Policy HOU3 - Affordable Housing

The people of the Black Country were not asked if they wanted a Police Commissioner, an elected Mayor or a joint Strategy with Birmingham and the rest of the surrounding LAs. Lack of support for such matters was reflected by the extremely poor turnout when the elections actually took place for the above 2 positions.

Again we have not been consulted whether or not we want a "Black Country Core Strategy", it has just been foisted upon us !

You are admittedly allowing people to have their say, but will you really take any notice of what we say. Surely you will just plough ahead as usual.
After all Public opinion is seen as an obstacle to remove, not a reason to change direction.

Your brief multiple choice questionnaire is simply a dumbing down of the situation, you haven't provided enough space for anybody to actually express a considered opinion, hence this letter.

The big issue as far as I am concerned is your plan to identify land in the Green Belt and presumably on agricultural land as well, to build on in the future. Bearing in mind only 12.4% of land in all England is designated Green Belt.

Why therefore is this core strategy being projected 19 years ahead, instead of the present strategy that was only for 6 years ?

LAs only need to identify within their local Plan a programme for building in the next 5 years to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework, although it is worrying that only 41% of LAs have such a plan.

Doing the maths from your own projections, NOT EVIDENCE, you have sufficient sites in the urban area including homes being built, homes that are already planned and new high density sites for 56,000 homes. At around 4,000 houses per year that is 16 years supply.

If you reduce your future strategy to say 6 or even 10 years there will be no need to identify Green Belt or other Agricultural land to build on at all.

The danger of identifying any land in the Green Belt and/or on Agricultural land now, means developers will want to build on this first, because its cheaper and unfortunately you will let them, in order to meet your commitments.

Already Developers, Builders and Land Barons are themselves identifying land of this sort where LAs have no local plan in place and are likely to say yes to planning applications to meet their central government commitments.

In 2011-12 35%of houses built in rural areas were affordable, the proportion has effectively halved to a mere 16% in 2015-16 as house builders have been able to renege on affordability commitments using the viability assessments set out in Government policy. Faced with the prospect of an appeal or a failure to meet targets LAs have waved through developments with greatly reduced affordable housing proportions.

Before retiring I worked in the construction industry as both a builder and developer for some of the biggest names still operating. I therefore can assure you that I know what I am talking about. Profit is King, there is no question of these companies being public spirited, they can only be reined in by legislation !

None of your projections can be hard and fast in 2 years, let alone 19 - the demographic will have changed, Brexit will alter the way we do business, more industrial land (Brownfield sites) will become available. On line shopping will inevitably change our town centres for ever and drone deliveries will change things even further. More people will work from home and electric cars are coming. Its a very brave man indeed that thinks he can predict what will be happening under the headings you are quoting in 19 years time or even before !

Instead of reviewing the Green Belt a Moratorium of at least 10 years should be placed upon it.

Your comments on protecting the environment are unnecessary, all the matters you refer to should be dealt with via the planning process for new build.

Over the last 10 - 20 years in order to save money more and more local hospitals and care facilities have been closed in the area and playing fields built on or left to run wild so they cannot be used properly. So what with the legacy of hospitals built using PFI, where is the money going to come from to provide for the items listed in your rather pathetic questionnaire under 6, 7 and 8 ?

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.

St Modwen Developments Ltd ("St Modwen") have instructed Planning Prospects Ltd to prepare and
submit representations to the Issues and Options Consultation for the Review of the Black Country
Core Strategy (BCCS). St Modwen have extensive land ownership and development interests across
the BCCS area, and have a longstanding and extensive record in successfully bringing forward major
schemes in this part of the West Midlands. These representations are intended to support and
promote those interests.
As the BCCS Review progresses it is noted that further opportunities will arise for consultation in
September 2018, September 2019, and February 2020, before adoption scheduled for Autumn 2021.
St Modwen expect to make a contribution at each of these stages, and as plan preparation moves
forward it is anticipated that the comments made will become more detailed, technical and specific
in their nature. At the present stage in the process whilst the strategic direction of the BCCS Review
is still to be set, detailed policy wording has not been formulated, and certain key elements of the
evidence base have yet to be finalised the comments made on behalf of St Modwen are necessarily
more strategic and general in their nature. In the main they seek to influence the direction of travel
of the BCCS Review, rather than the detailed content. That said, some comments on matters of detail
are made where appropriate.
In this context, where a specific question, policy or section of text in the Issues and Options Report is
not commented on in these representations this should not be interpreted as meaning that St
Modwen necessarily agree (or indeed disagree) with it. Rather, these representations should be
understood as a statement of principles, which will be fleshed out where appropriate in subsequent
stages of consultation.
The approach taken is to assemble comments together in logical groups relating to individual
chapters or questions around specific topics. The representations should be read as a whole to
obtain a sense of the trajectory St Modwen consider the Review should follow. The short
questionnaire survey (ten questions) has also been completed on behalf of St Modwen, and
submitted separately.
However, a note of caution might be exercised at the outset. The Issues and Options Report (for
example at paragraph 2.13) is quite positive in its tone with regard to the effectiveness of the
adopted BCCS. There have undoubtedly been successes with the implementation of BCCS policy but
it must be remembered that over the relevant periods the overall targets in terms of new homes,
employment land, offices and retail have not been met (Issues and Options Report Appendix C). This
is not intended as a criticism, particularly in light of the challenging economic circumstances within
which it has operated. However, it does serve to emphasise quite strongly the importance of
ensuring the strategy and policy framework arrived at through the Review is formulated with great
care so as to maximise the opportunity and likelihood for development requirements across all
sectors in the Black Country to be met. St Modwen look forward to contributing positively to this
process and assisting the Black Country authorities with the Review.
Black Country Core Strategy: Response Form July 2017

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Question 1
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
It is considered that a "partial" review of the BCCS should be followed with a degree of caution. The
existing Core Strategy was, appropriately, focused on urban regeneration and accommodating
development needs entirely within the urban area, whereas the Review will necessarily adopt a
balanced approach across the BCCS area including, crucially, the Green Belt. The existing Core
Strategy was adopted in very different circumstances following the financial crisis at the end of the
last decade. It catered for different needs, with no requirement to accommodate overspill growth
from Birmingham, no certainty as to how employment land requirements would evolve in
subsequent years, and different expectations in terms of Midland Metro and HS2. It followed a
"Regeneration Corridor" approach which, for reasons expressed elsewhere in these representations,
is now considered outdated. It has proven challenging to meet development targets set by the
existing Core Strategy, and a step change is needed if current and future requirements are to be met.
For all these reasons it is difficult to see how the existing spatial strategy can be retained and
"stretched". The approach cannot be one that seeks to adapt the future strategy for the Black
Country into a variation of one which, by the time the Review is adopted, will be ten years old. A new
strategy is required.
Black Country Core Strategy: Response Form July 2017

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Question 2
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
The evidence set out in Table 1 is likely to be sufficient to support the various stages of the Review,
but until certain key documents become available it is not possible to say with certainty that it will
indeed prove adequate. In particular, the outcome of the HMA Strategic Growth Study, the Green
Belt Review, and the second stage Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) is likely to be
fundamental, and will be central to the nature of comments to be made by St Modwen in subsequent
consultations.
It is considered that for the second stage EDNA to be effective it must be informed by far wider
consultation with landowners, developers and employers than appears to have been the case with
the first stage exercise.
It is also considered that the scoping of the Green Belt Review should be informed by a consultation
process, to ensure that the exercise is ultimately completed in the most effective, and transparent,
manner. For example, care needs to be taken that the grain of analysis is not too coarse; if the spatial
framework is set too widely there will be a risk that smaller parcels of otherwise acceptable land are
overlooked within larger tranches. Furthermore, for this exercise it should also be the case that
administrative boundaries do not constrain the scope of the review or the identification of parcels.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Question 3
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
Until the HMA Strategic Growth Study is complete it will not be possible to comment on this issue
fully, but a considerable degree of caution should be applied to the suggested approach which would
see just 3,000 homes from Birmingham's shortfall accommodated in the Black Country. The shortfall
of almost 38,000 homes arising from Birmingham's needs that cannot be accommodated within the
City is unprecedented, and needs to be addressed; it is essential that this housing need is met. It is
not clear how the figure of 3,000 homes has been arrived at, but might be compared with the 3,790
homes which North Warwickshire Borough Council are seeking to plan for as their contribution to
meeting need exported from Birmingham. North Warwickshire is a largely rural authority, with three
fifths of its land classified as Green Belt. It is vital that the four Black Country authorities make a full
contribution in this regard, and it is not immediately clear from the Issues and Options Report that
this is likely to be the case.
It will be fundamental to the success of the BCCS Review that this overspill from Birmingham is dealt
with fairly, comprehensively and transparently. The approach is an issue for now, and should be
tackled head on at the earliest possible stage.
That said, an approach which balances the contribution that can be made by releasing surplus
employment land for housing, with a significant requirement to release Green Belt land, is supported.
This represents a clear shift away from the existing BCCS approach with its almost exclusive urban
focus, but one that is necessary if development needs are to be met.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Question 4
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
Until the Stage 2 report is completed it is not possible with certainty to comment on whether the
requirement is appropriate. That said, and as expressed elsewhere in these representations, for the
second stage EDNA to be effective it should be informed by far wider consultation with landowners,
developers and employers than appears to have been the case with the first stage exercise. The
Stage 1 report appears to have been informed by a fairly narrow range of consultees, and unless this
is addressed fully at Stage 2 it is unlikely that the employment land requirement will be properly
assessed.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Question 5
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
It is clear that a comprehensive review of the Green Belt is required. The existing BCCS is
characterised by an approach which protects the Green Belt and focuses development on
Regeneration Corridors. As acknowledged at paragraph 3.40 of the Issues and Options Report the
"exceptional circumstances" threshold for allowing development in the Green Belt has been met with
the development needs identified through the Review. It is appropriate that this should take place as
part of the Core Strategy Review, alongside the Strategic Growth Study, and in conjunction with other
neighbouring authorities.
That said, it is not possible to comment on whether the proposed approach to the Green Belt Review
is appropriate or not until the methodology has been identified. As expressed elsewhere in these
representations, this exercise is so fundamental to the emerging BCCS that it is essential the scoping
of the Green Belt Review should be informed by a consultation process, to ensure it is ultimately
completed in the most effective manner.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Question 6
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
Broadly, the key issues set out in Part 3 of the Issues and Options Report are the key ones to take into
account through the Review, subject to the comments made elsewhere in these representations
about dealing fairly, comprehensively and transparently with accommodating the overspill need for
homes from Birmingham, and ensuring the Green Belt Review is completed in the most effective
manner.
However, as expressed elsewhere in these representations, a further key issue is the need to
recognise where the existing BCCS has fallen short, the extent to which over the relevant periods it
has been unable to deliver the overall targets in terms of new homes, employment land, offices and
retail, and through the Review to ensure the policy framework becomes one which will ensure the
development needs of the Black County are met.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Question 7
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
The sustainability principles should be extended to include amongst their number the specific
recognition that the Black Country authorities must assist as fully as possible with meeting the
overspill development requirements of their neighbours (principally Birmingham).

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Question 8
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
It is considered that the legacy spatial objectives do not remain relevant. They are framed around a
strategy which focused almost entirely on directing development towards the Regeneration
Corridors. It is very clear that the BCCS Review will need to take a material change in direction and
allow for the prospect of significant growth in the Green Belt as part of a balanced approach to
accommodating growth. This should be recognised through the spatial objectives, i.e. acknowledging
the requirement to accommodate development in the most sustainable manner and in the most
appropriate locations within the Green Belt.
This recognition should extend beyond the housing sector, which presents perhaps the most
immediate and obvious challenges, and also include employment. The legacy spatial objectives seek
to direct employment towards the Strategic Centres and Regeneration Corridors, and there should
still be a role for this in the Review, but there should also be explicit recognition that needs for large
scale (particularly logistics focused) employment development will only be met in full if additional
unconstrained sites with immediate access to the Strategic Road Network are also provided.
The backdrop of development requirements identified in the early parts of the Issues and Options
Report provides the context for the spatial objectives to be revisited, and they should be recast
accordingly.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Question 9
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
In broad terms the parts of Policy CSP1 dealing with objectives to focus growth within the Strategic
Centres are appropriate. However, greater emphasis should be placed on the recognition that this
forms one part of a balanced approach to accommodating growth. For the reasons set out elsewhere
in these representations it is considered that the Regeneration Corridor focused approach is no
longer appropriate, and should be discontinued.
The implications of this include the requirement for a change of direction for Policy CSP2. This should
deal generally with accommodating growth in an even and balanced manner outside the Strategic
Centres, without reference to the Regeneration Corridors. It will also need to allow for the planned
growth required in the Green Belt.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Questions 10, 11a and 11b
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
The Regeneration Corridors are now a somewhat dated and perhaps artificial construct, and this
approach should be discontinued. They are somewhat insensitive to market and occupier needs. The
approach should be simplified by removing the corridors and accommodating development through
carefully identified and allocated sites, with a balanced approach to urban regeneration, redeveloping
existing employment land where appropriate, and expanding into the Green Belt. This should be
coupled with a straightforward criteria based approach to the development of land that is not
allocated. This would be an approach focused very much on the provision of land for development,
rather than protecting land or unnecessarily channelling growth. It would seek to optimise urban
capacity, broadly defined, whilst also recognising that some development needs can only be met in
the Green Belt.
Separate submissions will be made on behalf of St Modwen to the "call for sites".

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Questions 12a, 12b and 13a
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
It is important that Spatial Options H1 and H2 are not treated as alternatives, but rather as
approaches that might be combined in seeking to ensure that development needs are fully met.
There is considerable potential for "rounding off" and relatively modest incursions into the Green
Belt for small to medium sized housing sites, and the "opportunities" identified in this regard in the
table under paragraph 4.29 of the Issues and Options Report should all be recognised. A limited
number of Sustainable Urban Extensions should also be supported, albeit recognising that the
contribution such sites make to housing supply is only likely to be realised in the longer term.
Balance between the two Spatial Options is most likely to ensure continuity of delivery, choice to
housebuilders and buyers, and manageable impacts and infrastructure delivery challenges.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Question 15a
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
The only circumstances in which any housing growth should be exported elsewhere in the HMA is if
there is compelling evidence it cannot be accommodated within the Black Country, and there is a
robust and certain framework in place to ensure that the homes will be required. An ongoing and
open ended general process of discussion around this issue is not appropriate, as would be any policy
in the BCCS Review which relegated it as a problem for another day; it is an issue for now. The
export of housing from Birmingham is unprecedented in its scale, and the issue cannot continue to be
passed down the line. Agreement needs to be reached in terms of how need across the HMA is going
to be met, and the BCCS Review provides an ideal platform in this regard.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Questions 16 - 20
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
A combination of Spatial Options E1 and E2 is appropriate, i.e. expansion into, and new development
on, the Green Belt. Large, regular, deliverable, and unconstrained sites with immediate access to the
Strategic Road Network are required to contribute towards meeting the need for employment land,
particularly in relation to logistics led requirements; it might also prove to be the case that such sites
are capable of contributing more significantly towards infrastructure requirements. There remains a
role for the recycling of brownfield sites to contribute towards meeting employment land needs, but
this will not meet the requirements of the highly location sensitive large space occupiers that the
Black Country should be seeking to attract.
It might be that sites within Sustainable Urban Extensions (Spatial Option E3) can also make some
contribution in this regard, but this cannot be relied upon, particularly in the short term, and it is
unlikely that SUEs will provide an effective mechanism to accommodate large scale requirements.
Exporting growth to neighbouring areas (Spatial Option E4) should only be entertained as a last resort
and if there is compelling evidence it cannot be accommodated within the Black Country.
This again speaks to the point made elsewhere in these representations that for the second stage
EDNA to be most effective it should be informed by far wider consultation with landowners,
developers and employers than appears to have been the case with the first stage exercise. The
Stage 1 report appears to have been informed by a somewhat narrow range of consultees, and unless
this is addressed fully at Stage 2 it is unlikely that the employment land requirement will be properly
assessed.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Question 34a
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Agree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
Health and wellbeing impacts should be assessed, but only for large development proposals, and only
through the plan preparation process. There should be no development management policy around
this issue in the new BCCS, and no requirement for it at any stage in the process for small scale
development.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Questions 36 - 40, 41a - 41d
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Agree / Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
The type of approach set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 is appropriate in general terms, although
greater clarity should be provided to confirm that the standards are general ones, that their practical
application is highly location specific, and will be considered on a site by site basis to reflect local
circumstances. There is no requirement to increase the density standards, and again it should be
clarified that these (and indeed the accessibility standards) should be regarded as indicative only.
For Green Belt releases, site specific standards should be formulated to reflect local circumstances.
The exact nature of these standards should be consulted upon following further stages of plan
preparation once there is greater clarity as to what those sites are likely to be. There should be no
separate standards for particular housing types; this would add an unnecessary level of complexity
and risk hindering the delivery of such units where they might have been provided as part of schemes
otherwise broadly acceptable for their provision.
The SHMA should be used as a general guide to the types of houses to be delivered, but must be
applied generally, rather than rigidly, or again this will hinder delivery.
There should be no requirement for larger housing sites to provide serviced plots. Where there is
clear and quantified evidence of a need for self and custom built housing then a broad target should
be set for each of the constituent authorities. The ability to accommodate such provision should be
considered on a site by site basis, i.e. considering the contribution that might be made in this regard
by all housing sites, not just the large ones.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Questions 44a and 45
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Agree / Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
The affordable housing requirement is appropriate, but on the understanding that the provisions of
Policy HOU3 in terms of viability testing remain in place. There should not necessarily be an
increased requirement for Green Belt release sites. It might prove simplistic to assume these sites
will have greater financial viability in circumstances where they are likely to have significantly greater
costs associated with utilities and infrastructure provision. A general target of 25% subject to viability
is appropriate, although for larger allocations this might be determined on a site by site basis.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Questions 49a and 49b
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Agree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
There is a need for a policy to regulate the conversion of poorer quality employment land, but this
should be made more permissive of change. The approach should be to support and encourage the
recycling of such sites for alternative uses unless this is clearly and demonstrably unacceptable or
inappropriate. Policy DEL2 should be simplified and made more permissive. The release of
employment land to alternative uses should not be restricted to housing, and the conversion to
different forms of employment generating activity should also be viewed positively where
appropriate.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Questions 50 - 54
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Agree / Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
It is important that the BCCS Review provides clear guidance and structure to ensure that the "right"
employment land is delivered; the quantitative need is important but equally so the qualitative need.
The distinction between "Strategic High Quality" and "Local Quality" employment land is a useful one
in headline terms, but requires more refinement such that the sum of allocations ensures all
development needs are met.
The criteria used to define "Strategic High Quality" sites are broadly appropriate. However, it is
considered that whilst proximity to a large workforce is required, this need not be "skilled"; such an
approach would tend to discourage locations where upskilling is required and could be encouraged
by development. It is considered that "good proximity to an existing or proposed knowledge cluster"
should be deleted, as this is unnecessary for some key types of high quality employment, for example
sites focusing on logistics. All criteria should be refined to clarify that it is not just the presence of
each feature that is required, but potential for it to be provided where it does not already exist. Such
wording is currently provided for the "environmental quality" criterion but not the others, and it
should be included for all.
Some flexibility should be provided for alternative uses in the "Strategic High Quality" sites where this
would enable complementary activities (for example around eating and drinking, every day retail, or
hotel accommodation) which help to create an environment to attract major employers, and enable
them in turn to attract and retain employees. Equally, some allowance for employment generating
uses outside of the manufacturing and logistics sectors should be made. In both cases it is perhaps
difficult to see how this can be achieved other than on a site by site, case specific basis. The objective
should be for these sites to have a strong and clear focus on the manufacturing and logistics sectors,
and this should not be unnecessarily diluted, but where there are strong arguments for supporting
activities or other types of job creation this should be accommodated.
Against this background a portfolio, rather than reservoir, based approach seems more appropriate.
This should provide general guidance on the size, type and quality of sites that is needed, rather than
simply the amount. It need not be overly prescriptive, but rather supportive of the needs of
employers and the development industry.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Questions 95a and 95b
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
Given the particular challenges faced by the Black Country authorities in terms of development
viability and attracting investment it might prove to be the case that it is difficult to pursue "Garden
City principles". It is of course important to ensure that the best practicable standards of design and
environmental infrastructure are achieved, but it may be that this can be done within a conventional
framework of fairly standard criteria based development management policies, rather than applying
an additional "Garden City" prism. Further consideration will be given to this point as any such
principles are established in subsequent stages of plan preparation.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Questions 103a and 103b
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Agree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
A "fabric first" approach should be supported and encouraged by policy and the 10% requirement
retained, subject to viability.