it does not suggest a sequential approach to development. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the development of greenfield land will compromise the development of brownfield land. Often the type of developers of the different land categories are different and, given the scale of the housing need, it is appropriate that the early delivery of housing is encouraged from all types of sites. In particular, the larger, potentially Green Belt, sites will have a longer lead in time due to the time it takes to plan for, determine and implement a comprehensive scheme. Indeed, a recent study entitled 'Start to Finish', prepared by NLP, supports this claim. When planning the housing trajectory for the Core Strategy, the larger sites should be planned in to come forward as soon as practically possible.
5.3 It is therefore suggested that the reference to 'putting brownfield first' is inappropriate and that it should be replaced by 'ensuring an efficient use of land to meet the identified housing needs', which encourages the recycling of land and recognises the contributions of greenfield/ Green Belt land to meeting housing delivery targets.
Question 8: Do you think that the Core Strategy spatial objectives remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest and how might these changes impact on individual Core Strategy policies?
5.4 Whilst the objectives outlined generally remain sound, there is concern that one of the NPPFs main priorities is absent. This is in relation to significantly boosting the supply of housing. It is suggested that an additional objective is added in order to ensure that meeting housing needs remains a priority within the Black Country. Once a preferred option is arrived at, spatial references as to where the housing growth will be delivered could be included (for example, meeting housing needs on urban (brownfield and greenfield) land and at extensions to the urban area).
5.5 Further, given the increased employment land requirements, the second objective relating to employment land being within the best locations within the Regeneration Corridors may no longer be appropriate. Indeed, as highlighted earlier, there is concern that there is a mismatch in land allocations, and it is appropriate for the Core Strategy review to ensure all employment sites are fit for purpose. This may conclude that employment opportunities should be identified on new land outside of the Regeneration Corridors. Should this be the case, the objective would be inappropriately worded.
Question 9: Do you agree that Policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the Growth Network? Yes/No; If not, what changes do you think should be made to Policies CSP1 and CSP2 in response to new challenges and opportunities?
5.6 It is agreed that the policies could remain, if the development requirements and related changes are made to ensure the policies are consistent with the overall strategy. The changes relate to both the quantum of development (homes, employment and retail space), the location of development (within and beyond the existing Regeneration Corridors) and the type of development (brownfield, greenfield and on land removed from the Green Belt). It is considered that references should be made to urban extensions (on land removed from the Green Belt) in Policy CSP2 specifically, to highlight the important contribution that such sites will make to meeting the development requirements of the Plan.
5.7 On a separate note, whilst a point mostly relating to the South Staffordshire Local Plan to which separate representations will be made, it is considered that the currently adopted approach to spatial distribution in South Staffordshire will need to be re-assessed. Given the huge housing requirements of the Black Country and the shared housing market between South Staffordshire and the Black Country, it is considered that suitable urban extension sites located within South Staffordshire District would be the logical and sensible locations to meet any remaining unmet housing need. In terms of the relevance of this point to the Black Country Review, it will be important for the Black Country authorities to collaborate with South Staffordshire on cross-boundary issues, and to identify suitable extension sites to the Black Country built area which fall within the planning jurisdiction of South Staffordshire District. It is welcomed that this approach is planned to be undertaken, by virtue of the forthcoming Green Belt Review which will be a joint exercise between the Black Country Authorities and South Staffordshire District.
Question 10: In continuing to promote growth within the Growth Network, is there a need to amend the boundaries of any of the Regeneration Corridors in the existing Core Strategy? Yes/No; If so, which boundaries and why?
5.8 No comment

Question 11a: Do you support Strategic Option 1A? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If no, do you support Option 1B? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If you support the release of further employment land for housing, what should the characteristics of these employment areas be?
5.9 Taylor Wimpey wishes to emphasise the importance of selecting the most appropriate approach, given this will be the basis for the site allocations which emerge through the Core Strategy review.
5.10 Whilst there are opportunities and challenges presented by both Option 1A and 1B, Taylor Wimpey supports Option 1A as the appropriate approach for meeting housing needs.
5.11 Option 1A is considered to be more appropriate for accommodating the growth needs of the Black Country over the Plan period to 2036. There are many opportunities provided by this option, particularly that it can provide for a sustainable pattern of development, close to the urban edge of existing settlements, and close to where needs arises in the Black Country. This option would significantly boost the supply of housing land and help to meet the significant current and future identified need.
5.12 Option 1B is rejected by Taylor Wimpey. In accordance with previous comments and concerns raised in these representations, there are sufficient not opportunities to meet housing needs on brownfield land. As Option 1B would not have sufficient capacity to accommodate all future growth needs, it is entirely inappropriate for this to be the sole basis for a new Development Plan.
5.13 Other key challenges posed by Option 1B include the difficulty of delivering housing on brownfield land given the costs associated with site assembly and land remediation and that delivery on larger sites may be towards the latter years of the Plan period.
5.14 Option 1A would provide a more immediate response to the housing growth crisis within the Black Country and would cater for more rapid delivery of suitable sites.
Question 11b: Are there any current employment areas that might be considered suitable for redevelopment to housing? Yes/No;
5.15 As highlighted previously, the key to understanding where the most appropriate employment/ housing locations are within the Growth Network and Corridors will be determined through a qualitative assessment of allocated employment sites. It is understood an updated assessment has been undertaken and such work, complete with responses to the Call for Sites consultation, will provide the Black Country authorities with evidence to determine the urban capacity for housing, which may include transferring some employment land to housing as well as housing land to employment. This work will then outline the number of dwellings to be accommodated beyond the existing Growth Network within the Green Belt.
5.16 It is welcomed that the Issues and Options Draft recognises the need to release Green Belt in all scenarios proposed.
Question 12a: Do you support Spatial Option H1? Yes/No; What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. ability to create a defensible new green belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services.
5.17 Please see response to Question 13a below.
Question 12b: Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.18 Please see response to Question 13a below.
Question 13a: Do you support Spatial Option H2? Yes/No; What should the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) be? e.g. minimum/ maximum size, mix of uses, mix of housing types, accessibility to other areas. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs, potential to support existing settlements / services, proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban regeneration.
5.19 Given the scale of the housing need, there is concern that the development requirements could not be met with just one of the suggested options presented and, therefore, a combination of both options will be necessary.
5.20 To be in the best possible position to significantly boost the amount of housing and meet the development requirements in the Black Country, in accordance with the NPPF, it is advised that opportunities to both round off edges of the Green Belt and Sustainable Urban Extensions are proposed in the Preferred Options Draft Core Strategy. As highlighted within the Issues and Options Draft, there are challenges and opportunities that come with both types of development, for example from a delivery perspective, smaller sites will come forward more quickly due to the nature of these being straight forward proposals (with limited infrastructure necessary and one or few land owners) and larger sites will ultimately take longer as they are more complex (with multiple land uses, infrastructure and land owners). This fact has been evidenced by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (now known as Lichfields) within their report 'Start to Finish' who concluded that the average planning approval period of schemes of 2,000+ dwellings is 6.1 years and the annual average build out rate is 161 dwellings per annum. These figures demonstrate the need to have a number of sites of different sizes and in different locations removed from the Green Belt. The report also identifies, with regard to housing delivery, that 50% more homes per annum are delivered on average on large greenfield sites than large brownfield sites. This is a significant benefit of including greenfield sites within the Preferred Option and will assist to secure its delivery.
5.21 In terms of the locations for removing land from the Green Belt, this should be informed by the Strategic Growth Study and a Black Country Review of the Green Belt. The more detailed study will provide an assessment of land parcels against the purposes of the Green Belt and is likely to recommend that those that compromise the purposes the least will be shortlisted for further consideration to be removed from the Green Belt. It is advised that the next stage should be a consideration of the shortlisted sites based on their suitability (i.e. are the neighbouring uses compatible, would any previous land uses prevent the development of the site), sustainability (i.e. proximity to/ ability to provide local services/ public transport/ employment opportunities) and deliverability (i.e. whether the site is available, being promoted for development, has no barriers to coming forward etc.) credentials. Clearly each site will fair differently against such criteria and the Call for Sites submission will assist the Council to come to a decision on the preferred sites. It is advised that the Black Country authorities should be mindful of the opportunities, through infrastructure and design, that development can bring that will enhance the diversity and character of a particular location.
5.22 In terms of the characteristics of a Sustainable Urban Extension, this is likely to vary depending on the location of each site. For example, some may be more urban and others suburban in their character and would, therefore, provide a different land use offer. It is important that each are considered on a site by site basis to ensure that any subsequent allocation delivers a successful development. It is important that the developer responsible for promoting the site helps to influence what is ultimately delivered. Often what is proposed on site has been informed by housing market intelligence undertaken by sales experts at development companies and, therefore, should be taken into account. Particularly given recent experience in the down turn in the apartment market, it is important that sites are allocated for the right type and mix of housing to ensure that it will be delivered, occupied and successful.
5.23 In the more suburban locations, it is suggested that Sustainable Urban Extensions should look to provide a different offer to potentially what exists in the Strategic Centres and Regeneration Corridors, such as a mix of larger and lower density homes, which will attract those households that in the past have migrated elsewhere. Given the emphasis on delivering more high density homes in the Strategic Centres, it is important that this housing mix is offset by more larger homes in appropriate locations. Otherwise, there is a concern that the Black Country will have a disproportional amount of small homes, which will further encourage more families to migrate elsewhere and not meet the aspiration to diversify the wider HMA.
Question 13b: What infrastructure do you think would be needed for different sizes of SUEs?
5.24 The type of infrastructure needed will vary depending on the different location and size of each site and must be compliant with paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations that requires planning obligations (which applies to most infrastructure) to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
5.25 With the above in mind, however, provision for open space (both formal and informal), local centre and potentially a primary school should be considered for sites in excess of 1,000 homes.
Question 13c: Are there any potential locations that should be considered for SUEs (please submit through the 'call for sites' form) and what infrastructure would be required to support these?
5.26 Land off Linthouse Lane, Wolverhampton, should be considered as an available, suitable and deliverable location for growth, that would represent a logical Sustainable Urban Extension to the Major Urban Area. Further information is set out at Chapter 8 to these representations to evidence the site as a 'sound' locations to meet current and future housing needs arising within the Black Country and wider Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area.
5.27 It should be noted that an emerging proposal makes an allowance for the provision of infrastructure and Taylor Wimpey is committed to further dialogue with the relevant authorities and infrastructure providers to determine the infrastructure required to support the delivery of this proposed SUE..
Question 13d: Do you think that the Core Strategy should set out detailed guidance for the development of SUEs (e.g. type and tenure of housing, specific infrastructure required), rather than details being determined at a local level in light of local policies? Yes/No; Any further comments?
5.28 For the reasons outlined above, relating to considering existing local circumstances and CIL Regulation requirements in respect of any charging schedule and planning obligation requirements, it is advised that detailed guidance for the development of SUEs should not be specified within the Black Country Core Strategy as each site will vary and deserves a more detailed consideration, alongside the developer, at the local level.
Question 14: Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Housing Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details
5.29 There are no other sustainable and deliverable options that we are aware of within the Black Country administrative boundary that are capable of delivering the housing spatial options.
Question 15a: If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the 'export' of housing growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA? Yes/No; What factors should be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities in neighbouring authorities e.g. proximity to the edge of the urban area, proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs?
5.30 If, once all realistically deliverable options have been considered, there remains an unmet need for housing it is agreed that the Black Country authorities should consider the possibility of exporting growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA. In particular, there are options to expand existing settlements that are close to the administrative boundary (for example, in both the Black Country and South Staffordshire) across authorities and, therefore, once all options within the HMA have been explored, these could help deliver growth in a sustainable and deliverable manner. These opportunities should be explored first prior to exporting further growth to other authorities within the HMA where there is less of a spatial connection.
Question 15b: Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.1 Land off Linthouse Lane, Wolverhampton, should be considered as an available, suitable and deliverable location for growth, that would represent a logical Sustainable Urban Extension to the Major Urban Area. Further information is set out at Chapter 8 to these representations to evidence the site as a 'sound' locations to meet current and future housing needs arising within the Black Country and wider Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area.
Question 15c: Do you think there are ways to ensure that exporting housing will meet the needs of people who would otherwise live in the Black Country? (e.g. transport improvements, provision of affordable housing, creation of employment opportunities) Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.2 It is important to consider a number of factors, including migration and travel to work patterns, which have been used to identify the extent of the HMA, to determine where households relocate to when leaving the Black Country in order to understand where and why those moves are taking place. Whilst planning can attempt to influence where people relocate to, there is no mechanism to guide or restrict people moving to or from certain locations. Once knowledge of movers can be understood can the planning system can attempt to recreate those attractive characteristics (homes that are more affordable, good public transport links, employment opportunities etc.) in locations where there is capacity for the homes to be delivered. It is advised that an additional analysis of the data, where necessary, is undertaken to provide the Black Country authorities with the relevant intelligence to deliver a successful strategy for growth outside the administrative area.
Question 16: Do you support Spatial Option E1? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access). If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.3 No comment.
Question 17: Do you support Spatial Option E2? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites e.g. quick motorway access, good sustainable transport links? If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.4 No comment
Question 18: Do you support Spatial Option E3? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access). If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.5 No comment.
Question 19a: Do you support Spatial Option E4? Yes/No; Any further comments?
5.6 No comment
Question 19b: Should any factors be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities? Yes/No; If yes, what should they be? (e.g. quick motorway access, strong transport links with the Black Country, good sustainable transport links with the Black Country) If you think there are any potential locations that should be considered, please provide details.
5.7 No comment.
Question 20: Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Employment Land Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.8 As previously outlined, there is concern that some of the employment sites currently identified are potentially not fit for purpose and others that are identified to be transferred to housing remain in employment occupation. In light of this mismatch, it is welcomed that an updated qualitative assessment has been undertaken and has informed how much employment land is has be found outside the urban area.
5.9 In terms of where the employment land should be located outside the urban area, as with housing, decisions should be based on the results of the Green Belt Review and the suitability, sustainability and deliverability of sites. For employment land sites, the suitability of a site may well include good transportation links for goods and people. The Call for Sites consultation will assist in putting forward suggestions for sites.
5.10 In terms of exporting employment land, it is considered that a proportionate amount of employment land to housing land exported should be made in an attempt to create more sustainable communities, that is unless there is good reason not to do so (i.e. due to improved public transport links between exported housing and employment sites). As evidenced in work supporting the Issues and Options Draft, whilst the Black Country is a sufficiently self-contained labour market there are strong linkages with Birmingham and South Staffordshire. This would therefore suggest that these locations should be first explored for transporting any employment land growth, however, given the land capacity issues in Birmingham it is more likely that South Staffordshire would be able to assist.
6. DELIVERING GROWTH - INFRASTRUCTURE & VIABILITY
Question 21: Do you think that changes are required to Policy DEL1 to ensure it covers both development within the existing urban area and any within the Green Belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.1 Policy DEL1 is considered to be sound on the basis that it is sufficiently flexible to deal with different circumstances on different sites across the Black Country, including sites that are to be removed from the Green Belt.
Question 22: Do you have evidence of a requirement for new social infrastructure to serve existing needs? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.
6.2 Taylor Wimpey is in consultation with the relevant authorities to explore any requirements for social infrastructure to serve any need relating to the development proposals.
Question 23: Do you have evidence of social infrastructure that is no longer needed and where the site could be reallocated for alternative uses? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.3 No comment.
Question 24: Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current social infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new housing? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.4 No comment.
Question 25: Will there be any new social infrastructure requirements necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, please explain the type and scale of any new social infrastructure required.
6.5 It is recognised that development of approximately 2,500 homes on land off Linthouse Lane will give rise to the need to deliver supporting infrastructure. Taylor Wimpey is committed to working with the relevant authorities and service providers to determine the capacity of existing infrastructure and determine the level of mitigatory provision necessary to support an increase in the population in this location. It is however important that each potential large new housing development is given independent consideration in respect of any infrastructure obligations, recognising that pressures will be dependent on location and existing infrastructure capacity.
Question 26: Do you have any evidence of a requirement for new physical infrastructure to serve existing needs? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.
6.6 No comment.
Question 27: Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current physical infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.7 No comment.
Question 28: Do you think physical infrastructure is necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, what type and scale of physical infrastructure is necessary?
6.8 As set out above, the need for infrastructure will vary for each site. Given such different circumstances, it would be inappropriate and potentially unlawful (as it would conflict with paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations) to incorporate a blanket policy requiring specific infrastructure on every large housing site.
Question 29: Do you think there are any other tools or interventions that could be used to ensure enough infrastructure is provided by developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.9 It is considered that the existing national framework (which includes the NPPF and CIL Regulations) provides a sufficient tool to ensure the relevant infrastructure is delivered. In addition, the CIL Charging Schedule allows authorities to raise funds for named infrastructure projects, which should be updated in line with any Core Strategy advanced. Therefore, it is considered that there are existing provisions to deliver infrastructure and no additional interventions through the Black Country Core Strategy Review are needed.
Question 30: Do you have any suggestions around how the strategy can be developed in order to maintain the urban regeneration focus of the Black Country while at the same time bringing forward sites in the green belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.10 There is no a need for any specific interventions, such as phasing, to protect the delivery of urban regeneration in the Black Country. Indeed, it is considered that development of greenfield and Green Belt sites can very much compliment urban regeneration through the provision of a more varied form of development that will help diversify the housing stock and profile of residents in the wider area, which will assist to sustain and improve the vitality of existing communities. Further, as highlighted above, given the priority to significantly boost the delivery of housing greenfield and Green Belt sites should come forward for development as soon as practically possible. Given lead in and build out rates of larger sites, the land should be encouraged to be developed as soon as possible so to ensure the homes are delivered in the Plan period and the needs are met.
Question 31: Do you think that the right scale and form of funding is available to support the delivery of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If no, what alternative sources of funding or delivery mechanisms should be investigated?
6.11 When delivering greenfield/ Green Belt sites, there is an opportunity to deliver infrastructure to meet the needs arising from the proposal, which may have wider benefits for the local community. In addition, it is likely that the communities created by the Sustainable Urban Extensions will potentially be more affluent and share their wealth using local shops and services within the wider Black Country, which will contribute to more successful and prosperous communities.
7. REVIEW OF EXISTING CORE STRATEGY POLICIES & PROPOSALS
Housing Question 35: Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No; If no, please explain why
7.1 As identified above, it is important that a range of sites in different locations are identified to be in the best possible position of delivering the development requirements. In terms of presenting these sites in the Core Strategy, whilst it is useful to identify a housing trajectory, it is important that there is not a phasing policy as such that would prevent the delivery of housing, given the current housing crisis. As stated above, the delivery of housing on greenfield and Green Belt land will not compromise the delivery of urban regeneration as the development on the urban edge will complement and rejuvenate the environment in a different way.
7.2 In terms of the proposed level of discounting, it is considered that if the LPA adopt an approach to identify a further 20% of sites in accordance with the LPEG recommendations identified above, there would not necessarily be a need for the application of discounting in determining the overall level of supply. It is interesting to note that the level of discounting proposed by LPEG is suggested for all LPAs, not necessarily those which have experienced difficulty in delivery. It could therefore be argued that an increased buffer of 25% could be applied in order to take a cautious approach.
Question 36: Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 should be changed? Yes/No; If yes, what standards should be applied instead, for example should the minimum net density of 35 dwellings per hectare be increased to maximise brownfield housing delivery?
7.3 It is clear that the current accessibility and density standards outlined in the adopted Core Strategy were formulated in the context of the vast majority of development taking place on brownfield sites within the defined urban area. As reiterated throughout these representations, there is now a clear need for Green Belt release as part of the Local Plan Review to meet emerging, objectively assessed housing needs. We outline in further detail below why the adopted accessibility and densities would not be applicable to Green Belt sites, however would suggest that the current standards do not allow sufficient flexibility on brownfield sites. A blanket application of prescriptive accessibility and density standards across the Black Country, be it brownfield or greenfield, does not allow sufficient flexibility which take into account site specific characteristics. The Council should allow for greater flexibility when assessing accessibility and density standards, with a more pragmatic approach which allows appropriate assessment for site-specific characteristics and also an assessment of market demand which may vary significantly across the large Black Country area.
7.4 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF outlines how local authorities should set out their own approach towards density. It is suggested that the currently adopted approach does not allow for sufficient assessment of local characteristics. It is clear that the chosen approach must be reflective of local circumstances, including the matters outlined above as well as infrastructure and services available in the locality. It is advocated that a more flexible approach to density and accessibility standards is taken as part of the emerging Local Plan Review.
Question 37a: Do you think that the existing Policy HOU2 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why
7.5 In line with the comments above, it is suggested that the Council should assess each site on a case by case basis in terms of accessibility and density standards. This approach would suggest that the numerical baseline trigger of 15 homes or more will not always be appropriate or applicable, and as advocated throughout these representations it suggested that there should be a complete reassessment on accessibility and density standards as part of the emerging Local Plan Review.
Question 38: Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards are appropriate for green belt release locations? Yes/No; If no, what standards should be applied in these locations and why?
7.6 No, it is not considered that the current standards would be applicable to Green Belt release locations. The adopted standards are overly prescriptive, and as previously discussed were written in the context of brownfield land. Green Belt release sites have a completely different type of character, therefore consideration of accessibility and density standards in relation to these sites should be reflective of local character and site characteristics. The more suburban settings of Green Belt release land lends itself to lower densities which are more appropriate to the Green Belt setting, which typically deliver more family homes. The Council must provide robust evidence to test any forthcoming accessibility and density standards in relation to Green Belt release locations, which allows for a flexible and pragmatic approach.
Question 39: Do you think separate accessibility standards are needed for particular types of housing e.g. housing for the elderly or affordable housing (as occupiers may be less mobile and more dependent on public transport)? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
7.7 It is clear that separate accessibility standards will apply to particular types of housing such as affordable and for the elderly population, however in line with the sentiment expressed above, any forthcoming standards should be based on robust evidence and allow for sufficient flexibility to avoid any unnecessary constraints to development coming forward.
Question 40: Do you agree that the 2017 SHMA findings should be used to set general house type targets for the Plan period? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.8 A general and blanket application for house types across the Black Country should not be advanced as part of the Local Plan Review. Paragraph 50 is clear that local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends and market trends. It is therefore notable that the NPPF specifically highlights 'market trends' in this context, which acknowledges that the market must inform such decisions.
7.9 Whilst the 2017 SHMA does provide an assessment of demographic and market trends, it is notable that it looks at a wider area assessment and is focused at a higher level. This assessment therefore does not draw out sub-market trends, and cover smaller areas within the vast Black Country area. Again, a blanket policy of house type targets across the Black Country area would not allow for sufficient flexibility to assess each site on a site by site basis, taking into consideration local market trends and demand. The NPPF does not state that specific policies should be set to enforce that local demand is met. As such, it is considered that this should be left for the market to decide, as opposed to applying rigid and prescriptive house size standards.
7.10 It is suggested that the evidence presented in the SHMA should be put into the Plan as an informative and general guide, but should not feed into a specific policy requirement which outlines housing mix percentages that should be applied across the Black Country. A policy containing general house type targets could present as a significant constraint to the delivery of a site where there is no local market demand for this house type, which in turn would have a negative impact on achieving the necessary housing growth targets to be delivered in the Black Country over the Plan period.
Question 41a: Do you support the introduction of a policy approach towards self and custom build housing in the Core Strategy? Yes/No; If yes, would you support:
7.11 It is not considered that there is a policy need for the Core Strategy to address self and custom build housing in the emerging Review. Paragraph 6.32 indicates that there are only nine records on self and custom build registers in the Black Country. It is evident that that there is very limited demand in the Black Country, which is unsurprising given that self and custom build housing is often more popular in rural areas. Given the limited demand it is therefore not considered necessary to take a policy approach towards self and custom build housing within the Local Plan Review.
Question 41b: A target for each authority? Yes/No; Any further comments
7.12 Given that there is evidence of little market demand, it is not considered necessary for the Core Strategy to set targets for each of the Black Country authorities. If it was considered to be necessary as the Local Plan Review progresses, any targets being set should be formulated on the basis of robust evidence such as monitoring of the registers, to provide an indication of how many self-build homes will be needed.
Question 41c: A requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots? Yes/No; Any further comments?
7.13 There should not be a requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots. This can pose an unnecessary market constraint for large housebuilders when there may be limited or no market demand for self-build plots. Self and custom build plots are often unusual and unique in character, therefore would not be best suited to be located within a large housing development with more uniform house types. If deemed necessary, self and custom build housing should be allocated specific site allocations, as discussed below.
Question 41d: Another approach altogether? Yes/No; If yes, please specify.
7.14 If it is considered necessary for the Review to address self and custom build housing, this should be addressed by the Council's identifying and allocating specific plots for these uses. Identifying site-specific plots would ensure that the most appropriate and suitable locations for self and custom-build will be allocated, via the assessment of appropriate evidence and market demand. In addition, this might be more likely to be achieved on surplus publicly owned land.
Question 42: Do you agree that the annual affordable homes target should be increased to reflect the 2017 Black Country Strategic Housing Market Assessment? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.15 As a general principle, the notion of applying different affordable housing ratios to different parts of the Black Country, based on an understanding of needs and viability, is acceptable. Given that the Black Country represents a vast area, there will not be a uniform housing market, and there will be sub-market trends within this wider area. As such, a more flexible approach which assesses local housing market evidence on a case by case basis could be justified. That said, there is an inherent simplicity and attraction to a single rate figure, which is easy for the development industry to understand.
7.16 In terms of the annual affordable housing target, it is unclear how the Issues and Options document has calculated the figure of 832 homes per year. At paragraph 7.42 of the June 2017 SHMA Part Two- affordable housing document, it is stated that the total annual affordable housing need is 677 dwellings, which represents 19.8% of the annual projected household growth. This differs to paragraph 6.36 of the Issues and Options document, which states that the affordable housing target is 23.4% of total housing need or 832 homes per year. From paragraph 7.47 of the SHMA, it appears that this figure may have been calculated by adding the overall requirement of 16.6% of housing to be affordable rented and 6.7% shared ownership. Clarity is sought on how this figure has been calculated, and we reserve the right to comment further on this matter.
Question 43a: Do you think that the existing Policy HOU3 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.17 We have not undertaken detailed analysis of the findings and assumptions of the SHMA and affordable housing delivery matters, therefore would like to reserve the right to comment on this matter further. However, on face value, it appears to be a reasonable threshold and is not dissimilar to other locations.
Question 44a: Do you think that the affordable housing requirement for eligible sites in Question 43 should be kept at 25% of the total number of homes on the site? Yes /No; Any further comments?
7.18 Based on the current evidence, a blanket rate of 25% affordable housing would appear to be sound.
7.19 However, irrespective of the final rate, any amendments to the currently adopted affordable housing policy must continue to have a clause in it which stipulates that this requirement is subject to viability tests. Any revised affordable housing requirements will also need to carefully consider the implications of adopted Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regimes. Both Sandwell and Dudley Councils have adopted CIL Charging Schedules. These will have implications on viability, therefore if revised affordable housing targets are to progressed then these CIL tariffs will need to re-assessed and re-visited.
Question 44b: If no, should the percentage be increased to allow for the provision of affordable home ownership? Yes/No; If yes, what should the percentage be and why?
7.20 At paragraph 6.39 of the Issues and Options Paper, it is stated that options need to be explored to increase affordable housing delivery of private sites. One option would be to increase the overall affordable housing proportion, which would require developers to provide affordable home ownership products plus an appropriate proportion of other affordable tenures. This paragraph follows on from commentary relating to the Housing White Paper.
7.21 The Housing White Paper discusses Starter Homes at Chapter 4, and explains how the government intend to amend the NPPF to introduce a clear policy expectation that housing sites deliver a minimum of 10% affordable home ownership units. It is later stated that it will be for local areas to work with developers to agree an appropriate level of delivery of starter homes, alongside other affordable home ownership and rented tenures.
7.22 The policy position on Starter Homes is not yet fully clear, and has yet to be formally established through a formal amendment and update to the NPPF. Until the national policy position on Starter Homes has been made clear, it would be premature for the Core Strategy Review to suggest an uplift in the affordable housing requirement to include affordable home ownership such as Starter Homes. Any suggestion to uplift the affordable housing requirement to include Starter Homes should be reflective of the national policy position, as well as founded upon a robust evident base which dictates exactly what percentage this element should be of the overall affordable housing requirement.
Question 45: Should an increased affordable housing requirement be set for green belt release sites, to reflect the likely financial viability of these sites? Yes/No; If yes, what should this be.
7.23 The likely financial viability of Green Belt sites will vary across different areas of the Black Country, therefore any affordable housing requirements for Green Belt sites will need to be reflective of these circumstances. Any affordable housing targets for Green Belt sites should be based on robust evidence, and acknowledge that many sites may need to support and deliver other infrastructure requirements.
7.24 Ultimately, any affordable housing strategy will need to address the affordable housing need as well as the need for market housing. Bearing in mind that the SHMA confirms over 70% of homes required are for homes to be sold on the open market, any affordable housing policy must not dilute the delivery of these needs/requirements. A higher figure on Green Belt sites over and above a standard blanket figure would potentially do this.
Employment Question 49a: Is there still a need for existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.25 The Black Country is to be the subject of large levels of both employment and housing growth over the Plan period. These uses are very much inter-linked with one another, and will drive each other's need for growth. The Local Plan Review, in order to meet emerging employment and housing needs, must identify a significant number of specific sites for employment and housing uses. By planning proactively and identifying suitable sites for both employment land and housing land, this should reduce the pressures to manage the release of poorer quality employment land, which may not always be suitable for release. The Local Plan Review should also seek to undertake a further review of poorer quality employment land to make it available for other suitable uses, if it proves to no longer be viable for employment land use. This is in line with policy provisions of the NPPF, which at Paragraph 22 outlines that planning policies should avoid the long-term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose.
Question 50: Do you think that the Core Strategy should continue to set a target for the total employment land stock in Policy EMP1? Yes/No; Please explain why.
7.26 The continuation of setting a target for employment land stock would be supported. Policy EMP1 should make it clear that these are not maximum figures, to encourage further flexibility for additional growth.
Retail Question 59: Have all the appropriate centres within the Black Country been identified? Yes/No; If not, please specify additional centres
7.27 No comment
Question 61: In addition to para 4.33 of the current Core Strategy should the revised Core Strategy include criteria for the creation of new centres that might be needed as a result of any additional housing identified through the plan? Yes/No; Any further comments?
7.28 Criteria would be a useful policy tool to help assess the designation of new centres, and should be in line with previous methodologies used which set out clear thresholds.
Question 71: Should the Core Strategy set housing targets for the Town Centres?
7.29 Housing within Town Centres should be supported, in line with paragraph 23 of the NPPF which discusses the important role that residential development can play in ensuring the vitality of Town Centres. Any housing targets should be based on what sites are known to be readily available, suitable and viable for residential development. Market demand for housing in these areas will also need to be fully assessed. It is notable from the outcome of the 2017 SHMA that there is most demand for three bedroom properties (40%). The highest demand is therefore for family housing, and not for flats which are often the most popular within Town Centre locations. Any housing targets set for the Town Centre would therefore need to consider the findings of the SHMA, and be reflective of the fact that family housing is often more suitable for delivery on larger sites, including on sites which are currently located within the Green Belt.
Environment Question 99a: Do you think that national standards for housing development on water consumption should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.30 When referring to water consumption paragraph 6.1.52 of the Issues and Options document states that the Black Country does not currently lie in an area of serious water stress, therefore clear need may be difficult to demonstrate. This evidence suggests that there is limited or no need to introduce such a policy, therefore it is not considered that the Core Strategy Review should seek to introduce water consumption standards for housing development.
Question 99b: Do you think that national access standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.31 The introduction of any national access standards, with the Issues and Options document referring specifically to Lifetime Homes, again must be based on a robust evidence base which can demonstrate market demand. It is noted that Paragraph 50 of the NPPF states that planning authorities must plan for a mix of housing to meet a range of needs. In the same paragraph, it is later stated that these must be based on current and future market trends. If Lifetime Home standards are to be introduced these will therefore need to be based on robust evidence, to ensure that the standards are not overly onerous and prevent the delivery of other types of housing which have higher levels of market demand.
Question 99c: Do you think that national space standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.32 As reiterated throughout these representations, it is not considered that a blanket approach of prescriptive standards across the Black Country allows sufficient flexibility to assess local market and site considerations in an appropriate manner. Whilst it is recognised that space standards can be an important tool to ensure that high quality of homes are delivered, we agree with the sentiment expressed in the recent Housing White Paper. The Paper explains that the government are concerned that a one size fits all approach may not reflect the needs and aspirations of a wider range of households. The White Paper also states that the Government will be undertaking a review of the Nationally Described Space Standards. It is suggested that the Core Strategy Review should await the outcome of this national review of national space standards, to ensure compliance with national policy and to ensure that the most appropriate approach to space standards, if required, is taken.
Question 99d: Do you think that the standards should be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No; If yes, please explain how and why.
7.33 As discussed above, prescriptive standards do not always allow sufficient flexibility for local market needs, so we would not advocate a blanket approach of different standards to brownfield and greenfield sites.
Open Space, Sport and Recreation Question 102a: Do you support the proposed changes relating to open space, sport and recreation? Yes/No; If no, please explain
7.34 Paragraph 6.1.60 of the Issues and Options paper outlines how adopted Policy ENV6 creates the framework for open space policies at the local level. The Issues and Options paper outlines how this is in line with national guidance, and that it is proposed to retain this policy and update some references in the supporting text to reflect changing circumstances. It is agreed that the local level remains the appropriate place to set open space policies, and that Policy ENV6 should continue to endorse this approach.
8. LAND OFF LINTHOUSE LANE, WOLVERHAMPTON
8.1 Taylor Wimpey is currently in control of the land to the north of Linthouse Lane and to the south of the dismantled railway line as shown on the Site Location Plan appended to this representation (Appendix 1).
8.2 This land represents a logical and sustainable extension to the existing Major Urban Area that provides an opportunity for delivering approximately 2,500 new homes with associated supporting infrastructure.
8.3 As demonstrated on the attached Site and Contextual Analysis Plan (Appendix 3) there are no significant physical barriers to development. There are, however, a number of physical features which serve to shape the development shown on the illustrative masterplan. These include the power lines which traverse the site in a north-west to south-east direction as well as the localised topography of the site, existing vegetation and public rights of way.
8.4 An illustrative masterplan (Appendix 4) has been prepared to introduce an initial proposal, providing an indication of how the site could be delivered and function as a natural sustainable, urban extension to Wolverhampton. This includes a 20m offset to the existing power lines, retention of the existing public rights of way and vegetation.
8.5 The Illustrative Masterplan identifies the following key features for land to the north of Linthouse Lane on land where Taylor Wimpey has secured an interest:
* Circa. 2,500 dwellings;
* Provision of land for the delivery of a number of potential community uses, including the provision of a new Primary School;
* Significant provision of Green Infrastructure to include a landscape mitigation strategy;
* Provision of SuDS through the delivery of new attenuation features; and
* A new enduring Green Belt boundary defined by the route of the dismantled railway line.
8.6 Further consideration of the site is set out below having regard to the Council's evidence base and the technical information prepared on behalf of Taylor Wimpey to date. This analysis concludes that land to the north of Linthouse Lane, within the control of Taylor Wimpey, is both suitable and deliverable and would represent a 'sound' location for meeting housing needs within the Black Country to 2036.
Landscape Sensitivity
8.7 Pegasus Environment has undertaken a Preliminary Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) to the determine the various landscape and visual constraints and opportunities of the wider site area and its context. This includes how these factors might serve to influence the potential for development in respect of an illustrative masterplan, and to influence an inherent landscape strategy as part of that masterplan.
8.8 The local landscape context comprises the wider pattern of agricultural land to the north, the topography of which is generally falling to the south towards the site, from a localised ridgeline between Essington and Westcroft. The site is located on gently sloping land between ca. +170m AOD and ca. +145m AOD. To the south, the existing settlement edge of Wolverhampton provides a townscape setting to the site and there are some near distance views into the site from this edge. Longer distance views towards the site are available from the southern edge of Essington and from higher ground to the north. The site is currently included as part of the West Midlands Green Belt. There are no landscape specific designations which cover the site or the immediate area.
8.9 The LVA identifies the key constraints and opportunities present in the site and surrounding landscape, and also the nature of the likely impacts that may arise from the proposed development. The LVA has analysed the baseline information in the context of the proposed development and has informed the proposals for landscape mitigation.
8.10 The development consequently incorporates a landscape mitigation strategy which will avoid, reduce or remedy adverse impacts. The development of the illustrative masterplan has been informed by an initial appraisal of the local landscape and visual constraints and opportunities. As such, the illustrative masterplan:
* Addresses near distance views from the edge of Essington across the Green Belt 'gap' between Essington and the edge of Wolverhampton, to maintain separation and deal with potential 'coalescence' issues;
* Includes a set-back of the development envelope away from the more elevated area of the site to the north-east;
* Utilises the well-vegetated dismantled railway line as a new Green Belt boundary;
* Provides a central linear open space in response to the offsets required to existing powerlines;
* Ensures an appropriate offset to the public right of way passing through the site along the existing hedgerow running north-south between Linthouse Lane and Blackhalve Lane; and
* Addresses longer distance views from the more elevated ground to the north by providing space for additional planting to strengthen the new Green Belt boundary in this location.
8.11 These over-arching principles set the framework for the areas which are proposed for development. Each of these can be subject to a greater level of detail regards masterplanning to identify constraints and opportunities at a more detailed level.
Ecology
8.12 Technical work has been undertaken by the Environmental Development Partnership Ltd to guide initial proposals on land off Linthouse Lane having regard to ecological sensitivities pertaining to the site, and identifying opportunities and constraints which may influence development.
8.13 The study confirmed that there are no statutorily designated nature conservation sites within the red line boundary shown at Appendix 1, however, there is a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) of European importance within 10km and two Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) of local importance within 2km.
8.14 Cannock Extension Canal SAC lies 6.3km northeast of the site and contains good water quality supporting floating water plantain and a diverse dragonfly and damselfly assemblage. Identified threats to the quality of this SAC that could occur are: pollution to groundwater, air pollution, air-borne pollutants and invasive non-native species.
8.15 Due to the spatial separation of the SAC from land off Linthouse Lane, it is unlikely that the proposed development would result in any of the identified threats to the SAC arising.
8.16 Rough Wood Chase LNR lies 2km east of the site. There is no ecological connectivity to this woodland and wetland area, being separated from land off Linthouse Lane by the M6. In addition, there is no hydrological connectivity. The proposal is not considered to have a potential impact on this LNR.
8.17 Waddens Brook LNR lies 2km south of land off Linthouse Lane and is regionally important for its great crested newt population and populations of other amphibians. As there is no hydrological or ecological connection netween the LNR and the site and the 2km of separation contains residential development and and Wyrley and Essington Canal, the proposal is not considered to have a potential impact on this LNR.
8.18 Land off Linthouse Lane is not covered by any non-statutory designations, however there are a number of non-statutory sites within 2km of the boundary. With the exception of Ashmore Lodge Biodiversity Alert Site (BAS) and Oakley Farm Potential Site of Importance (PSI), the nature of the designation of each site and the intervening distance means that a potential impact on them from the proposed development is unlikely.
8.19 Oakley Farm is designated due to the presence of field margins on historic maps. During the Extended Phase 2 Survey, no habitats of importance were noted, with the grassland and hedgerows being species poor. Therefore, in ecological terms, development in this area would not result in a significant loss in biodiversity either within the proposal site or within the PSI at Oakley Farm.
8.20 Ashmore Lodge is the dismantled railway which runs through the proposed site. A majority of this dismantled line is lined with trees with some parts covered in semi-improved grassland, providing a linear feature of local ecological value. The proposal offers the opportunity to include:
* Additional planting of native tree species;
* Creation of diverse wildflower meadows in open areas on the line and in the buffer to this line; and
* Removal of the giant hogweed by an experienced and qualified contractor.
8.21 If these opportunities were delivered, this would ensure no significant impacts would occur on any of the non-statutory designations within the p0otential zone of influence of the site and may result in an overall enhancement in line with local and national policy.
8.22 The remaining habitats within the site are predominantly of low intrinsic ecological value and present good opportunities for enhancement. They are not a constraint to development capacity in their own right, but have the potential to support protected species.
8.23 The possible presence of breeding birds, bats and great crested newts will need to be determined through further surveys, however, it is considered that, even if these protected species were found to be present, the populations could easily be safeguarded through sensitive scheme design and appropriate mitigation measures, and would not represent an 'in principle' constraint to development.
8.24 The initial technical work considers the site provides sufficient flexibility to ensure compliance with planning policy at all levels and to avoid 'significant harm' to biodiversity. Furthermore, a sensitively designed development incorporating appropriate mitigation and enhancement has the potential to deliver a significant net gain in biodiversity.
Heritage & Archaeology
8.25 An archaeological and heritage assessment has been prepared by Environmental Dimension Partnership Ltd to inform the proposal and to assess the potential effects arising from development within the site.
8.26 The report confirms that the site does not contain any designated heritage assets such as world heritage sites, scheduled monuments, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields or listed buildings, where there would be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation in situ and against development.
8.27 Only one potentially sensitive designated heritage asset has been identified outside of the site. This is the scheduled ancient monument of Moat Farm moated site, which lies some 160m north of the site, to the north of Blackhalve Lane. The assessment concluded that whilst there is some potential for a low level of harm to the heritage significance of the monument through the change to its setting, this would need to be weighed against the public benefit of the proposed development, with harm being further mitigated through the detailed design of any proposal.
8.28 There are no listed buildings or other designated heritage assets in close proximity to the site, although there are a number of listed and locally listed buildings in the wider area. The assessment concludes that no opportunity for harm to these or any other heritage assets outside of the site is predicted as a result of development at land off Linthouse Lane.
8.29 The archaeological potential of the site is assessed as being low. Should any below ground archaeological remains survive, there is no reason to believe or expect that the site will contain archaeology of such significance that it would require preservation in situ and therefore constrain development of the site. The site has been intensively farmed and if any below ground deposits are found, they are likely to be poorly preserved due to this agricultural activity, thereby reducing their significance.
Highways and Transportation
8.30 The site is well placed in terms of accessibility to existing pedestrian and public transport networks. The site is also located in close proximity to local facilities including shopping, medical services and education facilities.
8.31 There are good public transport links in the area, with 7 two way buses per hour operating along Linthouse Lane and Cannock Road on a weekday and Saturday and, 4 two way buses per hour operating on a Sunday.
8.32 Travel by rail is achievable as part of a multi-modal trip i.e. park and ride and cycle and ride. There are hourly services to local destinations including Birmingham New Street which provides onward travel opportunity to destinations across the country.
8.33 Access to the site can be achieved from the surrounding highway network, including Linthouse Lane, Blackhalve Lane, Cannock Road and Kitchen Lane. towards the south-western end of the site. There are a number of options and significant potential in terms of achieving safe, controlled and appropriate vehicular access to the site.
8.34 The Illustrative Masterplan identifies the following access points, but it should be noted that these are not necessarily exclusive locations:
* Proposed vehicular access via Linthouse Lane;
* Proposed vehicular access via Kitchen Lane;
* Proposed vehicular access via Blackhalve Lane;
* Proposed vehicular access via Cannock Road; and
* Proposed change of priority along Wood Hayes Road through the introduction of a new junction providing east west vehicular connectivity.
8.35 The illustrative masterplan also identifies the incorporation of existing Public Rights of Way (PRoW) within green corridors and proposes a network of new primary pedestrian routes maximising opportunities to create sustainable transport links (walking and cycling) to existing and potential new amenities and facilities.
8.36 In the longer term, to support a planning application, a Transport Assessment will be completed to assess impacts across the wider network, this will include speed survey work. The Transport Assessment will take account of any local committed development sites and any committed highway improvements. Suitable mitigation will be provided as part of the development proposals including any identified off site highway works and contributions.
Flood Risk and Drainage
8.37 The site lies in Flood Zone 1, the area at least risk from flooding.
8.38 Surface water drainage is proposed to be accommodated through the provision of a series of balancing ponds located around the site. The Illustrative Masterplan, included at Appendix 4, identifies the provision of balancing ponds through a network of green infrastructure.
Noise & Air Quality
8.39 Noise is unlikely to be a significant issue for the proposed development, however it is likely to have some impact on the form of any proposal. The northern boundary of the site lies adjacent to Blackhalve Lane (B4156), which also passes through part of the site. The eastern boundary is adjacent to Essington Rugby Club and Kitchen Lane. The southern boundary is adjacent to Linthouse Lane and the western boundary is bounded by properties off Woodent Road and Cannock Road.
8.40 It should be noted that landscaping would be included throughout the development in conjunction with carefully orientated and sited dwellings and associated gardens to minimise noise impact and preserve residential amenity.
8.41 Consequently, it is unlikely noise will have a significant adverse impact on the development of this site.
Ground Conditions
8.42 A full Phase 1 Environmental Risk Assessment has been completed for the site. The British Geological Map for the area indicates the site is underlain by superficial deposits of Glacial Till (variable but predominantly cohesive strata), which overlay solid strata that vary across the site.
8.43 The Phase I Environmental Risk Assessment for the site has been undertaken which identifies that it is unlikely that the site would be classified as contaminated land.
Utilities
8.44 Sewers are present in the vicinity of the site, including within the southern verge of Kitchen Lane, residential streets to the west of the site, within the eastern verge of Wood Hayes Road and along Blackhalve Lane. Accordingly, diversions are likely to be required in order to connect the site to the network. Whilst no sewers are located within the site, surface water outfalls into the watercourse along the western boundary are noted and a foul sewer is located to the west of the watercourse.
8.45 It is envisaged that foul flows from the land to the north of Blackhalve Lane could drain via gravity to an existing foul sewer located within Wood Hayes Road or to that which exists within Blackhalve Lane. Land to the south of Blackhalve Lane has the potential to drain via gravity to a number of the public foul sewers located within Linthouse Lane.
8.46 Similarly, water mains are present in the vicinity of the site, including the northern verge of Kitchen Lane, the northern verge of Linthouse Lane, the western verge of Wood Hayes Road and Blackhalve Lane and therefore diversions are likely to be required. No water mains are located within the development area.
8.47 Further discussion with Severn Trent Water will determine suitable connection points and capacity within the network.
8.48 Regarding electricity cables, gas mains and phone lines, no apparatus is present within the development area. As a result, diversions will again be required.
8.49 The capacity of all of these utilities need to be determined but are unlikely to present any issues of deliverability in respect of the site.
Agricultural Land Classification
8.50 Natural England's Land Classification Map for the West Midlands Region (ALC004) shows that the majority of the site comprises undefined Grade 3 'Good to Moderate' quality agricultural land. It is noted that the majority of land around Wolverhampton and the wider Black Country urban area also comprises Grade 2 and 3 agricultural land.
8.70 Whilst it is acknowledged that the loss of any best and most versatile land is undesirable, the majority of the site comprises Grade 3 land, and that the scale of development required to support needs arising within the Black Country will necessitate the loss of an amount of Grade 3 land or better under any reasonable option.
Suitability
8.71 The information set out above, read in conjunction with the appended illustrative masterplan, demonstrates that land off Linthouse Lane is a suitable site.
Deliverability
8.72 There is an agreement in place between the landowner and Taylor Wimpey to facilitate the development of the site.
8.73 A considerable amount of technical work has been undertaken to demonstrate the deliverability of land off Linthouse Lane. Taylor Wimpey can confirm that this work concludes that there are no physical or other constraints likely to render the site undeliverable within the proposed Plan period to 2036. The site is available now.
8.74 There are no existing uses that would require relocation and no issues of contamination that would require remediation. Many of the potential impacts of the development of the site can be mitigated through design and in many cases a positive outcome can be achieved, such as the strengthening of Wolverhampton's north eastern boundary through landscaping and utilisation of the dismantled railway line as an enduring new Green Belt boundary.
8.75 The site is deliverable and immediately available and, subject to allocation and removal of the land from the Green Belt, could start to deliver homes and associated community benefits within the next 5 years.
9. CONCLUSION
9.1 Taylor Wimpey is in control of land at Linthouse Lane, Wolverhampton. The land is sustainably located adjacent to the existing urban area of Wolverhampton.
9.2 Land off Linthouse Lane is promoted as a suitable, deliverable and available site, subject to its release from the Green Belt. The development of the site would constitute sustainable development.
9.3 Taylor Wimpey fully support the Black Country Authorities decision to review the currently adopted Core Strategy, however wish to raise the following concerns:
* The Black Country Core Strategy Review consultation document significantly underestimate the level of housing needed to support future population growth within the Black Country. An independent assessment of OAHN undertaken by Lichfields indicates that the actual need is 4,692 to 5,473 dpa. This is based upon the high levels of migration seen in the Black Country over the long term, the need to adjust household formation rates for younger age cohorts, and an uplift to reflect market signals on house prices, affordability and concealed families. Additionally, the OAHN range includes an allowance of up to 955 dpa to accommodate Birmingham's unmet need, based on the Black Country's proportionate 'fair share'.
* The scale of the housing required in the Black Country and GBHMA, along with the lack of sufficient land outwith the Green Belt constitutes the necessary 'exceptional circumstances' to justify that Green Belt land should be released for housing. The Council therefore needs to provide a sound evidence base which is robust in demonstrating the 'exceptional circumstances case'.
* Taylor Wimpey fully supports the carrying out of a Strategic Green Belt Review as this is necessary to ensure sufficient land is provided to meet the Black Country's objectively assessed housing needs over the course of the Plan period. This should include consideration of land within South Staffordshire District.
* Informed by this process, sufficient Green Belt land should be released and allocated for housing development to meet the needs of the Black Country and GBHMA.
* Given the huge housing requirements of the Black Country and the shared housing market between South Staffordshire and the Black Country, it is considered that suitable urban extension sites located within South Staffordshire District would be the logical and sensible locations to meet any remaining unmet housing need. In terms of the relevance of this point to the Black Country Review, it will be important for the Black Country authorities to collaborate with South Staffordshire on cross-boundary issues, and to identify suitable extension sites to the Black Country built area which fall within the planning jurisdiction of South Staffordshire District..
9.4 Taylor Wimpey look forward to engaging with the Black Country Authorities and providing additional information, as required, to assist the Council in progressing the preparation of an up to date Local Plan.

Question 1: Do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies? Yes/No; If not, what do you think should be the scope of the review?
2.4 In response to Question 1 and whether it should be a partial review or not, whilst the existing strategy identifies the most sustainable locations for growth in the context of delivering development requirements identified by the Regional Strategy (RS), there is now a new and much bigger challenge ahead in meeting the arising needs for homes identified by the latest evidence and there is concern that the existing spatial strategy may not facilitate the delivery of these needs. The Black Country authorities, therefore, need to be mindful of this and not attempt to put "a square peg in a round hole".
2.5 It is our view that urban regeneration can be achieved whilst pursuing development on the urban edge. Indeed, the scale of housing need is so large that both must be encouraged in order to meet current and arising housing needs within the Black Country.
2.6 It is extremely important that in reviewing the Core Strategy it fully takes account of and facilitates the delivery of strategic economic plans, as recognised in paragraph 1.15. All too often these strategies are ignored and, accordingly, development plans could effectively frustrate economic growth from being realised.
2.7 In terms of the Plan period proposed in paragraph 1.17, whilst a 15-year time period from adoption is appropriate, there is concern that the preparation of plans is often delayed (due to reasons beyond the control of the LPAs) and it may be prudent to stretch the period further to prevent such an issue from occurring.
2.8 It is welcomed that the Issues and Options document recognises that it will not be possible to accommodate all future development needs within the urban area and that an examination of the potential for development land outside the existing urban area, which is effectively land within the Green Belt, will take place as part of the Core Strategy review process.
3. THE BLACK COUNTRY TODAY - THE EXISTING STRATEGY
3.1 As set out within this section, the delivery of both employment and housing land has not come forward as originally envisaged in part due to the after effects of the recession. Surplus employment land which might have been available for housing has not come forward due to a strengthening economy and local firms being more robust than anticipated. In addition, the range of locations available has not in all cases met with market expectations as to where people want to live.
3.2 In terms of the employment land, it is important that sufficient land is provided for new employment and that there is not an overreliance on land that is currently in use. It is impressive that despite generally poor economic performance local businesses have performed well. Should the economy significantly improve within the Plan period in line with LEP aspirations (considered later in this response), there is concern that it may become difficult to transfer a wide range of existing employment locations to housing allocations. It is appropriate, therefore, for the Council to ensure the evidence contained within the Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment is reviewed and updated regularly. This will enable the land supply to be responsive to arising needs and not rigidly be wedded to delivering commitments that are unlikely to be realised.
3.3 What is further emphasised by the analysis in this section is that urban regeneration cannot be delivered quickly and that there are a number of factors beyond the control of the Black Country authorities that may have implications for the delivery of the strategy. This further emphasises the need for a mix of types of sites (brownfield, brownfield compulsory purchase, greenfield and Green Belt) of different forms of development (high density, mid and low density family homes) in a variety of locations, which will maximise the opportunities to deliver a successful Local Plan.
3.4 Finally, in respect of the proposal to maintain 300 hectares of employment land that will become vacant by way of general churn over the Plan period. Whilst the principle is considered acceptable, there should be appropriate evidence to support the assumption.
3.5 Our experience is that there are employment sites that clients are looking to secure a residential allocation on that have not been identified thus far. In light of these changing circumstances, the Black Country authorities should ensure that the policy approach is flexible to allow sites in appropriate locations to be brought forward for housing throughout the Plan period and likewise, sites that have been allocated for housing but have not come forward should be removed from the supply.
4. THE STRATEGIC CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
4.1 It is welcomed that the Black Country authorities are updating their evidence base. Indeed, the adopted Core Strategy took the development requirements from the adopted Regional Strategy (RS), which has since been revoked and is unquestionably out of date. Since the RS was published there has been a number of population and household projections published showing increasing dwelling requirements in the Black Country, which were largely ignored and, therefore, it should come as no surprise that there is a significant increase in forming households.
4.2 In terms of the list of evidence either prepared or due to be completed, it appears to be sufficiently comprehensive.
4.3 A separate review of the Objectively Assessed Housing Need (OAHN) has been undertaken by Lichfields on behalf of Taylor Wimpey (Appendix 2) which identifies the following conclusions:
* 3,545 dpa equates to the 2014-based SNHP. With suitable adjustments to include an allowance for second/vacant homes; the latest 2016 MYE; and necessary adjustments being made to headship rates in the younger age categories, this would generate a need for 4,077 dpa. Factoring in long term migration rates would increase this further to 4,201 dpa (4,057 dpa without South Staffordshire). It is considered that this represents the suitable demographic starting point for the Black Country HMA.
* A modest worsening of some market signals and consistent under-delivery of housing in the Black Country HMA suggests the need to improve affordability to stabilise increasing house prices and high affordability ratios. This would justify an uplift to the figures over and above the level suggested by the demographic projections. The Practice Guidance23 states that this should be set at a level which could be reasonably expected to improve affordability. A modest 10% uplift is considered appropriate in this instance. Applying this level of uplift to the demographic starting point would indicate a minimum demographic OAHN of 4,622 dpa (4,462 dpa without South Staffordshire).
* The scale of affordable housing needs, when considered as a proportion of market housing delivery, implies higher levels of need over and above the OAHN figure for Dudley and South Staffordshire. It is considered that to make a meaningful contribution to addressing the level of affordable housing need identified by the SHMA (770 dpa), a further 10% uplift should be applied. This would increase the OAHN to 4,692 dpa (4,518 dpa without South Staffordshire); significantly above the SHMA's proposed OAHN of 3,824 dpa and the CD proposed target of 3,554 dpa.
* In addition to the Black Country HMA's OAHN there is a need to accommodate Birmingham's unmet housing need. The CD proposes to accommodate 3,000 dwellings of Birmingham's needs up to 2031. However, a proportionate 'fair share' approach based on the population distribution across the wider HMA, and accounting for fixed commitments made by Solihull, North Warwickshire and Stratford on Avon, suggests that the Black Country HMA should accommodate up to 20,931 dwellings for the period to 2031 (19,107 without South Staffordshire). This equates to an additional 1,047 dpa above the OAHN, giving a revised OAHN of 4,692 dpa to 5,473 dpa (4,518 dpa to 5,473 dpa without South Staffordshire).
4.4 In addition, consideration of the Housing Background Report is also contained in set out below. Taylor Wimpey's comments are as follows:
* Clearly a lot of work is yet to be done to determine what the housing land supply position is in the Black Country. Given that much of the existing evidence is based on the adopted Core Strategy, it is recognised that the SHLAAs across the four authorities will need to be updated, both in terms of revising the methodology and range of sites assessed, to reflect a potentially different approach to locating development.
* It is commendable that the Housing Background Report has examined existing sources of supply in an attempt to provide additional homes from sites within the urban area. There is concern, however, that by changing policies, for example, to increase the minimum density on sites has wider policy implications to take into account than simply increasing the number of homes.
* The Housing Background Report suggests a continued allowance for larger windfall sites. It is suggested that it is inappropriate to include an allowance for this source as there is no certainty that this land will come forward for development.
* Other sources, such as converting employment sites to residential sites, based on the evidence presented and feedback from the development industry, it is known that there are employment sites functioning well as employment sites but are to be converted to residential and other employment sites that are unoccupied and undesirable that are to be retained as employment sites. Clearly, there is a mismatch between employment land need and employment land supply. It is advised that the qualitative assessment of employment informs future land supply recommendations and allocations are revised where necessary.
4.5 As a result of the dwelling requirements generated by the SHMA and the land supply identified from the Housing Background Report, it is concluded that there in insufficient urban land to provide for the development requirements and that a Green Belt Review should be conducted. It is noted that scoping is underway and that the work is to be completed in mid-2018. It is hopeful that the development industry will be involved in defining the methodology of the work to ensure that it is conducted in a robust way.
4.6 Another very important piece of work to be taken into consideration will be the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA Strategic Growth Study. It is unclear at this stage what role the Black Country authorities will play in meeting the wider needs of Birmingham and, indeed, whether it can now contribute given that meeting the needs of the indigenous population will be a tall order. Further, there is uncertainty with regard to how far the study will go in identifying locations for growth and how this evidence will be taken forward in emerging Development Plans, particularly given that it is premature to the Green Belt Review for the wider Black Country area. It is our view that there are sites within the Green Belt that will provide sustainable locations for growth and that their removal will not compromise the purposes of the Green Belt and, accordingly it will remain purposeful and functional.
Question 2: Do you think that the key evidence set out in Table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If not, what further evidence is required and, if there are any particular issues that should be taken into account in considering development on any particular sites or in any particular areas, please provide details
4.7 It is considered that the evidence contained within Table 1 is comprehensive, however, as suggested above and below, a number of concerns have been highlighted and it is therefore suggested that these are addressed in order to improve the soundness of the next iteration of the Core Strategy Review.
4.8 It is welcomed that an updated qualitative assessment of employment land has been undertaken in order to identify if the sites are fit for purpose, alongside the quantitative employment land study. It has been identified that a number of employment land sites that have been suggested for residential land allocations remain in occupation as functioning employment sites. These sites should be removed from the housing land supply. Conversely, there are vacant employment land sites that have been marketed over a period of time where no market interest has been forthcoming and, therefore, it is recommended that these sites should be considered for housing delivery.
4.9 It is noted that Viability Studies are identified as evidence base documents that are still to be prepared. Whilst not specifically identified, it is recommended that affordable housing viability is a key matter that needs to be addressed as part of this evidence base to ensure the level suggested by the SHMA Part 2 is deliverable. If this is not the case, the delivery of both market and affordable housing could be compromised and prevent the successful delivery of any new strategy.
4.10 In respect of Green Belt, the two-stage approach of considering Green Belt, both locally and as part of the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA Strategic Growth Study, is supported by Taylor Wimpey.
4.11 Consideration of the Green Belt should identify Green Belt 'parcels' around the Black Country which do not fulfil Green Belt purposes as strongly as others. As part of this two-stage exercise, it will be important to have regard to proposals submitted through the call for sites process to ensure the parcels identified as fit for purpose.
Question 3: Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014-36 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.
4.12 In terms of the extent of the sub market, which includes the Black Country and South Staffordshire, this is considered to be appropriate. It is recognised and welcomed that the Black Country authorities and South Staffordshire have jointly undertaken a SHMA for the sub area, which facilitates the preparation of an Issues and Options Core Strategy Review. There is concern, however, that the remaining constituent authorities within the wider Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area have not taken part and there is a danger that housing need for the whole HMA may not entirely be comprehensively captured due to the different time periods covered by the separate studies. It is advised that a SHMA, consistent with the guidance in the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance, is prepared for the entire HMA over the same Plan period (as opposed to a housing needs study), which will properly consider all relevant factors in a consistent and comprehensive manner.
4.13 The dwelling requirements arrived at by the SHMA is generally appropriate in identifying the starting point for determining the dwelling requirement, however, it is suggested a further scenario should be tested to consider long term growth which includes balanced periods of economic prosperity and decline. There is concern that the economic growth scenarios contain potentially out of date employment forecasts and the methodology to determine appropriate dwelling requirements is not sufficiently robust to accurately determine the impact of forecasts based on existing circumstances. In addition, more aspirational job growth targets, such as those arising from the SEP, may not necessarily be appropriate for the Black Country (as discussed later in these representations).
4.14 In terms of providing an uplift for market signals, a 25% uplift for South Staffs is agreed to be appropriate. It is advised that dwelling requirements for the Black Country should not be reduced as a result of this and, accordingly, the application of such an uplift in South Staffordshire should not count towards meeting any unmet needs outside of the HMA as the main function is to provide slack or headroom within the housing market and prevent house prices from increasing at an accelerated rate, exacerbating issues of affordability.
4.15 We shortly await a consultation publication from central Government in relation to providing a standardised methodology for generating dwelling requirements. This is anticipated in Autumn 2017. The Black Country authorities will need to take account of any proposed national policy changes identified through the consultation paper. We reserve our position on this matter, until the full details and implications for the Back Country are known. It is considered that, whilst a standard methodology will be helpful in identifying a baseline dwelling requirement, the consideration of long term trends and economic forecasts cannot be carried out in a mathematical calculation outside a demographic/ economic model. In light of this, the SHMA prepared for the sub-area could remain useful as evidence to inform the review of the Black Country Core Strategy.
4.16 In terms of meeting the dwelling requirements, it is understood that the 'Call for Sites' consultation will inform an updated SHLAA, which will assess sites both within and outside the urban area to determine the maximum number of dwellings that can be realistically delivered within the Black Country over the proposed Plan period. The Housing Background Report that has been published as part of the evidence base for the Issues and Options Core Strategy Review has considered assumptions contained within the SHLAA based on adopted policies and considers changes to the policies to boost the delivery of housing on existing sites. Whilst it is a commendable that the Black Country authorities are exploring all potential options to boost housing on urban land, there are wider implications of doing so and accordingly, caution is expressed in response to a number of the identified approaches proposed.
4.17 As confirmed in paragraph 3.15, it is extremely important that the Black Country authorities 'firm up' the housing supply in order to ensure that there is sufficient provision to meet the dwelling requirements. It is also considered appropriate to provide an additional buffer of housing land supply to provide a contingency when sites are delayed. As explained earlier in the Issues and Options Report, sites providing a total of 3,000 homes have not come forward as anticipated. It is considered that additional supply is required to provide flexibility and minimise any durations within the Plan period where the housing trajectory would otherwise dip.
4.18 In terms of the extent of a buffer for housing land, the Local Plan Expert Group suggested that additional land, equivalent to delivering 20% of the overall dwelling requirement, is added to the supply, which will provide a contingency of land to be used as and when necessary during the Plan period. It is suggested that this additional land will help ensure the dwelling delivery targets and housing needs are met in a timely manner, which will reduce the opportunity for households to become concealed or shared.
4.19 It is also appropriate to ensure that, as well as identifying the right amount of land, there is sufficient variety in the types of sites (brownfield, greenfield, Green Belt) are identified, reflecting different sizes, in a range of locations. This variety in provision will allow the best opportunity for multiple sites to come forward at the same time without market constraint and hence ensuring delivery targets are met. In addition, this approach will also provide market choice to existing and arising households looking to move into a new home in the Black Country, which will have wider social benefits (i.e. allow families to live nearby one another and provide an opportunity to diversify existing communities through providing alternative homes to the existing housing stock).
4.20 Indeed, as previously documented in the adopted Core Strategy, it is considered that the ambition to retain the young and professional population within the Black Country should be maintained and that suitable and attractive housing and complementary environments are encouraged.
4.21 Finally, it is welcomed that the Black Country authorities have agreed to test the dwelling requirement figures on an ongoing basis. It is hoped that the suggested changes/alternative scenarios suggested above are implemented in order to ensure the evidence base is robust and the resultant policies and proposals soundly based.
Question 4: Do you consider the employment land requirement identified for the Black Country up to 2036 in the EDNA is appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.
4.22 The Core Strategy review intends to utilise the Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) for the Black Country, published in May 2017, to inform future employment land requirements. The EDNA uses forecasts produced as part of the West Midlands Combined Authority Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) to calculate long-term growth, noting that the 'Super SEP Economy+ Scenario' is the preferred aspirational scenario. This scenario assumes average annual growth in employment of 1.3% across the Combined Authority and presents an ambitious view of future growth in the area, with 500,000 jobs created between 2013 and 2030. The SEP Technical Appendix breaks down the job forecasts for the three Local Enterprise Partnerships that form the Combined Authority (Black Country; Coventry & Warwickshire; and Greater Birmingham & Solihull). Jobs growth in the Black Country LEP is forecast to be around 1.1% per annum, whilst it is forecast at 1.5% per annum in the other two LEP areas. This averages out at annual growth of approximately 1.3%. Using data from the Business Register & Employment Survey, published by the Office for National Statistics, it is possible to look at employment trends over the last five to six years (2009-15) and this analysis suggests that the growth rate used in the aspirational growth scenario may be too ambitious for the Back Country:
4.23 Between 2009 and 2015, total employment in the Black Country LEP increased from around 450,000 to approximately 453,000. This equates to average annual growth of 0.1%. Walsall (1.5% p.a.) and Sandwell (0.9% p.a.) experienced jobs growth, although Dudley (-1.1% p.a.) and Wolverhampton (-0.8%) both suffered a fall in employment.
4.24 By contrast, both the Coventry & Warwickshire and Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEPs saw total job numbers increase by 1.3% p.a. from 2009-13. A number of districts in these LEPs saw particularly strong growth over the period, notably Solihull and Lichfield in Greater Birmingham & Solihull, where employment grew by at least 3.0% on an annual basis.
4.25 Growth in the Black Country needs to be faster than in previous years and the new Core Strategy has a vital role to play in supporting this, however the analysis presented above suggests that the growth targets need to be lowered to better reflect the local economic climate. It is considered unlikely that an annual increase of 1.0% or more will happen in the area in the long-term, especially with the Coventry & Warwickshire and Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEPs capturing new job opportunities at a faster rate in recent years. Lowering the employment growth rate means the amount of employment floorspace needed would be lower. This would not reduce the demographically based housing targets for the area but it would potentially free up previously allocated employment sites for other uses such as residential. This would help the Black Country meet its future housing targets and ensure that it has enough homes for its future workforce to live in.
4.26 As identified in the supporting report and above, it is known that employment sites that had previously been identified for housing are still operational with businesses continuing to use the land and, conversely, there are sites allocated for employment that have been vacant and subsequently market, however, remain unoccupied, which could be transferred to a residential use. It is therefore recommended that the Councils ensure that updated EDNA qualitative review conclusions are taken into account and correct uses applied where appropriate.
Question 5: Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt Review? Yes/No; If not, what additional work do you think is necessary?
4.27 In respect of the Green Belt Review, on the basis of the evidence published setting out housing need and supply, it is agreed that it will be necessary to find sites outside of the existing urban area, which will require removing land from the Green Belt where it is appropriate to do so. This will provide an opportunity to identify strategic sites that can provide a significant amount of homes to contribute to meeting identified housing needs. It is considered that there are a number of locations whereby housing sites can be identified, without the purposes of the Green Belt being compromised, ensuring the function and integrity of the Green Belt will remain.
4.28 In addition, areas on the urban fringe have the potential to ensure new homes can be delivered in an established, well landscaped environment, which could be attractive to those young families and professionals that the Black Country authorities have had difficulty in retaining, often through out-migration to neighbouring Shire districts considered to represent more aspirational locations.
4.29 In terms of the process and methodology for undertaking a Green Belt Review, it is understood that the awaited Strategic Housing Needs Study (SHNS) will be accompanied by Strategic Green Belt Review across Greater Birmingham and that the Black Country authorities have been engaged in presenting potential opportunities. It is reassuring that this engagement between consultants and local planning authorities is taking place as there is a danger that logical locations fail to be identified due to a lack of understanding of environmental conditions and/ or local circumstances that are applicable to sites.
4.30 It is agreed and makes sense for the local planning authorities to conduct a Stage 2 Green Belt Assessment following the completion of the higher-level work. Any input on reviewing the draft methodology for the Stage 3 Green Belt Review would be welcomed.
Question 6: Do you agree that the key issues set out in Part 3 are the key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy Review? Yes/No; If not, what other key issues should be taken into account?
4.31 The key issues presented are considered to be relevant, however, there are a number of inconsistencies relating to matters identified above against the previous questions raised. These include:
* The need for the Core Strategy to continue to plan for a growing population
* The need to address the significant housing shortfall identified within the Black Country and the wider Housing Market Area, which will need to be considered through the Duty to Cooperate; and
* The urgency to look beyond the Growth Network in the short term in accommodating housing growth, which will inevitably require the release of land from the Green Belt to meet needs in the longer term.
5. REVIEWING THE STRATEGY TO MEET NEW CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
5.1 Question 7: Do you think that the Core Strategy vision and sustainability principles remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest?
5.2 In the main, the Core Strategy Vision and sustainability principles are considered to be appropriate, with exception to the principle of 'brownfield first'. It is understood that the NPPF, whilst it encourages an efficient use of land and for brown field land to be recycled, it does not suggest a sequential approach to development. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the development of greenfield land will compromise the development of brownfield land. Often the type of developers of the different land categories are different and, given the scale of the housing need, it is appropriate that the early delivery of housing is encouraged from all types of sites. In particular, the larger, potentially Green Belt, sites will have a longer lead in time due to the time it takes to plan for, determine and implement a comprehensive scheme. Indeed, a recent study entitled 'Start to Finish', prepared by NLP, supports this claim. When planning the housing trajectory for the Core Strategy, the larger sites should be planned in to come forward as soon as practically possible.
5.3 It is therefore suggested that the reference to 'putting brownfield first' is inappropriate and that it should be replaced by 'ensuring an efficient use of land to meet the identified housing needs', which encourages the recycling of land and recognises the contributions of greenfield/ Green Belt land to meeting housing delivery targets.
Question 8: Do you think that the Core Strategy spatial objectives remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest and how might these changes impact on individual Core Strategy policies?
5.4 Whilst the objectives outlined generally remain sound, there is concern that one of the NPPFs main priorities is absent. This is in relation to significantly boosting the supply of housing. It is suggested that an additional objective is added in order to ensure that meeting housing needs remains a priority within the Black Country. Once a preferred option is arrived at, spatial references as to where the housing growth will be delivered could be included (for example, meeting housing needs on urban (brownfield and greenfield) land and at extensions to the urban area).
5.5 Further, given the increased employment land requirements, the second objective relating to employment land being within the best locations within the Regeneration Corridors may no longer be appropriate. Indeed, as highlighted earlier, there is concern that there is a mismatch in land allocations, and it is appropriate for the Core Strategy review to ensure all employment sites are fit for purpose. This may conclude that employment opportunities should be identified on new land outside of the Regeneration Corridors. Should this be the case, the objective would be inappropriately worded.
Question 9: Do you agree that Policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the Growth Network? Yes/No; If not, what changes do you think should be made to Policies CSP1 and CSP2 in response to new challenges and opportunities?
5.6 It is agreed that the policies could remain, if the development requirements and related changes are made to ensure the policies are consistent with the overall strategy. The changes relate to both the quantum of development (homes, employment and retail space), the location of development (within and beyond the existing Regeneration Corridors) and the type of development (brownfield, greenfield and on land removed from the Green Belt). It is considered that references should be made to urban extensions (on land removed from the Green Belt) in Policy CSP2 specifically, to highlight the important contribution that such sites will make to meeting the development requirements of the Plan.
5.7 On a separate note, whilst a point mostly relating to the South Staffordshire Local Plan to which separate representations will be made, it is considered that the currently adopted approach to spatial distribution in South Staffordshire will need to be re-assessed. Given the huge housing requirements of the Black Country and the shared housing market between South Staffordshire and the Black Country, it is considered that suitable urban extension sites located within South Staffordshire District would be the logical and sensible locations to meet any remaining unmet housing need. In terms of the relevance of this point to the Black Country Review, it will be important for the Black Country authorities to collaborate with South Staffordshire on cross-boundary issues, and to identify suitable extension sites to the Black Country built area which fall within the planning jurisdiction of South Staffordshire District. It is welcomed that this approach is planned to be undertaken, by virtue of the forthcoming Green Belt Review which will be a joint exercise between the Black Country Authorities and South Staffordshire District.
Question 10: In continuing to promote growth within the Growth Network, is there a need to amend the boundaries of any of the Regeneration Corridors in the existing Core Strategy? Yes/No; If so, which boundaries and why?
5.8 No comment

Question 11a: Do you support Strategic Option 1A? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If no, do you support Option 1B? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If you support the release of further employment land for housing, what should the characteristics of these employment areas be?
5.9 Taylor Wimpey wishes to emphasise the importance of selecting the most appropriate approach, given this will be the basis for the site allocations which emerge through the Core Strategy review.
5.10 Whilst there are opportunities and challenges presented by both Option 1A and 1B, Taylor Wimpey supports Option 1A as the appropriate approach for meeting housing needs.
5.11 Option 1A is considered to be more appropriate for accommodating the growth needs of the Black Country over the Plan period to 2036. There are many opportunities provided by this option, particularly that it can provide for a sustainable pattern of development, close to the urban edge of existing settlements, and close to where needs arises in the Black Country. This option would significantly boost the supply of housing land and help to meet the significant current and future identified need.
5.12 Option 1B is rejected by Taylor Wimpey. In accordance with previous comments and concerns raised in these representations, there are sufficient not opportunities to meet housing needs on brownfield land. As Option 1B would not have sufficient capacity to accommodate all future growth needs, it is entirely inappropriate for this to be the sole basis for a new Development Plan.
5.13 Other key challenges posed by Option 1B include the difficulty of delivering housing on brownfield land given the costs associated with site assembly and land remediation and that delivery on larger sites may be towards the latter years of the Plan period.
5.14 Option 1A would provide a more immediate response to the housing growth crisis within the Black Country and would cater for more rapid delivery of suitable sites.
Question 11b: Are there any current employment areas that might be considered suitable for redevelopment to housing? Yes/No;
5.15 As highlighted previously, the key to understanding where the most appropriate employment/ housing locations are within the Growth Network and Corridors will be determined through a qualitative assessment of allocated employment sites. It is understood an updated assessment has been undertaken and such work, complete with responses to the Call for Sites consultation, will provide the Black Country authorities with evidence to determine the urban capacity for housing, which may include transferring some employment land to housing as well as housing land to employment. This work will then outline the number of dwellings to be accommodated beyond the existing Growth Network within the Green Belt.
5.16 It is welcomed that the Issues and Options Draft recognises the need to release Green Belt in all scenarios proposed.
Question 12a: Do you support Spatial Option H1? Yes/No; What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. ability to create a defensible new green belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services.
5.17 Please see response to Question 13a below.
Question 12b: Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.18 Please see response to Question 13a below.
Question 13a: Do you support Spatial Option H2? Yes/No; What should the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) be? e.g. minimum/ maximum size, mix of uses, mix of housing types, accessibility to other areas. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs, potential to support existing settlements / services, proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban regeneration.
5.19 Given the scale of the housing need, there is concern that the development requirements could not be met with just one of the suggested options presented and, therefore, a combination of both options will be necessary.
5.20 To be in the best possible position to significantly boost the amount of housing and meet the development requirements in the Black Country, in accordance with the NPPF, it is advised that opportunities to both round off edges of the Green Belt and Sustainable Urban Extensions are proposed in the Preferred Options Draft Core Strategy. As highlighted within the Issues and Options Draft, there are challenges and opportunities that come with both types of development, for example from a delivery perspective, smaller sites will come forward more quickly due to the nature of these being straight forward proposals (with limited infrastructure necessary and one or few land owners) and larger sites will ultimately take longer as they are more complex (with multiple land uses, infrastructure and land owners). This fact has been evidenced by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (now known as Lichfields) within their report 'Start to Finish' who concluded that the average planning approval period of schemes of 2,000+ dwellings is 6.1 years and the annual average build out rate is 161 dwellings per annum. These figures demonstrate the need to have a number of sites of different sizes and in different locations removed from the Green Belt. The report also identifies, with regard to housing delivery, that 50% more homes per annum are delivered on average on large greenfield sites than large brownfield sites. This is a significant benefit of including greenfield sites within the Preferred Option and will assist to secure its delivery.
5.21 In terms of the locations for removing land from the Green Belt, this should be informed by the Strategic Growth Study and a Black Country Review of the Green Belt. The more detailed study will provide an assessment of land parcels against the purposes of the Green Belt and is likely to recommend that those that compromise the purposes the least will be shortlisted for further consideration to be removed from the Green Belt. It is advised that the next stage should be a consideration of the shortlisted sites based on their suitability (i.e. are the neighbouring uses compatible, would any previous land uses prevent the development of the site), sustainability (i.e. proximity to/ ability to provide local services/ public transport/ employment opportunities) and deliverability (i.e. whether the site is available, being promoted for development, has no barriers to coming forward etc.) credentials. Clearly each site will fair differently against such criteria and the Call for Sites submission will assist the Council to come to a decision on the preferred sites. It is advised that the Black Country authorities should be mindful of the opportunities, through infrastructure and design, that development can bring that will enhance the diversity and character of a particular location.
5.22 In terms of the characteristics of a Sustainable Urban Extension, this is likely to vary depending on the location of each site. For example, some may be more urban and others suburban in their character and would, therefore, provide a different land use offer. It is important that each are considered on a site by site basis to ensure that any subsequent allocation delivers a successful development. It is important that the developer responsible for promoting the site helps to influence what is ultimately delivered. Often what is proposed on site has been informed by housing market intelligence undertaken by sales experts at development companies and, therefore, should be taken into account. Particularly given recent experience in the down turn in the apartment market, it is important that sites are allocated for the right type and mix of housing to ensure that it will be delivered, occupied and successful.
5.23 In the more suburban locations, it is suggested that Sustainable Urban Extensions should look to provide a different offer to potentially what exists in the Strategic Centres and Regeneration Corridors, such as a mix of larger and lower density homes, which will attract those households that in the past have migrated elsewhere. Given the emphasis on delivering more high density homes in the Strategic Centres, it is important that this housing mix is offset by more larger homes in appropriate locations. Otherwise, there is a concern that the Black Country will have a disproportional amount of small homes, which will further encourage more families to migrate elsewhere and not meet the aspiration to diversify the wider HMA.
Question 13b: What infrastructure do you think would be needed for different sizes of SUEs?
5.24 The type of infrastructure needed will vary depending on the different location and size of each site and must be compliant with paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations that requires planning obligations (which applies to most infrastructure) to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
5.25 With the above in mind, however, provision for open space (both formal and informal), local centre and potentially a primary school should be considered for sites in excess of 1,000 homes.
Question 13c: Are there any potential locations that should be considered for SUEs (please submit through the 'call for sites' form) and what infrastructure would be required to support these?
5.26 Land off Linthouse Lane, Wolverhampton, should be considered as an available, suitable and deliverable location for growth, that would represent a logical Sustainable Urban Extension to the Major Urban Area. Further information is set out at Chapter 8 to these representations to evidence the site as a 'sound' locations to meet current and future housing needs arising within the Black Country and wider Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area.
5.27 It should be noted that an emerging proposal makes an allowance for the provision of infrastructure and Taylor Wimpey is committed to further dialogue with the relevant authorities and infrastructure providers to determine the infrastructure required to support the delivery of this proposed SUE..
Question 13d: Do you think that the Core Strategy should set out detailed guidance for the development of SUEs (e.g. type and tenure of housing, specific infrastructure required), rather than details being determined at a local level in light of local policies? Yes/No; Any further comments?
5.28 For the reasons outlined above, relating to considering existing local circumstances and CIL Regulation requirements in respect of any charging schedule and planning obligation requirements, it is advised that detailed guidance for the development of SUEs should not be specified within the Black Country Core Strategy as each site will vary and deserves a more detailed consideration, alongside the developer, at the local level.
Question 14: Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Housing Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details
5.29 There are no other sustainable and deliverable options that we are aware of within the Black Country administrative boundary that are capable of delivering the housing spatial options.
Question 15a: If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the 'export' of housing growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA? Yes/No; What factors should be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities in neighbouring authorities e.g. proximity to the edge of the urban area, proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs?
5.30 If, once all realistically deliverable options have been considered, there remains an unmet need for housing it is agreed that the Black Country authorities should consider the possibility of exporting growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA. In particular, there are options to expand existing settlements that are close to the administrative boundary (for example, in both the Black Country and South Staffordshire) across authorities and, therefore, once all options within the HMA have been explored, these could help deliver growth in a sustainable and deliverable manner. These opportunities should be explored first prior to exporting further growth to other authorities within the HMA where there is less of a spatial connection.
Question 15b: Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.1 Land off Linthouse Lane, Wolverhampton, should be considered as an available, suitable and deliverable location for growth, that would represent a logical Sustainable Urban Extension to the Major Urban Area. Further information is set out at Chapter 8 to these representations to evidence the site as a 'sound' locations to meet current and future housing needs arising within the Black Country and wider Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area.
Question 15c: Do you think there are ways to ensure that exporting housing will meet the needs of people who would otherwise live in the Black Country? (e.g. transport improvements, provision of affordable housing, creation of employment opportunities) Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.2 It is important to consider a number of factors, including migration and travel to work patterns, which have been used to identify the extent of the HMA, to determine where households relocate to when leaving the Black Country in order to understand where and why those moves are taking place. Whilst planning can attempt to influence where people relocate to, there is no mechanism to guide or restrict people moving to or from certain locations. Once knowledge of movers can be understood can the planning system can attempt to recreate those attractive characteristics (homes that are more affordable, good public transport links, employment opportunities etc.) in locations where there is capacity for the homes to be delivered. It is advised that an additional analysis of the data, where necessary, is undertaken to provide the Black Country authorities with the relevant intelligence to deliver a successful strategy for growth outside the administrative area.
Question 16: Do you support Spatial Option E1? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access). If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.3 No comment.
Question 17: Do you support Spatial Option E2? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites e.g. quick motorway access, good sustainable transport links? If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.4 No comment
Question 18: Do you support Spatial Option E3? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access). If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.5 No comment.
Question 19a: Do you support Spatial Option E4? Yes/No; Any further comments?
5.6 No comment
Question 19b: Should any factors be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities? Yes/No; If yes, what should they be? (e.g. quick motorway access, strong transport links with the Black Country, good sustainable transport links with the Black Country) If you think there are any potential locations that should be considered, please provide details.
5.7 No comment.
Question 20: Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Employment Land Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.8 As previously outlined, there is concern that some of the employment sites currently identified are potentially not fit for purpose and others that are identified to be transferred to housing remain in employment occupation. In light of this mismatch, it is welcomed that an updated qualitative assessment has been undertaken and has informed how much employment land is has be found outside the urban area.
5.9 In terms of where the employment land should be located outside the urban area, as with housing, decisions should be based on the results of the Green Belt Review and the suitability, sustainability and deliverability of sites. For employment land sites, the suitability of a site may well include good transportation links for goods and people. The Call for Sites consultation will assist in putting forward suggestions for sites.
5.10 In terms of exporting employment land, it is considered that a proportionate amount of employment land to housing land exported should be made in an attempt to create more sustainable communities, that is unless there is good reason not to do so (i.e. due to improved public transport links between exported housing and employment sites). As evidenced in work supporting the Issues and Options Draft, whilst the Black Country is a sufficiently self-contained labour market there are strong linkages with Birmingham and South Staffordshire. This would therefore suggest that these locations should be first explored for transporting any employment land growth, however, given the land capacity issues in Birmingham it is more likely that South Staffordshire would be able to assist.
6. DELIVERING GROWTH - INFRASTRUCTURE & VIABILITY
Question 21: Do you think that changes are required to Policy DEL1 to ensure it covers both development within the existing urban area and any within the Green Belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.1 Policy DEL1 is considered to be sound on the basis that it is sufficiently flexible to deal with different circumstances on different sites across the Black Country, including sites that are to be removed from the Green Belt.
Question 22: Do you have evidence of a requirement for new social infrastructure to serve existing needs? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.
6.2 Taylor Wimpey is in consultation with the relevant authorities to explore any requirements for social infrastructure to serve any need relating to the development proposals.
Question 23: Do you have evidence of social infrastructure that is no longer needed and where the site could be reallocated for alternative uses? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.3 No comment.
Question 24: Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current social infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new housing? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.4 No comment.
Question 25: Will there be any new social infrastructure requirements necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, please explain the type and scale of any new social infrastructure required.
6.5 It is recognised that development of approximately 2,500 homes on land off Linthouse Lane will give rise to the need to deliver supporting infrastructure. Taylor Wimpey is committed to working with the relevant authorities and service providers to determine the capacity of existing infrastructure and determine the level of mitigatory provision necessary to support an increase in the population in this location. It is however important that each potential large new housing development is given independent consideration in respect of any infrastructure obligations, recognising that pressures will be dependent on location and existing infrastructure capacity.
Question 26: Do you have any evidence of a requirement for new physical infrastructure to serve existing needs? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.
6.6 No comment.
Question 27: Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current physical infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.7 No comment.
Question 28: Do you think physical infrastructure is necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, what type and scale of physical infrastructure is necessary?
6.8 As set out above, the need for infrastructure will vary for each site. Given such different circumstances, it would be inappropriate and potentially unlawful (as it would conflict with paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations) to incorporate a blanket policy requiring specific infrastructure on every large housing site.
Question 29: Do you think there are any other tools or interventions that could be used to ensure enough infrastructure is provided by developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.9 It is considered that the existing national framework (which includes the NPPF and CIL Regulations) provides a sufficient tool to ensure the relevant infrastructure is delivered. In addition, the CIL Charging Schedule allows authorities to raise funds for named infrastructure projects, which should be updated in line with any Core Strategy advanced. Therefore, it is considered that there are existing provisions to deliver infrastructure and no additional interventions through the Black Country Core Strategy Review are needed.
Question 30: Do you have any suggestions around how the strategy can be developed in order to maintain the urban regeneration focus of the Black Country while at the same time bringing forward sites in the green belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.10 There is no a need for any specific interventions, such as phasing, to protect the delivery of urban regeneration in the Black Country. Indeed, it is considered that development of greenfield and Green Belt sites can very much compliment urban regeneration through the provision of a more varied form of development that will help diversify the housing stock and profile of residents in the wider area, which will assist to sustain and improve the vitality of existing communities. Further, as highlighted above, given the priority to significantly boost the delivery of housing greenfield and Green Belt sites should come forward for development as soon as practically possible. Given lead in and build out rates of larger sites, the land should be encouraged to be developed as soon as possible so to ensure the homes are delivered in the Plan period and the needs are met.
Question 31: Do you think that the right scale and form of funding is available to support the delivery of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If no, what alternative sources of funding or delivery mechanisms should be investigated?
6.11 When delivering greenfield/ Green Belt sites, there is an opportunity to deliver infrastructure to meet the needs arising from the proposal, which may have wider benefits for the local community. In addition, it is likely that the communities created by the Sustainable Urban Extensions will potentially be more affluent and share their wealth using local shops and services within the wider Black Country, which will contribute to more successful and prosperous communities.
7. REVIEW OF EXISTING CORE STRATEGY POLICIES & PROPOSALS
Housing Question 35: Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No; If no, please explain why
7.1 As identified above, it is important that a range of sites in different locations are identified to be in the best possible position of delivering the development requirements. In terms of presenting these sites in the Core Strategy, whilst it is useful to identify a housing trajectory, it is important that there is not a phasing policy as such that would prevent the delivery of housing, given the current housing crisis. As stated above, the delivery of housing on greenfield and Green Belt land will not compromise the delivery of urban regeneration as the development on the urban edge will complement and rejuvenate the environment in a different way.
7.2 In terms of the proposed level of discounting, it is considered that if the LPA adopt an approach to identify a further 20% of sites in accordance with the LPEG recommendations identified above, there would not necessarily be a need for the application of discounting in determining the overall level of supply. It is interesting to note that the level of discounting proposed by LPEG is suggested for all LPAs, not necessarily those which have experienced difficulty in delivery. It could therefore be argued that an increased buffer of 25% could be applied in order to take a cautious approach.
Question 36: Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 should be changed? Yes/No; If yes, what standards should be applied instead, for example should the minimum net density of 35 dwellings per hectare be increased to maximise brownfield housing delivery?
7.3 It is clear that the current accessibility and density standards outlined in the adopted Core Strategy were formulated in the context of the vast majority of development taking place on brownfield sites within the defined urban area. As reiterated throughout these representations, there is now a clear need for Green Belt release as part of the Local Plan Review to meet emerging, objectively assessed housing needs. We outline in further detail below why the adopted accessibility and densities would not be applicable to Green Belt sites, however would suggest that the current standards do not allow sufficient flexibility on brownfield sites. A blanket application of prescriptive accessibility and density standards across the Black Country, be it brownfield or greenfield, does not allow sufficient flexibility which take into account site specific characteristics. The Council should allow for greater flexibility when assessing accessibility and density standards, with a more pragmatic approach which allows appropriate assessment for site-specific characteristics and also an assessment of market demand which may vary significantly across the large Black Country area.
7.4 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF outlines how local authorities should set out their own approach towards density. It is suggested that the currently adopted approach does not allow for sufficient assessment of local characteristics. It is clear that the chosen approach must be reflective of local circumstances, including the matters outlined above as well as infrastructure and services available in the locality. It is advocated that a more flexible approach to density and accessibility standards is taken as part of the emerging Local Plan Review.
Question 37a: Do you think that the existing Policy HOU2 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why
7.5 In line with the comments above, it is suggested that the Council should assess each site on a case by case basis in terms of accessibility and density standards. This approach would suggest that the numerical baseline trigger of 15 homes or more will not always be appropriate or applicable, and as advocated throughout these representations it suggested that there should be a complete reassessment on accessibility and density standards as part of the emerging Local Plan Review.
Question 38: Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards are appropriate for green belt release locations? Yes/No; If no, what standards should be applied in these locations and why?
7.6 No, it is not considered that the current standards would be applicable to Green Belt release locations. The adopted standards are overly prescriptive, and as previously discussed were written in the context of brownfield land. Green Belt release sites have a completely different type of character, therefore consideration of accessibility and density standards in relation to these sites should be reflective of local character and site characteristics. The more suburban settings of Green Belt release land lends itself to lower densities which are more appropriate to the Green Belt setting, which typically deliver more family homes. The Council must provide robust evidence to test any forthcoming accessibility and density standards in relation to Green Belt release locations, which allows for a flexible and pragmatic approach.
Question 39: Do you think separate accessibility standards are needed for particular types of housing e.g. housing for the elderly or affordable housing (as occupiers may be less mobile and more dependent on public transport)? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
7.7 It is clear that separate accessibility standards will apply to particular types of housing such as affordable and for the elderly population, however in line with the sentiment expressed above, any forthcoming standards should be based on robust evidence and allow for sufficient flexibility to avoid any unnecessary constraints to development coming forward.
Question 40: Do you agree that the 2017 SHMA findings should be used to set general house type targets for the Plan period? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.8 A general and blanket application for house types across the Black Country should not be advanced as part of the Local Plan Review. Paragraph 50 is clear that local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends and market trends. It is therefore notable that the NPPF specifically highlights 'market trends' in this context, which acknowledges that the market must inform such decisions.
7.9 Whilst the 2017 SHMA does provide an assessment of demographic and market trends, it is notable that it looks at a wider area assessment and is focused at a higher level. This assessment therefore does not draw out sub-market trends, and cover smaller areas within the vast Black Country area. Again, a blanket policy of house type targets across the Black Country area would not allow for sufficient flexibility to assess each site on a site by site basis, taking into consideration local market trends and demand. The NPPF does not state that specific policies should be set to enforce that local demand is met. As such, it is considered that this should be left for the market to decide, as opposed to applying rigid and prescriptive house size standards.
7.10 It is suggested that the evidence presented in the SHMA should be put into the Plan as an informative and general guide, but should not feed into a specific policy requirement which outlines housing mix percentages that should be applied across the Black Country. A policy containing general house type targets could present as a significant constraint to the delivery of a site where there is no local market demand for this house type, which in turn would have a negative impact on achieving the necessary housing growth targets to be delivered in the Black Country over the Plan period.
Question 41a: Do you support the introduction of a policy approach towards self and custom build housing in the Core Strategy? Yes/No; If yes, would you support:
7.11 It is not considered that there is a policy need for the Core Strategy to address self and custom build housing in the emerging Review. Paragraph 6.32 indicates that there are only nine records on self and custom build registers in the Black Country. It is evident that that there is very limited demand in the Black Country, which is unsurprising given that self and custom build housing is often more popular in rural areas. Given the limited demand it is therefore not considered necessary to take a policy approach towards self and custom build housing within the Local Plan Review.
Question 41b: A target for each authority? Yes/No; Any further comments
7.12 Given that there is evidence of little market demand, it is not considered necessary for the Core Strategy to set targets for each of the Black Country authorities. If it was considered to be necessary as the Local Plan Review progresses, any targets being set should be formulated on the basis of robust evidence such as monitoring of the registers, to provide an indication of how many self-build homes will be needed.
Question 41c: A requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots? Yes/No; Any further comments?
7.13 There should not be a requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots. This can pose an unnecessary market constraint for large housebuilders when there may be limited or no market demand for self-build plots. Self and custom build plots are often unusual and unique in character, therefore would not be best suited to be located within a large housing development with more uniform house types. If deemed necessary, self and custom build housing should be allocated specific site allocations, as discussed below.
Question 41d: Another approach altogether? Yes/No; If yes, please specify.
7.14 If it is considered necessary for the Review to address self and custom build housing, this should be addressed by the Council's identifying and allocating specific plots for these uses. Identifying site-specific plots would ensure that the most appropriate and suitable locations for self and custom-build will be allocated, via the assessment of appropriate evidence and market demand. In addition, this might be more likely to be achieved on surplus publicly owned land.
Question 42: Do you agree that the annual affordable homes target should be increased to reflect the 2017 Black Country Strategic Housing Market Assessment? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.15 As a general principle, the notion of applying different affordable housing ratios to different parts of the Black Country, based on an understanding of needs and viability, is acceptable. Given that the Black Country represents a vast area, there will not be a uniform housing market, and there will be sub-market trends within this wider area. As such, a more flexible approach which assesses local housing market evidence on a case by case basis could be justified. That said, there is an inherent simplicity and attraction to a single rate figure, which is easy for the development industry to understand.
7.16 In terms of the annual affordable housing target, it is unclear how the Issues and Options document has calculated the figure of 832 homes per year. At paragraph 7.42 of the June 2017 SHMA Part Two- affordable housing document, it is stated that the total annual affordable housing need is 677 dwellings, which represents 19.8% of the annual projected household growth. This differs to paragraph 6.36 of the Issues and Options document, which states that the affordable housing target is 23.4% of total housing need or 832 homes per year. From paragraph 7.47 of the SHMA, it appears that this figure may have been calculated by adding the overall requirement of 16.6% of housing to be affordable rented and 6.7% shared ownership. Clarity is sought on how this figure has been calculated, and we reserve the right to comment further on this matter.
Question 43a: Do you think that the existing Policy HOU3 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.17 We have not undertaken detailed analysis of the findings and assumptions of the SHMA and affordable housing delivery matters, therefore would like to reserve the right to comment on this matter further. However, on face value, it appears to be a reasonable threshold and is not dissimilar to other locations.
Question 44a: Do you think that the affordable housing requirement for eligible sites in Question 43 should be kept at 25% of the total number of homes on the site? Yes /No; Any further comments?
7.18 Based on the current evidence, a blanket rate of 25% affordable housing would appear to be sound.
7.19 However, irrespective of the final rate, any amendments to the currently adopted affordable housing policy must continue to have a clause in it which stipulates that this requirement is subject to viability tests. Any revised affordable housing requirements will also need to carefully consider the implications of adopted Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regimes. Both Sandwell and Dudley Councils have adopted CIL Charging Schedules. These will have implications on viability, therefore if revised affordable housing targets are to progressed then these CIL tariffs will need to re-assessed and re-visited.
Question 44b: If no, should the percentage be increased to allow for the provision of affordable home ownership? Yes/No; If yes, what should the percentage be and why?
7.20 At paragraph 6.39 of the Issues and Options Paper, it is stated that options need to be explored to increase affordable housing delivery of private sites. One option would be to increase the overall affordable housing proportion, which would require developers to provide affordable home ownership products plus an appropriate proportion of other affordable tenures. This paragraph follows on from commentary relating to the Housing White Paper.
7.21 The Housing White Paper discusses Starter Homes at Chapter 4, and explains how the government intend to amend the NPPF to introduce a clear policy expectation that housing sites deliver a minimum of 10% affordable home ownership units. It is later stated that it will be for local areas to work with developers to agree an appropriate level of delivery of starter homes, alongside other affordable home ownership and rented tenures.
7.22 The policy position on Starter Homes is not yet fully clear, and has yet to be formally established through a formal amendment and update to the NPPF. Until the national policy position on Starter Homes has been made clear, it would be premature for the Core Strategy Review to suggest an uplift in the affordable housing requirement to include affordable home ownership such as Starter Homes. Any suggestion to uplift the affordable housing requirement to include Starter Homes should be reflective of the national policy position, as well as founded upon a robust evident base which dictates exactly what percentage this element should be of the overall affordable housing requirement.
Question 45: Should an increased affordable housing requirement be set for green belt release sites, to reflect the likely financial viability of these sites? Yes/No; If yes, what should this be.
7.23 The likely financial viability of Green Belt sites will vary across different areas of the Black Country, therefore any affordable housing requirements for Green Belt sites will need to be reflective of these circumstances. Any affordable housing targets for Green Belt sites should be based on robust evidence, and acknowledge that many sites may need to support and deliver other infrastructure requirements.
7.24 Ultimately, any affordable housing strategy will need to address the affordable housing need as well as the need for market housing. Bearing in mind that the SHMA confirms over 70% of homes required are for homes to be sold on the open market, any affordable housing policy must not dilute the delivery of these needs/requirements. A higher figure on Green Belt sites over and above a standard blanket figure would potentially do this.
Employment Question 49a: Is there still a need for existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.25 The Black Country is to be the subject of large levels of both employment and housing growth over the Plan period. These uses are very much inter-linked with one another, and will drive each other's need for growth. The Local Plan Review, in order to meet emerging employment and housing needs, must identify a significant number of specific sites for employment and housing uses. By planning proactively and identifying suitable sites for both employment land and housing land, this should reduce the pressures to manage the release of poorer quality employment land, which may not always be suitable for release. The Local Plan Review should also seek to undertake a further review of poorer quality employment land to make it available for other suitable uses, if it proves to no longer be viable for employment land use. This is in line with policy provisions of the NPPF, which at Paragraph 22 outlines that planning policies should avoid the long-term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose.
Question 50: Do you think that the Core Strategy should continue to set a target for the total employment land stock in Policy EMP1? Yes/No; Please explain why.
7.26 The continuation of setting a target for employment land stock would be supported. Policy EMP1 should make it clear that these are not maximum figures, to encourage further flexibility for additional growth.
Retail Question 59: Have all the appropriate centres within the Black Country been identified? Yes/No; If not, please specify additional centres
7.27 No comment
Question 61: In addition to para 4.33 of the current Core Strategy should the revised Core Strategy include criteria for the creation of new centres that might be needed as a result of any additional housing identified through the plan? Yes/No; Any further comments?
7.28 Criteria would be a useful policy tool to help assess the designation of new centres, and should be in line with previous methodologies used which set out clear thresholds.
Question 71: Should the Core Strategy set housing targets for the Town Centres?
7.29 Housing within Town Centres should be supported, in line with paragraph 23 of the NPPF which discusses the important role that residential development can play in ensuring the vitality of Town Centres. Any housing targets should be based on what sites are known to be readily available, suitable and viable for residential development. Market demand for housing in these areas will also need to be fully assessed. It is notable from the outcome of the 2017 SHMA that there is most demand for three bedroom properties (40%). The highest demand is therefore for family housing, and not for flats which are often the most popular within Town Centre locations. Any housing targets set for the Town Centre would therefore need to consider the findings of the SHMA, and be reflective of the fact that family housing is often more suitable for delivery on larger sites, including on sites which are currently located within the Green Belt.
Environment Question 99a: Do you think that national standards for housing development on water consumption should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.30 When referring to water consumption paragraph 6.1.52 of the Issues and Options document states that the Black Country does not currently lie in an area of serious water stress, therefore clear need may be difficult to demonstrate. This evidence suggests that there is limited or no need to introduce such a policy, therefore it is not considered that the Core Strategy Review should seek to introduce water consumption standards for housing development.
Question 99b: Do you think that national access standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.31 The introduction of any national access standards, with the Issues and Options document referring specifically to Lifetime Homes, again must be based on a robust evidence base which can demonstrate market demand. It is noted that Paragraph 50 of the NPPF states that planning authorities must plan for a mix of housing to meet a range of needs. In the same paragraph, it is later stated that these must be based on current and future market trends. If Lifetime Home standards are to be introduced these will therefore need to be based on robust evidence, to ensure that the standards are not overly onerous and prevent the delivery of other types of housing which have higher levels of market demand.
Question 99c: Do you think that national space standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.32 As reiterated throughout these representations, it is not considered that a blanket approach of prescriptive standards across the Black Country allows sufficient flexibility to assess local market and site considerations in an appropriate manner. Whilst it is recognised that space standards can be an important tool to ensure that high quality of homes are delivered, we agree with the sentiment expressed in the recent Housing White Paper. The Paper explains that the government are concerned that a one size fits all approach may not reflect the needs and aspirations of a wider range of households. The White Paper also states that the Government will be undertaking a review of the Nationally Described Space Standards. It is suggested that the Core Strategy Review should await the outcome of this national review of national space standards, to ensure compliance with national policy and to ensure that the most appropriate approach to space standards, if required, is taken.
Question 99d: Do you think that the standards should be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No; If yes, please explain how and why.
7.33 As discussed above, prescriptive standards do not always allow sufficient flexibility for local market needs, so we would not advocate a blanket approach of different standards to brownfield and greenfield sites.
Open Space, Sport and Recreation Question 102a: Do you support the proposed changes relating to open space, sport and recreation? Yes/No; If no, please explain
7.34 Paragraph 6.1.60 of the Issues and Options paper outlines how adopted Policy ENV6 creates the framework for open space policies at the local level. The Issues and Options paper outlines how this is in line with national guidance, and that it is proposed to retain this policy and update some references in the supporting text to reflect changing circumstances. It is agreed that the local level remains the appropriate place to set open space policies, and that Policy ENV6 should continue to endorse this approach.
8. LAND OFF LINTHOUSE LANE, WOLVERHAMPTON
8.1 Taylor Wimpey is currently in control of the land to the north of Linthouse Lane and to the south of the dismantled railway line as shown on the Site Location Plan appended to this representation (Appendix 1).
8.2 This land represents a logical and sustainable extension to the existing Major Urban Area that provides an opportunity for delivering approximately 2,500 new homes with associated supporting infrastructure.
8.3 As demonstrated on the attached Site and Contextual Analysis Plan (Appendix 3) there are no significant physical barriers to development. There are, however, a number of physical features which serve to shape the development shown on the illustrative masterplan. These include the power lines which traverse the site in a north-west to south-east direction as well as the localised topography of the site, existing vegetation and public rights of way.
8.4 An illustrative masterplan (Appendix 4) has been prepared to introduce an initial proposal, providing an indication of how the site could be delivered and function as a natural sustainable, urban extension to Wolverhampton. This includes a 20m offset to the existing power lines, retention of the existing public rights of way and vegetation.
8.5 The Illustrative Masterplan identifies the following key features for land to the north of Linthouse Lane on land where Taylor Wimpey has secured an interest:
* Circa. 2,500 dwellings;
* Provision of land for the delivery of a number of potential community uses, including the provision of a new Primary School;
* Significant provision of Green Infrastructure to include a landscape mitigation strategy;
* Provision of SuDS through the delivery of new attenuation features; and
* A new enduring Green Belt boundary defined by the route of the dismantled railway line.
8.6 Further consideration of the site is set out below having regard to the Council's evidence base and the technical information prepared on behalf of Taylor Wimpey to date. This analysis concludes that land to the north of Linthouse Lane, within the control of Taylor Wimpey, is both suitable and deliverable and would represent a 'sound' location for meeting housing needs within the Black Country to 2036.
Landscape Sensitivity
8.7 Pegasus Environment has undertaken a Preliminary Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) to the determine the various landscape and visual constraints and opportunities of the wider site area and its context. This includes how these factors might serve to influence the potential for development in respect of an illustrative masterplan, and to influence an inherent landscape strategy as part of that masterplan.
8.8 The local landscape context comprises the wider pattern of agricultural land to the north, the topography of which is generally falling to the south towards the site, from a localised ridgeline between Essington and Westcroft. The site is located on gently sloping land between ca. +170m AOD and ca. +145m AOD. To the south, the existing settlement edge of Wolverhampton provides a townscape setting to the site and there are some near distance views into the site from this edge. Longer distance views towards the site are available from the southern edge of Essington and from higher ground to the north. The site is currently included as part of the West Midlands Green Belt. There are no landscape specific designations which cover the site or the immediate area.
8.9 The LVA identifies the key constraints and opportunities present in the site and surrounding landscape, and also the nature of the likely impacts that may arise from the proposed development. The LVA has analysed the baseline information in the context of the proposed development and has informed the proposals for landscape mitigation.
8.10 The development consequently incorporates a landscape mitigation strategy which will avoid, reduce or remedy adverse impacts. The development of the illustrative masterplan has been informed by an initial appraisal of the local landscape and visual constraints and opportunities. As such, the illustrative masterplan:
* Addresses near distance views from the edge of Essington across the Green Belt 'gap' between Essington and the edge of Wolverhampton, to maintain separation and deal with potential 'coalescence' issues;
* Includes a set-back of the development envelope away from the more elevated area of the site to the north-east;
* Utilises the well-vegetated dismantled railway line as a new Green Belt boundary;
* Provides a central linear open space in response to the offsets required to existing powerlines;
* Ensures an appropriate offset to the public right of way passing through the site along the existing hedgerow running north-south between Linthouse Lane and Blackhalve Lane; and
* Addresses longer distance views from the more elevated ground to the north by providing space for additional planting to strengthen the new Green Belt boundary in this location.
8.11 These over-arching principles set the framework for the areas which are proposed for development. Each of these can be subject to a greater level of detail regards masterplanning to identify constraints and opportunities at a more detailed level.
Ecology
8.12 Technical work has been undertaken by the Environmental Development Partnership Ltd to guide initial proposals on land off Linthouse Lane having regard to ecological sensitivities pertaining to the site, and identifying opportunities and constraints which may influence development.
8.13 The study confirmed that there are no statutorily designated nature conservation sites within the red line boundary shown at Appendix 1, however, there is a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) of European importance within 10km and two Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) of local importance within 2km.
8.14 Cannock Extension Canal SAC lies 6.3km northeast of the site and contains good water quality supporting floating water plantain and a diverse dragonfly and damselfly assemblage. Identified threats to the quality of this SAC that could occur are: pollution to groundwater, air pollution, air-borne pollutants and invasive non-native species.
8.15 Due to the spatial separation of the SAC from land off Linthouse Lane, it is unlikely that the proposed development would result in any of the identified threats to the SAC arising.
8.16 Rough Wood Chase LNR lies 2km east of the site. There is no ecological connectivity to this woodland and wetland area, being separated from land off Linthouse Lane by the M6. In addition, there is no hydrological connectivity. The proposal is not considered to have a potential impact on this LNR.
8.17 Waddens Brook LNR lies 2km south of land off Linthouse Lane and is regionally important for its great crested newt population and populations of other amphibians. As there is no hydrological or ecological connection netween the LNR and the site and the 2km of separation contains residential development and and Wyrley and Essington Canal, the proposal is not considered to have a potential impact on this LNR.
8.18 Land off Linthouse Lane is not covered by any non-statutory designations, however there are a number of non-statutory sites within 2km of the boundary. With the exception of Ashmore Lodge Biodiversity Alert Site (BAS) and Oakley Farm Potential Site of Importance (PSI), the nature of the designation of each site and the intervening distance means that a potential impact on them from the proposed development is unlikely.
8.19 Oakley Farm is designated due to the presence of field margins on historic maps. During the Extended Phase 2 Survey, no habitats of importance were noted, with the grassland and hedgerows being species poor. Therefore, in ecological terms, development in this area would not result in a significant loss in biodiversity either within the proposal site or within the PSI at Oakley Farm.
8.20 Ashmore Lodge is the dismantled railway which runs through the proposed site. A majority of this dismantled line is lined with trees with some parts covered in semi-improved grassland, providing a linear feature of local ecological value. The proposal offers the opportunity to include:
* Additional planting of native tree species;
* Creation of diverse wildflower meadows in open areas on the line and in the buffer to this line; and
* Removal of the giant hogweed by an experienced and qualified contractor.
8.21 If these opportunities were delivered, this would ensure no significant impacts would occur on any of the non-statutory designations within the p0otential zone of influence of the site and may result in an overall enhancement in line with local and national policy.
8.22 The remaining habitats within the site are predominantly of low intrinsic ecological value and present good opportunities for enhancement. They are not a constraint to development capacity in their own right, but have the potential to support protected species.
8.23 The possible presence of breeding birds, bats and great crested newts will need to be determined through further surveys, however, it is considered that, even if these protected species were found to be present, the populations could easily be safeguarded through sensitive scheme design and appropriate mitigation measures, and would not represent an 'in principle' constraint to development.
8.24 The initial technical work considers the site provides sufficient flexibility to ensure compliance with planning policy at all levels and to avoid 'significant harm' to biodiversity. Furthermore, a sensitively designed development incorporating appropriate mitigation and enhancement has the potential to deliver a significant net gain in biodiversity.
Heritage & Archaeology
8.25 An archaeological and heritage assessment has been prepared by Environmental Dimension Partnership Ltd to inform the proposal and to assess the potential effects arising from development within the site.
8.26 The report confirms that the site does not contain any designated heritage assets such as world heritage sites, scheduled monuments, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields or listed buildings, where there would be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation in situ and against development.
8.27 Only one potentially sensitive designated heritage asset has been identified outside of the site. This is the scheduled ancient monument of Moat Farm moated site, which lies some 160m north of the site, to the north of Blackhalve Lane. The assessment concluded that whilst there is some potential for a low level of harm to the heritage significance of the monument through the change to its setting, this would need to be weighed against the public benefit of the proposed development, with harm being further mitigated through the detailed design of any proposal.
8.28 There are no listed buildings or other designated heritage assets in close proximity to the site, although there are a number of listed and locally listed buildings in the wider area. The assessment concludes that no opportunity for harm to these or any other heritage assets outside of the site is predicted as a result of development at land off Linthouse Lane.
8.29 The archaeological potential of the site is assessed as being low. Should any below ground archaeological remains survive, there is no reason to believe or expect that the site will contain archaeology of such significance that it would require preservation in situ and therefore constrain development of the site. The site has been intensively farmed and if any below ground deposits are found, they are likely to be poorly preserved due to this agricultural activity, thereby reducing their significance.
Highways and Transportation
8.30 The site is well placed in terms of accessibility to existing pedestrian and public transport networks. The site is also located in close proximity to local facilities including shopping, medical services and education facilities.
8.31 There are good public transport links in the area, with 7 two way buses per hour operating along Linthouse Lane and Cannock Road on a weekday and Saturday and, 4 two way buses per hour operating on a Sunday.
8.32 Travel by rail is achievable as part of a multi-modal trip i.e. park and ride and cycle and ride. There are hourly services to local destinations including Birmingham New Street which provides onward travel opportunity to destinations across the country.
8.33 Access to the site can be achieved from the surrounding highway network, including Linthouse Lane, Blackhalve Lane, Cannock Road and Kitchen Lane. towards the south-western end of the site. There are a number of options and significant potential in terms of achieving safe, controlled and appropriate vehicular access to the site.
8.34 The Illustrative Masterplan identifies the following access points, but it should be noted that these are not necessarily exclusive locations:
* Proposed vehicular access via Linthouse Lane;
* Proposed vehicular access via Kitchen Lane;
* Proposed vehicular access via Blackhalve Lane;
* Proposed vehicular access via Cannock Road; and
* Proposed change of priority along Wood Hayes Road through the introduction of a new junction providing east west vehicular connectivity.
8.35 The illustrative masterplan also identifies the incorporation of existing Public Rights of Way (PRoW) within green corridors and proposes a network of new primary pedestrian routes maximising opportunities to create sustainable transport links (walking and cycling) to existing and potential new amenities and facilities.
8.36 In the longer term, to support a planning application, a Transport Assessment will be completed to assess impacts across the wider network, this will include speed survey work. The Transport Assessment will take account of any local committed development sites and any committed highway improvements. Suitable mitigation will be provided as part of the development proposals including any identified off site highway works and contributions.
Flood Risk and Drainage
8.37 The site lies in Flood Zone 1, the area at least risk from flooding.
8.38 Surface water drainage is proposed to be accommodated through the provision of a series of balancing ponds located around the site. The Illustrative Masterplan, included at Appendix 4, identifies the provision of balancing ponds through a network of green infrastructure.
Noise & Air Quality
8.39 Noise is unlikely to be a significant issue for the proposed development, however it is likely to have some impact on the form of any proposal. The northern boundary of the site lies adjacent to Blackhalve Lane (B4156), which also passes through part of the site. The eastern boundary is adjacent to Essington Rugby Club and Kitchen Lane. The southern boundary is adjacent to Linthouse Lane and the western boundary is bounded by properties off Woodent Road and Cannock Road.
8.40 It should be noted that landscaping would be included throughout the development in conjunction with carefully orientated and sited dwellings and associated gardens to minimise noise impact and preserve residential amenity.
8.41 Consequently, it is unlikely noise will have a significant adverse impact on the development of this site.
Ground Conditions
8.42 A full Phase 1 Environmental Risk Assessment has been completed for the site. The British Geological Map for the area indicates the site is underlain by superficial deposits of Glacial Till (variable but predominantly cohesive strata), which overlay solid strata that vary across the site.
8.43 The Phase I Environmental Risk Assessment for the site has been undertaken which identifies that it is unlikely that the site would be classified as contaminated land.
Utilities
8.44 Sewers are present in the vicinity of the site, including within the southern verge of Kitchen Lane, residential streets to the west of the site, within the eastern verge of Wood Hayes Road and along Blackhalve Lane. Accordingly, diversions are likely to be required in order to connect the site to the network. Whilst no sewers are located within the site, surface water outfalls into the watercourse along the western boundary are noted and a foul sewer is located to the west of the watercourse.
8.45 It is envisaged that foul flows from the land to the north of Blackhalve Lane could drain via gravity to an existing foul sewer located within Wood Hayes Road or to that which exists within Blackhalve Lane. Land to the south of Blackhalve Lane has the potential to drain via gravity to a number of the public foul sewers located within Linthouse Lane.
8.46 Similarly, water mains are present in the vicinity of the site, including the northern verge of Kitchen Lane, the northern verge of Linthouse Lane, the western verge of Wood Hayes Road and Blackhalve Lane and therefore diversions are likely to be required. No water mains are located within the development area.
8.47 Further discussion with Severn Trent Water will determine suitable connection points and capacity within the network.
8.48 Regarding electricity cables, gas mains and phone lines, no apparatus is present within the development area. As a result, diversions will again be required.
8.49 The capacity of all of these utilities need to be determined but are unlikely to present any issues of deliverability in respect of the site.
Agricultural Land Classification
8.50 Natural England's Land Classification Map for the West Midlands Region (ALC004) shows that the majority of the site comprises undefined Grade 3 'Good to Moderate' quality agricultural land. It is noted that the majority of land around Wolverhampton and the wider Black Country urban area also comprises Grade 2 and 3 agricultural land.
8.70 Whilst it is acknowledged that the loss of any best and most versatile land is undesirable, the majority of the site comprises Grade 3 land, and that the scale of development required to support needs arising within the Black Country will necessitate the loss of an amount of Grade 3 land or better under any reasonable option.
Suitability
8.71 The information set out above, read in conjunction with the appended illustrative masterplan, demonstrates that land off Linthouse Lane is a suitable site.
Deliverability
8.72 There is an agreement in place between the landowner and Taylor Wimpey to facilitate the development of the site.
8.73 A considerable amount of technical work has been undertaken to demonstrate the deliverability of land off Linthouse Lane. Taylor Wimpey can confirm that this work concludes that there are no physical or other constraints likely to render the site undeliverable within the proposed Plan period to 2036. The site is available now.
8.74 There are no existing uses that would require relocation and no issues of contamination that would require remediation. Many of the potential impacts of the development of the site can be mitigated through design and in many cases a positive outcome can be achieved, such as the strengthening of Wolverhampton's north eastern boundary through landscaping and utilisation of the dismantled railway line as an enduring new Green Belt boundary.
8.75 The site is deliverable and immediately available and, subject to allocation and removal of the land from the Green Belt, could start to deliver homes and associated community benefits within the next 5 years.
9. CONCLUSION
9.1 Taylor Wimpey is in control of land at Linthouse Lane, Wolverhampton. The land is sustainably located adjacent to the existing urban area of Wolverhampton.
9.2 Land off Linthouse Lane is promoted as a suitable, deliverable and available site, subject to its release from the Green Belt. The development of the site would constitute sustainable development.
9.3 Taylor Wimpey fully support the Black Country Authorities decision to review the currently adopted Core Strategy, however wish to raise the following concerns:
* The Black Country Core Strategy Review consultation document significantly underestimate the level of housing needed to support future population growth within the Black Country. An independent assessment of OAHN undertaken by Lichfields indicates that the actual need is 4,692 to 5,473 dpa. This is based upon the high levels of migration seen in the Black Country over the long term, the need to adjust household formation rates for younger age cohorts, and an uplift to reflect market signals on house prices, affordability and concealed families. Additionally, the OAHN range includes an allowance of up to 955 dpa to accommodate Birmingham's unmet need, based on the Black Country's proportionate 'fair share'.
* The scale of the housing required in the Black Country and GBHMA, along with the lack of sufficient land outwith the Green Belt constitutes the necessary 'exceptional circumstances' to justify that Green Belt land should be released for housing. The Council therefore needs to provide a sound evidence base which is robust in demonstrating the 'exceptional circumstances case'.
* Taylor Wimpey fully supports the carrying out of a Strategic Green Belt Review as this is necessary to ensure sufficient land is provided to meet the Black Country's objectively assessed housing needs over the course of the Plan period. This should include consideration of land within South Staffordshire District.
* Informed by this process, sufficient Green Belt land should be released and allocated for housing development to meet the needs of the Black Country and GBHMA.
* Given the huge housing requirements of the Black Country and the shared housing market between South Staffordshire and the Black Country, it is considered that suitable urban extension sites located within South Staffordshire District would be the logical and sensible locations to meet any remaining unmet housing need. In terms of the relevance of this point to the Black Country Review, it will be important for the Black Country authorities to collaborate with South Staffordshire on cross-boundary issues, and to identify suitable extension sites to the Black Country built area which fall within the planning jurisdiction of South Staffordshire District..
9.4 Taylor Wimpey look forward to engaging with the Black Country Authorities and providing additional information, as required, to assist the Council in progressing the preparation of an up to date Local Plan.

See the attached Issues and Options Report Consultation - Land at Tipton Road and Setton Drive, Woodsetton/Sedgley.