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?

I support the enhancement and protection of native woodland and the descriptions within question 96.

Ancient woodland is an irreplaceable complex environment and must be protected.

The key for nature conservation is to allow for appropriate mitigation, or off-setting, such that sites are not sterilised unduly

We welcome the inclusion of Ancient Woodland in the list of national designations. We also welcome the proposed incorporation of biodiversity features in the list of requirements for new development.

We welcome the proposal to include reference to the Black Country Geopark which is an internationally important initiative supported by the B&BC Wildlife Trust. The proposed list of requirements for new developments should also incorporate protection and enhancement for valued landscapes and geological conservation interests (NPPF paras 109, 113 and 117.)
We welcome the proposed changes to ENV 1 that provide additional protection to irreplaceable habitats and to bring the definition of mitigation in line with NPPF to require compensation for residual negative impacts.
We further recommend that the proposed additional protection for ancient woodlands is extended to include other irreplaceable features such as ancient and veteran trees. The Wildlife Trust can provide advice on the most accurate data sets available to identify such features.
We think that the policy would also further benefit from the following amendments;
* Reference to supporting the NIA and NIA strategy in accordance with Paragraph 117 and 157 of the NPPF.
* Reference to the role of the LNP as defined by the NPPF and Town and Country Planning Regulations (2012).
* Clarification on the level of protection afforded to SINC and SLINC. They are listed separately in the list of development controls suggesting differing levels of protection but the wording is ambiguous as to what the practical difference is. It states that development that "harms" a SINC will not permitted and SLINC are protected from "negative impacts".
* A recognition that development and changes in landuse outside the boundaries of designated site can have impacts on wildlife within designated sites as discussed in paragraph 3.37 of your report. This is applicable to designated sites of every sort, although the zone of influence will vary significantly depending on the importance of the site and the reasons for which it has been designated. To help guide developers it may be worth referencing the potential of lighting, pets, flytipping and the creation of barriers to wildlife movement as factors to be considered.
* The wording for species protection may also benefit from clarification relating to whether it is harm to individuals or populations of the named species groups that is being considered.
We would like to invite you to work with us in making this policy as robust as possible.
We note that this document states that the policy in its current form has protected and enhanced biodiversity across the Black Country. We would be very interested in seeing the evidence for this assertion as it runs contrary to national trends. Measures in the current authority monitoring reports across the Black Country relate purely to the maintenance of the area of existing designated sites or priority habitats. This is not a measure of biodiversity, does not provide a proxy measurement for biodiversity and does not illustrate the state of nature conservation across the Black Country. The Wildlife Trust can provide advice on developing new monitoring measures that more accurately reflect the duties of the LA under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006).Without a dedicated planning ecologist in the Black Country we would also like to re-iterate the value of ecological expertise in delivering this policy

It should be noted that the inclusion of new natural green space and new development will have implications for net developable areas and consequently, the amount of land which will need to be identified for development. It will also impact upon the viability of schemes and these factors need to be taken into account when assessing overall development requirements.

It should be noted that the inclusion of new natural green space and new development will have implications for net developable areas and consequently, the amount of land which will need to be identified for development. It will also impact upon the viability of schemes and these factors need to be taken into account when assessing overall development requirements.

It should be noted that the inclusion of new natural green space and new development will have implications for net developable areas and consequently, the amount of land which will need to be identified for development. It will also impact upon the viability of schemes and these factors need to be taken into account when assessing overall development requirements.

We welcome the proposal to include reference to the Black Country Geopark which is an internationally important initiative supported by the B&BC LNP. The proposed list of requirements for new developments should also incorporate protection and enhancement for valued landscapes and geological conservation interests (NPPF paras 109, 113 and 117.)
We welcome the proposed changes to ENV 1 that provide additional protection to irreplaceable habitats and to bring the definition of mitigation in line with NPPF to require compensation for residual negative impacts.
We further recommend that the proposed additional protection for ancient woodlands is extended to include other irreplaceable features such as ancient and veteran trees. The LNP can provide advice on the most accurate data sets available to identify such features.
We think that the policy would also further benefit from the following amendments;
* Reference to supporting the NIA and NIA strategy in accordance with Paragraph 117 and 157 of the NPPF.
* Reference to the role of the LNP as defined by the NPPF and Town and Country Planning Regulations (2012).
* Clarification on the level of protection afforded to SINC and SLINC. They are listed separately in the list of development controls suggesting differing levels of protection but the wording is ambiguous as to what the practical difference is. It states that development that "harms" a SINC will not permitted and SLINC are protected from "negative impacts".
* A recognition that development and changes in landuse outside the boundaries of designated site can have impacts on wildlife within designated sites as discussed in paragraph 3.37 of your report. This is applicable to designated sites of every sort, although the zone of influence will vary significantly depending on the importance of the site and the reasons for which it has been designated. To help guide developers it may be worth referencing the potential of lighting, pets, flytipping and the creation of barriers to wildlife movement as factors to be considered.
* The wording for species protection may also benefit from clarification relating to whether it is harm to individuals or populations of the named species groups that is being considered.
We note that this document states that the policy in its current form has protected and enhanced biodiversity across the Black Country. We would be very interested in seeing the evidence for this assertion as it runs contrary to national trends. Measures in the current authority monitoring reports across the Black Country relate purely to the maintenance of the area of existing designated sites or priority habitats. This is not a measure of biodiversity, does not provide a proxy measurement for biodiversity and does not illustrate the state of nature conservation across the Black Country. The LNP can provide advice on developing new monitoring measures that more accurately reflect the duties of the LA under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006).
Without a dedicated planning ecologist in the Black Country we would also like to re-iterate the role of the LNP in relation to all matters relating to the environment in the planning system and for individual developments and invite you to work with us in making this policy and its application as robust as possible.

IWA supports the creation of the Black Country Geo Park as a valuable means of linking geological sites partially utilising the canal system.

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.

Black Country Core strategy issues and options representations from CCDC

Please see attached the representations of Cannock Chase Council to the Black Country Core Strategy issues and options consultation.

I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt

Kind regards

Black Country Core Strategy
Issues and Options consultation July - September 2017
Response of Cannock Chase Council
Thank you for consulting Cannock Chase Council with regard to the first stage (Issues and Options) of the Black Country Core Strategy Review. Responses in relation to those questions of particular relevance to this District are set out below.
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?
This is difficult to conclude at this stage as much will depend on the emerging evidence as is acknowledged in paragraph 1.18. It is possible that some policies may be able to be 'stretched' or even stay the same, but in some cases significant changes may need to be made which could have cumulative impacts including cross-boundary implications, particularly in the light on ongoing work through the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (GBHMA) and the LEPS / WMCA.
It is noted that paragraph 1.27 (and 4.34) allows for sites to be put forward (via the Call for sites process) which lie within other authorities but adjoining the Black Country to enable cross boundary discussions to take place. As stated in paragraph 1.27, those sites would need to also be submitted to the relevant authority within whose boundaries the site lies (either all or in part) as these would also need to be considered thorough the Local Plan process for the authority in question. In these instances discussions would need to be had through the Duty to Co-operate in in the context of the emerging evidence base, ongoing strategic work as referenced above, and through any appropriate local plan reviews.
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? 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 impression is given on page 19 that the GBHMA study primarily relates to Green Belt but its scope is wider than that and the table should reflect the full scope of the study.
The above mentioned study includes landscape assessment which complements, but is a separate assessment to the Green Belt work. However, given the cross boundary implications, account should be taken of Landscape Character Assessment at the more localised level where such evidence exists. Cannock Chase Council has published (and updated) its Landscape Character Assessment so this will need to be given due consideration as work on the plan moves forward, as will consideration of other evidence of relevance such as that relating to the historic environment / landscape and setting. Further discussions on these matters would be welcomed as the detail of the plan starts to emerge.
Further discussion will be needed on transport to ensure that the full evidence base and most up to date situation is considered in relation to the appropriate stage of the plan.
It should also be noted that the evidence base on Cannock Chase SAC is in the process of being updated and so the Black Country authorities will need to continue to engage (as they currently are doing) in this process via the Cannock Chase SAC partnership. This is covered under key issue 5 and also in paragraph 3.61 but needs to be cross referenced to the evidence table.
Discussions are also ongoing in relation to the Cannock Extension Canal SAC and also the restoration of the line of the Lichfield and Hatherton canal and it is possible that further evidence may be required in relation to this and the advice and guidance of Natural England will be essential as the plan progresses, particularly if there are cross boundary implications from the emerging plan so dialogue under the Duty to Co-operate will need to be ongoing (again as already is the case).
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?
Paragraph 3.18 references the agreement to test the accommodation of an extra 3000 homes up to 2031 beyond local need to help address the shortfall in the wider HMA, however this will need to be considered in the light of the emerging evidence base in the GBHMA so the situation needs to be kept under review.
Question 5: Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt review?
Yes, as this picks up the higher tier work which is ongoing at the GBHMA level, however discussions will need to be ongoing under the Duty to Co-operate in relation to more localised work to ensure alignment and consistency where there are cross boundary implications: Cannock Chase Council published its own Green Belt assessment in 2016. Comments submitted under Question 1 are reiterated here in relation to the Call for Sites process.
Green Belt options should not only be considered in terms of their suitability (or not) for development but also whether they can play a role in being utilised more effectively in terms of a Green Infrastructure network which can serve a wide range of purposes (enhanced biodiversity, sport and recreation uses for example) which can enhance quality of life and potentially mitigate for the impacts of development on both a local and strategic scale. This should be explored further, in conjunction with partners across the HMA as work on the plan progresses.
Question 7: Do you think that the Core strategy vision and sustainability principles remain appropriate?
In principle, yes, however as set out in the response to Question 1 this will need to be kept under review in the light of the emerging evidence base. Whilst already covered via policy CSP3 of the 2011 strategy, the role of Green Infrastructure could be strengthened through the new plan, particularly (but not exclusively) in relation to the Green Belt as it can serve a wide range of purposes (enhanced biodiversity, sport and recreation uses for example) to enhance quality of life and potentially mitigate for the impacts of development on both a local and strategic scale.
Question 8: do you think that the Core Strategy spatial objectives remain appropriate?
In principle, yes, however as set out in the response to Question 1 this will need to be kept under review in the light of the emerging evidence base. Whilst already covered via policy CSP3 of the 2011 strategy, the role of Green Infrastructure could be strengthened through the new plan, particularly (but not exclusively) in relation to the Green Belt as it can serve a wide range of purposes (enhanced biodiversity, sport and recreation uses for example) to enhance quality of life and potentially mitigate for the impacts of development on both a local and strategic scale (potentially including that which may impact on the Cannock Chase SAC).
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?
In broad terms, yes although this will depend upon the detail of the emerging evidence (and see response to Question 1). Green Belt policy will need to be reconsidered however as new defensible and permanent boundaries may need to be set through this process.
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? What factors should be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities in neighbouring authorities eg proximity to the edge of the urban area, proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs?
Firstly, there would need to be clear and justified evidence that the Black Country has explored every reasonable opportunity to deliver as much development as possible within its own boundaries so this will depend upon the evidence which is still underway. Secondly, any shortfall relating to the Black Country should be considered 'in the round' ie not just in terms of those areas which have a direct boundary with the Black Country but as a whole as per the evidence base which is currently being prepared across the GBHMA (which will also avoid the risk of any double counting).
Earlier questions have raised the matter of the Call for Sites potentially covering cross boundary options including sites in neighbouring districts and our response to questions 1 and 5 should therefore also be noted here.
Should export of growth be required, close working will be required to ensure sustainable development and alignment between the BCCS and neighbouring plans.
Question 19a / b - do you support Spatial Option E4? Should any factors be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities?
Please see answer to question 15a.
Questions 26 / 27 and 28: Infrastructure
As the plan progresses, further discussions will be required on infrastructure issues depending on which sites / options are to be looked at further, as there may well be cross boundary implications which need to be addressed.
Questions 32 / 33: Health and Wellbeing
The role of sport and recreation could be strengthened (figure 10) as could the role of Green Infrastructure in providing for a range of needs.
Question 38: do you think that the current accessibility and density standards are appropriate for Green Belt release locations? If no, what standards should be applied in these locations and why?
As the adopted strategy does not allow for Green Belt release, presumably this means those standards set out in policy HOU2? Not all Green Belt sites will be the same as their context will vary on a case by case basis, and while the current policy allows for this to some extend further discussions will be needed in areas where there are cross boundary implications to ensure consistency between local plan approaches.
Question 49a: is there still a need for existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing?
Employment policy needs to be brought up to date to reflect the NPPF. Given the pressures on the need to find enough sites for housing poorer quality employment sites which are no longer fit for purpose should be considered for housing needs where appropriate and sustainable to reduce pressures elsewhere.
Question 50: Do you think that the Core Strategy should continue to set a target for the total employment land stock in policy EMP1? Do you think that distinguishing between Strategic high quality Employment Areas and Local Quality employment Areas is still appropriate?
The Core Strategy needs to reflect current national policy and guidance. As the plan (and evidence base) moves forward, delivering any net uplift (as per paragraph 6.58) will need to be explored further. As with housing, growth may well have strategic and cross boundary implications and further dialogue will be needed as the plan is developed.
Question 55: do you agree with the proposal to retain Policy EMP5?
Yes, it is important that the developers / owners of major new job-creating developments contribute to the recruitment and training of local people, which could also have cross boundary implications and benefits.
Question 56: Do you agree with the proposal to update Policy EMP6 in line with current priorities?
Yes. By promoting and enhancing the range of facilities within the Black Country it will provide visitors and residents with a range of activities which may reduce the pressures upon other, sensitive environments which are a draw for tourism, including the Cannock Chase SAC.
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 and local centres?
Yes - this approach is appropriate and consistent with the NPPF where supported by evidence and is designed to protect the vitality and viability of town centres which also has cross boundary implications.
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 - see answer to Question 74. This does not just relate to the vitality and viability of Black Country centres but also has implications beyond the Black Country.
Question 88: do you agree that the overall transport strategy supports all of the Core strategy spatial objectives? Together with questions 89 (proposed changes to the priorities for the transport network), 90 (changes relating to managing transport impacts of new developments), 91 (the efficient movement of freight), 92 (network for walking and cycling) and 93 (changes to Policy TRAN5 - travel and travel choices)
The transport implications of the plan will have far reaching consequences beyond the boundaries of the Black Country. Cannock Chase Council continues to engage proactively with a range of partnerships dealing with transport issues and will continue to do so as the detail of the plan progresses.
Re: 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.
Reference should be made to completion of the £100m, Walsall-Rugeley, Chase Line electrification/linespeed upgrade, which will lead to faster and more frequent services north of Walsall to the west Coast Main Line at Rugeley Trent Valley. The route will also provide an alternative diversionary route between Birmingham and Stafford for long distance passenger and freight services, when the Birmingham-Wolverhampton-Stafford, Stour Valley route, is closed for maintenance.
Reference should be made to the future ownership of the M6T and also the future role of the parallel A5T, which has a dual carriageway section through the Walsall MBC area at Brownhills.
Reference should be made to the Chase Line Station Alliance
* Network Rail and WMR is developing an innovative 'Stations Alliance', which, together with Abellio, the new West Midlands franchise operator, is hoped to bring about substantial improvements to West Midlands rail stations.
* The Alliance has created a WMR Stations Vision so that they are instantly recognisable in the areas which they serve and also integrate properly into the community.
* Stations should act as 'Gateways,' with quality infrastructure and more facilities such as shops.
* Network Rail are only funded to maintain stations to CP3 standards and 7-9 year franchises, do little to incentivize operators to invest in stations.
* Funded by Black Country and Stoke and Staffordshire LEPs and West Midlands Rail work is already underway to develop some indicative Master Plans for two trial routes - the Stour Valley Line from Birmingham to Wolverhampton (exclusive) and Chase Line stations north of Walsall.
* Options for funding the works will also be considered as part of a commission, which is due to be completed by Autumn 2017.
* GHD consultants have been appointed and site inspections of all stations carried out on with the consultant and local authorities, was in June.
* The study is in two stages:- Stage 1 is to confirm the projects for outline development. It is anticipated that this stage will result in a shortlist of projects for further development.
* Stage 2 will develop outline a master plan for each of the prioritised stations from Stage
WMCA Transport Delivery Committee endorsed this approach on 3 April 2017.
Re: 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.
R: Reference should be made to the proposed Mid Cannock road/rail interchange proposal by Pentalver. The facility would have the potential to be served by between 4 - 6 freight trains a day and serve the Black Country area.
Question 94: do you support the proposed changes relating to environmental infrastructure and place making?
Whilst already covered via policy CSP3 of the 2011 strategy, the role of Green Infrastructure could be strengthened through the new plan, particularly (but not exclusively) in relation to the Green Belt as it can serve a wide range of purposes (enhanced biodiversity, sport and recreation uses for example) to enhance quality of life and potentially mitigate for the impacts of development on both a local and strategic scale (potentially including that which may impact on the Cannock Chase SAC).
Question 96: Do you support the proposed changes relating to nature conservation?
The plan will need to ensure it takes into account any cross boundary implications as set out in the response to Question 2: the evidence base on Cannock Chase SAC is in the process of being updated and so the Black Country authorities will need to continue to engage (as they currently are doing) in this process via the Cannock Chase SAC partnership. This is covered under key issue 5 and also in paragraph 3.61 and potentially a policy may be needed to address SAC issues to align with the approach of other SAC Partnership authorities. The advice of Natural England will also be key to this issue.

Question 1:
Natural England's considers the environmental policies of the existing Core Strategy relatively robust. We, therefore, agree that the partial review should retain much of what is currently in place with regard to environmental policy with improvements, where necessary, to some policies to update these in accordance with new legislation and emerging environmental evidence. Where appropriate, the appropriate environmental policies should also be further strengthened in order to ensure the successful environmental transformation of the Black Country the Plan desires.

Natural England also considers that there should be a greater reference to the importance of the natural environment and landscape-scale green infrastructure (GI) benefits throughout the Plan. The necessary 'Environmental transformation' of the sub-region is indeed one of the core directions contained within the Plan's Vision; this direction and need is only further supported with the emergence of the Black Country Garden City aspirations. The benefits of GI to an urban area are well documented and are crucial to the delivery of high quality sustainable development. It can provide multiple benefits for people and wildlife, for health and well-being, for eco-system services, for the economy. As a result, we would recommend the Plan ensures the GI needs of the sub-region are front loaded as part of development decisions and referenced in development policy, where appropriate.

Question 2:
Natural England is unsure what the 'Strategic Mapping of the Black Country's Natural Environment' is. However, this may refer to Natural England's Black Country Garden City Part A GI Evidence Base & Pinch Point Analysis. This is an interactive Geographic Information Systems (GIS) tool which contains comprehensive and strategic Green Infrastructure (GI) evidence for the Black Country. It comprises detailed and layered social, environmental and economic information overlain with key housing sites data to identify the GI 'Pinch Points' (i.e. where GI intervention in the Sub Region should be prioritised). The GI evidence base considers the location of, and need for, 26 different GI functions across the Black Country relating to the needs of people and wildlife. It can inform both strategically and on a site specific basis as regards the areas greatest GI needs and opportunities.

This evidence, in a large part, meets the requirements of the Plan as detailed at paragraph 3.4. Natural England welcomes the planned preparation of a Habitat Regulations Assessment Screening Report at Preferred Spatial Option stage. (para 3.8).

Question 5:

Natural England generally supports the proposed evidence based approach to the Green Belt Review. In order to meet the housing demands of an area we recognise that it is sometimes necessary to release the most appropriate green belt land in order to best accommodate the needs of both the future and existing populations. The Sub-Region , in most parts, comprises tightly constrained built form, however, there are important pockets of valuable green space / infrastructure contained within which perform a variety of important functions for people and wildlife. It is, therefore, important that we ensure future development is planned such that the populations, new and existing, are able to receive the multi-functional benefits of GI which enhance quality of life.

We note the comments of the Black Country Local Nature Partnership (LNP) in response to this question recommending the evidence review is extended across the Black Country and not just the greenbelt. We believe that Natural England's 'Black Country Garden City: GI Evidence Base and Pinch Point Analysis' will be able to support you in this endeavour. We would advise you contact the LNP for further discussion on this issue as they suggest.

Question 6:
Key Issue 1 - Recommend inclusion of Natural England's 'Black Country Garden City: GI Evidence Base and Pinch Point Analysis'
For Key Issue 5 - Recommend inclusion of Natural England's 'Black Country Garden City: GI Evidence Base and Pinch Point Analysis'
Natural England welcomes the commitment to make provision for environmental infrastructure (Paragraph 3.35) and looks forward to working with you to help ensure this aim is fully realised.

We also welcome the recognition of the need to abide by the Habitat Regulations (Paragraph 3.38) but note that nationally and locally designated sites are excluded from this section. In consideration of their importance to the Sub region we would recommend reference to their respective value.

We welcome the inclusion of the reference to the Cannock Chase SAC and SAC Partnership and the Council's commitment to the undertaking of a fresh HRA screening exercise for the purposes of informing the Plan.

Question 7:
Natural England disagrees with the principle that brownfield sites will always be prioritised for development and it is our opinion that all sites must be assessed on the same merits regardless of location. Whilst the re-use of brownfield sites is encouraged in the NPPF, Paragraph 111 states that this is only when brownfield sites do not have high environmental value. There is a growing body of evidence that urban greenspace and brownfield sites can be of equal or greater importance for wildlife and people as some areas of greenbelt. (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response).

Question 8:
Given that paragraph 1.1 of this document states that one of the three main purposes of the strategy is to direct environmental activity to the right places it is surprising that there is no spatial objective that explicitly allows for the provision of green infrastructure. Environmental Infrastructure is one of the five strategic policies subsequently set out in the document but this would be greatly strengthened if it were backed up by an explicit spatial objective such as "safeguard existing environmental assets and take opportunities to improve environmental infrastructure to support wildlife populations and provide other ecosystem services". (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response)

Question 11a, 12a, 13a and 13b:
From an environmental perspective it would be preferable if the selection of sites were undertaken using an evidence based approach that weighs up the pros/cons of each individual site. The impact on and potential benefits for the provision of green and environmental infrastructure should be one of the characteristics used in the assessment of sites. This is not currently referred to in the opportunities and challenges tables for the different approaches.

Assessing each proposed development on its merits rather than using a broad-brush approach provides a genuine spatial choice that enables better sustainable development. (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response)

Questions 16 - 20
As with the spatial options proposed for housing, we would prefer the selection of sites for employment to be undertaken through evidence based approach that weighs up the pros/cons of each individual site. The impact on and potential benefits for the provision of green and environmental infrastructure should be one of the characteristics used in the assessment of sites. This is not currently fully explored in the opportunities and challenges tables for the different approaches.
Assessing each proposed development on its merits rather than using a broad-brush approach provides a genuine spatial choice that enables better sustainable development. (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response)

Question 21:
The definition of infrastructure in Policy DEL 1 is broad, including public open space and sustainable drainage but the provision of environmental infrastructure is not mentioned specifically in DEL1 nor Paragraphs 5.1 to 5.6 of this report except to say that environmental impacts should be mitigated. We would like to see the provision of additional environmental and green infrastructure explicitly covered in this policy and the LNP can provide advice and support for this. It is also our opinion that this policy should be no different in greenbelt or urban areas(Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response).

Questions 32 &33:
We would support the continuation of health and well being related criterion being interwoven throughout the various policies of the Plan provided the Council can satisfy itself that this is sufficient in order to secure to positive benefits from such aspirations. We particualrly weclcome the inclusion of Theme 2 - Planning for active lifestyles although it is important to recognise that simply provision of open spaces does not always provide the health benefits we desire. The quality of the open space, the sensory experiences, perceived safety, etc are also critical to encouraging utilisation and hence attaining the community benefits. Much of this comes down to management and manitenance of sites, however, it is also important to consider locational aspects of open space / GI as some existing areas may encourage use whereas others detract.

Question 36:
We disagree with both the assumption that housing densities should be different in greenbelt and urban areas and that there should be a minimum net housing density on brownfield sites. The ecological importance of brownfield sites can equal or greater than in the greenbelt and the need for green infrastructure is often higher in urban areas. The density of a development should depend on the needs of the residents and strategic goals and should therefore be assessed on a site by site basis. (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response)

Question 38:
Whilst we understand the need for creating space-efficient developments we would like to see each housing application assessed on its own merits to a universal standard. (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response)

Question 47:
The definition of healthcare facilities covered by Policy HOU5 should be extended to explicitly include the provision of multifunctional greenspace to allow healthy lifestyle choices as identified in section 6.11 of this report. (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response)

Question 49ab:
Given that the NPPF requires the planning system to contribute to and enhance the natural environment in the pursuit of sustainable development, consideration could be given to releasing land for green infrastructure and nature conservation. This is essential as current evidence indicates that our existing network of designated sites is not sufficient to protect wildlife, that areas of publicly accessible greenspace are essential for our health and wellbeing and provide other ecosystem services often lacking in very urban areas. (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response)

Question 65, 67, 69 and 72:
Strategic centres also have a role to play in providing access to green open space and providing ecosystem services. Each development should be assessed on its merits , and whilst intensive development may be appropriate in some situations in strategic centres, the need and opportunities for multifunctional green infrastructure should be considered in all locations. This is especially relevant to health and wellbeing if strategic centres are developed such that people both live and work in these centres. (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response)

Question 94:
We welcome updates of environmental infrastructure requirements based on up to date evidence and recommend reference to Natural England's Black Country Garden City Part A GI Evidence Base & Pinch Point Analysis. This is an interactive Geographic Information Systems (GIS) tool which contains comprehensive and strategic Green Infrastructure (GI) evidence for the Black Country. It comprises detailed and layered social, environmental and economic information overlain with key housing sites data to identify the GI 'Pinch Points' (i.e. where GI intervention in the Sub Region should be prioritised). The GI evidence base considers the location of, and need for, 26 different GI functions across the Black Country relating to the needs of people and wildlife. It can inform both strategically and on a site specific basis as regards the areas greatest GI needs and opportunities.
Natural England and the LNP can also provide existing data, advice and support in developing new proposals.

Question 95a:
We refer your authority to Natural England's Black Country Garden City Part A GI Evidence Base & Pinch Point Analysis. This is an interactive Geographic Information Systems (GIS) tool which contains comprehensive and strategic Green Infrastructure (GI) evidence for the Black Country. It comprises detailed and layered social, environmental and economic information overlain with key housing sites data to identify the GI 'Pinch Points' (i.e. where GI intervention in the Sub Region should be prioritised). The GI evidence base considers the location of, and need for, 26 different GI functions across the Black Country relating to the needs of people and wildlife. It can inform both strategically and on a site specific basis as regards the areas greatest GI needs and opportunities. We consider this can align with the emerging Black Country Garden City principles and therefore help usefully inform development decisions towards the Garden City vision. NE is working alongside the Local Enterprise Partnership and is part of the Black Country Garden City Working Group to seek to realise these aims.
We also welcome the Para 6.148 reference to potential inclusion of agreed GCPs into Policy CSP3: Environmental Infrastructure.

Natural England understands the reasons for the proposed removal of the specific criterion relating to renewable energy generation as part of CSP3. However, the importance of such facilities should not be diluted in the Plan and we would recommend other policy support where appropriate.

Question 95b:
The application of the principals will vary on a site by site basis, as the environmental and social needs will vary between developments. The location of the site on brownfield or greenfield land is likely to influence the site specific requirements, but different standards should not be applied on the basis of a greenfield/brownfield categorisation. (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response)

Question 96:
We welcome the proposed changes that provide additional protection to irreplaceable habitats and to bring the definition of mitigation in line with NPPF to require compensation for residual negative impacts. We further recommend that the proposed additional protection for ancient woodlands is extended to include other irreplaceable features such as ancient and veteran trees. The LNP can provide advice on the most accurate data sets available to identify such features. (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response)
Natural England also welcomes the proposed inclusion of a requirement for appropriate biodiversity features as part of new development - such as natural green space, use of native planting and nest boxes.
We welcome also the inclusion of a reference to the Black Country Geopark.
Natural England would recommend your authority liaise with the LNP who are able to provide advice towards making this Policy and its application as robust as possible.

Question 97:
We feel that there could be a greater recognition that nature and natural features are an important constituent of place making and local distinctiveness and often have a strong relationship with historic character. (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response)

Question 100:
Natural England recognises the difficulties that have emerged as a result of the inclusion of local projects ( such as the Hatherton Branch Canal Restoration Project) and whilst generally supports the principle of such initiatives, recognises that difficulties can arisen relating to the viability of such policies on grounds of technical challenges.
Recent discussions between NE and Walsall MBC (WMBC Policy EN4 Hatherton Branch Canal) have concluded that the viability of such projects are best considered at project level. For this reason, NE would support the removal of such initiatives from Core Strategy Policy and supporting paragraphs which, without the evidence to confirm technical viability, the deliverability of which remains in question.
We would add that reference to the supported principle of such initiatives would also be supported, provided the related paragraph made it clear that Council and Policy support would only be forthcoming where the evidence for its viability and deliverability was provided.

Question 101a:
We strongly agree with the principal of prioritising natural SUDs as this provides greater opportunity for SUDs to provide multiple functions and provide biodiversity features. (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response). Natural England's BCGC Part A GI Evidence Base can assist in this.

Question 102a:
We support this policy but suggest additional clarification and strengthening as discussed in our responses to Questions 102b and c.

Question 102b:
Would recommend specific reference to Natural England's BCGC Part A GI Evidence Base in accompanying paragraphs

Question 102c:
We suggest further clarification on what constitutes open space as the policy does not specify publically accessible open space. We would welcome a definition that extends all sites that have developed nature conservation interest, are used informally for recreation or provide other ecosystem services. Reference again to Natural England's BCGC Part A GI Evidence Base

REF BLACK COUNTRY CORE STRATEGY



The Friends of Sheepwash Local Nature Reserve would like to respond to this consultation set out below.The friends group is one of the longest established in Sandwell going back to 1997.
Sheepwash Local Nature Reserve,the only designated local nature reserve in Tipton has recorded around 190 bird species as well as having SSSI status sites and areas of locally rare important wildlife habitat such as wet meadow areas and wetland/reed habitat.Our primary objectives as per our constitution are the protection of the nature reserve and its surrounding wildlife corridors and also trying to combat the anti- social behaviour/vandalism that has plagued the site for many years. The Black Country Core strategy raises issues which are highly relevant to these two objectives and it also must be said that it directly threatens the future of this site.


THE CONSULTATION PROCESS AND THE FLAWED STRATEGY

Firstly we would like to state that we do not believe this consultation has been conducted in a very appropriate manner. The core strategy itself is far too broad and the oppressive 100 page document, and 13o+ questions is unlikely to have been communicated in such a way that the majority of people will even have read or understood what it is about.The shortened online
version is little more than a loaded confirmation bias tick box exercise whereby the BCCS can write

off a "democratic" consultation exercise to get what the constructors want- which is to build more houses on open space.

Quite simply we distrust the entire basis on whichit is constructed,and its authors appear to be minded towards the ever unsustainable expansion of urban environments by usurping any land available no matter how contaminated it is or how it will adversely affect those who are already finding it difficult to live with the overpopulated density that planners believe is acceptable.
A reasonable question which we would like to ask the BCCS is,if people reject your plans for housing more unsustainable housing in their areas,given you are refusing to even ask "IF" they want more housing instead of "where" it should be,are you just goingtoignore all the objections despite having no democratic basis to justify pressing ahead with it? To what extent are people already living in densely overpopulated areas like the Black Country compared with the rest of the UK even offered a choice in the BCCS vision?
Our open spaces are beingsystematically destroyed by the avarice of the "offshore" tax avoidance construction lobby and the political/business class who faithfully serve them and who themselves choose to remain and live in splendid ruralisolation,yet dictate that we should have to live with more overspill from Cities like Birmingham to line their pockets still further- most notably by supplementingthe private landlord and so called "affordable housing" industry.
Put simply, "the need" for housing in the Black Country is one which is founded on an odious lie about rising population.The population "rise" is down to manipulated Lego land building by
politicians,simply to raise the council tax bands to accrue more money in order to cover their perennial mismanagement .It can also be used to plead "poverty" to national Government, and unfortunately the unwanted West Midlands Combined Authority-(again with no valid mandate),is a means of achieving this.
Taking Sandwell as an example, one can see that from official figures on its creation in 1974 that this area according to the official guide from that year:
"With an estimated popu lation of 324,000 and a total area of 21,150 acres, the borough is urban in character and highly industrialised and includes the districts of Oldbury, Rowley Regis, Smethwick, Tipton, Wednesbury and West Bromwich."


A freedom of information request however revealed in 2014 that this figure had actually fallen to

316, 700.
https://www.whatdotheyknow . com/request/306 299/response/777 408/ attach/html /3/FOl %20Re sponse%201%20727066864 . doc.html


Having looked into the official statistics for the other black country boroughs,they also show this statistic of population falls with the 1980/90's, yet only increasing with the disastrous managed Eastern European free movement in 2004- itself a politically managed and motivated cheap labour exercise. With Brexit hopefully now alleviating this influx, to what extent has the BCCS taken this into account,and why shouldit want to create what could become unoccupied new house ghost towns that no one lives in?

Every mention of this theme of "need" running throughout the document and "the strategy" is challengeab le, yet the authors of this paper do not appear to want it to be. Below are the latest figures from the estimations of The office of national statistics.


Choose an area Walsall
278,715 people in 2016 All ages

Choose an area Sandwell
322,712 people i n 2016 All ages

136.919 males 141,796 females

49.1% i-----

159,904 males
162,808 females

49.6% -----i.





Choose an area Dudley
317,634 peop le i n 2016

Choose an area Wolverhampton
256,621 people i n 2016

All ages
155.945 males
161.689 females




49.1%
50.9%-----

All ages
127.25 males 129,596 females



49.5%
50






As seen by these statistics,Sandwell's population is the largest, yet as a borough it has 86 square kilometres {33 sq mi) according to the 2011census. Wolverhampton by comparison has 26.8 square miles.





"QJ' "' c


oil

"' E c
'ijj "' ::i

"O "O 2

'" QJ

.!: 0
ti; u

Statistical Unit of

i"ii'i i"ii'i

t: "'

'U "cO > -u"

Unit Measure c c ;::

';":: ::i "'

C;::i "'

Old Code

UJ UJ 0 Ill iii

ONSCode K04000001 E92000001 El2000005 EOS000030 EOS000027 EOS000028 EOS000031 n/a
Usually Resident Population 2011 Persons Nvmber 56075912 53012456 5601847 269323 312925 308063 249470 1139781
c Usually Resident Population 2001 Persons Nvmber 52041916 49138831 5267308 253499 305155 282904 236582 107814(
.!? Popn Change 2001-2011 Persons Proportion 0.071938 0.07307 0.059719 0.058755 0.02483 0.081668 0.051662 0.054081
;;;

-s Males Persons Nvmber 27573376 26069148 2763187 132319 153819 151592
Q.

123441 561171

0 Females
Q.

Persons Number 28502536 26943308 2838660 137004 159106 156471 126029 57861(

Area Heerores Number 15101354 13027843 1299832 10395.49 9795.66 8556.73 6943.95 35691.8:
Density Persons per ha Nvmber 3.713304 4.069166 4.309671 25.90768 31.94527 36.00242 35.92624 31.9339




One can see that this population density in Sandwell is grossly disproportionate to England and Wales- as are the other Black country boroughs,yet how is it that we are expected to take more, or that there should even be "a call for sites"? Just what madness is the BCCS trying to create?
THERE IS QUITE SIMPLY NO ROOM LEFT! At what point are planners going to accept this because currently it does not appear that they have set any maximum levels, except coming back every

few years and wanting more and more land for unsustainable housing supply when the "demand" has been artificially created.


Sheepwash and increasing population density

We have witnessed how increasing population density around the site has contributed to an increase in anti-social behaviour as well as the disjointed disintegration of community by influx of non- English speakers. Essentially foreign ghettos have been created where large social housing developments for rent have destroyed the character of towns.With a fall of police,no school
places,full doctors surgeries,over- subscribed school places,where is the "sustainability"?

The nature reserveitself is directly threatened as a concept by an increase in human population around its centre. In particular reference to this was the ludicrous decision to centre a regeneration corridor for housing RC9,to which we continue to fundamentally object.


THE secs QUESTIONS
We do not wish to answer all of the SCCS questions but the ones that are most relevant to protectingsheepwash from further threat of housing.



No we do not.

"There have been a number of changes to national policy and a housing shortfall has been identified in Birmingham which neighbouring authorities have a duty to consider accommodati ng."
For reasons stated above concerning population density,it is a disgrace that the BCCS tries to sneak this through without a full review. Why should neighbouring authorities have "a duty" to accommodate Birmingham's overspill? By "stretching" the existing special strategy you mean more land grabbing for housing so why hide behind such concealed scheming?
We are sick and tired of having to be "developed" in the urban area.

"Given the levels of growth to be planned for, care is needed to safeguard environmental and historic assets and to ensure enough services,such as open space,shops,schools and healthcare, are provided."


This statement in relation to Sandwell,and specifically corridor RC9 cannot be delivered.

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 deta i l s .






No. Each individual site should be looked at for constraints. Land contamination issues for specific sites in the 2011 core strategy were not looked at seriously. In particular the recently published Sandwell council Dudley Port supplementary planning document dealing with housing allocation sites in the RC9 corridor show that none of the proposed sites have been developed and still have considerable contamination issues associated with them. Five years on, and some of the sites have remained in exactly the same condition- ie non-deliverable. For how long should these sites
remain as paper target figure exercises before being realised that they are never going to be
deliverable? In particular the former Duport's tip site in Tividale was supposedly "reclaimed" but was not in terms of housing suitability in the 1990's under the auspices of the black country development corporation,but retains considerable development constraints. No local residents that we have spoken to want the area developed for housing at all,yet it remains on the plan against all local opposition- why?
We would also like to add that a large petition was handed into Sandwell council against this housing allocation site in the consultation for the DPSPD.We want to see this site removed from the allocation process as not deliverable and also not wanted.
We also note at this stage from the Health and Wellbeing Technical Paper



"Local communities through local and neighbourhood plans should be able to identify special protection for green areas of particular importance to them. By designating land as Local Green Space, local communities will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances. Identifying land as Local Green Space should therefore be consistent with the local planning of sustainable development and complement investment in sufficient homes,jobs and other essential services. Local Green Spaces should only be designated when a plan is prepared or reviewed, and be capable of enduring beyond the end of the plan period (para.76.)"





No we do not. We could not care less about "national guidance" as these theories do not live in our area, and neither do planning inspectors from Bristol.You frame these questions in such a way as to supply what you are going to do then ask people to challenge it based on "national guidance". Whereis there any evidence of compiling a strategy based on what local people want, instead of what national guidance demands? The housing allocations are not appropriate because they are unsustainable.
Our futures under increasing density appear in your context to be linked to the housing business market, supplying money to greedy developers. The strategy should not be based on HMA's and certainly not accommodati ng Birmingham overspill.Is this core strategy called "the Birmingham core strategy''?
With question four we simply ask,if more employment land is also sort in this exercise after you basically did not correctly apply it in 2011,why do you not just accommodate this into the existing brownfield sites instead of trying to clean up contaminated sites of past industrial use for housing and then grabbing land for employment from the greenbelt. The BCCS appears to want to increase

the population to unsustainable levels and then try to fit in employment as an afterthought.You cannot do this, the area is full and there are few jobs already.



Who are The Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (HMA) authorities and to whom are they accountable or answerable? Who elected them? We do not support building on green belt land to accommodate former Industrial land house buildingto line the pockets of the house building industry.Existing vacant Industrial land should be used to house new industry and support existing population job growth.
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?

Officers compiling this plan and particularly councillors approving it need to look at the social breakdown of communities and the threat to mental health that population density and also lack of jobs is creating.The more you increase the population the less chance of a job. All of strategy appears to be centred around "the economy'' and not about local peoples' needs or aspirations. There is a string sense that decisions are being promoted by people who do not live in the black country, by choice,and a blank cheque is being given to promote these schemes all based on theoretical numbers. There are few practical or realistic measures in this review just more theory, more acronyms,more figures.
You should look first at existing school places, existing doctors surgeries etc BEFORE adding more people and then as an afterthought deciding that more of these are then needed.




uestion 8 - Do you think that the Core Strategy spatial objectives remain appropriate? Yes/ No
not, what alternatives would you suggest and how might these changes impact on individual re Strateft'LllOlicies?


As previously stated, area RC9is not deliverable. It has not been deliverable for over 30 years before the 2011BCCS. It is proposed to build new houses on contaminated land putting existing residents at risk who do not want their quality of life ruined for the purposes of meeting targets. Their view should be a valid vision.
More open space/wildl fe areas are needed in the brownfield area.These are being lost and so called "mitigation" isn't being met where wildlife is concerned.






If you support the release of further employment land for housing, what should the characteristics of these employment areas be?

Question llb - 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 totally reject all your proposals. We do not support building houses on employment land. We do not support building houses in regeneration corridor nine as it is unsustainable to live there with little employment land there already for those who are out of work living there. You appea r here to be suggesting putting small existing businesses out of business on the say so of any
individ ual who wants to build houses there instead. This whole process is open to wide scale fraud with multiple agents of the house building industry submitting "call for sites" in areas where they can make a killing. What democratic mandate does the BCCS have for doing this? It is deplorable.





Question 14 - Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Housing Spatial Options? Yes/No
[If yes, please provide details.
No we do not support either. When you talk of "rounding off" the green belt this means grabbi ng land and putting a spin on it. Look at the black country borough density we have given evidence on and compare this with the green belt in areas like Warwickshire/Worcestershire/Shropshire and Staffordshire. These areas should give up their green belt land first. The green belt area , or

what you can even call such in the Black country cannot be given over to satisfying Birmingham's "poverty" pitch.To question 15 we would refer to this "export" as you termit. The black country is full.











El,E2,E3 NO STRONGLY OPPOSED. E4 yes. It has long been established that people can commute FROM areas such as Kinver or Malvern into the black country, yet never in the opposite direction. Why?
Q20 The Vaughn trading estate in Tipton is one such site, and we are keen to see The Autobase industrial estate on the border of Sheepwash retained for industrial use. NB WE OPPOSE ANY THREAT OF THIS SITE EVER BECOMING CONSIDERED FOR HOUSING.
















We do not support creating more housing capacity, as already stated in our area because it has reached an unsustainable level already. We have had many dealings with West Midlands police and also Sandwell council's anti-social behaviour teams. Pressure from new developments in the Tividale area and Great Bridge has resulted in more anti-social behaviour issues- particularly riding of off road bikes and illegal fishing on the nature reserve. This leads to the value of the site as "a nature reserve" and also a SSSI site being devalued.
We are aware of school places in the area being challenged, and in the Temple Way area (part of RC9 corridor), there are no shops,poor parking and a lack of any community centre.Another 250 houses in this area on the site of the former Duport's Tip will do nothing but over tip this unsustainable situation even further.
We are afraid that there is a major disconnect in reality from people who do not live in our area, and who are producing the BCCS and our personal and practical every day experiences. There is
little engagement other than this oppressive generalised strategy for allowing people to express their opinions.There is a lack of planning involving local people, and the impression that they do not have any control or say in how their areas will develop or remain.







"Poor ground conditions, a legacy of the Black Country's mining and industrial past,affect much of the area. As ground conditions are a major constraint on delivery,land remediation is a priority for delivery intervention.Itis recognised that in dealing with individual development proposals, exceptional circumstances may occasionally arise which result in genuine financial viability concerns,for example where remediation costs are above what could reasonably have been

foreseen. The Black Country has a good track record of working with developers to address viability issues and del ver sites."
Corridor RC9 is the epitome of this.The Black country development corporation failed. The Duport's tip site has onits doorstep the contaminated rattlechain lagoon,a chemical waste dump and threat with a still current waste management licence.It is unthinkable to build more housing
in such a location- hereis a direct quote from social media about someone who was conned, and we use that word because it is true when they bought a house built on the former sewage works next to this lagoon,which by stupidity of a Bristol planning inspector gained approval.
1 Ibought a house on the banks of this chemical dump. It took me 18 months to sell it (at a massive loss which I'm still paying for now).So glad I'm away from this now.Many nights sleep lost wonying about the health
of my kids growing up with this in our back garden.We had meetings with the Environmental Health and Rhodia and were even interviewed by the press. Nothing ever came ofit. Strangest of all, none of this showed up on any searches when we purchased the property from Barratts and the hazardous waste signs disappeared from the gates while the properties were being sold.
like Reply Message O 2 2 I 1
NOW THAT'S GREAT STRATEGIC THEORETICAL PLANNING FOR YOU ISN'T IT. It is also a reminder
that planners need to live in the real world and realise that people have to live in these areas for many,many years and building in such locations can have significant health consequences.
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,you are not living in the real world.Many sites like the ones mentioned already are not deliverable,have not been deliverable in the last five years,have not had anything done to them
in the last five years and are not economically viable.Why then are such sites retained when the prospect of them ever becoming a reality (which local people do not want anyway)?

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

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?


This is fundamental,but you don't appear to realise that putting pressure on people,reducing
their areas of open space,nature reserves and access to nature are a direct threat to their existing health and wellbeing.

* YOU MUST LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF HOUSING DENSITY AND HOW THIS PROMOTES MENTAL ILL HEALTH AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
* YOU MUST LOOK AT HOW CREATING FOREIGN GHETTOS,(OF LARGELY NON FIRST LANGUAGE ENGLISH SPEAKING IMMIGRANTS), IS DESTROYING A SENSE OF EXISTING COMMUNITY
* YOU MUST LOOK AT HOW HOUSING YOUNG AND OLD TOGETHER, AND MIDDLE CLASS WITH LOWER CLASS ECONOMIC UNDERCLASSES IS DESTROYING COMMUNITY.
* SOCIAL PRIVATE RENT HOUSING BOLTED ONTO NEW DEVELOPMENTS IS DESTROYING COMMUNITY.
* THE TIME OF SOCIAL AND MULTICULTURAL EXPERIMENTS,WHICH HAVE NEVER WORKED ANYWHERE IN THE URBAN REALM MUST CEASE.
More housing=fewer opportunities, jobs, school places, doctor's appointments,queues in shops. It also promotes car fumes, social inequality, power cuts etc
Worse stillis the health and wellbeing aspect of building sites on contaminated land. There are few studies at present which show the long term impact of 50 years of living on such a site. The new build on brownfieldland first approach is a potential cancer keg which will hit the NHS if it still exists. Illconceived developments such as The Stonegate housing estate in Walsall is a good example of such a mistake in that people who live in this area are unsure as well as the local authority as to how this direct health threat will be dealt with. The core strategy does not address this issue and neither does the unfit for purpose NPPF. Indeed the NPPF is a Nostradamus like nonsense with directly conflicting statements like the quatrains of the great "prophet" ,which can be used by anyone who wants to cherry pick to suit their particular argument.It is also written by civil servants who do not live in areas like the black country, and will never do so by choice- for the purposes of their own "health and wellbeing".
Question 35 - Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No If no, please explain why.


No for the reasons stated above.







We are totally opposed to so called "garden city" principles as these are a spin on land grabbing and building on areas of nature conservation and open space and reducing it. We submitted an objection to Sandwell councilregarding the Dudley Port supplementary planning document citing that though the document spoke of "Dudley port" the area affected by the largely economically non- viable housing areas (RC9) is located in Tividale. A petition signed by over 400 local residents

and users of Sheepwash nature reserve was also submitted at the same time.If this is white washed it makes a mockery of this whole exercise, asit is not what local people want, but people who believe they are somehow better than those people and who do not live in their area who are making life changing decisions for their areas."The garden city" is a direct threat to nature.



We do not believe the NPPF cares about this issue, but policy envl does address the concerns we have about development around sheepwash and how corridor RC9 is in conflict with this.
Question 102a - Do you support the proposed changes relating to open space, sport and recreation? Yes/No
If no, please explain
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
Question 102c - Do you think that any other criteria need to be added to Policy ENV6, or any other changes shou ld be made. Yes/No
If yes,please provide details.

You have not set out what these "proposed changes" are to policy ENV6 !This needs immediate clarification. We do not believe the caveat of the current policy ENV6 "making creative use of land exchanges and disposing of surplus assets to generate resources for investment" protects open space but just leaves it open to being targeted.We also do not believe that this policy should be used to undervalue nature conservation sites like sheepwash- eg by inserting a play area into the site which is not wanted. This policy has potential to undermine any existing nature reserve sites, and so we would like clarification on what the changes are.

We believe that nature reserve sites should have special mention in this policy so that they are not targeted for land swap use- i.e a football pitch is built on for housing,so a new football pitch is created on part of the nature reserve. The net loss is to the nature "reserve" but this policy does not adequately clarify if there is a hierarchy of sites. We are of course of the opinion that nature reserves should come before sports provision.
Question 115a - Do you have evidence of any realistic possibility of tracking in the Black Country? Yes/No
If yes, please provide details.
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.

We do not support tracking under any circumstances. The legacy of past industrial use and soil contamination make this concept a non- starter in terms of water/river contamination.





No we do not. These plans will always be opposed locally in terms of corridor RC9 and the development next to rattlechain lagoon and the former Duport's tip.There is very weak detail

provided in local plans like the Dudley port supplementary planning document about this area. Take for example the swot analysis, which Sandwell council did not even publish with the document,but was obtained through an FOi request.




We have added these to illustrate the point of locating additional housing next to a hazardous waste site. We can see here that the detailis poor from the DPSPD about land remediation costs and the "inappropriate development''.

Why would you possibly want to limit information for potential house buyers/investors? As far as we are concerned this sets the BCCS for what it is- a con job manufactured by the political class and their business chums and taking local people for every penny and leaving them with nothing except fractured communities built on contaminated land.In achieving this cruel vision it will no doubt supplement the income of people who register companies for tax avoidance purposes in places like the channel islands and who will profit from such land sales.
As stated previously we totally reject all your proposals in table 2. We do not support building houses on employment land. We do not support building houses in regeneration corridor nine as it is unsustainable to live there with little employment land there already for those who are out of work living there. You appear here to be suggesting putting small existing businesses out of business on the say so of any individual who wants to build houses there instead.This whole process is open to wide scale fraud with multiple agents of the house building industry submitting "call for sites" in areas where they can make a killing.What democratic mandate does the BCCS have for doingthis? It is deplorable.
We reject "garden city" principles for the academia con job that they are.

The first and only test for those producing this plan, supporting it and passingit is thus- would you live in regeneration corridor nine next to a toxic waste lagoon containing many tonnes of white phosphorus that poisoned birds that landed onit?
The leader of Sandwell council does not even live in Sandwell,the black country, or the West Midlands, but Derbyshire.
How many of the black country local enterprise partnership live in the black country? The same question for Andy Street?
Ibought a house on the banks of this chemical dump. IItook me 18 months to sell it (at a massive loss which I'm still paying for now).So
glad I'm away from this now. Many nights sleep lost worrying about the health of my kids growing up with this in our back garden. We had meetings with the Environmental Health and Rhodia and were even interviewed by the press.
Nothing ever came of it. Strangest of all, none of this showed up on any searches when we purchased the property from Barratts and the hazardous waste signs disappeared from the gates while the properties were being sold.
Like Reply Message 0 2 2. Jul) at 22 52
This is the reality, not the flowery padded out garbage in this document which is just theoretical academic metropolitan elites telling the plebs how they should all live.The document is underhand and has been devised and serves underhand corrupt people and business interests.





Yes- Retaining employment land for employment use and not promoting existing land for housing, and then grabbing areas of green belt/open space to compensate.
A strategy where the views of local people are engaged in the decision making process and not chaired by political front groups who do not involve the local community. One such example in our

area is the so called ''Tipton Development group" - chaired (who knows by what mandate}, by a former disgraced labour councillor.
No one appears to know anythingabout this group orits "plan" .There is no public record of who they are.
Quite unbelievably, there is no mention of Brexit in the entire core strategy document and how this will impact the whole "vision" of needing more housingor if it will even be needed at all.As this will hopefully reduce migration from Eastern Europe,(and there is current evidence of many returning there}, the population projections are likely to be entirely inaccurate,and so what does the BCCS intend to do if there is a population decrease yet still plough on with building homes that will be empty?
Business is also of course another issue, and surely we need to retain land in existing areas rather than trying to build more elsewhere. Money to remediate areas of contamination may not appear from the EU, so what are your contingencies at that point up to 2036?
Virtually all of the policies in this document may be flawed or superseded by new legislation beyond 2019 and our thankful EU exit.
We would wish to be consulted on all aspects of this core strategy in the future, so please keep us informed.

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.

We are instructed by Bloor Homes to submit a response to the Black Country Core Strategy Review - Issues and Options consultation. We welcome the opportunity to comment and to input into the preparation of the Core Strategy at the outset. We have responded to the questions as per the consultation document and have submitted the comments via the online consultation website. We trust you take our comments into consideration and look forward to being notified of future stages of consultation on the Core Strategy.


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?

No, we consider that the review needs to go further than a partial review. Whilst the overall strategy of supporting further housing and employment growth with an emphas is on regeneration should be supported, it is clear that the desire to achieve major regeneration of identified areas has failed, for a var iety of reasons relating to ownership, viability, market perceptions, site suitability etc.

The approach of the BCCS is based upon the revoked West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy and it was produced prior to the adoption of the Framework. Furthermore, there was a significant shift in the amount of housing and employment land that is required that the Black Country Core Strategy needs to respond to. The emerging Core Strategy is also being prepared in a significantly different econom ic climate to the adopted document. These factors clearly indicate that a new approach should be taken to the development through the Core Strategy review.







LONDON STOKE-ON-TRENT
0207 317 4550 01782 272555 t INVESTORS (

" 'RTPI

NOTIINGHAM WORCESTER

-t! IN PEOPLE



..,...j >'*Ot!Ol>$W(' ""'. "901¢.<*

0115 947 6236 01905 22666 RICS

A full list of Directors available on request Registration No. 4301250 Regulated by RIGS
Harris Lamb Limited, Grosvenor House, 75-76 Francis Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham 816 8SP w w w.harrislamb.com




To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017




The adopted Core Strategy seeks to deliver development by focusing the majority of new housing employment land requirements through a Growth Network and a series of Regeneration Corridors. It is, however, advised in the "delivery" section of the emerging Core Strategy (paragraphs 2.5 to 2.11) that the level of concentration in the growth corridors is "less than participated". One of the reasons for this is that more windfall sites will come forward than expected outside of the Growth Network. These windfall sites have assisted in housing delivery. Appendix C - Black Country Monitoring Summary, of the emerging plan advises that there is currently a shortfall of 3,039 dwellings in the Black Country to meet the housing requirement set by the adopted Core Strategy for the plan period to date. The windfall developme nts have effectively bolstered housing delivery whilst the housing allocations within the Regeneration Corridors and Growth Network generally have under delivered.

The Growth Network and Regeneration Corridor approach in the adopted Core Strategy is based upon the delivery of a significant quantum of housing on surplus employment land. The emerging plan advises in paragraph 2.5 that it is transpired that there is "not as much surplus employment land suitable for housing as anticipated". This is partly because the economy has strengthened and local firms are more robust than expected and partly because the sites are more affected by constra ints than expected.

It is, therefore, our view that the approach of the adopted Core Strategy seeking to focus new residential development on poor quality employment land will not deliver the housing numbers required. In addition, as referred to in response to Question 4, new evidence identifies a significant requirement for additional employment land. As a consequence, the emerging Core Strategy should prepare an approach that places less reliance on the delivery of housing on employment land.

This means that the trajectory of the current plan is unlikely to be met since it now relies heavily on windfall sites, some of which are not suited to market requirements or are also subject to contribution and viability problems.

A new strategy is required which will provide a range of sites on both brownfield and greenfield (Green Belt) opportunities which are capable of being delivered in the new plan period and which will be attract ive to the market.

We consider that a portfolio of new strategic sites would be identified in the emerging plan with capacities of 150 to 500 units plus. Such sites are more likely to be deliverable in the plan period although we do see the opportunity for a major mixed use urban extension to the south west of Junction 3 of the MS.

The identification of a range of sites will ensure that there is adequacy of supply and will avoid reliance on major urban extensions which can experience diff iculties in terms of funding and timing.

We also consider that a realistic approach needs to be taken to sites coming forward and that a non implementation rate needs to be identified in respect of the windfall element of the housing requirement. This is particularly important given the considerable reliance given to windfall sites in the current supply figure and the acknowledgement with Review department that there have been problems experienced in bring forward brownfield sites.

We also believe that the strategy needs to encompass wider discuss ions with the adjoining Authorities to the Black Country, including South Staffordshire , Wyre Forest and Bromsgrove

To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017




whose administrative boundaries adjoin or are close to the Black Country and where there are functional and geographical linkages.

We believe it is important that the Green Belt releases are phased for the early part of the plan period so that a mix of sites can be made available to meet the needs of the market. This will also help with early delivery and will help Local Authorities to maintain a five year housing land supply and also to boost significantly the supply of housing in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 47 of the Framework .

This approach is entirely consistent with the requirement of the Framework. The Framework requires Local Authorities to "be significantly " for supply of housing land. In accordance with the requirements of footnotes 11 and 12 of the Framework, housing sites would be "deliverable and available" in order to be allocated. The employment led regeneration approach of the emerging Core Strategy has failed this test at least to some degree.

Indeed, it is specifically advised that the higher than anticipated levels of windfall development do "conceal a delivery challenge". There is a large number of major housing sites concentrating the Growth Network. However, many of these sites have multiple constraints and financial assistance is required for them to come forward (paragraph 2.10). This includes 300 hectares of occupied employment land which has been allocated for housing. This approach brings issues of viability due to the cost of land assembly, business relocation and land remediation. Significant amounts of external funding are required to deliver this. Whilst some funding is available, it is not sufficient to cover the costs of compulsory purchase, which may be necessary on many sites. The sites are clearly not "deliverable" or "developable" in the context of the allocations test put in place by paragraph 47 of the Framework . To be considered deliverable, sites should be available for development now and be achievable for a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site. To be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged. This is not the case with a significant number of the employment allocations within the adopted development plan, by the emerging Core Strategies own omission.

Finally, we consider that a more robust SHMA should be undertaken focusing on the Black Country and the adjoining Authorities. The housing market areas should not be confined to the administrative boundaries of the Black Country Authorities. ( HL to review)

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 partic.ular issues that should be taken into account in considering development on any particular sites or any particular areas, please provide details.

We consider that a more in depth analysis needs to be undertaken of the brownfield windfall sites which make up the housing supply and, in particular, their ability to be brought forward. It is not clear to the development industry, given the current rates of completions and the need for a significant step up in delivery rates, that the windfall sites will come forward at the rate required.

A study needs to be undertaken regarding the true capacity likely to be obtained from brownfield windfalls. This will help to identify an appropriate non completion allowance.




To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h Septembe r 2017




As noted in the response to Question 1, we also believe that the SHMA needs to be reviewed so that it follows the housing market area and not simply Local Autho rity boundaries.

We further support the intention identified at paragraph 3.11 that the Council intends to explore new means of providing housing beyond the housing market area used for the BCCS review where there are clear migration or commuting links with Local Author ities. This strengthens our view that the SHLLA may have to be reviewed because of the linkages with surrounding authorities.

We also note that there appears to be no acknowledgement that the current shortfall provision, identified at some 3,000 units, has been taken into account in the housing requirement figure.

We are also of a view that the Black Country Green Belt review should prioritised. It is noted that it is suggested that the Green Belt review will not be completed until mid 2018. It is, however, anticipated that the preferred options consultation will be undertaken in September 2018. There is going to be a clear reliance on Green Belt sites in delivering the emerging housing requirement. We are concerned that there is insufficient time for the Author ities to properly digest the findings of the Green Belt review and identify strategy for new development based upon Green Belt land release in and around the Authority area in the time allowed between the completion of a Green Belt study and the publication of a consultation document.

Finally, we believe that further research should be undertaken regarding the effect of Government grant regimes in bringing sites forward. Our experience to date has been that the programmes have been time consuming, costly and unwieldly and have had limited benefit in helping to increase the supply of housing land.

Question 3 - Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014 to 2036 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.

National guidance requires Local Authorities to meet the full, objectively assessed needs in the market and affordable housing in their housing market area, as far is consistent with policies set out in the Framework. The objective is to boost significantly the supply of housing.

We have already commented in respect of our responses to Questions 1 and 2 that the SHMA needs to be reviewed and this could lead to an increase in the overall requirement for the Black Country Authorities.

As a starting point, we are concerned with the approach the SHMA has undertaken towards the HMA. It is advised that the SHMA does not seek to visit the HMA but build upon the work undertaken in establishing the Greater Birmingham HMA part of the preparation of the Birmingham Development Plan. HMAs overlap. The HMA for Birmingham will not be exactly the same as that for the Black Country. The emerging SHMA should have at least tested whet her the HMA boundary remains valid for the purposes of its assessment. This approach is, however, entirely missing.

It should also be noted that the SHMA does not fully address affordable housing requirements . It is confirmed in paragraphs 7.26 to 7.29 of the SHMA that the National Planning Practice Guide requires a "policy on" calculation of the housing needs for certain groups of people. Affordable housing need is not a direct component of the demographic part of the objectively assessed








To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017



needs assessment. As such, an updated calculation of this nature is not included in the SHMA. It is for the client Authorities to consider whether more new homes over and above the objectively assessed housing needs figure identified in the SHMA should be provided in the plan area to address more affordable housing need through policy adjustments .

The Framework advises that paragraph 159 that Local Authorities should develop SHMAs to inform their local plans. The SHMA should, amongst other things, "address the need for all types of housing, including affordable housing and the need for different groups in the community". This process has not been completed by the SHMA. It does not, therefore, provide a complete picture of housing need within the subject Authority areas.

The SHMA is not, therefore, in accordance with national guidance in this regard. The SHMA needs to be supplemented with additional information that factor in affordable housing requirements to establish a true objectively assessed housing needs figure.

Furthermore , there is a difference between the objectively assessed housing needs figure and the quantum of housing which should be allocated for development by the plan. Not all housing sites deliver as expected. This is clearly evidenced by the existing Core Strategy where there has been significant under delivery in the Growth Network. As referred to in our response to Question 1, there is clear uncertainty regarding for delivery of a significant number of the housing sites identified on the existing employment land by the current development plan documents. It is necessary for the emerging Core Strategy to identify housing requirement notably above the objectively assessed housing needs figure take account of non-delivery of proposed housing allocations. At the present time the Black Country Core Strategy has undelivered its housing requirement by approximately 11.6% (Appendix C - Black Country Monitoring Summary). It is, therefore, our view that the finalised objectively assessed housing needs figure should be increased by a minimum of 11.6% of flexibility to supply and to take account of the delivery in delivering the urban regeneration sites.

The current completion rates are significantly below what is required for even the current local plan figure and are significantly below the figure of 3,690 units per annum identified above. Even at 78,190 units over the plan period, this produces an annual requirement of 3,554 units per annum which is also far in excess of what has ever been achieved annually in the SCCS. We consider that this is a challenging figure in terms of the current supply , over half of which is dependent upon existing housing supply in the urban area and is largely made up of brownfield windfalls.

In this context we believe that it is going to be important to significantly change the balance of the current supply with a far greater reliance on greenfield/Green Belt sites than the 25,000 units identified.

We note that the overall supply from the urban area depends upon some 42 ,507 units from existing sites in the urban area and a further 8,335 units from the urban area, much of which appears to come from former employment sites.

Given the problems in releasing employment sites in the current strategy (see paragraph 3.16 and paragraph 2.5, the latter identifying the problems in releasing employment sites), we consider that the local plan strategy wh ich relies on some 65% of provision on urban brownfield/windfall sites (using the draft figure of 78,190) is wholly unrealistic given that, to date, the current local plan has failed to meet existing requirements.













To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017



The components of the supply in the urban area (completions plus existing housing supply plus estimated further housing supply) total some 56,520 units which equates to a requirement of 2,569 units per annum over the new plan period. However, that required completion figure is in excess of what has been achieved to date through the current local plan, which relies entirely upon brownfield windfalls in the urban area, that figure being 2,325 units per annum.

It is apparent , therefore, that the current supply of brownfield/windfall sites is unlikely to produce sufficient units to meet its share of the housing requirement and, therefo re, the contribution which this makes to the overall requirement should be reduced (this will be consistent with our argument about adopting a non completion rate) and the contribution from greenfield/Green Belt sites outside the existing urban boundary should be increased. This will require contributions to be made from greenfield/Green Belt sites within the BCCS administrative area and also from sites in sustainable locat ions which are well related to the Black Country in neighbouring authorities.

Although we reserve our position on this point, we would expect that the contribution from the existing brownfield windfalls to be reduced by some 25%, to reflect the problems of market attractiveness, viability , delivery etc and with a consequent increase in the greenfield/Green Belt allocations.

In summary, the SHMA does not properly identify the housing requirement for the HMA. In addition, the reliance upon brownfield urban sites is not supported by evidence. There is, therefore, a requirement for a fundamental shift in the plan strategy with greater reliance placed upon Green Belt/greenfield land release in and around the wider HMA area of sustainable locations in order to ensure delivery.

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

It is not clear if the land requirement fully encompasses land to be lost to residential development and other uses. The current supply of housing identified in the emerg ing plan requires a significant contribution to be made from former employment sites. It has been noted, however, in the Issues and Options document that employment sites have failed to come forward at the rate expected, partly owing to problems in site delivery but also partly because of recovery in the demand for the stock of existing employment sites.

We expect that demand to continue for local and sub regional requirements on appropriate sites.

In addition, we believe there will be a demand for large, greenfield sites to encourage inward investment and we consider that sites should be identified to the north and south of the Black Country which are well connected to the existing motorway network.

We consider that the employment requirement should be based on a net addition in order to take account of any losses to alternative land uses.

We agree that a range of sites will need to be allocated including, as noted above, high quality sites to attract inward investment.

To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017




We also question whether the figure of 394 hectares of employment land can be regarded as being realistically deliverable and we believe that further assessment about the delivery of this land should be undertaken.

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 agree that a review of the Green Belt is an imperative element of the new strategy. This needs to be completed in time to inform the Core Strategy Review to be published in September 2018.

We consider the review will need to assess the implications of land release 1n adjoining Authorities including South Staffordshire, Wyre Forest and Bromsgrove.

Green Belt sites in both the Black Country Authority area and in these other authorities will have a vital role to play in providing the necessary housing supply to meet the housing requirement over the plan period. They will need to make an early contribution to housing supply and should not be phased for delivery in the latter part of the plan period.

We also think it is important that the Green Belt Review extends beyond the current plan period in order to provide a lasting Green Belt boundary in accordance with the advice set out in paragraphs 83 and 85 of the Framework. That advice suggests that the boundaries should be set so that they are capable of enduring beyond the plan period. If necessary, safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt should be identified in order to meet long term development needs "stretching well beyond the plan period' .

We would suggest that the Green Belt Review should be conducted in order to provide for development needs up to 2051.

Question 6 - Do you agree that the key issues set out in part 3 are 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 believe that an extensive review needs to be undertaken in order to ensure that an appropriate strategy is arrived at. Clearly, reliance upon the existing strategy will fail to meet the housing requirement and employment land requirement identified.

We believe that elements of the evidence base require furthe r exam ination including the SHMA and also the likely delivery of housing and employment from existing brownfield windfalls and existing sites.

There appears to be some confusion in the plan as to the extent of the gap identif ied. The policy talks about 22,000 homes but then also identifies a further 3,000 units as a shortfall in the housing area. It is unclear if the current shortfall of 3,000 units has been addressed.

In this context there may be a need to identify a further 28,000 homes over and above the existing, alleged, capacity in the urban area.

There is a need to continue to plan for a growing population. However, the SHMA underestimates delivery, this is not taken into account affordable housing needs. Furthermore, the emerg ing plan housing requirement will need to take into account the fact that not all housing allocations deliver. As a consequence the housing requirement will need to be significantly











To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017




above the objectively assessed housing needs figure within the SHMA. The suggested "gap" between supply and need of 22,000 dwellings is, therefore , less than that actually required.

This figure may increase further when proper account is taken of the true delivery capabilities of the land in the existing urban area. So far, the current local plan has failed to deliver development rates which would meet with the housing requirement for the new plan period and indeed do not even meet the requirement which will be needed from the current supply identified. This suggests that the contribution from greenfield/Green Belt sites from within the SCCS area and from Authorities adjoining it will need to be increased significantly.

The Green Belt release should not be seen as a matter of a last resort but needs to be part of an overall strategy with early releases needed to ensure supply of housing sites in the early part of the plan period.


Question 7 - Do you think that the Core Strategy Vision and Sustainability principles remain appropriate? Yes/No. If not, what alternative would you suggest?

We are content with four of the five Core Strategy Vision and Sustainability principles but the fourth bullet point, 'Brownfield first' is no longer relevant. As we have explained in our responses to previous questions, the reliance on Brownfield development needs to be significantly reduced. It is already acknowledged that a significant number of homes, 22,000 - 25 ,000 may have to be allocated on Greenfield I Green Belt sites (these could be still higher if the current shortfall is to be rectified) and if an update to the SHMA reveals the need to release new land to meet affordable housing needs. We have already explained that we are concerned that there is an over reliance on Brownfield sites and that this could, overall, increase the requirement for new development on Green Field I Green Belt sites to some 40,000 units which will be approximately half of the overall housing requirement, once account is taken of the shortfall from the early part of the current local plan period.

For these reasons, Greenfield I Green Belt sites will have to be released at the same time as the Brownfield supply in order to ensure an adequate supply in the early part of the planning period. This is entirely consistent with paragraph 17 of the Framework which, whilst encouraging the reuse of brownfield sites, does not seek to prioritise their use over greenfield sites.

We would also question whether or not the reference to 'comprehensive approach to development' has any real meaning in terms of delivery of individual sites. We consider that if 'comprehensive ' development is required this can still take place on a phased basis so long as new development achieves a comprehensive approach in due course.

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

We consider that spatial objectives two and three need to be reviewed. Whilst we would continue to support the delivery of high quality employment and with in the regeneration corridors, which will also be helpful to local business, it should be recognised that inward investme nt may require high quality Greenfield sites on the edge of the Black Country. The availability of land 6a54 was a considerable benefit in bringing JLR to the Black Country and the opportunity for similar scale developments should be seized through the local plan review process. In particular, we consider that further strategic employment development on the north side of the Black Country and also to the south east, adjoining Junction 3 of the M5, should be identified.











To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017





We also have concerns that the regeneration corridors have failed to deliver wide spread change throughout the Black Country and that they may not provide a basis for sustainable communities in the new plan. In this context, we believe that this particular objective should be replaced with the following:

'Identification of a series of deliverable housing sites on Brownfield and Greenfield within, adjoining and well connected to the Black Country which will meet the BCCS requirement over the plan period. These sites will be of differing scales and will provide different market opportunities to delivering housing over the planning period. '

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?

We agree that the policies should be changed. The growth network strategy will not provide for the new housing and employment requirements for the Emerging Local Plan and need to be amended to reflect the fact that a significant proportion of both housing and strategic employment sites will have to take place on Greenfield I Green Belt sites outside of the current urban boundary and indeed on sites outsides of the BCCS administrative area.

The presumption in favour of using Brownfield sites first also needs to be altered so that an appropriate portfolio of residential and employment sites can be developed over the planning period.

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 comment upon specific regeneration corridors but we believe that they will all need to be reviewed to see if they are fit for purpose. In particular, they should be examined to see if the employment elements are still likely to be required by the existing and new local businesses. Where it is clear that significant change in the regeneration corridor are unlikely to happen during the new planning period, alternative provision should be made.

Question 11A - Do you support Strategic Option 1A? Yes/No.

We consider that Option 1A is to be preferred to Strategic Option 1B. That said, we believe there continues to be an overre liance upon Brownfield I windfall sites in the existing supply and there is also an over reliance on Brownfield windfalls in the estimated further housing supply.

We consider, therefore, that overall the Greenfield requirement should provide some 40 ,000 units of the overall requirement which itself should be increased to 81,290 units.

Question 11A - Do you support Option 1B? Yes/No.

We do not support Option 1B. We believe that there is a considerable overreliance on Brownfield
I windfall sites and that there is no real certainty that further employment land can be released








To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: gth September 2017




over the plan period to provide housing opportunities. Indeed some of the existing housing allocations need to be reviewed as they will remain in employment use.

In this context , we consider that the Option 1B would not meet the objectives of the housing policies of the Framework particularly those which require the planning system to deliver significantly increased supply of housing land.

Paragraph 47 of the Framework requires housing opportunities to be deliverable and to meet the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area.

A review of the current local plan strategy has demonstrated that there is considerable uncertainty about reliance on a portfolio of Brownfield windfall sites we consider that strategic Option 1B, which is largely reliant upon such a source of housing opportunities, will not provide any certainty to the development industry regarding the provision of housing throug h the plan period.

Question 12A - Do you support spatial Option H1? Yes/No. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? Eg. Ability to create a defensible new Green Belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services.


We believe that spatial Option H1 - Rounding off is to be preferred to spatial Option H2 - sustainable urban extensions. We believe that the 'rounding off' approach is more likely to deliver a series of well-planned and well located developments throughout the plan period thereby maintaining a deliverable supply of housing land for the house building industry. This could include sites of approximately 150 - 750 units.

Question 13A - Do you support Spatial Option H2? Yes/No.

What should the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) B? E.g. a 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 settlement/services, proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban regeneration.

In general terms we do not support Spatial Option H2 in that we believe a range of smaller strategic sites should be provided in the Green Belt in order to ensure a deliverable supply of housing land in the plan period.

We consider that some modest size sustainable urban extensions could be provided. These should have the capacity to support a primary school and local facilities.

We would not favour sustainable urban area extensions of greater size than this as we do not consider that they would be deliverable in the plan period. In this context we believe that modest scale SUEs could be provided as part of a blended Spatial Option H1.

















To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017




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?

We believe that it will be necessary for sites to be released outside of the Black Country administrative area in order to meet the housing requirements of the BCCS.

In particular, we believe that sites should be identified in South Staffordshire , Wyre Forest and Bromsgrove districts which could accommodate some of the overspill.

We consider that locations should be selected which could fulfil the following criteria.

A. Be situated immediately adjoining the Black Country administrative boundary and with the ability to achieve easy access to the existing urban area: or

B. Be located in settlements in close proximity to the Black Country.

By these means people from the Black Country will be able to find suitable housing in locations which still afford them the opportunity to support the economic growth of the Black Country and will remain in employment in the Black Country area.

Question 158 - Do you think that there are any potential locations that should be
considered? Yes/No

We believe that Hagley will provide an appropriate location for sites to be released which meet the needs of the Black Country . Hagley is very well related to the Black Country, lying just to the south of the edge of Stourbr idge. It is a sustainable settlement, being the second most sustainable settlement in Bromsgrove District with both primary and secondary schools, a railway station, local facilities and can access the Black Country through the primary road network.

We have ident ified two opportunities for sites to be released at Hagley through the "Call for Sites" process on behalf of Hagley Hall Estate.

The site addresses are as follows:

1. Western Road I Stourbridge Road
2. Stoney Lane I Stakenbridge Lane I Kidderminster Road

The Call for Sites response provides more information regarding the suitability of these two sites for development.

We can confirm that, subject to the release of the sites from the Green Belt through the Bromsgrove District Plan, both sites can be made available in the early part of the plan period and will provide high quality, sustainable developments which will fulf il the housing requirements of residents of the Black Country.




To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017




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.

Yes, we believe that the best way to ensure that housing provided outside of the Black Country will meet the needs of people, who would otherwise live in the Black Country is to ensure that the location of new development has good functional and geographic links with the Black Country. As noted in our response to Question 15b, sites can be released which immediately adjoin the Black Country and administrative area or are in settlements with strong functional and physical/geographic links with the Black Country. Clearly, there is nothing to stop people migrating from the Black Country into the surrounding Shire Authorities, regardless of housing provision, and, therefore, the provision of additional housing outside of the BCCS, but which will meet the needs of people living in the Black Country, will ensure that the needs of Black Country residents can be met either within the Black Country itself or in settlements which are suitable to serve it.

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.

Policy DEL1 may need to be reviewed to ensure it is compliant with the policies of the Framework and the PPG. Otherwise, it will be important for the SCCS Authorities to work with neighbouring Authorities to ensure that sites which are released to meet the Black Country's needs outside of the SCCS area are also supported by appropriate infrastructure. Some of this may also have to be outside of the BCCS area, particularly for the larger urban expansion sites which may provide local facilities, green space, primary schools etc.

The important point here is to ensure that statutory undertakers are involved with the local plan process at an early stage in order to ensure that necessary infrastructure including highways, drainage and power are available for the development envisaged.

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.

We suspect that, generally speaking, there will need to be incremental improvements in social infrastructure provision to meet the requirements for the occupants of new development over the plan period. This will need to be assessed in detail with social infrastructure providers and it will be necessary for the BCCS Author ities to work with landowners and developers in this regard together with the relevant strategy consultees.

We should state from the outset that the provision of doctor's surgeries should be regarded as a "private sector" matter. Doctor's surgeries are generally self-funding and do not need to be the subject of Section 106/CI L contributions.

We believe it is likely that some new infrastructure will have to be provided for individual schemes in terms of local highway improvements but this will have to be assessed on a case by case basis. This will probably be best assessed at the local level.




To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017




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.

At this stage we have no comment to make other than to confirm that viability is an important issue which needs to be addressed when dealing with sites. We would say at this stage that the Authorities should adopt realistic expectations as to what social and environmental infrastructure can be borne by individual developments .

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.

We have commented previously that the new plan will need to shift the emphasis away from urban regeneration to a more balanced provision of brownfield and greenfield sites. Part of a problem with the delivery of brownfield sites in the urban area are that they are returning to an active employment use. The adopted Core Strategy sought to direct new residential development to what was, at the time of its preparation, redundant employment land. These employment sites are now developing a new lease of life. As such, the capacity for residential development on brownfield land is highly limited and these areas are self regenerating into active employment sites.

Furthermore, given the problems in bringing forward any brownfield sites for a variety of reasons, it will be necessary to ensure that greenfield opportunities can be brought forward in the early part of the plan period in order to ensure an appropriate supply of land.

We should add that our experience of working in the Black Country is that Local Authorit ies do need to understand the constraints of developing in the Black Country, particularly in respect of highway and urban design standards. Many of the sites are difficult to develop and the Council's will need to apply development management considerations flexibly in order to ensure that sites can come forwa rd. Many brownfield sites present physical and topographic challenges which can influence the formation of layout and design solutions. All of these factors need to be taken into account when individual planning applications are assessed and Council's should apply flexibility when discussing design solutions, including transportation solutions, with applicants.

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

Our concern is that it takes a considerable amount of time to make funding available for new development and this is holding back sites from being released.

Furthermore, it cannot be guaranteed that the funding which is provided now will continue to be available during the plan period.

In this context it is important to ensure that there is a balance portfolio of housing provided, some of which will be less dependent upon intervention funding. It is for this reason that we endorse a higher proportion of development on greenfield/Green Belt sites that is currently in the plan (see response to Question 3).


To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017




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 .

Our response is that such matters will be better addressed at the development management stage when it will be possible to assess the specific impacts on individual schemes . The locational criteria to be applied to the inspection of sites should suffice for development plan purposes. Some of this will reflect matters such as proximity to local services.

Question 348 - What design features do you think are key to ensuring new development encourages healthy living, which could be assessed through the HIA process? Yes/No.

We make no formal comment at this stage but we participate in the next stage of the plan when more details of this approach are given. We would stress, however, that given the likely constraints which will exist on many of the Black Country sites, care should be taken to ensure that overly restrictive policies are not introduced which could further reduce the attractiveness of sites for development.

Question 35 - Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No.

We agree that HOU1 of the adopted Core Strategy needs to be reviewed. We agree that the proportion of housing to be built on previously developed land will need to be significant ly changed and we have indicated elsewhere that the plan should provide approximately 50% provision of the overall requirement on greenfield/Green Belt sites.

We do not favour the prioritisation of brownfield land over greenfield land. Given the considerable amount of housing required across the SCCS, it will be necessary for both greenfield and brownfield sites to be released at the same time. Indeed, the greenfield/Green Belt sites are likely to serve different areas of the housing market and so it is important that a range of sites are made available for all sectors of the housing market at the same time. Furthermore, the current strategy has failed to deliver the required level of housing from former employment sites.

In terms of a discount rate we note that there have been problems in meeting the housing requirement in the plan period. This is of particular concern given that the housing trajecto ry for the adopted Core Strategy starts at a relatively low rate. The extent of the shortfall is already 3,000 units. Given the problems of bringing forward brownfield sites, acknowledged elsewhere in the Issues and Options document and including matters such as viability , ground conditions, failure to release employment sites, we believe that a discount rate of 25% should be applied. We consider that the proportion of a greenfield land as an element of the overall supply should be increased to provide more certainty about provision across the plan period and to ensure that the housing strategy accords with paragraph 47 of the Framework. It should be noted that the requirement to boost significantly the supply of housing land became national policy after the adoption of the SCCS.

We make no comment at this stage about proposals for high density allocations within strategic centres, particularly in Walsall, until more market research has been carried out to ensure that there is both demand and an appetite from the house building industry to provide this type of product.














To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017



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

The calculation of density standards is a difficult subject. It is always important to start first with an understanding of what the net developable area of a site may be irrespective of whether it is brownfield or greenfield. It will be necessary to have regard to site constraints, parking requirements , offset distances, green infrastructure requirements, drainage requirements etc. All these factors can significantly limit the net developable area on a site. It is importa nt not to overestimate densities which could be achieved when identifying sites to be released for development. Once schemes provide more than 40 dwellings per net developable acre the dens ity will usually require some element of flatted development.

The insistence on 35 dph as a minimum could well be problematic on greenfield sites, particularly if these are expected to accommodate significant areas of green infrastructure .

We would suggest that the policy should be targeted to provide densities of 30 to 40 dph depending upon site specific circumstances. High densities could be achieved in more centralised locations adjoining transport hubs, again subject to achieving acceptable design standards. We have explained elsewhere the importance of ensuring that development management expectations need to be married to strategic housing requirement delivery objectives.

Question 37A - Do you think that the existing Policy HOU2 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No.

We would keep the threshold at 15 homes or more. This will help to assist smaller house builders to provide schemes on smaller sites which tend to have more exacting development management issues such as overlooking, relationship with existing uses etc and which can limit the ability to increase densities.

Question 38 - Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards are appropriate for Green Belt release locations? Yes/No.

In our response to Question 36, we identify the fact that greenfield sites may have more exacting requirements in terms of green infrastructure and that density standards may well have to be reduced. We suggest that density standards of 35 dph net developable should 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.

Generally speaking we believe that provision for the housing for the elderly will be demand driven. Occupiers will understand their markets and we would not welcome a restrictive policy regarding the location of either accommodation for the elderly or affordable housing.

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.

No. The SHLAA does not fully assesses affordable housing requirements as referred to above; as such it should not dictate an overall mix. House builders will provide housing to meet their










To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017




assessment of the localised market. Setting general standards across such a large area can be difficult and can cause problems with housing delivery. Furthermore, it is important to understand the likelihood that new housing will also generate movements from existing stock to new stock thereby freeing up smaller properties for first time buyers and younger families.

Question 41A - Do you support the introduction of a policy approach towards self and custom built housing in the Core Strategy? Yes/No.

No, we do not support this approach . This is not a significant sector of the housing market. Given the need to encourage housing on a variety of sites, many of which will have problems in terms of delivery, we would not favour a policy which could create problems for delivery and viability which would arise if self and custom built housing were introduced into any housing requirement.

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.

We believe it would be prudent to keep the affordable homes target as originally set. Otherwise this will cause problems for delivery of brownfield sites.

Question 43A - Do you think that the existing Policy HOU3 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No .

Yes, we believe that the site size threshold should be retained at 15 homes. Again this will assist in the delivery of smaller sites by smaller house builders . It will also be more attractive to the registered providers who do wait to manage a few plots on smaller schemes.

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 site? Yes/No.

Yes, we agree that the figure should be retained at 25%, subject to viability.

Question 45 - Should an increase in affordable housing requirement beset for Green Belt release sites, to reflect the likely financial viability of these sites? Yes/No.

The release of greenfield/Green Belt land also has significant costs associated with it. It is more likely to require new below ground infrastructure to be provided such as drains, power supply etc. Other physical and social infrastructure contributions will also be required such as educat ion, transport etc. Therefore, greenfield sites are not necessarily more able to contribute more significantly to affordable housing than brownfield sites. We believe, therefore , that a flat rate of 25% across the BCCS area should be adopted.

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

We should first comment that the provision of medical facilities relating to new developments should be funded through the clinical commissioning groups. In most cases this will involve new or extended doctor's surgeries. Doctor's surgeries can be provided through the private sector since the surgeries generate a rental income so that there is a development/investm ent market












To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017




ready to provide the product. It does not need to be funded from contributions from residential development.

Education provision will need to be carefully researched so that a capacity in schools is identified in order to avoid unnecessary contributions being sought. The funding implications of the Education Funding Agency also need to be taken into account when assessing education requirements.

In terms of new community facilities, we agree that these need to be carefully assessed in order to ensure that they will in fact be used and also maintained by the local community. In some circumstances it may be better for contributions to be made to upgrade and expand existing facilities rather than create new ones which will simply put a drain on revenue resources.

Question 49A - Is there a need for the existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing? Yes/No.

We believe that the policy does need to be refined in order to ensure that land which is not necessary to be retained can be released quickly and easily without the need for extensive marketing. Also we see no reason for the policy to be applied where land has been allocated in an action area plan or similar alternative plan for alternative use.

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.

We believe that this should be included and that a net target should be set in order to allow for losses to alternative uses.

Question 55 - Do you agree with the proposed proposal to obtain Policy EMP5? Yes/No.

Generally we do not favour contributions which seek to restrict jobs to existing residents. This can cause problems for companies who have their own training and apprenticeship programmes. Whilst it is clearly desirable for Local Authorities to work alongside employers in trying to get local residents into work opportunities, this should be on a voluntary basis and there should not be a requirement to impose what is, in effect, a restrictive trade practice.

Question 94 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to environmental infrastructure and place making? Yes/No.

We appreciate that it will be necessary to review environmental infrastructure in the light of changing circumstances and updated guidance and standards. We will comment further on this issue at the next stage of the plan.

Question 95A - Do you think Garden City principles should be applied at the Black Country? Yes/No.

We would not encourage this as a design approach in the Black Country. Garden City proposals were developed expressly for new settlements. The Black Country has a different history and heritage as do the settlements which are geographically and functionally close to the Black Country. We do not consider that the vernacular of the existing urban area and adjoining settlements is appropriate for Garden City principles.










To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: Sth September 2017




Question 96 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to nature conversation? Yes/No.

It should be noted that the inclusion of new natural green space and new development will have implications for net developable areas and consequently, the amount of land which will need to be identified for development. It will also impact upon the viability of schemes and these factors need to be taken into account when assessing overall development requirements.

Question 98 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to design quality? Yes/No.

The introduction of National Space standa rd does have implications for viability since it introduces a significant additional cost to new house building without any necessary uplift in values. It can, therefore, have a significant impact upon the delivery of schemes.

Question 99C - Do you think that National Space standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country. Yes/No .

In the context of our response to Question 98, we do not agree that National Space standards should be introduced.

Question 99D - Do you think that the standards should be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No.

Given that greenfield sites have their own viability concerns, we would not agree that the standards should vary between brownfield and greenfield sites. In any event we do not support the introduction of National Space standards.

Question 101A - Do you support the proposed changes relating to flood risk, sustainable drainage and urban heat island effects? Yes/No.

Whilst we appreciate the need to have regard to new standards regarding SuDS provision, the implications upon site layout and viability do need to be considered. A f lexible approach will be required from the Local Authorities when assessing individual schemes. In particular, a j oined up approach is needed by strategy undertakers to ensure that SuDS areas will be adopted if they are part of wider open space areas.

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 .

We consider that the benefits of higher energy efficiency, as opposed to renewable energy should be considered in the planning balance, particularly when this has an implication for viability. Although this may not be capable of being a policy requirement there is no reason why it should not be capable of being taken into account. The residential sector has spent a considerable amount of money investing in improved materials which improve the energy efficiency of buildings and these factors need to be taken into account of both domestic and non­ domestic schemes .

We are instructed by Barberry Developments Ltd. to submit a response to the Black Country Core Strategy Review - Issues and Options consultation. We welcome the opportun ity to comment and to input into the preparation of the Core Strategy at the outset. We have responded to the questions as per the consultation document and have submitted the comments via the online consultation webs ite. We trust you take our comments into considerat ion and look forward to being notified of future stages of consultation on the Core Strategy.

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?

No, we consider that the review needs to go furthe r than a partial review. Whilst the overall strategy of supporting further housing and employment growth with an emphasis on regeneration should be supported, it is clear that the desire to achieve major regeneration of identified areas has failed, for a variety of reasons relating to ownership, viability , market perceptions, site suitability etc.

The approach of the SCCS is based upon the revoked West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy and it was produced prior to the adoption of the Framework. Furthermore, there was a significant shift in the amount of housing and employment land that is required that the Black Country Core Strategy needs to respond to. The emerging Core Strategy is also being prepared in a significantly different economic climate to the adopted docume nt. These factors clearly indicate that a new approach should be taken to the development through the Core Strategy review.

The adopted Core Strategy seeks to deliver development by focusing the majority of new housing employment land requirements through a Growth Network and a series of Regeneration Corridors . It is, however, advised in the "delivery" section of the emerging Core Strategy (paragraphs 2. 5 to 2.11) that the level of concentration in the growth corridors is "less than participated". One of the reasons for this is that more windfall sites will come forward than
LONDpected OLg-R_j R Gr ti.. tw
AG<NCY AWARDS

0207 317 4550 01782 272555 ,.2013 - 2016

r '\ INVESTORS

NOTIINGHAM
0115 947 6236

WORCESTER
01905 22666

-"IN PEOPLE


RICS


A full list of Directors available on request Registration No. 4301250 Regulated by RICS
Harris amb imited,Grosvenor House. 75-76 Francis Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham 816 8SP w w w.harrislamb.com





Appendix C - Black Country Monitoring Summary, of the emerging plan advises that there is currently a shortfall of 3,039 dwellings in the Black Country to meet the housing requirement set by the adopted Core Strategy for the plan period to date. The windfall developments have effectively bolstered housing delivery whilst the housing allocations within the Regeneration Corridors and Growth Network generally have under delivered.

The Growth Network and Regeneration Corridor approach in the adopted Core Strategy is based upon the delivery of a significant quantum of housing on surplus employment land. The emerging plan advises in paragraph 2.5 that it is transpired that there is "not as much surplus employment land suitable for housing as anticipated ". This is partly because the economy has strengthened and local firms are more robust than expected and partly because the sites are more affected by constraints than expected.

It is, therefore, our view that the approach of the adopted Core Strategy seeking to focus new residential development on poor quality employment land will not deliver the housing numbers required. In addition, as referred to in response to Question 4 , new evidence identifies a significant requirement for additional employment land. As a consequence , the emerging Core Strategy should prepare an approach that places less reliance on the delivery of housing on employment land.

This means that the trajectory of the current plan is unlikely to be met since it now relies heavily on windfall sites, some of which are not suited to market requirements or are also subject to contribution and viability problems.

A new strategy is required which will provide a range of sites on both brownfield and greenfield (Green Belt) opportunities which are capable of being delivered in the new plan period and which will be attractive to the market.

We consider that a portfolio of new strategic sites would be identified in the emerging plan with capacities of 150 to 500 units plus. Such sites are more likely to be deliverable in the plan period although we do see the opportunity for a major mixed use urban extension to the south west of Junction 3 of the M5.

The identification of a range of sites will ensure that there is adequacy of supply and will avoid reliance on major urban extensions which can experience difficulties in terms of funding and timing.

We also consider that a realistic approach needs to be taken to sites coming forward and that a non implementatio n rate needs to be identified in respect of the windfall element of the housing requirement. This is particularly important given the considerable reliance given to windfall sites in the current supply figure and the acknowledgement with Review department that there have been problems experienced in bring forward brownfield sites.

We also believe that the strategy needs to encompass wider discussions with the adjoining Authorit ies to the Black Country, including South Staffordshire, Wyre Forest and Bromsgrove whose administrative boundaries adjoin or are close to the Black Country and where there are functional and geographica l linkages.

We believe it is important that the Green Belt releases are phased for the early part of the plan period so that a mix of sites can be made available to meet the needs of the market. This will also help with early delivery and will help Local Authorities to maintain a five year housing land













supply and also to boost significant ly the supply of housing in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 47 of the Framework.

This approach is entirely consistent with the requirement of the Framework. The Framework requires Local Authorities to "be significantly " for supply of housing land. In accordance with the requirements of footnotes 11 and 12 of the Framework, housing sites would be "deliverable and available" in order to be allocated. The employment led regeneration approach of the emerging Core Strategy has failed this test at least to some degree.

Indeed, it is specifically advised that the higher than anticipated levels of windfall development do "conceal a delivery challenge". There is a large number of major housing sites concentrating the Growth Network. However, many of these sites have multiple constraints and financial assistance is required for them to come forward (paragraph 2. 10). This includes 300 hectares of occupied employment land which has been allocated for housing. This approach brings issues of viability due to the cost of land assembly , business relocation and land remediation. Significant amounts of external funding are required to deliver this. Whilst some funding is available , it is not sufficient to cover the costs of compulsory purchase, which may be necessary on many sites. The sites are clearly not "deliverable" or "developable" in the context of the allocations test put in place by paragraph 47 of the Framework. To be considered deliverable, sites should be available for development now and be achievable for a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site. To be considered developable , sites should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged. This is not the case with a significant number of the employment allocations within the adopted development plan, by the emerging Core Strategies own omission.

Finally, we consider that a more robust SHMA should be undertaken focusing on the Black Country and the adjoining Author ities. The housing market areas should not be confined to the administrative boundaries of the Black Country Author ities. ( HL to review)

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 any particular areas, please provide details.

We consider that a more in depth analys is needs to be undertaken of the brownfield windfall sites which make up the housing supply and, in particular, their ability to be brought forward. It is not clear to the development industry, given the current rates of completions and the need for a significant step up in delivery rates, that the windfall sites will come forward at the rate required.

A study needs to be undertaken regarding the true capacity likely to be obtained from brownfield windfalls. This will help to identify an appropriate non completion allowance.

As noted in the response to Question 1, we also believe that the SHMA needs to be reviewed so that it follows the housing market area and not simply Local Authority boundaries.

We further support the intention identified at paragraph 3.11 that the Council intends to explore new means of providing housing beyond the housing market area used for the BCCS review where there are clear migration or commuting links with Local Authorities. This strengthens our












view that the SHLLA may have to be reviewed because of the linkages with surrounding authorities.

We also note that there appears to be no acknowledgement that the current shortfall provision, identified at some 3,000 units, has been taken into account in the housing requirement figure.

We are also of a view that the Black Country Green Belt review should prioritised. It is noted that it is suggested that the Green Belt review will not be completed until mid 2018. It is, however, anticipated that the preferred options consultation will be undertaken in September 2018. There is going to be a clear reliance on Green Belt sites in delivering the emerging housing requirement. We are concerned that there is insufficient time for the Author ities to properly digest the findings of the Green Belt review and identify strategy for new development based upon Green Belt land release in and around the Authority area in the time allowed between the completion of a Green Belt study and the publication of a consultation document.

Finally, we believe that further research should be undertaken regarding the effect of Government grant regimes in bringing sites forward. Our experience to date has been that the programmes have been time consuming, costly and unwieldly and have had limited benefit in helping to increase the supply of housing land.

Question 3 - Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014 to 2036 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.

National guidance requires Local Authorities to meet the full, objectively assessed needs in the market and affordable housing in their housing market area, as far is consistent with policies set out in the Framework. The objective is to boost significantly the supply of housing.

We have already commented in respect of our responses to Questions 1 and 2 that the SHMA needs to be reviewed and this could lead to an increase in the overall requirement for the Black Country Authorities.

As a starting point, we are concerned with the approach the SHMA has undertaken towards the HMA. It is advised that the SHMA does not seek to visit the HMA but build upon the work undertaken in establishing the Greater Birmingham HMA part of the preparation of the Birmingham Development Plan. HMAs over lap. The HMA for Birmingham will not be exactly the same as that for the Black Country. The emerging SHMA should have at least tested whether the HMA boundary remains valid for the purposes of its assessment. This approach is, however, entirely missing.

It should also be noted that the SHMA does not fully address affordable housing requirements. It is confirmed in paragraphs 7.26 to 7.29 of the SHMA that the National Planning Practice Guide requires a "policy on" calculation of the housing needs for certain groups of people. Affordab le housing need is not a direct component of the demographic part of the objectively assessed needs assessment. As such, an updated calculation of this nature is not included in the SHMA. It is for the client Authorities to consider whether more new homes over and above the objective ly assessed housing needs figure identified in the SHMA should be provided in the plan area to address more affordable housing need through policy adjustments.














The Framework advises that paragraph 159 that Local Authorities should develop SHMAs to inform their local plans. The SHMA should, amongst other things , "address the need for all types of housing, including affordable housing and the need for different groups in the community". This process has not been completed by the SHMA. It does not, therefore , provide a complete picture of housing need within the subject Authority areas.

The SHMA is not, therefore, in accordance with national guidance in this regard. The SHMA needs to be supplemented with additional information that factor in affordable housing requirements to establish a true objectively assessed housing needs figure.

Furthermore, there is a difference between the objectively assessed housing needs figure and the quantum of housing which should be allocated for development by the plan. Not all housing sites deliver as expected. This is clearly evidenced by the existing Core Strategy where there has been significant under delivery in the Growth Netwo rk. As referred to in our response to Question 1, there is clear uncertainty regarding for delivery of a significant number of the housing sites identified on the existing employment land by the current development plan documents. It is necessary for the emerging Core Strategy to identify housing requirement notably above the objectively assessed housing needs figure take account of non-delivery of proposed housing allocations. At the present time the Black Country Core Strategy has undelivered its housing requirement by approximately 11.6% (Appendix C - Black Country Monitoring Summary). It is, therefore , our view that the finalised objectively assessed housing needs figure should be increased by a minimum of 11.6% of flexibility to supply and to take account of the delivery in delivering the urban regeneration sites.

The current completion rates are significantly below what is required for even the current local plan figure and are significantly below the figure of 3,690 units per annum identified above. Even at 78,190 units over the plan period, this produces an annual requirement of 3,554 units per annum which is also far in excess of what has ever been achieved annually in the BCCS. We consider that this is a challenging figure in terms of the current supply, over half of which is dependent upon existing housing supply in the urban area and is largely made up of brownfield windfalls.

In this context we believe that it is going to be important to significantly change the balance of the current supply with a far greater reliance on greenfield/Green Belt sites than the 25,000 units identified.

We note that the overall supply from the urban area depends upon some 42,507 units from existing sites in the urban area and a further 8,335 units from the urban area, much of which appears to come from former employment sites.

Given the problems in releasing employment sites in the current strategy (see paragraph 3.16 and paragraph 2.5 , the latter identifying the problems in releasing employment sites), we consider that the local plan strategy which relies on some 65% of provision on urban brownfield/windfall sites (using the draft figure of 78,190) is wholly unrealistic given that, to date, the current local plan has failed to meet existing requirements.

The components of the supply in the urban area (completions plus existing housing supply plus estimated further housing supply) total some 56,520 units which equates to a requirement of 2,569 units per annum over the new plan period. However, that required completion figure is in excess of what has been achieved to date through the current local plan, which relies entirely upon brownfield windfalls in the urban area, that figure being 2,325 units per annum.












It is apparent, therefore, that the current supply of brownfield/windfall sites is unlikely to produce sufficient units to meet its share of the housing requirement and, therefore, the contribution which this makes to the overall requirement should be reduced (this will be consistent with our argument about adopting a non completion rate) and the contribution from greenfie ld/Green Belt sites outside the existing urban boundary should be increased. This will require contributions to be made from greenfield/Green Belt sites within the BCCS administrative area and also from sites in sustainable locations which are well related to the Black Country in neighbouring authorities.

Although we reserve our position on this point, we would expect that the contribution from the existing brownfield windfalls to be reduced by some 25%, to reflect the problems of market attractiveness , viability, delivery etc and with a consequent increase in the greenfield/Green Belt allocations.

In summary, the SHMA does not properly identify the housing requirement for the HMA. In addition, the reliance upon brownfield urban sites is not supported by evidence. There is, therefore, a requirement for a fundamental shift in the plan strategy with greater reliance placed upon Green Belt/greenfield land release in and around the wider HMA area of sustainable locations in order to ensure delivery.

Question 4 - Do you consider the employment land requirement identified to 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.

It is not clear if the land requirement fully encompasses land to be lost to residential development and other uses. The current supply of housing identified in the emerging plan requires a significant contribution to be made from former employment sites. It has been noted, however, in the Issues and Options document that employment sites have failed to come forward at the rate
expected, partly owing to problems in site delivery but also partly because of recovery in the demand for the stock of existing employment sites.

We expect that demand to continue for local and sub regional requirements on appropriate sites.

In addition, we believe there will be a demand for large, greenfield sites to encourage inward investment and we consider that sites should be identified to the north and south of the Black Country which are well connected to the existing motorway network.

We consider that the employment requirement should be based on a net addition in order to take account of any losses to alternative land uses.

We agree that a range of sites will need to be allocated including, as noted above, high quality sites to attract inward investment.

We also question whether the figure of 394 hectares of employment land can be regarded as being realistically deliverable and we believe that further assessment about the delivery of this land should be undertaken.

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 agree that a review of the Green Belt is an imperative element of the new strategy. This needs to be completed in time to inform the Core Strategy Review to be published in September 2018.

We consider the review will need to assess the implications of land release in adjoining Authorities including South Staffordshire, Wyre Forest and Bromsgrove.

Green Belt sites in both the Black Country Authority area and in these other authorities will have a vita l role to play in providing the necessary housing supply to meet the housing requirement over the plan period. They will need to make an early contribution to housing supply and should not be phased for delivery in the latter part of the plan period.

We also think it is important that the Green Belt Review extends beyond the current plan period in order to provide a lasting Green Belt boundary in accordance with the advice set out in paragraphs 83 and 85 of the Framework. That advice suggests that the boundaries should be set so that they are capable of enduring beyond the plan period. If necessary, safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt should be identified in order to meet long term development needs "stretching well beyond the plan period' .

We would suggest that the Green Belt Review should be conducted in order to provide for development needs up to 2051.

Question 6 - Do you agree that the key issues set out in part 3 are 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 believe that an extensive review needs to be undertaken in order to ensure that an appropriate strategy is arrived at. Clearly , reliance upon the existing strategy will fail to meet the housing requirement and employment land requirement identified.

We believe that elements of the evidence base require further examinat ion including the SHMA and also the likely delivery of housing and employment from existing brownfield windfalls and existing sites.

There appears to be some confusion in the plan as to the extent of the gap identified . The policy talks about 22,000 homes but then also identifies a further 3,000 units as a shortfall in the housing area. It is unclear if the current shortfall of 3,000 units has been addressed.

In this context there may be a need to identify a further 28,000 homes over and above the existing, alleged, capacity in the urban area.

There is a need to continue to plan for a growing population. However, the SHMA underestimates delivery , this is not taken into account affordable housing needs. Furthermore, the emerging plan housing requirement will need to take into account the fact that not all housing allocations deliver. As a consequence the housing requirement will need to be significantly above the objectively assessed housing needs figure within the SHMA. The suggested "gap" between supply and need of 22,000 dwellings is, therefore, less than that actually required.

This figure may increase further when proper account is taken of the true delivery capabilities of the land in the existing urban area. So far, the current local plan has failed to deliver development rates which would meet with the housing requirement for the new plan period and indeed do not even meet the requirement which will be needed from the current supply identified .











This suggests that the contribution from greenfield/Green Belt sites from within the BCCS area and from Authorities adjoining it will need to be increased significantly.

The Green Belt release should not be seen as a matter of a last resort but needs to be part of an overall strategy with early releases needed to ensure supply of housing sites in the early part of the plan period.


Question 7 - Do you think that the Core Strategy Vision and Sustainability principles remain appropriate? Yes/No. If not, what alternative would you suggest?

We are content with four of the five Core Strategy Vision and Sustainability principles but the fourth bullet point, 'Brownfield first' is no longer relevant. As we have explained in our responses to previous questions, the reliance on Brownfield development needs to be significantly reduced. It is already acknowledged that a significant number of homes, 22,000 - 25,000 may have to be allocated on Greenfield I Green Belt sites (these could be still higher if the current shortfall is to be rectified) and if an update to the SHMA reveals the need to release new land to meet affordable housing needs. We have already explained that we are concerned that there is an over reliance on Brownfield sites and that this could, overall, increase the requirement for new development on Green Field I Green Belt sites to some 40,000 units which will be approximately half of the overall housing requirement, once account is taken of the shortfall from the early part of the current local plan period.

For these reasons, Greenfield I Green Belt sites will have to be released at the same time as the Brownfield supply in order to ensure an adequate supply in the early part of the planning period. This is entirely consistent with paragraph 17 of the Framework which, whilst encouraging the reuse of brownfield sites, does not seek to prioritise their use over greenfield sites.

We would also question whether or not the reference to ' comprehensive approach to development' has any real meaning in terms of delivery of individual sites. We consider that if 'comprehensive' development is required this can still take place on a phased basis so long as new development achieves a comprehensive approach in due course.

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

We consider that spatial objectives two and three need to be reviewed. Whilst we would continue to support the delivery of high quality employme nt and within the regeneration corridors, which will also be helpful to local business, it should be recognised that inward investment may require high quality Greenfield sites on the edge of the Black Country. The availability of land 6a54 was a considerable benefit in bringing JLR to the Black Country and the opportunity for similar scale developments should be seized through the local plan review process. In particular, we consider that further strategic employment development on the north side of the Black Country and also to the south east, adjoining Junction 3 of the MS, should be identified.

We also have concerns that the regeneration corridors have failed to deliver wide spread change throughout the Black Country and that they may not provide a basis for sustainable communities in the new plan. In this context, we believe that this particular objective should be replaced with the following:





'Identification of a series of deliverable housing sites on Brownfield and Greenfield within, adjoining and well connected to the Black Country which will meet the BCCS requirement over the plan period. These sites will be of differing scales and will provide different market opportunities to delivering housing over the planning period.'

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?

We agree that the policies should be changed. The growth network strategy will not provide for the new housing and employment requirements for the Emerging Local Plan and need to be amended to reflect the fact that a significant proportion of both housing and strategic employment sites will have to take place on Greenfield I Green Belt sites outside of the current urban boundary and indeed on sites outsides of the SCCS administrative area.

The presumption in favour of using Brownfield sites first also needs to be altered so that an appropriate portfolio of residential and employment sites can be developed over the planning period.

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 comment upon specific regeneration corridors but we believe that they will all need to be reviewed to see if they are fit for purpose. In particular, they should be examined to see if the employment elements are still likely to be required by the existing and new local businesses. Where it is clear that significant change in the regeneration corridor are unlikely to happen during the new planning period, alternative provision should be made.

Question 11A - Do you support Strategic Option 1A? Yes/No.

We consider that Option 1A is to be preferred to Strategic Option 1B. That said, we believe there continues to be an overreliance upon Brownfield I windfall sites in the existing supply and there is also an over reliance on Brownfield windfalls in the estimated further housing supply.

We consider, therefore , that overall the Greenfield requirement should provide some 40,000 units of the overall requirement which itself should be increased to 81,290 units.

Question 11A - Do you support Option 1B? Yes/No .

We do not support Option 1B. We believe that there is a considerable overreliance on Brownfield I windfall sites and that there is no real certainty that further employment land can be released over the plan period to provide housing opportunit ies. Indeed some of the existing housing allocations need to be reviewed as they will remain in employment use.

In this context, we consider that the Option 1B would not meet the objectives of the housing policies of the Framework particularly those which require the planning system to deliver significantly increased supply of housing land.





Paragraph 47 of the Framework requires housing opportunit ies to be deliverable and to meet the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area.

A review of the current local plan strategy has demonstrated that there is considerable uncertainty about reliance on a portfolio of Brownfield windfall sites we consider that strategic Option 1B, which is largely reliant upon such a source of housing opportunities, will not provide any certainty to the development industry regarding the provision of housing through the plan period.

Question 12A - Do you support spatial Option H1? Yes/No. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? Eg. Ability to create a defensible new Green Belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services.


We believe that spatial Option H1 - Rounding off is to be preferred to spatial Option H2 - sustainable urban extensions. We believe that the 'rounding off' approach is more likely to deliver a series of well-planned and well located developments throughout the plan period thereby maintaining a deliverable supply of housing land for the house building industry. This could include sites of approximately 150 - 750 units.

Question 128 - Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No.

Yes, we specifically consider that land at Kingswinford bordered by the 84178, the A449 Kidderminster Road and the A4 101 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".

Question 13A - Do you support Spatial Option H2? Yes/No.

What should the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) B? E.g. a minimum/maximum size, mix of uses, mix of housing types, accessibi lity 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 settlement/services , proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban regeneration.

In general terms we do not support Spatial Option H2 in that we believe a range of smaller strategic sites should be provided in the Green Belt in order to ensure a deliverable supply of housing land in the plan period.

We consider that some modest size sustainable urban extensions could be provided. These should have the capacity to support a primary school and local facilities.

We would not favour sustainable urban area extensions of greater size than this as we do not consider that they would be deliverable in the plan period. In this context we believe that modest scale SUEs could be provided as part of a blended Spatial Option H1.















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?

We believe that it will be necessary for sites to be released outside of the Black Country administrative area in order to meet the housing requirements of the BCCS.

In particular, we believe that sites should be identified in South Staffordshire, Wyre Forest and Bromsgrove districts which could accommodate some of the overspill.

We consider that locations should be selected which could fulfil the following criteria.

A. Be situated immediately adjoining the Black Country administrative boundary and with the ability to achieve easy access to the existing urban area: or

B. Be located in settlements in close proximity to the Black Country.

By these means people from the Black Country will be able to find suitable housing in locations which still afford them the opportunity to support the economic growth of the Black Country and will remain in employment in the Black Country area.

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.

Policy DEL1 may need to be reviewed to ensure it is compliant with the policies of the Framework and the PPG. Otherwise , it will be important for the BCCS Authorities to work with neighbouring Authorities to ensure that sites which are released to meet the Black Country's needs outside of the BCCS area are also supported by appropriate infrastructure. Some of this may also have to be outside of the BCCS area, particularly for the larger urban expansion sites which may provide local facilities, green space, primary schools etc.

The important point here is to ensure that statutory undertakers are involved with the local plan process at an early stage in order to ensure that necessary infrastructure including highways, drainage and power are available for the development envisaged .

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.

We suspect that, generally speaking, there will need to be incremental improvements in social infrastructure provision to meet the requirements for the occupants of new development over the plan period. This will need to be assessed in detail with social infrastructure providers and it will be necessary for the BCCS Authorities to work with landowners and developers in this regard together with the relevant strategy consultees .

We should state from the outset that the provision of doctor's surgeries should be regarded as a "private sector" matter. Doctor's surgeries are generally self-funding and do not need to be the subject of Section 106/CIL contributions .










We believe it is likely that some new infrastructure will have to be provided for individual schemes in terms of local highway improvements but this will have to be assessed on a case by case basis. This will probably be best assessed at the local level.

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 .

At this stage we have no comment to make other than to confirm that viability is an important issue which needs to be addressed when dealing with sites. We would say at this stage that the Authorities should adopt realistic expectations as to what social and environmental infrastructure can be borne by individual developments .

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.

We have commented previously that the new plan will need to shift the emphasis away from urban regeneration to a more balanced provision of brownfield and greenfield sites. Part of a problem with the delivery of brownfield sites in the urban area are that they are returning to an active employment use. The adopted Core Strategy sought to direct new residential development to what was, at the time of its preparation, redundant employment land. These employment sites are now developing a new lease of life. As such, the capacity for residential development on brownfield land is highly limited and these areas are self regenerating into active employment sites.

Furthermore, given the problems in bringing forward any brownfield sites for a variety of reasons, it will be necessary to ensure that greenfield opportunities can be brought forward in the early part of the plan period in order to ensure an appropriate supply of land.

We should add that our experience of working in the Black Country is that Local Authorities do need to understand the constraints of developing in the Black Country, particularly in respect of highway and urban design standards . Many of the sites are difficult to develop and the Council's will need to apply development management considerations flexibly in order to ensure that sites can come forward. Many brownfield sites present physical and topographic challenges which can influence the formation of layout and design solutions. All of these factors need to be taken into account when individual planning applications are assessed and Council's should apply flexibility when discussing design solutions , including transportation solutions, with applicants.

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

Our concern is that it takes a considerable amount of time to make funding available for new development and this is holding back sites from being released.

Furthermore, it cannot be guaranteed that the funding which is provided now will continue to be available during the plan period.

In this context it is important to ensure that there is a balance portfolio of housing provided, some of which will be less dependent upon intervention funding . It is for this reason that we endorse a











higher proportion of development on greenfield/Green Belt sites that is currently in the plan (see response to Question 3).

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.

Our response is that such matters will be better addressed at the development management stage when it will be possible to assess the specific impacts on individual schemes. The locational criteria to be applied to the inspection of sites should suffice for development plan purposes. Some of this will reflect matters such as proximity to local services.

Question 348 - What design features do you think are key to ensuring new development encourages healthy living, which could be assessed through the HIA process? Yes/No.

We make no formal comment at this stage but we participate in the next stage of the plan when more details of this approach are given. We would stress, however, that given the likely constraints which will exist on many of the Black Country sites, care should be taken to ensure that overly restrictive policies are not introduced which could further reduce the attractiveness of sites for development.

Question 35 - Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No.

We agree that HOU1 of the adopted Core Strategy needs to be reviewed. We agree that the proportion of housing to be built on previously developed land will need to be significantly changed and we have indicated elsewhere that the plan should provide approximately 50% provision of the overall requirement on greenfield/Green Belt sites.

We do not favour the prioritisation of brownfield land over greenfield land. Given the considerable amount of housing required across the BCCS, it will be necessary for both greenfield and brownfield sites to be released at the same time. Indeed, the greenfield/Gree n Belt sites are likely to serve different areas of the housing market and so it is important that a range of sites are made available for all sectors of the housing market at the same time. Furthermore, the current strategy has failed to deliver the required level of housing from former employment sites.

In terms of a discount rate we note that there have been problems in meeting the housing requirement in the plan period. This is of particular concern given that the housing trajectory for the adopted Core Strategy starts at a relatively low rate. The extent of the shortfall is already 3,000 units. Given the problems of bringing forward brownfield sites, acknowledged elsewhere in the Issues and Options document and including matters such as viability, ground conditions, failure to release employment sites, we believe that a discount rate of 25% should be applied. We consider that the proportion of a greenfield land as an element of the overall supply should be increased to provide more certainty about provision across the plan period and to ensure that the housing strategy accords with paragraph 47 of the Framework. It should be noted that the requirement to boost significantly the supply of housing land became national policy after the adoption of the BCCS.

We make no comment at this stage about proposals for high density allocations within strategic centres, particularly in Walsall, until more market research has been carried out to ensure that there is both demand and an appetite from the house building industry to provide this type of product.




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

The calculation of density standards is a difficult subject. It is always important to start first with an understanding of what the net developable area of a site may be irrespective of whether it is brownfield or greenfield. It will be necessary to have regard to site constraints, parking requirements, offset distances, green infrastructure requirements, drainage requirements etc. All these factors can significantly limit the net developable area on a site. It is important not to overestimate densities which could be achieved when identifying sites to be released for development. Once schemes provide more than 40 dwellings per net developable acre the density will usually require some element of flatted development.

The insistence on 35 dph as a minimum could well be problematic on greenfield sites , particularly if these are expected to accommodate significant areas of green infrastructure .

We would suggest that the policy should be targeted to provide densities of 30 to 40 dph depending upon site specific circumstances . High densities could be achieved in more centralised locations adjoining transport hubs, again subject to achieving acceptable design standards. We have explained elsewhere the importance of ensuring that development management expectations need to be married to strategic housing requirement delivery objectives.

Question 37A - Do you think that the existing Policy HOU2 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No.

We would keep the threshold at 15 homes or more. This will help to assist smaller house builders to provide schemes on smaller sites which tend to have more exacting development management issues such as overlooking , relationship with existing uses etc and which can limit the ability to increase densities.

Question 38 - Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards are appropriate for Green Belt release locations? Yes/No.

In our response to Question 36, we identify the fact that greenfield sites may have more exacting requirements in terms of green infrastructure and that density standards may well have to be reduced. We suggest that density standards of 35 dph net developab le should 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 .

Generally speaking we believe that provision for the housing for the elderly will be demand driven. Occupiers will understand their markets and we would not welcome a restrictive policy regarding the location of either accommodation for the elderly or affordable housing.

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.



No. The SHLAA does not fully assesses affordable housing requirements as referred to above; as such it should not dictate an overall mix. House builders will provide housing to meet their assessment of the localised market. Setting general standards across such a large area can be difficult and can cause problems with housing delivery. Furthermore, it is important to understand the likelihood that new housing will also generate movements from existing stock to new stock thereby freeing up smaller properties for first time buyers and younger families.

Question 41A - Do you support the introduction of a policy approach towards self and custom built housing in the Core Strategy? Yes/No.

No, we do not support this approach. This is not a significant sector of the housing market. Given the need to encourage housing on a variety of sites, many of which will have problems in terms of delivery, we would not favour a policy which could create problems for delivery and viability which would arise if self and custom built housing were introduced into any housing requirement.

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 .

We believe it would be prudent to keep the affordable homes target as origina lly set. Otherwise this will cause problems for delivery of brownfield sites.

Question 43A - Do you think that the existing Policy HOU3 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No .

Yes, we believe that the site size threshold should be retained at 15 homes. Again this will assist in the delivery of smaller sites by smaller house builders. It will also be more attractive to the registered providers who do wait to manage a few plots on smaller schemes.

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 site? Yes/No .

Yes, we agree that the figure should be retained at 25%, subject to viability.

Question 45 - Should an increase in affordable housing requirement beset for Green Belt release sites, to reflect the likely financial viability of these sites? Yes/No.

The release of greenfield/Green Belt land also has significant costs associated with it. It is more likely to require new below ground infrastructure to be provided such as drains, power supply etc. Other physical and social infrastructure contributions will also be required such as education, transport etc. Therefore , greenfield sites are not necessarily more able to contribute more significantly to affordable housing than brownfield sites. We believe, therefore, that a flat rate of 25% across the BCCS area should be adopted.

Question 47 - Do you think that Policy HOUS should be expanded to cover other types of built social infrastructure and set out standards of built social infrastructure to serve major housing developments? Yes/No.

We should first comment that the provision of medical facilities relating to new developments should be funded through the clinical commissioning groups. In most cases this will involve new or extended doctor's surgeries. Doctor's surgeries can be provided through the private sector




since the surgeries generate a rental income so that there is a development/ investment market ready to provide the product. It does not need to be funded from contributions from residentia l development.

Education provision will need to be carefully researched so that a capacity in schools is ident ified in order to avoid unnecessary contributions being sought. The funding implications of the Education Funding Agency also need to be taken into account when assessing education requirements.

In terms of new community facilities, we agree that these need to be carefully assessed in order to ensure that they will in fact be used and also maintained by the local community. In some circumstances it may be better for contributions to be made to upgrade and expand existing facilities rather than create new ones which will simply put a drain on revenue resources.

Question 49A - Is there a need for the existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing? Yes/No .

We believe that the policy does need to be refined in order to ensure that land which is not necessa ry to be retained can be released quickly and easily without the need for extensive marketing. Also we see no reason for the policy to be applied where land has been allocated in an action area plan or similar alternative plan for alternative use.

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.

We believe that this should be included and that a net target should be set in order to allow for losses to alternative uses.

Question 55 - Do you agree with the proposed proposal to obtain Policy EMP5? Yes/No.

Generally we do not favour contributions which seek to restrict jobs to existing residents. This can cause problems for companies who have their own training and apprentices hip programmes. Whilst it is clearly desirable for Local Authorities to work alongside employers in trying to get local residents into work opportunities, this should be on a voluntary basis and there should not be a requirement to impose what is, in effect, a restrictive trade practice.

Question 94 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to environmental infrastructure and place making? Yes/No.

We appreciate that it will be necessary to review environmental infrastructure in the light of changing circumstances and updated guidance and standards . We will comment further on this issue at the next stage of the plan.

Question 95A - Do you think Garden City principles should be applied at the Black Country? Yes/No.

We would not encourage this as a design approach in the Black Country. Garden City proposals were developed expressly for new settlements. The Black Country has a different history and heritage as do the settlements which are geographically and functionally close to the Black Country. We do not consider that the vernacular of the existing urban area and adjoining settlements is appropriate for Garden City principles.













Question 96 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to nature conversation? Yes/No.

It should be noted that the inclusion of new natural green space and new development will have implications for net developable areas and consequently, the amount of land which will need to be identified for development. It will also impact upon the viability of schemes and these factors need to be taken into account when assessing overall development requirements.

Question 98 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to design quality? Yes/No .

The introduction of National Space standard does have implications for viability since it introduces a signif icant additional cost to new house building without any necessary uplift in values. It can, therefore , have a significant impact upon the delivery of schemes.

Question 99C - Do you think that National Space standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country . Yes/No.

In the context of our response to Question 98, we do not agree that National Space standards should be introduced.

Question 99D - Do you think that the standards should be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No .

Given that greenfield sites have their own viability concerns, we would not agree that the standards should vary between brownfield and greenfield sites. In any event we do not support the introduction of Nationa l Space standards.

Question 101A - Do you support the proposed changes relating to f lood risk, sustainable drainage and urban heat island effects? Yes/No.

Whilst we appreciate the need to have regard to new standards regarding SuDS provision, the implications upon site layout and viability do need to be considered. A flexible approach will be required from the Local Authorities when assessing individual schemes. In particular, a joined up approach is needed by strategy undertakers to ensure that SuDS areas will be adopted if they are part of wider open space areas.

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.

We consider that the benefits of higher energy efficiency, as opposed to renewable energy should be considered in the planning balance, particularly when this has an implication for viability. Although this may not be capable of being a policy requirement there is no reason why it should not be capable of being taken into account. The residential sector has spent a considerable amount of money investing in improved materials which improve the energy efficiency of buildings and these factors need to be taken into account of both domestic and non­ domestic schemes.

We are instructed by Clowes Developments to submit a response to the Black Country Core Strategy Review - Issues and Options consultation. We welcome the opportunity to comment and to input into the preparation of the Core Strategy at the outset. We have responded to the questions as per the consultation document and have submitted the comments via the online consultation website. We trust you take our comments into consideration and look forward to being notified of future stages of consultat ion on the Core Strategy.


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?

No, we consider that the review needs to go further than a partial review. Whilst the overall strategy of supporting further housing and employment growth with an emphasis on regeneration should be supported, it is clear that the desire to achieve major regeneration of identified areas has failed, for a variety of reasons relating to ownership, viability , market perceptions, site suitability etc.

The approach of the BCCS is based upon the revoked West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy and it was produced prior to the adoption of the Framework . Furthermore, there was a significant shift in the amount of housing and employment land that is required that the Black Country Core Strategy needs to respond to. The emerging Core Strategy is also being prepared in a significantly different economic climate to the adopted document. These factors clearly indicate that a new approach should be taken to the development through the Core Strategy review.

The adopted Core Strategy seeks to deliver development by focusing the majority of new housing employment land requirements through a Growth Network and a series of Regeneration Corridors. It is, however, advised in the "delivery" section of the emerg ing Core Strategy (paragraphs 2.5 to 2.11) that the level of concentration in the growth corridors is "less than LONosifrticipated' ToKf?dmmffiT the I\ SQXtl R this is that more windfall sites will come forward than
I : vii6 ( - !!. _.,...
0115 947 6236 01905 22666 )4111. :: RICS RF.G ISTERED FIRM
A full list of Directors available on request Registration No. 4301250 Regulated by RICS
Harris Lamb Limited, Grosvenor House, 75-76 Francis Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham 816 8SP ww w.harrislamb.com




To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017




expected outside of the Growth Network . These windfall sites have assisted in housing delivery. Append ix C - Black Country Monitoring Summary, of the emerg ing plan advises that there is currently a shortfall of 3,039 dwellings in the Black Country to meet the housing requirement set by the adopted Core Strategy for the plan period to date. The windfall developments have effectively bolstered housing delivery whilst the housing allocations within the Regeneration Corridors and Growth Network generally have under delivered.

The Growth Network and Regeneration Corridor approach in the adopted Core Strategy is based upon the delivery of a significant quantum of housing on surplus employment land. The emerging plan advises in paragraph 2.5 that it is transpired that there is "not as much surplus employment land suitable for housing as anticipated". This is partly because the economy has strengthened and local firms are more robust than expected and partly because the sites are more affected by constraints than expected.

It is, therefore, our view that the approach of the adopted Core Strategy , seeking to focus new residential development on poor quality employment land, will not deliver the housing numbers required. In addition, as referred to in response to Question 4, new evidence identifies a significant requirement for additional employme nt land. As a consequence, the emerging Core Strategy should prepare an approach that places less reliance on the delivery of housing on employment land.

This means that the trajectory of the current plan is unlikely to be met since it now relies heavily on windfall sites, some of which are not suited to market requirements or are also subject to contribution and viability problems.

A new strategy is required which will provide a range of sites on both brownfield and greenfield (Green Belt) opportunities which are capable of being delivered in the new plan period and which will be attractive to the market. These would include sites capable of providing high quality housing, attractive to existing residents ion the Black Country who are seeking to move within the area, as well as an occupier seeking accommodation and which are moving to the Black Country for economic reasons i.e. the move is associated with inward investment.

We consider that a portfolio of new strategic sites would be identified in the emerging plan with capacities of 150 to 500 units plus. Such sites are more likely to be deliverable in the plan period although we do see the opportunity for a major mixed use urban extension to the south west of Junction 3 of the M5.

The identification of a range of sites will ensure that there is adequacy of supply and will avoid reliance on major urban extensions which can experience difficulties in terms of funding and timing.

We also consider that a realistic approach needs to be taken to sites coming forward and that a non implementation rate needs to be identified in respect of the windfa ll element of the housing requirement. This is particularly important given the considerable reliance given to windfall sites in the current supply figure and the acknowledgeme nt with Review department that there have been problems experienced in bring forward brownfield sites.

We also believe that the strategy needs to encompass wider discussions with the adjoining Authorities to the Black Country, including South Staffordshire, Wyre Forest and Bromsgrove whose administrative boundaries adjoin or are close to the Black Country and where there are functional and geographical linkages.





We believe it is important that the Green Belt releases are phased for the early part of the plan period so that a mix of sites, including high quality , can be made available to meet the needs of the market. The exercise should take a long-term view of development needs, providing a boundary which can endure beyond the plan period. This will also help with early delivery and will help Local Authorities to maintain a five year housing land supply and also to boost significantly the supply of housing in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 47 of the Framework.

This approach is entirely consistent with the requirement of the Framework. The Framework requires Local Authorities to "boost significantly" the supply of housing land. In accordance with the requirements of footnotes 11 and 12 of the Framework , housing sites would be "deliverable and available" in order to be allocated. The employment led regeneration approach of the emerging Core Strategy has failed this test at least to some degree.

Indeed, it is specifically advised that the higher than anticipated levels of windfall development do "conceal a delivery challenge". There is a large number of major housing sites concentrating the Growth Network. However, many of these sites have multiple constraints and financial assistance is required for them to come forward (paragraph 2.10). This includes 300 hectares of occupied employment land which has been allocated for housing. This approach brings issues of viability due to the cost of land assembly, business relocation and land remediation. Significant amounts of external funding are required to deliver this. Whilst some funding is available, it is not sufficient to cover the costs of compulsory purchase, which may be necessary on many sites. The sites are clearly not "deliverable" or "developable" in the context of the allocations test put in place by paragraph 47 of the Framework. To be considered deliverable, sites should be available for development now and be achievable for a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site. To be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged. This is not the case with a significant number of the employment allocations within the adopted development plan, by the emerging Core Strategies own omission .

Finally, we consider that a more robust SHMA should be undertaken focusing on the Black Country and the adjoining Authorities. The housing market areas should not be confined to the administrative boundaries of the Black Country Authorities. ( HL to review)

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 any particular areas, please provide details.

We consider that a more in depth analysis needs to be undertaken of the brownfield windfall sites which make up the housing supply and, in particular, their ability to be brought forward. It is not clear to the development industry, given the current rates of completions and the need for a significant step up in delivery rates, that the windfall sites will come forward at the rate required.

A study needs to be undertaken regarding the true capacity likely to be obtained from brownfield windfalls. This will help to identify an appropriate non completion allowance.

As noted in the response to Question 1, we also believe that the SHMA needs to be reviewed so that it follows the housing market area and not simply Local Authority boundaries.












We further support the intention identified at paragraph 3.11 that the Council intends to explore new means of providing housing beyond the housing market area used for the BCCS review where there are clear migration or commuting links with Local Authorities . This strengthens our view that the SHLLA may have to be reviewed because of the linkages with surrounding authorities.

We also note that there appears to be no acknowledgement that the current shortfall provision, identified at some 3,000 units, has been taken into account in the housing requirement figure . In so doing, the objective should be to ensure that the needs of all are met, including those currently residing in the Black Country and who are seeking higher quality housing and those who are moving into the Black Country for economic reasons. The provision of such housing can also achieve a 'churn' in the current stock .

We are also of a view that the Black Country Green Belt review should prioritised. It is noted that it is suggested that the Green Belt review will not be completed until mid 2018. It is, however, anticipated that the preferred options consultation will be undertaken in September 2018. There is going to be a clear reliance on Green Belt sites in delivering the emerging housing requirement. We are concerned that there is insufficient time for the Authorities to properly digest the findings of the Green Belt review and identify strategy for new development based upon Green Belt land release in and around the Authority area in the time allowed between the completion of a Green Belt study and the publication of a consultation document.

Finally, we believe that further research should be undertaken regarding the effect of Government grant regimes in bringing sites forward . Our experience to date has been that the programmes have been time consum ing, costly and unwieldly and have had limited benefit in helping to increase the supply of housing land.

Question 3 - Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014 to 2036 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.

National guidance requires Local Authorities to meet the full, objectively assessed needs in the market and affordable housing in their housing market area, as far is consistent with policies set out in the Framework. The objective is to boost significantly the supply of housing.

We have already commented in respect of our responses to Questions 1 and 2 that the SHMA needs to be reviewed and this could lead to an increase in the overall requirement for the Black Country Authorities.

The current completion rates are significantly below what is required for even the current local plan figure and are significantly below the figure of 3,690 units per annum identified above. Even at 78, 190 units over the plan period, this produces an annual requirement of 3, 554 units per annum which is also far in excess of what has ever been achieved annually in the BCCS. We consider that this is a challenging figure in terms of the current supply, over half of which is dependent upon existing housing supply in the urban area and is largely made up of brownfield windfalls.

In this context we believe that it is going to be important to significantly change the balance of the current supply with a far greater reliance on greenfield/Green Belt sites than the 25 ,000 units identified.












We note that the overall supply from the urban area depends upon some 42 ,507 units from existing sites in the urban area and a further 8,335 units from the urban area, much of which appears to come from former employment sites.

Given the problems in releasing employment sites in the current strategy (see paragraph 3.16 and paragraph 2.5, the latter identifying the problems in releasing employment sites), we consider that the local plan strategy which relies on some 65% of provision on urban brownfield/windfall sites (using the draft figure of 78,190) is wholly unrealistic given that, to date, the current local plan has failed to meet existing requirements.

The components of the supply in the urban area (completions plus existing housing supply plus estimated further housing supply) total some 56,520 units which equates to a requirement of 2,569 units per annum over the new plan period. However, that required completion figure is in excess of what has been achieved to date through the current local plan, which relies entirely upon brownfield windfalls in the urban area, that figure being 2,325 units per annum.

It is apparent , therefore , that the current supply of brownfield/windfall sites is unlikely to produce sufficient units to meet its share of the housing requirement and, therefore , the contribution which this makes to the overall requirement should be reduced (this will be consistent with our argument about adopting a non completion rate) and the contribution from greenfield/Green Belt sites outside the existing urban boundary should be increased. This will require contributions to be made from greenfield/Green Belt sites within the BCCS administrative area and also from sites in sustainable locations which are well related to the Black Country in neighbouring authorities.

Although we reserve our position on this point, we would expect that the contribution from the existing brownfield windfalls to be reduced by some 25%, to reflect the problems of market attractiveness , viability, delivery etc and with a consequent increase in the greenfield/Green Belt allocations.

In summary, the SHMA does not properly identify the housing requirement for the HMA. In addition, the reliance upon brownfield urban sites is not supported by evidence. There is, therefore, a requirement for a fundamental shift in the plan strategy with greater reliance placed upon Green Belt/greenfield land release in and around the wider HMA area of sustainable locations in order to ensure delivery.

Question 4 - Do you consider the employment land requirement identified to 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.

It is not clear if the land requirement fully encompasses land to be lost to residential development and other uses. The current supply of housing identified in the emerging plan requires a significant contribution to be made from former employment sites. It has been noted, however, in the Issues and Options document that employment sites have failed to come forward at the rate expected, partly owing to problems in site delivery but also partly because of recovery in the demand for the stock of existing employment sites.

We expect that demand to continue for local and sub regional requirements on appropriate sites.












In addition, we believe there will be a demand for large, greenfield sites to encourage inward investment and we consider that sites should be identified to the north and south of the Black Country which are well connected to the existing motorway network .

We consider that the employment requirement should be based on a net addition in order to take account of any losses to alternative land uses.

We agree that a range of sites will need to be allocated including, as noted above, high quality sites to attract inward investment.

We also question whether the figure of 394 hectares of employment land can be regarded as being realistically deliverable and we believe that further assessment about the delivery of this land should be undertaken.

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 agree that a review of the Green Belt is an imperative element of the new strategy. This needs to be completed in time to inform the Core Strategy Review to be published in September 2018.

We consider the review will need to assess the implications of land release in adjoining Authorities including South Staffordshire, Wyre Forest and Bromsgrove.

Green Belt sites in both the Black Country Authority area and in these other authorities will have a vital role to play in providing the necessary housing supply to meet the housing requirement over the plan period. They will need to make an early contribution to housing supply and should not be phased for delivery in the latter part of the plan period.

We also think it is important that the Green Belt Review extends beyond the current plan period in order to provide a lasting Green Belt boundary in accordance with the advice set out in paragraphs 83 and 85 of the Framework . That advice suggests that the boundaries should be set so that they are capable of enduring beyond the plan period. If necessary, safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt should be identified in order to meet long term development needs "stretching well beyond the plan period' .

We would suggest that the Green Belt Review should be conducted in order to provide for development needs up to 2051.

Question 6 - Do you agree that the key issues set out in part 3 are 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 believe that an extensive review needs to be undertaken in order to ensure that an appropriate strategy is arrived at. Clearly , reliance upon the existing strategy will fail to meet the housing requirement and employment land requirement identified .

We believe that elements of the evidence base require further examination including the SHMA and also the likely delivery of housing and employment from existing brownfield windfalls and existing sites.












There appears to be some confusion in the plan as to the extent of the gap identified. The policy talks about 22,000 homes but then also identifies a further 3,000 units as a shortfall in the housing area. It is unclear if the current shortfall of 3,000 units has been addressed.

In this context there may be a need to identify a further 28,000 homes over and above the existing, alleged, capacity in the urban area.

There is a need to continue to plan for a growing population. However, the SHMA underestimates delivery, this is not taken into account affordable housing needs. Furthermore, the emerging plan housing requirement will need to take into account the fact that not all housing allocations deliver. As a consequence the housing requirement will need to be significantly above the objectively assessed housing needs figure within the SHMA. The suggested "gap" between supply and need of 22,000 dwellings is, therefore, less than that actually required.

This figure may increase further when proper account is taken of the true delivery capabilities of the land in the existing urban area. So far, the current local plan has failed to deliver development rates which would meet with the housing requirement for the new plan period and indeed do not even meet the requirement which will be needed from the current supply identified . This suggests that the contribution from greenfield/Green Belt sites from within the BCCS area and from Authorities adjoining it will need to be increased significantly .

The Green Belt release should not be seen as a matter of a last resort but needs to be part of an overall strategy with early releases needed to ensure supply of housing sites in the early part of the plan period.


Question 7 - Do you think that the Core Strategy Vision and Sustainability principles remain appropriate? Yes/No. If not, what alternative would you suggest?

We are content with four of the five Core Strategy Vision and Sustainability principles but the fourth bullet point, 'Brownfield first ' is no longer relevant. As we have explained in our responses to previous questions, the reliance on Brownfield development needs to be significantly reduced. It is already acknowledged that a significant number of homes, 22,000 - 25,000 may have to be allocated on Greenfield I Green Belt sites (these could be still higher if the current shortfall is to be rectified) and if an update to the SHMA reveals the need to release new land to meet affordable housing needs. We have already explained that we are concerned that there is an over reliance on Brownfield sites and that this could, overall, increase the requirement for new development on Green Field I Green Belt sites to some 40 ,000 units which will be approximately half of the overall housing requirement, once account is taken of the shortfa ll from the early part of the current local plan period.

For these reasons, Greenfield I Gren Belt sites will have to be released at the same time as the Brownfield supply in order to ensure an adequate supply in the early part of the planning period. This is entirely consistent with paragraph 17 of the Framework which, whilst encouraging the reuse of brownfield sites, does not seek to prioritise their use over greenfield sites.

We would also question whether or not the reference to 'comprehensive approach to development' has any real meaning in terms of delivery of individual sites. We consider that if 'comprehensive' development is required this can still take place on a phased basis so long as new development achieves a comprehensive approach in due course.













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

We consider that spatial objectives two and three need to be reviewed. Whilst we would continue to support the delivery of high quality employment and within the regeneration corridors, which will also be helpful to local business, it should be recognised that inward investment may require high quality Greenfield sites on the edge of the Black Country. The availability of land 6a54 was a considerable benefit in bringing JLR to the Black Country and the opportunity for similar scale developments should be seized through the local plan review process. In particular, we consider that further strategic employment development on the north side of the Black Country and also to the south east, adjoining Junction 3 of the M5, should be identified.

We also have concerns that the regeneratio n corridors have failed to deliver wide spread change throughout the Black Country and that they may not provide a basis for sustainable communities in the new plan. In this context, we believe that this particular objective should be replaced with the following:

'Identification of a series of deliverable housing sites on Brownfield and Greenfield within, adjoining and well connected to the Black Country which will meet the BCCS requirement over the plan period. These sites will be of differing scales and will provide different market opportunities to delivering housing over the planning period. '

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?

We agree that the policies should be changed. The growth network strategy will not provide for the new housing and employment requirements for the Emerging Local Plan and need to be amended to reflect the fact that a significant proportion of both housing and strategic employment sites will have to take place on Greenfield I Green Belt sites outside of the current urban boundary and indeed on sites outsides of the BCCS administrative area.

The presumption in favour of using Brownfield sites first also needs to be altered so that an appropriate portfolio of residential and employment sites can be developed over the planning period.

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 comment upon specific regeneration corridors but we believe that they will all need to be reviewed to see if they are fit for purpose. In particular, they should be examined to see if the employment elements are still likely to be required by the existing and new local businesses. Where it is clear that significant change in the regeneration corridor are unlikely to happen during the new planning period, alternative provision should be made.

Question 11A - Do you support Strategic Option 1A? Yes/No .












We consider that Option 1A is to be preferred to Strategic Option 1B. That said, we believe there continues to be an overreliance upon Brownfield I windfall sites in the existing supply and there is also an over reliance on Brownfield windfalls in the estimated further housing supply.

We consider, therefore , that overall the Greenfield requirement should provide some 40,000 units of the overall requirement which itself should be increased to 81,290 units.

Question 11A - Do you support Option 1B? Yes/No.

We do not support Option 1B. We believe that there is a considerable overreliance on Brownfie ld I windfall sites and that there is no real certainty that further employment land can be released over the plan period to provide housing opportunities. Indeed some of the existing housing allocations need to be reviewed as they will remain in employment use.

In this context, we consider that the Option 1B would not meet the objectives of the housing policies of the Framework particularly those which require the planning system to deliver significantly increased supply of housing land.

Paragraph 47 of the Framework requires housing opportunities to be deliverable and to meet the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area.

A review of the current local plan strategy has demonstrated that there is considerable uncertainty about reliance on a portfolio of Brownfield windfall sites we consider that strategic Option 1B, which is largely reliant upon such a source of housing opportunit ies, will not provide any certainty to the development industry regarding the provision of housing through the plan period.

Question 12A - Do you support spatial Option H1? Yes/No. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? Eg. Abil ity to create a defensible new Green Belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services.


We believe that spatial Option H1 - Rounding off is to be preferred to spatial Option H2 - sustainable urban extensions. We believe that the 'rounding off' approach is more likely to deliver a series of well-planned and well located developments throughout the plan period thereby maintaining a deliverable supply of housing land for the house building industry. This could include sites of approximate ly 150 - 750 units.

Question 13A - Do you support Spatial Option H2? Yes/No.

What should the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) B? E.g. a 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 settlement/services, proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban regeneration.

In general terms we do not support Spatial Option H2 in that we believe a range of smaller strategic sites should be provided in the Green Belt in order to ensure a deliverable supply of housing land in the plan period.



We consider that some modest size sustainable urban extensions could be provided. These should have the capacity to support a primary school and local facilities.

We would not favour sustainable urban area extensions of greater size than this as we do not consider that they would be deliverable in the plan period. In this context we believe that modest scale SUEs could be provided as part of a blended Spatial Option H1.

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 opportun ities 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?

We believe that it will be necessary for sites to be released outside of the Black Country administrative area in order to meet the housing requirements of the BCCS.

In particular, we believe that sites should be identified in South Staffordshire, Wyre Forest and Bromsgrove districts which could accommodate some of the overspill.

We consider that locations should be selected which could fulfil the following crite ria.

A. Be situated immediately adjoining the Black Country administrative boundary and with the ability to achieve easy access to the existing urban area: or

B. Be located in settlements in close proximity to the Black Country.

By these means people from the Black Country will be able to find suitable housing in locations which still afford them the opportunity to support the economic growth of the Black Country and will remain in employment in the Black Country area. These sites should contribute to a portfolio of high quality sites.

Question 15B - Do you think that there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No.

We consider that land immediately adjoining the administrative boundary of Dudley in the Kingswinford area should be released from the Green Belt to provide an urban extension. This would provide housing which would use facilities in the Kingswinford area. We have identified land on the attached plan at Lawnswood. The site would be able to provide high quality housing, as part of the overall provision of housing needs for the Black Country, in a location in which we would be able to take advantage of nearby education, sport and High Street facilities. Being situated close to the A449 also means that occupants would be able to reach other parts of the Black Country for employment and leisure purposes.

We have completed a "Call for Sites" form which explains the development potential of this area in more detail.

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.












Yes, we believe that the best way to ensure that housing provided outside of the Black Country will meet the needs of people, who would otherwise live in the Black Country is to ensure that the location of new development has good functional and geographic links with the Black Country. As noted in our response to Question 15b, sites can be released which immediately adjoin the Black Country and administrative area or are in settlements with strong functional and physical/geographic links with the Black Country. Clearly, there is nothing to stop people migrating from the Black Country into the surrounding Shire Aut horities, regardless of housing provision, and, therefore , the provision of additional housing outside of the BCCS, but which will meet the needs of people living in the Black Country, will ensure that the needs of Black Country residents can be met either within the Black Country itself or in settlements which are suitable to serve it.

We consider that the provision of high quality sites is an important part of the approach, since there will encourage existing residents to stay in or close by in the Black County . Furthermore, such sites will help to support the economic objectives of the BCCS by providing housing for inward investment related house moves.
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.

Policy DEL1 may need to be reviewed to ensure it is compliant with the policies of the Framework and the PPG. Otherwise , it will be important for the BCCS Authorities to work with neighbouring Authorities to ensure that sites which are released to meet the Black Country's needs outside of the BCCS area are also supported by appropriate infrastructure. Some of this may also have to be outside of the BCCS area, particularly for the larger urban expansion sites which may provide local facilities, green space, primary schools etc.

The important point here is to ensure that statutory undertakers are involved with the local plan process at an early stage in order to ensure that necessary infrastructure including highways, drainage and power are available for the development envisaged.

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.

We suspect that , generally speaking , there will need to be incremental improvements in social infrastructure provision to meet the requirements for the occupants of new development over the plan period. This will need to be assessed in detail with social infrastructure providers and it will be necessary for the BCCS Authorities to work with landowners and developers in this regard together with the relevant strategy consultees.

We should state from the outset that the provision of doctor's surgeries should be regarded as a "private sector" matter. Doctor's surgeries are generally self-funding and do not need to be the subject of Section 106/CIL contributions.

We believe it is likely that some new infrastructure will have to be provided for individual schemes in terms of local highway improvements but this will have to be assessed on a case by case basis. This will probably be best assessed at the local level.

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 .













At this stage we have no comment to make other than to confirm that viability is an important issue which needs to be addressed when dealing with sites. We would say at this stage that the Author ities should adopt realistic expectat ions as to what social and environmental infrastructure can be borne by individual developments .

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.

We have commented previously that the new plan will need to shift the emphasis away from urban regeneration to a more balanced provision of brownfield and greenfie ld sites. Part of a problem with the delivery of brownfield sites in the urban area are that they are returning to an active employment use. The adopted Core Strategy sought to direct new residential development to what was, at the time of its preparation, redundant employment land. These employment sites are now developing a new lease of life. As such, the capacity for residential development on brownfield land is highly limited and these areas are self regenerating into active employment sites.

Furthermore, given the problems in bringing forward any brownfield sites for a variety of reasons, it will be necessary to ensure that greenfield opportunities can be brought forward in the early part of the plan period in order to ensure an appropriate supply of land.

We should add that our experience of working in the Black Country is that Local Authorities do need to understand the constraints of developing in the Black Country, particularly in respect of highway and urban design standards. Many of the sites are difficult to develop and the Council's will need to apply development management considerations flexibly in order to ensure that sites can come forward. Many brownfield sites present physical and topographic challenges which can influence the formation of layout and design solutions. Furthermore, some of these sites will not be in locations which are attractive to those seeking new housing. All of these factors need to be taken into account when individual planning applications are assessed and Council's should apply flexibility when discussing design solutions, including transportation solutions, with applicants.

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

Our concern is that it takes a considerable amount of time to make funding available for new development and this is holding back sites from being released.

Furthermore, it cannot be guaranteed that the funding which is provided now will continue to be available during the plan period.

In this context it is important to ensure that there is a balance portfolio of housing provided, some of which will be less dependent upon intervention funding. It is for this reason that we endorse a higher proportion of development on greenfield/Green Belt sites that is currently in the plan (see response to Question 3).

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.





Our response is that such matters will be better addressed at the development management stage when it will be possible to assess the specific impacts on individual schemes. The locationa l criteria to be applied to the inspection of sites should suffice for development plan purposes. Some of this will reflect matters such as proximity to local services.

Question 348 - What design features do you think are key to ensuring new development encourages healthy living,which could be assessed through the HIA process? Yes/No.

We make no formal comment at this stage but we participate in the next stage of the plan when more details of this approach are given. We would stress, however, that given the likely constraints which will exist on many of the Black Country sites, care should be taken to ensure that overly restrictive policies are not introduced which could further reduce the attractiveness of sites for development.

Question 35 - Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No.

We agree that HOU1 of the adopted Core Strategy needs to be reviewed. We agree that the proportion of housing to be built on previously developed land will need to be significant ly changed and we have indicated elsewhere that the plan should provide approximately 50% provision of the overall requirement on greenfield/Green Belt sites.

We do not favour the prioritisation of brownfield land over greenfield land. Given the considerable amount of housing required across the BCCS, it will be necessary for both greenfield and brownfield sites to be released at the same time. Indeed, the greenfield/Green Belt sites are likely to serve different areas of the housing market and so it is important that a range of sites are made available for all sectors of the housing market at the same time. Furthermore, the current strategy has failed to deliver the required level of housing from former employme nt sites.


In terms of a discount rate we note that there have been problems in meeting the housing requirement in the plan period. This is of particular concern given that the housing trajectory for the adopted Core Strategy starts at a relatively low rate. The extent of the shortfall is already 3,000 units. Given the problems of bringing forward brownfield sites, acknowledged elsewhere in the Issues and Options document and including matters such as viability, ground conditions, failure to release employment sites , we believe that a discount rate of 25% should be applied. We consider that the proportion of a greenfield land as an element of the overall supply should be increased to provide more certainty about provision across the plan period and to ensure that the housing strategy accords with paragraph 47 of the Framework. It should be noted that the requirement to boost significantly the supply of housing land became national policy after the adoption of the BCCS.

We make no comment at this stage about proposals for high density allocations within strategic centres, particularly in Walsall, until more market research has been carried out to ensure that there is both demand and an appetite from the house building industry to provide this type of product.

Question 36 - If you think that the current access ibility and density standards set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 should be changed, what standards should be applied instead, for example, should the minimum net density of 35 dph be increased to max imise brownfield housing delivery? Yes/No.




The calculation of density standards is a difficult subject. It is always important to start first with an understanding of what the net developable area of a site may be irrespective of whether it is brownfield or greenfield . It will be necessary to have regard to site constraints, parking requirements, offset distances , green infrastructure requirements, drainage requirements etc. All these factors can significantly limit the net developable area on a site. It is important not to overestimate densities which could be achieved when identifying sites to be released for development. Once schemes provide more than 40 dwellings per net developable acre the density will usually require some element of flatted development.

The insistence on 35 dph as a minimum could well be problematic on greenfie ld sites, particularly if these are expected to accommodate significant areas of green infrastructure.

We would suggest that the policy should be targeted to provide densities of 30 to 40 dph depending upon site specific circumstances. High densities could be achieved in more centralised locations adjoining transport hubs, again subject to achieving acceptable design standards. We have explained elsewhere the importance of ensuring that development management expectations need to be married to strategic housing requirement delivery objectives.

Question 37A - Do you think that the existing Policy HOU2 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No.

We would keep the threshold at 15 homes or more. This will help to assist smaller house builders to provide schemes on smaller sites which tend to have more exacting development management issues such as overlooking, relationship with existing uses etc and which can limit the ability to increase densities.

Question 38 - Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards are appropriate for Green Belt release locations? Yes/No.

In our response to Question 36, we identify the fact that greenfield sites may have more exacting requirements in terms of green infrastructure and that density standards may well have to be reduced. We suggest that density standards of 35 dph net developable should 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 .

Generally speaking we believe that provision for the housing for the elderly will be demand driven. Occupiers will understand their markets and we would not welcome a restrictive policy regarding the location of either accommodation for the elderly or affordab le housing.

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.

No. The SHLAA does not fully assesses affordable housing requirements as referred to above; as such it should not dictate an overall mix. House builders will provide housing to meet their assessment of the localised market. Setting general standards across such a large area can be difficult and can cause problems with housing delivery. Furthermore, it is important to understand the likelihood that new housing will also generate movements from existing stock to new stock thereby freeing up smaller properties for first time buyers and younger fam ilies.












Question 41A - Do you support the introduction of a policy approach towards self and custom built housing in the Core Strategy? Yes/No.

No, we do not support this approach. This is not a significant sector of the housing market. Given the need to encourage housing on a variety of sites, many of which will have problems in terms of delivery, we would not favour a policy which could create problems for delivery and viability which would arise if self and custom built housing were introduced into any housing requirement.

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.

We believe it would be prudent to keep the affordable homes target as originally set. Otherwise this will cause problems for delivery of brownfield sites.

Question 43A - Do you think that the existing Policy HOU3 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No.

Yes, we believe that the site size threshold should be retained at 15 homes. Again this will assist in the delivery of smaller sites by smaller house builders. It will also be more attractive to the registered providers who do wait to manage a few plots on smaller schemes.

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 site? Yes/No.

Yes, we agree that the figure should be retained at 25%, subject to viability.

Question 45 - Should an increase in affordable housing requirement beset for Green Belt release sites, to reflect the likely financial viability of these sites? Yes/No .

The release of greenfield/Green Belt land also has significant costs associated with it. It is more likely to require new below ground infrastructure to be provided such as drains, power supply etc. Other physical and social infrastructure contributions will also be required such as education, transport etc. Therefore, greenfield sites are not necessarily more able to contribute more significantly to affordable housing than brownfield sites . We believe, therefore, that a flat rate of 25% across the BCCS area should be adopted.

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

We should first comment that the provision of medical facilities relating to new developments should be funded through the clinical commissioning groups. In most cases this will involve new or extended doctor's surgeries. Doctor's surgeries can be provided through the private sector since the surgeries generate a rental income so that there is a developme nt/investmen t market ready to provide the product. It does not need to be funded from contributions from residential development.

Education provision will need to be carefully researched so that a capacity in schools is identified in order to avoid unnecessary contributions being sought. The funding implications of the













Education Funding Agency also need to be taken into account when assessing education requirements .

In terms of new community facilities, we agree that these need to be carefully assessed in order to ensure that they will in fact be used and also maintained by the local community. In some circumstances it may be better for contributions to be made to upgrade and expand existing facilities rather than create new ones which will simply put a drain on revenue resources.

Question 49A - Is there a need for the existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing? Yes/No .

We believe that the policy does need to be refined in order to ensure that land which is not necessary to be retained can be released quickly and easily without the need for extensive marketing. Also we see no reason for the policy to be applied where land has been allocated in an action area plan or similar alternative plan for alternative use.

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.

We believe that this should be included and that a net target should be set in order to allow for losses to alternative uses.

Question 55 - Do you agree with the proposed proposal to obtain Policy EMP5? Yes/No.

Generally we do not favour contributions which seek to restrict jobs to existing residents. This can cause problems for companies who have their own training and apprenticeship programmes. Whilst it is clearly desirable for Local Author ities to work alongside employers in trying to get local residents into work opportunities, this should be on a voluntary basis and there should not be a requirement to impose what is, in effect, a restrictive trade practice.

Question 94 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to environmental infrastructure and place making? Yes/No.

We appreciate that it will be necessary to review environmental infrastructure in the light of changing circumstances and updated guidance and standards. We will comment further on this issue at the next stage of the plan.

Question 95A - Do you think Garden City principles should be applied at the Black Country? Yes/No .

We would not encourage this as a design approach in the Black Country. Garden City proposals were developed expressly for new settlements . The Black Country has a different history and heritage as do the settlements which are geographically and functionally close to the Black Country. We do not consider that the vernacular of the existing urban area and adjoining settlements is appropriate for Garden City principles.

Question 96 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to nature conversation? Yes/No .

It should be noted that the inclusion of new natural green space and new development will have implications for net developable areas and consequently , the amount of land which will need to




be identified for development. It will also impact upon the viability of schemes and these factors need to be taken into account when assessing overall development requirements.

Question 98 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to design quality? Yes/No.

The introduction of National Space standard does have implications for viability since it introduces a significant additional cost to new house building without any necessary uplift in values. It can, therefore, have a significant impact upon the delivery of schemes.

Question 99C - Do you think that National Space standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country. Yes/No.

In the context of our response to Question 98, we do not agree that National Space standards should be introduced.

Question 99D - Do you think that the standards should be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No .

Given that greenfield sites have their own viability concerns, we would not agree that the standards should vary between brownfield and greenfield sites. In any event we do not support the introduction of National Space standards .

Question 101A - Do you support the proposed changes relating to flood risk, sustainable drainage and urban heat island effects? Yes/No.

Whilst we appreciate the need to have regard to new standards regarding SuDS provision, the implications upon site layout and viability do need to be considered. A flexible approac h will be required from the Local Authorities when assessing individual schemes. In particular, a joined up approach is needed by strategy undertakers to ensure that SuDS areas will be adopted if they are part of wider open space areas.

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.

We consider that the benefits of higher energy efficiency , as opposed to renewable energy should be considered in the planning balance, particularly when this has an implication for viability. Although this may not be capable of being a policy requirement there is no reason why it should not be capable of being taken into account. The residential sector has spent a considerable amount of money invest ing in improved materials which improve the energy efficiency of buildings and these factors need to be taken into account of both domestic and non­ domestic schemes .

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.

See the attached Issues and Options Report Consultation - Land at Tipton Road and Setton Drive, Woodsetton/Sedgley.