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

Dear Helen

BLACK COUNTRY CORE STRATEGY ISSUES & OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Thank you for forwarding me details of the above referenced consultation. Highways England ('we') are responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Strategic Road Network (SRN) in England. The network includes all major motorways and trunk roads.

The M5 and M6 motorways which form part of the Birmingham Motorway 'Box' are sections of the SRN in the area covered by the Black Country Joint Core Strategy.

Highways England has undertaken a review of the consultation material in order to consider the potential implications arising for the SRN from the revised Core Strategy.

The consultation document asks a significant number of questions, only some of which are directly relevant to our remit.

Question 1 of the consultation considers the approach to the review of the plan. Highways England support the proposed approach to provide a partial review of the 2011 plan such that it maintains in general, the existing 'two tier' document approach to setting the spatial portrait of the area. We note however that the Core Strategy document sets out that "it may be necessary for the Core Strategy to include allocations of strategic sites". We consider that such an approach is essential for the consideration of any new strategic growth sites not already considered by the existing plan.

Such sites will often require the delivery of significant transport infrastructure, which takes time and resources as well as good co-ordination between different stakeholders to deliver. To ensure the cumulative implications of such sites are properly considered it is vital that the Core Strategy provides as much clarity as is possible on the location and scale of proposed strategic site allocations at the submission stage of the plan so that the strategic transport implications of such development can be determined and mitigation strategies agreed.

Question 5 of the consultation considers the need for a Green Belt review. Highways England supports the approach to the Black Country Green Belt review subject to the principle that existing or new policies seek to continue to maximise the reuse of brownfield land as the starting point for site allocation policy. Such a sequential approach is likely to provide the best opportunity to reduce the transport implications of development.

Evidence Base
We have considered the proposed evidence base set out in Section 3 table 1 of the consultation document and have the following observations:

We support the principle that the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (HMA) Strategic Growth Study and a Black Country Green Belt Review should form the key evidence base for any new strategic land allocations considered under the Black Country Core Strategy. We note, however, that the Infrastructure and Transport evidence bases as currently outlined lack precision as to what the terms of reference of the Infrastructure Studies and Transport Impacts and Accessibility Planning Study will include.

As the Highway Authority for the SRN it is important that Highways England is consulted on the terms of reference for these studies to confirm what further involvement will be necessary so that the evidence base suitably considers the implications of development upon the SRN. In particular, we note that the Highways England Route Strategies (published in March 2017) includes the relevant evidence on the challenges affecting our network. The relevant Route Strategy reports comprise:

* London to Scotland West: (includes M5 and M6 corridors)
* Midlands to Wales and Gloucestershire: (includes M54 corridor)

Further emphasis should also be put on upcoming major regional study projects including that being developed by Midlands Connect which is considering strategic issues on the Birmingham Motorway Box.

Connectivity
A major issue concerning Highways England with regard to the Core Strategy is the connectivity of the Black Country and any future infrastructural challenges arising from the Plan. Connectivity is identified as a key issue within the Core Strategy consultation, however, at this stage new issues are not explored in detail and we note no decisions on additional transport or land use policies have been taken. Matters relating to the spatial strategy are considered and these have a strong inter-relationship to connectivity needs. Further engagement with Highways England on connectivity issues will be necessary as the plan develops.

Spatial Strategy
We have reviewed the approaches considered with regard to the setting of a new spatial strategy for the Black County and our comments on the two stage approach set out in the consultation can be found below. With regard to our responsibility for the operation of the SRN, these comments therefore relate to the transport implications of the Options.

Stage 1 (Questions 10, 11a and 11b) - It is our view that the transport implications of Option 1A of the consultation are likely to provide continuity of the existing known transport issues arising from the 2011 Core Strategy with further issues arising incrementally from issues arising from Stage 2. Option 1B would give rise to a different set of transportation implications than existing policies. This approach could have either net positive or net negative implications for overall traffic flow on the SRN depending on how the policy is implemented but not enough information is available on the approach to determine this question at this time.

Should Policy 1B be implemented it may be capable of providing beneficial transport implications by seeking to maximise opportunities to place higher density development in locations benefiting from access to high quality sustainable transport networks. It may also provide an opportunity to relocate inappropriately sited existing lower density employment development (such as B8 warehousing) out of inappropriate locations. In implementing such an approach a careful balance would need to be struck to ensure the approach does not result in an excess level of 'out commuting' from existing urban areas in the Black Country to greenfield sites on the periphery of the West Midlands conurbation.

Stage 2 - (Questions 12a-14) - In transport terms we consider that Spatial Strategy Option H2 to provide an approach to housing in the Green Belt via the provision of Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUEs) to be preferable to H1. H1 may result in an uncoordinated approach to the provision of the necessary transport infrastructure and higher levels of reliance upon travel via private cars.
Option H2 is likely to be capable of maximising access to sustainable transport via the co-location of development with rail stations or other sustainable transport infrastructure. This is likely to be the best way that the spatial strategy can maximise opportunities to reduce the traffic implications of development. Highways England therefore supports the H2 approach insofar that it is identified to be compatible with the most sustainable outcomes identified from Stage 1.
Stage 2 - (Questions 16-20) - We have considered the transport implications of Spatial options E1, E2, E3 and E4 with regard the provision of land for employment outside of the existing urban areas. Site specific consideration are likely to be highly relevant to any sites considered under such broad strategies and it is not possible for us to identify preferred options based upon the level of evidence produced to date.

On the basis of the current information available we would note the following points:

* Option E3 appears to offer the greatest opportunities to support the provision of new sustainable transport infrastructure in Green Belt locations. This potentially could be delivered in combination with allocations considered under option H2 which is likely to provide the maximum opportunity within Greenfield sites. Option E1 is also likely to provide some opportunity to maximise the use of existing infrastructure. However, it carries site specific risks that some locations may add to existing highway capacity constraints; conversely other sites might add critical mass to ensure support for investment in sustainable transport infrastructure serving new and existing development is forthcoming.

* In transport terms option E2 appears most challenging to achieve transport sustainability as free standing sites have no existing population or infrastructure to support them. Any such sites would need careful consideration of the wider transport implications and be selected carefully on their own merits.

* Option E4 proposes to consider the export employment growth to neighbouring areas. This could consider how further employment growth in Birmingham and improved transport links to the Black Country might complement that Authority's housing needs which may need to be addressed within the Black Country. For other less accessible locations, which do not benefit from strong sustainable transport links to the Black Country, we note the risk that Option E4 could give rise to a high level of out commuting traffic via single occupancy private vehicles trips. If Option E4 is adopted then it should follow similar principles to option E2 in site selection to reduce the transport implications of development.

At this stage we have considered the issues likely to arise from the Black Country Core Strategy review but it is not possible to fully determine how these issues will result in specific transport implications for our network. As spatial options are developed we would encourage further engagement with us so that that the implications of the leading options can be considered further by us prior to the next stage of the plan's development. In particular, we would anticipate that effective dialogue over development of the evidence base as it relates to transport will be forthcoming.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any more information or clarification.

Yours sincerely

Patricia Dray
OD Midlands
Email: Patricia.Dray@HighwaysEngland.co.uk

Cc: Catherine Townend (Highways England)
Matthew Taylor (Highways England)
Chris Cox (Systra)

Dear Helen

BLACK COUNTRY CORE STRATEGY ISSUES & OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Thank you for forwarding me details of the above referenced consultation. Highways England ('we') are responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Strategic Road Network (SRN) in England. The network includes all major motorways and trunk roads.

The M5 and M6 motorways which form part of the Birmingham Motorway 'Box' are sections of the SRN in the area covered by the Black Country Joint Core Strategy.

Highways England has undertaken a review of the consultation material in order to consider the potential implications arising for the SRN from the revised Core Strategy.

The consultation document asks a significant number of questions, only some of which are directly relevant to our remit.

Question 1 of the consultation considers the approach to the review of the plan. Highways England support the proposed approach to provide a partial review of the 2011 plan such that it maintains in general, the existing 'two tier' document approach to setting the spatial portrait of the area. We note however that the Core Strategy document sets out that "it may be necessary for the Core Strategy to include allocations of strategic sites". We consider that such an approach is essential for the consideration of any new strategic growth sites not already considered by the existing plan.

Such sites will often require the delivery of significant transport infrastructure, which takes time and resources as well as good co-ordination between different stakeholders to deliver. To ensure the cumulative implications of such sites are properly considered it is vital that the Core Strategy provides as much clarity as is possible on the location and scale of proposed strategic site allocations at the submission stage of the plan so that the strategic transport implications of such development can be determined and mitigation strategies agreed.

Question 5 of the consultation considers the need for a Green Belt review. Highways England supports the approach to the Black Country Green Belt review subject to the principle that existing or new policies seek to continue to maximise the reuse of brownfield land as the starting point for site allocation policy. Such a sequential approach is likely to provide the best opportunity to reduce the transport implications of development.

Evidence Base
We have considered the proposed evidence base set out in Section 3 table 1 of the consultation document and have the following observations:

We support the principle that the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (HMA) Strategic Growth Study and a Black Country Green Belt Review should form the key evidence base for any new strategic land allocations considered under the Black Country Core Strategy. We note, however, that the Infrastructure and Transport evidence bases as currently outlined lack precision as to what the terms of reference of the Infrastructure Studies and Transport Impacts and Accessibility Planning Study will include.

As the Highway Authority for the SRN it is important that Highways England is consulted on the terms of reference for these studies to confirm what further involvement will be necessary so that the evidence base suitably considers the implications of development upon the SRN. In particular, we note that the Highways England Route Strategies (published in March 2017) includes the relevant evidence on the challenges affecting our network. The relevant Route Strategy reports comprise:

* London to Scotland West: (includes M5 and M6 corridors)
* Midlands to Wales and Gloucestershire: (includes M54 corridor)

Further emphasis should also be put on upcoming major regional study projects including that being developed by Midlands Connect which is considering strategic issues on the Birmingham Motorway Box.

Connectivity
A major issue concerning Highways England with regard to the Core Strategy is the connectivity of the Black Country and any future infrastructural challenges arising from the Plan. Connectivity is identified as a key issue within the Core Strategy consultation, however, at this stage new issues are not explored in detail and we note no decisions on additional transport or land use policies have been taken. Matters relating to the spatial strategy are considered and these have a strong inter-relationship to connectivity needs. Further engagement with Highways England on connectivity issues will be necessary as the plan develops.

Spatial Strategy
We have reviewed the approaches considered with regard to the setting of a new spatial strategy for the Black County and our comments on the two stage approach set out in the consultation can be found below. With regard to our responsibility for the operation of the SRN, these comments therefore relate to the transport implications of the Options.

Stage 1 (Questions 10, 11a and 11b) - It is our view that the transport implications of Option 1A of the consultation are likely to provide continuity of the existing known transport issues arising from the 2011 Core Strategy with further issues arising incrementally from issues arising from Stage 2. Option 1B would give rise to a different set of transportation implications than existing policies. This approach could have either net positive or net negative implications for overall traffic flow on the SRN depending on how the policy is implemented but not enough information is available on the approach to determine this question at this time.

Should Policy 1B be implemented it may be capable of providing beneficial transport implications by seeking to maximise opportunities to place higher density development in locations benefiting from access to high quality sustainable transport networks. It may also provide an opportunity to relocate inappropriately sited existing lower density employment development (such as B8 warehousing) out of inappropriate locations. In implementing such an approach a careful balance would need to be struck to ensure the approach does not result in an excess level of 'out commuting' from existing urban areas in the Black Country to greenfield sites on the periphery of the West Midlands conurbation.

Stage 2 - (Questions 12a-14) - In transport terms we consider that Spatial Strategy Option H2 to provide an approach to housing in the Green Belt via the provision of Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUEs) to be preferable to H1. H1 may result in an uncoordinated approach to the provision of the necessary transport infrastructure and higher levels of reliance upon travel via private cars.
Option H2 is likely to be capable of maximising access to sustainable transport via the co-location of development with rail stations or other sustainable transport infrastructure. This is likely to be the best way that the spatial strategy can maximise opportunities to reduce the traffic implications of development. Highways England therefore supports the H2 approach insofar that it is identified to be compatible with the most sustainable outcomes identified from Stage 1.
Stage 2 - (Questions 16-20) - We have considered the transport implications of Spatial options E1, E2, E3 and E4 with regard the provision of land for employment outside of the existing urban areas. Site specific consideration are likely to be highly relevant to any sites considered under such broad strategies and it is not possible for us to identify preferred options based upon the level of evidence produced to date.

On the basis of the current information available we would note the following points:

* Option E3 appears to offer the greatest opportunities to support the provision of new sustainable transport infrastructure in Green Belt locations. This potentially could be delivered in combination with allocations considered under option H2 which is likely to provide the maximum opportunity within Greenfield sites. Option E1 is also likely to provide some opportunity to maximise the use of existing infrastructure. However, it carries site specific risks that some locations may add to existing highway capacity constraints; conversely other sites might add critical mass to ensure support for investment in sustainable transport infrastructure serving new and existing development is forthcoming.

* In transport terms option E2 appears most challenging to achieve transport sustainability as free standing sites have no existing population or infrastructure to support them. Any such sites would need careful consideration of the wider transport implications and be selected carefully on their own merits.

* Option E4 proposes to consider the export employment growth to neighbouring areas. This could consider how further employment growth in Birmingham and improved transport links to the Black Country might complement that Authority's housing needs which may need to be addressed within the Black Country. For other less accessible locations, which do not benefit from strong sustainable transport links to the Black Country, we note the risk that Option E4 could give rise to a high level of out commuting traffic via single occupancy private vehicles trips. If Option E4 is adopted then it should follow similar principles to option E2 in site selection to reduce the transport implications of development.

At this stage we have considered the issues likely to arise from the Black Country Core Strategy review but it is not possible to fully determine how these issues will result in specific transport implications for our network. As spatial options are developed we would encourage further engagement with us so that that the implications of the leading options can be considered further by us prior to the next stage of the plan's development. In particular, we would anticipate that effective dialogue over development of the evidence base as it relates to transport will be forthcoming.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any more information or clarification.

Yours sincerely

Patricia Dray
OD Midlands
Email: Patricia.Dray@HighwaysEngland.co.uk

Cc: Catherine Townend (Highways England)
Matthew Taylor (Highways England)
Chris Cox (Systra)

Note: questions numbers are those in the full strategy document.
Question 2 Evidence
Housing
The Housing studies do not seem to adequately examine migration flows. In considering options for addressing any shortfall in housing supply, it would be helpful to have information on flows of migrants between the study area, Birmingham and other parts of the former west Midlands region. The Black Country receives many migrants from Birmingham but exports people to other areas including Telford and Shropshire. Thus there are important links to areas outside of the HMA. The EDNA contains useful analysis of commuting flows. indicating the wider area to which the Black Country relates.
The analysis should examine the age composition of different migration flows. Previous studies indicated that people moving from the Black Country into nearby areas tended to have higher proportions of families with children and be from higher paid backgrounds. Understanding of these flows will help to plan for house types and supporting facilities and transport that will be required if more development is needed in the Green Belt and beyond.
Much of the projected housing growth stems from net international migration; this is reflected directly in the ONS projections for the Black Country and also indirectly in the projected migration flows from Birmingham. This is a topic of great uncertainty. Flows since 2014 have been higher than in the ONS projections, but post-Brexit policies may reduce flows greatly. Given the scale of growth envisaged, some assessment of the range of uncertainty is required by sound planning.
Transport
The collection of evidence on traffic impacts should not just focus on peak flows into the major centres, given the dispersed pattern of employment across the Black Country and the increase in traffic associated with the school run. Traffic congestion is apparent through many parts of the Black Country and for longer periods of the day than in the past. Delays and pollution as key junctions should be monitored.
If new peripheral housing is proposed then the impacts on the whole network should be considered, not just in the vicinity of the proposed developments, as residents in existing built-up areas already
2
suffer the effects of increasing congestion. Many residents of new developments will travel back into the Black Country and Birmingham for work and other purposes. For example, do you have any data on the effects of the development on the former Baggeridge site on peak flows on the already congested routes between Gospel End, Sedgley and into the Black Country?
Health
The effects of traffic and congestion and proximity to existing polluting industries health should also be examined.
Question 3: Housing Need
At this stage I would not wish to offer an opinion on methodology in relation to Government guidance. My view is that Government's requirements for methodology are flawed; it remains to be seen if the new standard method improves the situation.
The scale of housing need is very large but it is wise to have a strategy for the projected growth as this may be required in the longer term even if the projections are too high. However, I have two reservations about planning for this level of growth under current planning rules, which are naive, deterministic and inflexible.
Firstly, my experience as a user and producer of demographic, housing and employment information has shown the severe limitations of knowledge and the difficulties of forecasting the future with any precision or certainty. As to economic forecasts, it seems that even at national level, these amount to little more than guesswork even in the short-term. Forecasts can easily be revised, and often have been, and even information about past trends is recast (e.g. after the 2011 Census) . Long-term development decisions are not that easily undone, and the real impacts can be very large and enduring. The estimation of housing 'need' and the adoption of policies to meet that need should ideally be based on weighing evidence, taking account of its quality and reliability, against real impacts on the ground, together with an understanding of risks.
Secondly, a sensible planning system would provide long-term direction with flexibility and phasing to reflect changes in demographic trends and economic conditions. However, current planning rules are deterministic and inflexible. My concern with policies to meet the large projected housing growth is whether and how the release of a vast amount of greenfield land can be controlled without jeopardising the regeneration of the core Black Country. The focus on new development can lead to a failure to consider the implications for the economic, social and environmental interests and needs of most Black Country residents. Once Green Belt land is made available, it will be developed first unless strong phasing policies can be put in place.
Question 4. Employment Land Requirements
It is very important to allow scope for major employment developments. The i54 site is a good example of the benefits of long-term planning. That said, the amount of land proposed seems large in relation to what is likely to be achieved. My concern is that much land originally identified for industry or offices in the past has gone for some form of retail or more recently distribution: valuable land close to Motorway junctions has gone for retail or logistics. These uses are important but generate lots of traffic on strategic routes and provide jobs that are either low-paid or don't
3
contribute much to the local economy. This may simply happen again if too much land is identified for industrial or office use.
I am also concerned about the seeming reluctance to tackle the undesirable legacy of the Black Country's long mining and industrial past (paragraph 3.9). This area's long and complex industrial history has left a juxtaposition of dirty, low value uses close to housing. Unless this is addressed, the area will not attract higher income residents, whose spending is vital to improving the local economy and its shopping and cultural facilities. Queen Victoria is supposed to have drawn the curtains as her train travelled between Brum and Wolverhampton; the view today is not so bad but the image that is presented to the millions who traverse the motorway, rail and canal routes through our area is far from appealing.
Other businesses thrive but are now badly located, making them less efficient and often generating traffic and environmental problems for local residents. I live near an oil-mixing plant that brings in tankers from across Europe. Unfortunately it is close to housing, quite noisy at night and a source of traffic congestion as the access is poor. It is also in a key canal-side location which could be an environmental and economic asset, being close to the major museums of the Black Country.
Given the amount of land that is being set aside for employment, it is important that a proportion is set aside for businesses that should relocate. This will include areas for 'dirty' uses.
Key Issue 5: Green Belt Review
If the required amount of development cannot be accommodated within the existing built up area, then some Green Belt Land will be needed. However, such a review should be undertaken as part of a wider investigation of options as peripheral development may not be the most desirable in terms of environment, sustainability and the well-being of the population.
The investigation should be wider in terms of
 geography - involving councils in Shropshire, Staffordshire and Worcestershire, as well as those in the Grater Birmingham HMA
 history - being informed by lessons from the past about new and expanded towns and peripheral developments on the edge of the conurbation.
 full impacts - not only on the immediate localities but also on the wider conurbation, for example through increased traffic flows back into employment and shopping areas.
 the proper role and value of the Green Belt - We live in the heart of the Black Country, but Green Belt allows us access to open countryside within about two miles of our house. It provides a breathing space, somewhere to walk and a visual relief from the congested and busy metropolitan area. Green Belt development would not affect my immediate living environment but it would make living where I am less desirable.
Question 6 Key Issues
No
Transport (or keeping the Black Country Connected).
4
This fails to properly acknowledge the widespread problems of existing traffic congestion within the Black Country and on the national motorway routes. HS2 offer opportunities but also threats to the Black Country's rail connectivity. Congestion, coupled with the still poor environment in many areas is a barrier to building a more prosperous and liveable Black Country.
The plan needs to be informed by the Transport Strategy, but the large amounts of development will require the Transport Strategy to change. The scale of development envisaged will have major impacts on traffic flows across the whole area. It should not be assumed that the proposals in the Transport Strategy are all that will be required. The horse pulls the cart but the driver should be in charge of both.
Economy. The same point as for transport. The relationship with the economic strategy should be two-way. Planning is about balancing competing priorities. The economy, and aspirational economic strategies, can change rapidly - will the Midlands Engine still be working in 5 years time? The impacts of development and changes in the environment are more enduring.
Question7: Vision and principles
Agree that these values remain appropriate.
Question8: Spatial Objectives
1. Major centres. Trends in retailing and services have changed rapidly with the increased use of internet and direct delivery of goods and the decline in local banking and other public and commercial premise-based services. These add to the long-term challenges that have afflicted centres over previous decades. It is necessary to reappraise their role perhaps looking to increasing residential and leisure uses.
2. Employment is key but the emphasis on logistics may need to be reviewed and increased attention paid to innovative manufacturing. HGV drivers report and call at West Midlands' depots but they may live far away; manufacturing can provide well-paid jobs for local people.
8. Should include educational facilities at all levels. Sustain role of the universities and allow for expansion of schools to meet the growing child population ( a 26,000 increase 2014-2039 according to ONS).
9 and 10. Significant stocks of re-usable minerals and construction material will continue to become available through redevelopment of older sites. The recovery of this and conversion into new products or energy should take place within the Black Country, subject to environmental and health standards.
5
Question 11
Neither, but 1B preferable. The strategies should commit to exploring sustainable options beyond the Green Belt as part of a major strategic review across a broader geography.
Release of existing employment sites: improve local amenity for nearby residents; do they suffer poor location and access in relation to nature and amount of vehicle movements; vacant for a long period; appearance.
Question 12A.
Some 'rounding off' may be acceptable but not supported as a major contributor to needs. This is a soft option, which is easiest to deliver for authorities and builders, but very unsatisfactory. Developers will build these sites first, unless strict phasing is imposed, and this will undermine regeneration and the more sustainable options.
Internal wedges can be very valuable in providing access to open space for a large number of residents. If land is released in this way, developments must be required to provide a substantial amount of accessible open space and footpaths to maintain and improve local amenity.
The cumulative wider impact on services and traffic locally and across a wider area would be large but would be difficult to relate to any specific development. This would create problems in securing developer contributions.
In reviewing the peripheral boundaries it is vital to consider the visual impact on the perception of sprawl and separation between settlements. The mere physical distance between built-up areas is not the sole criterion for assessing boundaries. In some cases it may be possible to allow expansion if new development is shielded by woodland etc. In other cases a proposed development might leave a physical gap, but through placement (e.g. on a ridge) may erode the perception of separation.
Question 13a
If Green Belt land is needed then this option could satisfy that need in part. Strategic infrastructure (transport) should be specified as should the employment content. Ideally should make provision for affordable housing, most realistically through shared ownership. Peripheral development in the Green Belt raises the same issues as mentioned in Question 15c and these should be assessed when considering such development.
This option should be assessed in parallel with consideration of sustainable developments outside the Black Country Green Belt - see question 15.
Question 14 The Black Country has large areas of low density housing developed during the period 1920-1950s and includes Social Housing, ex- Council housing bought through Right-to-Buy and privately built estates. Much of the housing is sound, but will deteriorate without maintenance and investment. Many owners struggle to maintain their properties and their often large gardens.
6
Ultimately this issue will need to be addressed, possibly through redevelopment; the diversity of tenures will be a challenge. Selective redevelopment would offer the opportunity to improve housing conditions, save energy and increase densities. It may also allow the development of 'aspirational' housing for higher income householders. The viability and contribution of such redevelopment should be explored before large areas of greenfield land are developed.
Questions 15 The scope for 'exporting' growth to other sustainable locations beyond the Green Belt should be explored in parallel with the Green Belt Review to ensure that the most sustainable options are identified. However, the search should extend beyond the Greater Birmingham HMA as the Black Country relates strongly to areas in Staffs, Shropshire and Worcestershire.
In relation to question 15c, many rural areas face challenges in labour supply as their population ages; new housing can help and also take up spare capacity in schools etc. This may reduce the impacts on commuting of spreading development further. However, it may be necessary to also divert some employment development also to these areas, to avoid generating additional in-commuting.
A new settlement should be considered as part of this approach. To be viable and provide a good range of facilities it should aim for an eventual size roughly the same as Codsall, Penkridge or Wombourne. A possible location would be in a triangle north of the M54 and west of the M6. This is close to the Jaguar development and could be linked to regeneration and transport improvements, with Park and Ride, along the A449 into Wolverhampton
Questions 16-20 The strategy should provide a mix of locations to meet a diverse range of needs, so the preferred option should be a mix of the options.
Question 24 At a personal level we became aware of the pressure on local school places when we investigated moving our grandson and his mother into the Black Country; no primary places were available within reasonable travelling distance. A new local school has recently been built on a sports ground; this will create traffic problems on an already congested route. It is important that the plan identifies the amount of land needed for new facilities, such as schools, and specifies requirements in terms of access and parking. It may be easier to provide facilities in association with larger new housing developments, in which case housing mix should be designed for families with children.
Question 25 In considering peripheral developments, it will be important to consider any deficiencies in social etc provision within existing adjoining areas. In this way, new development can be 'sold' to existing residents affected by new developments.
Questions 26 and 27.
New developments offer the chance for micro-generation and efficiency in energy use. Guidance should be prepared to ensure that developments are designed with energy efficiency in mind.
Question 27 Paragraph 5.12 is incorrect in implying the current transport situation is satisfactory. The motorways are struggling, and any disruption, such as the current strengthening of the M5 viaducts, creates major problems for long-distance and local travellers. Traffic on local roads has grown greatly in the 10 years since I have lived here. The peak now extends from about 3.30pm to
7
nearing 7pm. Only yesterday i had to travel from Tipton to Sedgely at 1615; a 2.5 mile journey too 25 minutes! Local roads can be near to gridlock at peak times.
Industrial traffic mingles with local traffic to the detriment of both. There are clear benefits to be had by providing sites closer to main roads, so that firms to can relocate while staying within the area.
The Birmingham-Wolverhampton railway runs at capacity and offers little opportunity to increase the frequency of services, particularly serving local stations.
Walking and cycling need to be encouraged but this be requires safe and convenient routes? I can cycle to the station in 4 minutes and walk in 10, but to do so I have to crossing several roads, only one of which is safe to cross.
The metro extension to Brierley Hill will be welcome but the area needs to follow the lead set by Greater Manchester and develop a proper network: for example extending south to Stourbridge Junction.
Question 30.
A thorny question! One approach might be to use affordability contributions from Green Belt sites to fund affordable housing in the built-up area. This might prove attractive to developers, but might also exacerbate social polarisation. Evidence on wider traffic impacts of peripheral developments might be used as a leaver for contributions to improvements on key transport corridors. In reality only a restrictive policy on greenfield development will secure urban regeneration.
Question 32.
Support the idea of HIAs
Question 33
Policies to improve the environment in existing built-up areas should take account of health benefits. Policies to address lifestyle-related problems should be addressed through policies that make walking and cycling more attractive. More restrictive policies on fast-food outlets are needed, although this is a bit late given the proliferation of existing outlets.
Question 34a.
Yes. The impact of new developments on existing residents should also be considered as part of the strategic review. Often the impacts of a new development are felt away from the site - most obviously through increased traffic on already congested roads. It would be useful also to have health impact assessments for those existing areas where there are likely environmental factors, pollution, noise, air quality issues.
Question 38
If Green Belt developments cannot meet existing accessibility requirements can they be regarded as sustainable? Peripheral development will generate more car travel and longer distances. If a
8
development cannot reach the standards set, would it be possible to require offset contributions to improve accessibility and public transport elsewhere (e.g. in adjoining built-up areas)?
Question 47
Yes. If it is necessary to develop Green Belt for housing then this policy should aim to recoup some of the higher development values realised for enhanced contribution to services. It important that new developments set aside sufficient land for provision of schools and the like. Greenfield sites are likely to appeal to those setting up free schools. Unfortunately this is socially divisive, but it may necessary to ensure that enough school places are provided.
Question 49
The policy on release of existing employment land should protect existing businesses and viable enterprises, but should also identify major sites that could be redeveloped for housing or other uses. It should also include criteria for assessing windfall redevelopments that cover the amenity of local residents and any existing traffic and parking problems. An adequate selection of sites suitable for relocating businesses should be identified.
Question 55
Policy should be retained/enhanced.
Question 56
It is not clear whether the list includes the Dudley Canal Portal. It should as there is a for improvements to the highway, public transport and pedestrian access to and from the site.
Consideration should be given to including the former Chance's glassworks given its key position alongside the canal, motorway and railway routes through the Black Country, and the recent formation of a Trust aiming to secure restoration.
It is important that all developments close to and adjoining the canals should enhance this important network of routes and attractions, improving access where appropriate. Opportunities to provide facilities for boat users should be encouraged as should the provision of shops, cafes and other services for boat users and those visiting the canals.
Questions 58-61 and 82
The relevance of policies for many of the district and local centres is open to question. Many smaller centres are dominated by fast-food outlets, It is also time to reassess the boundaries of some.
There may be a need to review policy criteria that apply to the new breed of medium size supermarkets (e.g. ADLI, LIDL) which are springing up in other locations (e.g. the Priory in Dudley). Not sure of the size of these in relation to thresholds for out-of-centre developments (covered by CEN6 and 7) referred to in paragraphs 6.1.11-13.
9
Questions 69-73
There is a need to consider some conversion/redevelopment for housing within centres, even if this reduces retail floorspace. New housing can help to support, and lead to development, of a wider range of convenience shops - as in Birmingham centre.
Question 72
As above. Vacancy rates in all centres, large and small have remained high for many years. It is now time to accept reality. It must be remembered that in some older centres, what were once houses were turned into shops. It may be time to reverse the process.
Question 79 Need a restrictive policy on fast-food outlets in residential areas.
Question 86 Is there a policy covering the loss of public houses to other uses?
Question 88. Transport priorities will need to be reassessed in conjunction with the development of the strategic locations for housing and employment growth. As a resident, my view is that the area has major transport problems which can only be met by a much more ambitious programme for modal shift plus selective road improvements.
Connectivity to HS2 will be a major issue presenting opportunities and threats. HS1 has had mixed impacts in different parts of Kent, massively improving access for towns that are on the HS network, while adversely affecting the cost and quality of train services for many other areas.
Question 92
Support the concept of a coherent walking and cycling strategy, but reserve judgment on content of existing strategy. The canal network provides the most strategic long-distance routes, but unfortunately much of it is poor quality. Suggest you visit Sheffield/Rotherham to look at the River Don cycleway, or perhaps Leicester for cycle routes along former railways.
It is important that major new developments contain adequate facilities for cyclists and pedestrians, and where possible provide through routes that can create a longer route. Too many recent developments (e.g. Castlegate in Dudley) are bike/pedestrian unfriendly). In other cases opportunities to create new routes have been lost: e.g. the swimming pool and adjoining hew housing estates on Alexandra Road/Church Lane Tipton.

Re ‐ Response of Hagley Parish Council to Black Country Core Strategy consultation
Hagley Parish Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to the consultation. It does not want to comment on many of the aspects of the consultation, which it considers to be internal matters to be determined by the residents of the four Black Country boroughs. Our comments are accordingly limited to a few aspects of BCCS, where it is liable to have an impact, direct or indirect on our parish.
Keep the Green Belt intact Hagley is a commuter settlement of about 6500 people. The parish adjoins the southern boundary of Stourbridge,
one of the constituent towns of Dudley MBC. The built area of Hagley is separated from that of Pedmore (in Stourbridge) by a very narrow strip of countryside. Along Worcester Lane, Pedmore, the gap is 500 metres, and even this is interrupted by the presence of Treherns Farm buildings. Along Stourbridge Road, there is no gap at all on the west side, but 600 metres on the east side. One of the purposes of Green Belt is to keep towns from coalescing. This is a very sensitive narrow gap, which should be retained to prevent Hagley from coalescing with Stourbridge.

Whether Hagley should be classified as a village or a town is debateable. Hagley certainly has some (but not all) of the characteristics of a market town as defined in the former West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy, policy RR3:
 It has a relationship with a rural hinterland, in that it has a shopping centre (in Worcester Road) to which people come to shop.
 However, it does not have a balance between employment and housing, not is there potential for this.
 It does not have a planned and coordinated local transport network.
 It fits in terms of a population in the range 2,000‐20,000
 Its capacity to grow is questionable.

The consultation document indicates that any Green Belt Review needed has not been undertaken. It appears to imply that cross‐boundary reviews will only look at encroachment into the South Staffordshire Green Belt, not that in Bromsgrove district: the four Black Country Boroughs appear not to have sought cooperation from Bromsgrove DC. As a matter of NIMBE views, we have to welcome the lack of encroachment.

A456, between Hayley Green and M5 J3 forms a robust landscape boundary between the conurbation and the Green Belt. Allowing development to breach this barrier would be a very serious matter indeed.

Housing and other development targets There has been a longstanding policy of segregating housing and industry into separate zones. Where small employment sites become redundant, it may well be appropriate for them to become housing sites, but this needs to be judged on a case by case basis. There should always be a preference for development to be on brownfield sites. However these are a renewable resource, not a fixed one. It is likely that new ones will become available, for example small poorly‐located employment sites. Any option to release green fields for development should be held back to force developers to
bring brownfield sites forward. Another of the five purposes of Green Belt is to encourage urban regeneration.

Accordingly, it is concluded that some green fields must be released to provide a long‐term land reserve for development, that land should be given a safeguarded status, with a relatively simple mechanism for its release, probably involving a single consultation, an Examination, and the adoption of a Supplementary Plan, with a trigger point of the housing or employment land supply falling to (perhaps) seven years' requirement. This will discourage developers from grabbing green fields before that is necessary.

Housing and other development targets

There has been a tendency in many Plans to apply subjective factors to distort Objectively Assessed Need to produce subjectively assessed targets to meet the aspirations of developers and politicians. NPPF requires councils only to meet Objectively Assessed Need. Furthermore, it is legitimate for LPAs to decide that they cannot fully accommodate their Objectively Assessed Need due to other constraints on what is available, including that the land is designated as Green Belt. NPPF further provides that the release of Green Belt through a Local Plan
Review (which of course includes the review of BCCS) should only take place in "exceptional circumstances", which it does not define further. The recent Housing White Paper proposed to gloss this term, by saying that all other options should have been considered before Green Belt release was undertaken. The present consultation document fails to establish that the required "exceptional circumstances" exist.

We regard the alleged housing land deficit in Birmingham as exaggerated. We suspect that the computations undertaken for BCCS also tend to exaggerate the need. This is partly because the Plan is intended to run until 2036, whereas the plans of most other authorities in the region expire a few years earlier.

The series of reports undertaken by Peter Brett Associates into how the alleged Birmingham housing land deficit could be met ultimately come up with no definite conclusions. One of the difficulties that its compilers found a great lack of consistency between the methods adopted by different LPAs for compiling their SHLAAs; in the case of BCCS, replaced by a HELAA. This inconsistency has been carried forward in the four separate borough‐wide reports lying behind the Black Country's HELAA. If the new BCCS is to become a sound Plan, the evidence‐base
lying behind it must be compiled in a consistent manner between the four boroughs.

Improve major highways

A major issue in Hagley is the level of traffic on A456, part of which is the busiest A‐class road in Hagley. Parts of
this are a single carriageway road, though wide enough for three lanes of traffic. Development that would
exacerbate traffic on A456 should be unacceptable. A456, where it passes through part of Dudley Borough as the
Quinton Expressway and Halesowen Bypass (Manor Lane) are congested to an unacceptable extent. Occasionally
at peak times traffic is backing up from the Grange roundabout (with A459 and B4551) as far as M5 J3, 2 km back.
We know of evidence of southbound traffic on M5 leaving at J4 (rather than J3) to avoid this congestion.
The last works carried out on the Grange roundabout made little difference to the congestion, though they may
have had a marginal effect on road safety. This island has been laid out through the unthinking application of a
text‐book design, which would be appropriate if all four arms of the crossroads were reasonably equal; but they
are not in this case. The volume of traffic entering and leaving B4551 is modest compared to the other arms. The
junction needs to be thought of as a T‐junction with a minor fourth arm, not as a standard crossroads.
 The ideal solution would be a tunnel to take one lane of traffic each way under the island, which should
alleviate congestion very considerably. By taking Hagley to Birmingham traffic off the roundabout the
flow of Birmingham to Halesowen traffic should be improved. By taking Birmingham to Hagley traffic
Website: www.hagleyparishcouncil.gov.uk. Email: clerk@hagleyparishcouncil.gov.uk
under it, its flow should become better, though a queue of vehicles trying to reach Halesowen is likely to
remain.
 Alternatively, the island needs to be altered so that three lanes of traffic can use the island abreast going

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Black Country Core Strategy Issues and Options Report.

As Stafford Borough is a neighbouring authority to South Staffordshire District and Cannock Chase District a number of the Spatial Options within the Report could have development and infrastructure implications for the Borough, although it is worth noting that Stafford Borough is not within the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area, nor the Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEP or Black Country LEP areas. In particular the Habitat Regulations Assessment of future housing growth in the Black Country may need to be addressed in order to provide mitigation measures for the Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation together with implications for the wider Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Based on the Strategic Challenges and Opportunities, the Borough Council is generally supportive of the vision, principles, spatial objectives and strategic policies within the Issues and Options document. However it is important to ensure that a balanced approach takes place between the development requirements of neighbouring areas and the focus for new infrastructure, housing and employment growth within the Black Country area. Clearly it is important that the local population needs within the Black Country are accommodated by the delivery of new developments to reduce out-migration and pressure on the strategic transport network.

In terms of the approach for accommodating growth it is noted that the Black Country are continuing the role of the Growth Network and Regeneration Corridors from the adopted Core Strategy. However this will require the delivery of brownfield sites across the Black Country which experience a range of infrastructure, historic contamination and viability constraints impeding the level of development achievable. Therefore it would appear that options associated with Stage 2 including Green Belt release within the Black Country, either through rounding off or Sustainable Urban Extensions will be required to meet housing and employment development requirements. The implications of these Stage 2 options could be a significant net outflow of residents and economic activity away from the Black Country's Strategic Centres towards other areas, putting additional pressure on transport links.

It is noted that within the Spatial Options is a section on 'meeting housing needs outside the Black Country', firstly in neighbouring authorities or secondly exported outside of the Housing Market Area. Notwithstanding the impact on the Black Country through the loss of economically active population, both of these 'export' options could have implications for Stafford Borough. If additional housing growth is accepted by South Staffordshire District there is the potential for non Green Belt areas south of Stafford, but in South Staffordshire District, being considered through a Local Plan Review process leading to infrastructure pressures on the County Town of Stafford. A recent example of this scenario has been highlighted by a planning application for 200 new homes immediately adjacent to Wildwood, Stafford but within South Staffordshire District. From the employment perspective the proposed Strategic Rail Freight Interchange development in South Staffordshire District is being promoted in order to provide for the Black Country's unmet logistic needs, which demonstrates the challenge of delivering suitable sites within the Black Country area and the outward movement of economically active people.

The adopted Plan for Stafford Borough (June 2014) focuses the majority of new housing and employment provision at Stafford Town, without releasing Green Belt areas, and a number of significant development sites are now being delivered. As you may be aware the Borough Council has recently initiated a Local Plan Review to set out the future development strategy beyond the adopted Plan period of 2031. Therefore if it is considered necessary to deliver development in other areas the Borough Council would welcome an opportunity to discuss the implications of this approach in more detail, to ensure the infrastructure implications are considered in balance with achieving housing and employment needs across a wider area.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Black Country Core Strategy Issues and Options Report.

As Stafford Borough is a neighbouring authority to South Staffordshire District and Cannock Chase District a number of the Spatial Options within the Report could have development and infrastructure implications for the Borough, although it is worth noting that Stafford Borough is not within the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area, nor the Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEP or Black Country LEP areas. In particular the Habitat Regulations Assessment of future housing growth in the Black Country may need to be addressed in order to provide mitigation measures for the Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation together with implications for the wider Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Based on the Strategic Challenges and Opportunities, the Borough Council is generally supportive of the vision, principles, spatial objectives and strategic policies within the Issues and Options document. However it is important to ensure that a balanced approach takes place between the development requirements of neighbouring areas and the focus for new infrastructure, housing and employment growth within the Black Country area. Clearly it is important that the local population needs within the Black Country are accommodated by the delivery of new developments to reduce out-migration and pressure on the strategic transport network.

In terms of the approach for accommodating growth it is noted that the Black Country are continuing the role of the Growth Network and Regeneration Corridors from the adopted Core Strategy. However this will require the delivery of brownfield sites across the Black Country which experience a range of infrastructure, historic contamination and viability constraints impeding the level of development achievable. Therefore it would appear that options associated with Stage 2 including Green Belt release within the Black Country, either through rounding off or Sustainable Urban Extensions will be required to meet housing and employment development requirements. The implications of these Stage 2 options could be a significant net outflow of residents and economic activity away from the Black Country's Strategic Centres towards other areas, putting additional pressure on transport links.

It is noted that within the Spatial Options is a section on 'meeting housing needs outside the Black Country', firstly in neighbouring authorities or secondly exported outside of the Housing Market Area. Notwithstanding the impact on the Black Country through the loss of economically active population, both of these 'export' options could have implications for Stafford Borough. If additional housing growth is accepted by South Staffordshire District there is the potential for non Green Belt areas south of Stafford, but in South Staffordshire District, being considered through a Local Plan Review process leading to infrastructure pressures on the County Town of Stafford. A recent example of this scenario has been highlighted by a planning application for 200 new homes immediately adjacent to Wildwood, Stafford but within South Staffordshire District. From the employment perspective the proposed Strategic Rail Freight Interchange development in South Staffordshire District is being promoted in order to provide for the Black Country's unmet logistic needs, which demonstrates the challenge of delivering suitable sites within the Black Country area and the outward movement of economically active people.

The adopted Plan for Stafford Borough (June 2014) focuses the majority of new housing and employment provision at Stafford Town, without releasing Green Belt areas, and a number of significant development sites are now being delivered. As you may be aware the Borough Council has recently initiated a Local Plan Review to set out the future development strategy beyond the adopted Plan period of 2031. Therefore if it is considered necessary to deliver development in other areas the Borough Council would welcome an opportunity to discuss the implications of this approach in more detail, to ensure the infrastructure implications are considered in balance with achieving housing and employment needs across a wider area.

STW is a regulated utility company with statutory responsibilities for the provision of water and sewerage services across the English Midlands and Central Wales. As a result of changing processes in relation to clean water provision and wastewater treatment, significant areas of land are no longer required by the business for operational purposes and as such are surplus to requirements. STW is currently undertaking a programme of rationalising its land holdings and is seeking to dispose of redundant operational assets for alternative uses through a process of Irrevocable Sign Off (ISO). Proceeds from the asset disposal are reinvested back into the core business to improve services for its customers.
The purpose of this representation is to provide general comments on the Issues and Options consultation document, particularly in respect of STW's landholdings in the Black Country. Details of the STW sites have been submitted via the concurrent 'Call for Sites' exercise.
STW are keen to work collaboratively with the Black Country Authorities to deliver a 'sound' Core Strategy (BCCS) which meets the identified housing and employment needs in the BCCS area. We would welcome a meeting with the Councils' officers to discuss in greater detail STW's site review programme and potential development opportunities offered by it that could make a significant contribution to meeting the anticipated future housing or employment needs of the Black Country region.
STW is generally supportive of the approach taken by the Black Country Authorities to maintain the existing 'two-tier' local plan approach whereby strategic planning issues across the Black Country area are addressed through the BCCS with site allocations and detailed policies being pursued via specific Local Plans for each Local Authority constituent area.
However, it is evident from the content of the Issues & Options Report that the scale of forecast housing and employment needs will not be delivered within the 'centres/corridors' framework of the current Core Strategy or within the existing Black Country urban area generally.

As the Issues & Options Report recognises, accommodating all future development needs will necessitate the release of Green Belt land. STW supports the need to review the Green Belt to ensure that appropriate sites are brought forward in the most sustainable locations to be of benefit to the needs of residents and businesses and in order to support the growth expectations and aspirations of the Black Country region.
We would question however, whether it is appropriate at this stage and prior to the conclusion of on-going research and evidence (including Green Belt Reviews and SHLAAs) to potentially pre-determine that the 'centres/corridors' approach of the current BCCS should be maintained as a core element of the reviewed Core Strategy, and that the subsequent choice for accommodating growth should follow the sequential stages outlined at Table 2.
Rather, given the growth requirements and the acknowledgement that Green Belt land release will be required, we would encourage the Core Strategy process to consider the most appropriate and deliverable distribution of development to meet the strategic objectives and growth ambitions, within the context of national policy and with reference to the existing urban area but without, at this stage, potential constraints imposed by the existing strategic policy framework.
Such an approach may also enable a degree of flexibility to the pattern of distribution of housing and employment, that best reflects the needs of the market and therefore likelihood of delivery.
STW also generally supports the recognition that sites outside the Black Country may have potential to contribute to Black Country needs, albeit within the context that an authority or - as here - authorities should seek to meet the their own needs within the own areas if possible.
In association with this representation to the Issues & Options report, GL Hearn has submitted a number of STW sites to the call for sites exercise. The sites submitted are:
Walsall:
Goscote Works (14.9ha)
Land at Walsall Wood (10.9ha)
Land at Willenhall, Walsall Road (10ha)
Sandwell:
Land at Roway Lane (3.4ha)
Land at Bescot (12.9ha)
(existing allocated residential site - Policy HOC8 Sandwell Site Allocations and Delivery DPD)
Land at Ray Hall Lane (30ha)
Dudley:
Enville Street, Stourbridge (1.4ha)
Wolverhampton
Barnhurst, Oxley Moor Road (12.9ha)
We anticipate being able to provide further information in respect of these sites in the near future, additional to that provided via the current call for sites response.

As referred, STW as a major landowner within the Black Country area, is keen to work collaboratively with the Black Country Authorities to deliver a 'sound' Local Plan which meets the identified housing and employment needs of the Black Country region, and potentially the wider Birmingham area.
As a major landowner, with a number of sites across the region that offer significant development potential, STW considers it could make a significant contribution to delivering the Black Country's residential and/or employment growth requirements.
We would welcome discussions with the Black Country Authorities to discuss and further explore the potential development opportunity of the STW's sites and how they may contribute to delivering the residential and economic growth targets.
In the meantime we trust that this representation will be taken into full consideration in the preparation of the next stage of the Core Strategy.

Key Issue 3 - Supporting a resurgent economy - Question 4

Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and / or question?

Disagree - we do not consider the employment land requirement identified is appropriate.

The EDNA is a well-researched and presented study. However, we are concerned that the overall employment land requirement identified by it (800 hectares) and the subsequently identified gap between anticipated need and supply (300 hectares) has been underestimated significantly. Unless this is corrected, it will be difficult to plan properly for the right quantity and quality of new employment land and this, in turn, will seriously hinder the economic revival of the sub-region.

We consider that the overall employment requirement (800 hectares) is a significant underestimation for the following reasons: -

* The EDNA assess three methodologies for estimating future land requirements but ultimately only relies on two (employment growth and past development trends), discounting inexplicably the third method (GVA based growth in manufacturing) which projects a far greater requirement.

* Past development trends have been constrained, by difficulties in the delivery of sites, have ignored the contribution made by strategic sites just outside the boundaries of the Black Country, and do not represent long term demand levels being experienced by the market.

* No specific allowance has been made for any losses of employment land, either current or planned (to 2026) or potentially required to accommodate housing growth (2026 to 2036).

* No allowance or margin has been made for market churn, to introduce an element of choice, or to hedge against uncertainty despite referring to this in the study's scope.

* The overall requirement equates to 38 hectares per annum and is significantly lower than the requirement projected by WECD in its 2014/2015 studies of 56 hectares per annum and does not align with the West Midlands Combined Authority Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) which is seeking much further and faster growth.

The first four reasons are considered in more detail below.

WECD is to be congratulated on their analysis of the potential employment land requirement based on future GVA growth in manufacturing. This is particularly relevant to the Black Country due to the significance of this sector to the sub-regional economy and its renaissance in the wider West Midlands in recent years. Paragraph 3.11 of the EDNA refers to 15% of the UK's high value manufacturing being carried out in the Black Country, along with producing 20% of the UK's aerospace output. In addition, reference in the same section of the report is made to Wolverhampton being ranked as the number one western European city for manufacturing in terms of job creation.

The GVA "growth in manufacturing" model projects an overall employment land requirement of between 400-500 hectares as a base line and between 1,310-1,593 hectares based on the super SEP scenario. It is the latter figure that corresponds with the 250 hectares projected by the employment growth methodology, which is ultimately preferred in association with the past development trends of 540 hectares (in order to derive a total requirement of 800 hectares).

A full rationale for employing the GVA growth based projection is provided in paragraphs 6.25 to 6.28 of the EDNA. In paragraph 6.27, it states

"Review of past trends shows that the relationship between land requirements and output in the manufacturing sector is relatively strong/resilient in comparison with the relationship between employment and land requirements."

In addition, in paragraph 6.34 (second bullet point) it notes that the GVA growth model is in alignment with the conclusions of the WECD 2014/15 studies in terms of its annual requirement projected.

Despite these observations, the employment growth model is ultimately employed, resulting in a significant deflation of the overall requirement. The principal reason for this is provided also in the second bullet point to paragraph 6.34. It reads:

"However, it may be questionable whether such a level of demand would be (financially) sustainable over the long term (i.e. development of a site/sites equivalent to 70 hectares per annum each year to 2036 would require significant investments, given the quality and availability of land in the area."

Effectively, the GVA growth model for projecting the requirement has been discounted because of concerns about how to deliver the quantity and quality of land required. It is right for there to be concerns about delivering the supply of sites - and this is why a different approach to the Core Strategy is required (as acknowledged by the Issues and Options) - but this should not be a factor in determining the overall and true requirement in the first place.

With regard to past development trends, paragraph 5.9 acknowledges that past development rates over the measured period (2001-2013 - reference Figure 5.1) could have been constrained by "shortage of suitable stock or availability of resources to pursue development/completion." In addition, there are two other factors, not referred to by the report, which could have led to a distorted and reduced completion rate than that recorded (i.e. 25 hectares per annum). These are:

* The period takes in the recession of 2008-2012, when very little employment development took place. Since 2012, there has been a significant level of development but this has not been recorded for the purposes of calculating the average annual rate.

* No account has been taken of development just outside the Black Country (within South Staffordshire such as i54) which is considered to contribute to the sub-regional needs of the Black Country.

The true development rate of the past 15 years of land serving the needs of the Black Country (i.e. from 2001 to 2016) is likely to be significantly greater than 25 hectares per annum. Moreover, it is to be re-called that the economic objectives of WMCA and the Black Country are to accelerate growth and associated development considerably above and beyond current development rates.

Paragraph 3.23 of the Issues and Options states:

"For all scenarios the EDNA assumes that the 300 hectares of occupied employment land already allocated for housing through Local Plans is lost to the employment land supply over the Plan period."

However, we can find no such reference in the EDNA to making any allowance for the loss of employment land in projecting the overall requirement, although it should. Paragraph 4.19 of the Issues and Options rightly states that any employment land displaced would need to be made up elsewhere.

Reference is made in Figure 7.1 of the EDNA to 203 hectares of employment land identified for housing in Local Plans and a further 280 hectares of employment land that could be considered for release subject to there being an adequate supply of employment land. However, these references are made in Section 7 which covers the supply of employment land to meet employment requirements.

The Issues and Options also makes open reference to the potential loss of significant levels of employment land to help meet housing need. Paragraph 6.54 states that the overall effect of Policies EMP2 and 3 of the Core Strategy is a contraction in employment land from 3,392 hectares in 2016 to 2,754 hectares in 2026 - a loss of 638 hectares. In addition, consideration seems to be being given to the loss of a further 300 hectares from 2026 to 2036, as a potential option to address the significant need for housing.

It is unclear how the significant projected losses of employment land over the plan period to 2036 have been taken into account by the three principal methods employed by WECD in projecting the employment land requirement. In our experience, it is usual practice that an adjustment is made to the requirement for employment land to compensate for any likely future losses of employment land.

The EDNA sets out in paragraph 1.7 the principal means and methodology of developing a picture of future requirements. These include:

"Due to the presence of uncertainty in the projections of employment (and to introduce an element of choice) a margin is added equating to two years' worth of development." (Our emphasis).

However, we can find no express allowance being made in Section 6 for this factor. In addition, it has been practice elsewhere (e.g. G L Hearns's Leicester and Leicestershire HEDNA of January 2017) to provide a margin equating to five years' previous development, rather than just two.

We also hold concerns about the estimation of supply. Paragraph 3.26 of the Issues and Options refers to 394 hectares of land either currently available or likely to come forward within the Black Country itself. We cannot understand how this figure has been sourced from the EDNA.

The EDNA assesses supply and presents this in Figure 7.2. This provides a total of 263 hectares on 119 sites. It is to be noted that much of this land is not currently vacant but occupied (i.e. Categories B and C) and, therefore, cannot be guaranteed to come forward for development. Indeed, elsewhere in the report it is noted that the loss of existing employment land to other uses up to 2016 has not been as great as previously projected due to the greater economic resilience of existing businesses.

Of the 263 hectares presented in Figure 7.2, only 227 hectares (on 99 sites) is identified to be of Premium, Very Good or Good quality (Figure 7.4). This suggests the remaining 36 hectares is not of sufficient quality and should not be counted towards supply.

8 Premium sites are listed totalling 82 hectares. None are greater than 17 ha and half are less than 10 hectares. Generally, we consider high quality strategic employment sites should be greater than 20 hectares. This is to be able to accommodate larger requirements of up to 25,000 sq m (250,000 sq ft) and provide a range and cluster of different sized buildings. The larger the size of the site, the greater the agglomeration benefits, including provision of ancillary facilities, such as a food and drink outlet, public transport investment, and open amenity space.

In addition, there are issues of availability, access, residential amenity and deliverability with 6 of the 8 sites , as follows: -

* Dandy Bank Road, Tansey Green and Dreadnaught Road (12 ha) - Significant proportion occupied by Dreadnought Tiles, with no known plans to move operations. Site neighbours residential property.

* Phoenix 10 (16.5 ha) - Site highly contaminated and unstable, with remediation a complex and lengthy process. Access to strategic road network is unsuitable for a site of this size.

* Former Moxley Tip (10.37 ha) - Delivery issues in terms of ground remediation and stability. Will require grant funding to come forward.

* Former Willenhall Sewage Works (9.7 ha) - Major issue with site access, with site adjoining residential property on two sides.

* Former Gasholders (8.7 ha) - Residential property fronting Darlaston Road is a significant constraint which could require acquisition with CPO powers. Site will also require significant ground remediation.

* Rear Long Marston Site (7.3 ha) - Site constraints include ground contamination, land stability, flooding, access, vacant possession, and the effects of a recent fire.

At JLL we are involved in a number of the Premium sites and are hopeful that all can be delivered to the market. However, given the significance and long standing nature of some of the constraints, the need for 3rd party input (in the form of grant funding, CPO and current sitting tenants/operators) there is an obvious danger that some of the Premium sites will not come forward and it would be unsafe to place total reliance on them.

Even if all of the Premium sites were delivered during the plan period they would satisfy only a small fraction of the total requirement (800 hectares). Assuming a 20% reduction in the gross site areas to generate realistic development site areas (for reasons articulated below), the 8 sites would contribute 65 hectares. This constitutes just over 8 % of the total requirement and is equivalent to just 1.5 year's demand (based on an annual requirement of 40 ha per annum).

In paragraph 3.26 of the Issues and Options, an assumption is made that a further 90-170 hectares of land in South Staffordshire has the potential to contribute towards meeting Black Country needs. The contribution from South Staffordshire is broken down with 90 hectares made up of remaining land from three of the four Freestanding Strategic Employment Sites identified by the 2012 South Staffordshire Core Strategy (i54, ROF Featherstone and Hilton Cross) and proposed extensions (by the draft South Staffordshire Site Allocations) to i54 (40 hectares) and ROF Featherstone (22 hectares). No allowance has been made for the remaining land at the other Freestanding Strategic Employment Site (Four Ashes). This site was discounted by WECD in its 2014/15 study as a potential contributor to the sub-regional economy of the Black Country as it was deemed to be located too far away from the Black Country.

It is to be noted that the proposed ROF Featherstone allocation extension has been subject to quite extensive objection through the Site Allocations process (including from Historic England and the National Trust on its impact on the listed building Old Moseley Hall). There is still a high degree of uncertainty of how this long vacant site will be delivered, particularly in respect of access, without significant grant funding. This position needs to be carefully monitored.

The other assumed contribution from South Staffordshire is that the proposed West Midlands Interchange will contribute 80 to 100 hectares to the sub-regional employment land portfolio. These proposals are also uncertain as an application for a Development Consent Order for a SRFI has yet to be made. In addition South Staffordshire Council has made it public that it is not supportive.

In any event, this proposal will serve a much larger catchment area than the sub-region and will represent qualitatively and quantitatively a very specific and narrow market sector - i.e. big box B8 warehousing in buildings greater than 500,000 sq ft. In addition, it is difficult to see how this can contribute to the sub-regional land supply if the adjacent Four Ashes Freestanding Strategic Employment Site has already been discounted on the basis it is too far removed from the Black Country in order to serve its needs.

Finally, it is unclear if the supply of sites has been measured in gross or net developable terms. Generally, gross areas for sites are provided. However, the requirement for sites, specifically those generated by the employment growth or GVA growth methods, are calculated on a net developable basis.

Generally, the difference between a gross site area and the developable area of a site (which includes the development plots and main estate roads) is between 20 to 30%. As an example, the site being promoted by Nurton Developments - Hilton Park, Junction 11 of the M6 - has a gross site area of 88.9 ha but a maximum developable area of 64.9 ha. This constitutes a reduction by 27%.

For these reasons, we consider that the contributing supply is likely to be an over-estimation, possibly to a significant degree. Many of the sites are small in size and a number will not be delivered over the plan period.

Overall, we consider the need and supply of employment land must be re-assessed, otherwise there is a real danger that an insufficient quantum and range of employment land will be promoted. This in turn will threaten the ambitious economic strategy for the sub-region, as stated clearly elsewhere in the Issues and Options. We would be happy to be involved in any such reassessment, working with WECD, to ensure that this part of the evidence base to the Core Strategy Review is as robust as possible and provides a firm platform for planning the right quantity and quality of employment land to serve the Black Country.

Key Issue 6 - Reviewing the role and the extent of the Green Belt - Question 5

Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and / or question?

Agree

Paragraph 3.47 states that the Green Belt Review will be carried out in conjunction with South Staffordshire Council. Two reasons are provided:-

* A large proportion of Black Country urban fringe extends into South Staffordshire.

* Strong housing market and economic links between the Black Country and South Staffordshire.

The second reason is corroborated in terms of economic links by both the EDNA and elsewhere in the Issues and Options. The EDNA, in Section 4, sees both South Staffordshire and Birmingham as areas of strong economic transactions with the Black Country. It concludes that these two areas, along with the Black Country, comprise a natural FEMA.

Paragraph 3.60 refers specifically to the relevance of South Staffordshire in terms of employment land. It states:

"South Staffordshire also has a crucial role to play in contributing towards meeting the employment land needs of the Black Country, reflecting the interlinked economies of the area. The South Staffordshire land portfolio is largely focused on meeting demand for large, highly accessible premium sites that cannot be physically accommodated in the Black Country. These sites include the hugely successful i54 business park which is home to a number of international businesses including Jaguar Land Rover."

However, it is vital that the scope of the Green Belt Review looks beyond just the urban fringes of the Black Country, particularly in terms of employment land. Good employment land, particularly larger strategic sites (which are in short supply in the Black Country), have specific requirements. These are:

* Quick and direct access to the national motorway and strategic road network, avoiding congested A or minor roads, particularly those that have to route through built-up or residential areas.

* Good penetration to the local job market, with particular regard to good existing or potential public transport links.

* Sufficient size to accommodate large buildings or a cluster of different sized buildings (with sites generally larger than 20 hectares required).

* Slightly removed from existing or proposed housing to allow total flexibility in terms of use, building design (i.e. height of buildings) and operation (ie 24/7).

* A pleasant, well designed and landscaped setting, with amenities for occupiers, in order to attract and retain staff.

Such sites, by their very nature, are not usually found either within the built up area of the Black Country or on the urban fringe to it. Instead, their area of search will extend further into the Green Belt along the principal motorway and A route network serving the sub-region.

It is essential that the scope of the Green Belt Review recognises this and has a suitably wide geographical remit. Otherwise, some of the best potential employment land opportunities will be overlooked.


Strategic Options 1A and 1B - Question 11a

Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and / or question?

Comment

We support both Options 1a and 1b, but consider Option 1b to be preferable if the release of existing unsuitable employment land is managed appropriately.

We support both options as they recognise that a radical approach is required - i.e. releasing significant areas of the Green Belt in order to accommodate the relevant pressures for both housing and employment. With the latter, there is an express acknowledgement that there is a need to increase the employment land stock, as recommended by the EDNA.

Option 1b is considered by the Issues and Options to be a more radical approach as it looks to restructure some of the existing Regeneration Corridors, with some existing employment land being replaced by housing. However, this process is part of a long term recycling of land where unsuitable existing employment land, particularly those areas poorly located in terms of road access and with no future prospect, is best developed at the end of its economic life for more sustainable uses such as housing.

Moreover, the ability of the Growth Network to yield good quality employment land is diminishing. Most of the obvious well located large brownfield sites have already been developed. The Premium sites now identified by the EDNA are all relatively small and most are heavily constrained.

Option 1b recognises this and looks to the Green Belt where there are much clearer and better opportunities for development, particularly for large Premium employment sites. As such, we see Option 1b as a much more effective and deliverable strategy.


Strategic Option Area 2B - accommodating employment land growth outside the urban area - Questions 16 - 19

Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and / or question?

Comment

We consider all four options need to be properly explored given that there is a significant need for new employment land outside the existing Growth Network and Regeneration Corridors. As referred to in our response to Question 4, we consider that the actual need for new employment land, particularly for large Premium sites, is much more significant and pressing than currently projected.

In settling on an option, or combination of options, it is vitally important to choose sites that will best respond to what the market requires. The market requirements, or characteristics, for best quality land are set out in our response to Question 5. For ease of reference, these are:

* Quick and direct access to the national motorway and strategic road network, avoiding congested A or minor roads, particularly those that have to route through built-up or residential areas.

* Good penetration to local job market, with particular regard to good existing or potential public transport links.

* Sufficient size to accommodate large buildings or a cluster of different sized buildings (with sites generally larger than 20 hectares required).

* Slightly removed from existing or proposed housing to allow total flexibility in terms of use, building design (ie height of buildings) and operation (i.e. 24/7).

* A pleasant, well designed and landscaped setting, with amenities for occupiers, in order to attract and retain staff.

We consider that Options E2 and E4 are most likely to fulfil these requirements. Moreover, given the scale of the shortfall of employment land (i.e. the gap between the projected requirement and identified supply), which we believe will grow once reassessed in the light of our comments to Question 4, we consider that Option E4 will be required, particularly in respect of finding larger Premium sites.

Nurton Developments is promoting just such a site at Hilton Park, Junction 11 of the M6 motorway. This site has direct access to the A460 at Junction 11 and has a gross area of almost 90 hectares (developable area of up to 65 hectares) and is capable of accommodating close to 250,000 sq m of industrial and distribution floorspace in a range of buildings from 2,500 sq m to 25,000 sq m of B1c, B2 & B8 use to meet the sub-regional needs of the Black Country and the local needs of South Staffordshire.

We have submitted a Call for Sites form for the site and support this with a Development Prospectus. This prospectus provides much greater details of the site, introduces some indicative proposals, considers the site's connectivity and sustainability credentials, and assesses the contribution the site makes in terms of the Green Belt.

I would like to register my formal opposition to proposals to develop the green belt area in the Halesowen area.
I regularly run walk or just relax in this area. It s a stunning environment with great wildlife, deer, badgers, fox and rabbits and scores of birds abound in this tranquil area.
I see many others using it too but there is still enough space for seclusion, should you desire it.
It would be a great shame to develop this wonderful area without having first exhausted all brownfield sites in the area.

Can you please acknowledge my opposition and let me know the outcome.

Question 1: Do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies? Yes/No; If not, what do you think should be the scope of the review?
2.4 In response to Question 1 and whether it should be a partial review or not, whilst the existing strategy identifies the most sustainable locations for growth in the context of delivering development requirements identified by the Regional Strategy (RS), there is now a new and much bigger challenge ahead in meeting the arising needs for homes identified by the latest evidence and there is concern that the existing spatial strategy may not facilitate the delivery of these needs. The Black Country authorities, therefore, need to be mindful of this and not attempt to put "a square peg in a round hole".
2.5 It is our view that urban regeneration can be achieved whilst pursuing development on the urban edge. Indeed, the scale of housing need is so large that both must be encouraged in order to meet current and arising housing needs within the Black Country.
2.6 It is extremely important that in reviewing the Core Strategy it fully takes account of and facilitates the delivery of strategic economic plans, as recognised in paragraph 1.15. All too often these strategies are ignored and, accordingly, development plans could effectively frustrate economic growth from being realised.
2.7 In terms of the Plan period proposed in paragraph 1.17, whilst a 15-year time period from adoption is appropriate, there is concern that the preparation of plans is often delayed (due to reasons beyond the control of the LPAs) and it may be prudent to stretch the period further to prevent such an issue from occurring.
2.8 It is welcomed that the Issues and Options document recognises that it will not be possible to accommodate all future development needs within the urban area and that an examination of the potential for development land outside the existing urban area, which is effectively land within the Green Belt, will take place as part of the Core Strategy review process.
3. THE BLACK COUNTRY TODAY - THE EXISTING STRATEGY
3.1 As set out within this section, the delivery of both employment and housing land has not come forward as originally envisaged in part due to the after effects of the recession. Surplus employment land which might have been available for housing has not come forward due to a strengthening economy and local firms being more robust than anticipated. In addition, the range of locations available has not in all cases met with market expectations as to where people want to live.
3.2 In terms of the employment land, it is important that sufficient land is provided for new employment and that there is not an overreliance on land that is currently in use. It is impressive that despite generally poor economic performance local businesses have performed well. Should the economy significantly improve within the Plan period in line with LEP aspirations (considered later in this response), there is concern that it may become difficult to transfer a wide range of existing employment locations to housing allocations. It is appropriate, therefore, for the Council to ensure the evidence contained within the Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment is reviewed and updated regularly. This will enable the land supply to be responsive to arising needs and not rigidly be wedded to delivering commitments that are unlikely to be realised.
3.3 What is further emphasised by the analysis in this section is that urban regeneration cannot be delivered quickly and that there are a number of factors beyond the control of the Black Country authorities that may have implications for the delivery of the strategy. This further emphasises the need for a mix of types of sites (brownfield, brownfield compulsory purchase, greenfield and Green Belt) of different forms of development (high density, mid and low density family homes) in a variety of locations, which will maximise the opportunities to deliver a successful Local Plan.
3.4 Finally, in respect of the proposal to maintain 300 hectares of employment land that will become vacant by way of general churn over the Plan period. Whilst the principle is considered acceptable, there should be appropriate evidence to support the assumption.
3.5 Our experience is that there are employment sites that clients are looking to secure a residential allocation on that have not been identified thus far. In light of these changing circumstances, the Black Country authorities should ensure that the policy approach is flexible to allow sites in appropriate locations to be brought forward for housing throughout the Plan period and likewise, sites that have been allocated for housing but have not come forward should be removed from the supply.
4. THE STRATEGIC CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
4.1 It is welcomed that the Black Country authorities are updating their evidence base. Indeed, the adopted Core Strategy took the development requirements from the adopted Regional Strategy (RS), which has since been revoked and is unquestionably out of date. Since the RS was published there has been a number of population and household projections published showing increasing dwelling requirements in the Black Country, which were largely ignored and, therefore, it should come as no surprise that there is a significant increase in forming households.
4.2 In terms of the list of evidence either prepared or due to be completed, it appears to be sufficiently comprehensive.
4.3 A separate review of the housing evidence based, including the Strategic Housing Market Assessment for the Black Country and South Staffordshire, is contained at Appendix A. The key conclusions arising from the report as summarised as follows:
* In determining the OAN, there are concerns with regard to the SHMA methodology and it is suggested a further scenario should be tested to consider long term growth which includes balanced periods of economic prosperity and decline.
* There is concern that the economic growth scenarios do not use the latest economic forecast data and that the methodology translating the job growth into dwelling growth is not sufficiently robust to accurately determine the impact of forecasts based on existing circumstances and also more aspirational job growth targets, such as those arising from the SEP.
* In terms of providing uplifts for market signals, a 25% uplift for South Staffs is appropriate. It is advised that dwelling requirements for the Black Country should not be reduced as a result of this and, accordingly, it should not count towards meeting any unmet needs outside of the HMA as the main function is to provide slack within the housing market and prevent house prices from increasing at an accelerated rate.
4.4 In addition, consideration of the Housing Background Report is also contained in the Housing Evidence Based Review Paper contained at Appendix A. The key findings from reviewing the evidence is set out below:
* Clearly a lot of work is yet to be done to determine what the housing land supply position is in the Black Country. Given that much of the existing evidence is based on the adopted Core Strategy, it is recognised that the SHLAAs across the four authorities will need to be updated, both in terms of revising the methodology and range of sites assessed, to reflect a potentially different approach to locating development.
* It is commendable that the Housing Background Report has examined existing sources of supply in an attempt to provide additional homes from sites within the urban area. There is concern, however, that by changing policies, for example, to increase the minimum density on sites has wider policy implications to take into account than simply increasing the number of homes.
* The Housing Background Report suggests a continued allowance for larger windfall sites. It is suggested that it is inappropriate to include an allowance for this source as there is no certainty that this land will come forward for development.
* Other sources, such as converting employment sites to residential sites, based on the evidence presented and feedback from the development industry, it is known that there are employment sites functioning well as employment sites but are to be converted to residential and other employment sites that are unoccupied and undesirable that are to be retained as employment sites. Clearly, there is a mismatch between employment land need and employment land supply. It is advised that the qualitative assessment of employment informs future land supply recommendations and allocations are revised where necessary.
4.5 As a result of the dwelling requirements generated by the SHMA and the land supply identified from the Housing Background Report, it is concluded that there in insufficient urban land to provide for the development requirements and that a Green Belt Review should be conducted. It is noted that scoping is underway and that the work is to be completed in mid-2018. It is hopeful that the development industry will be involved in defining the methodology of the work to ensure that it is conducted in a robust way.
4.6 Another very important piece of work to be taken into consideration will be the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA Strategic Growth Study. It is unclear at this stage what role the Black Country authorities will play in meeting the wider needs of Birmingham and, indeed, whether it can now contribute given that meeting the needs of the indigenous population will be a tall order. Further, there is uncertainty with regard to how far the study will go in identifying locations for growth and how this evidence will be taken forward in emerging Development Plans, particularly given that it is premature to the Green Belt Review for the wider Black Country area. It is our view that there are sites within the Green Belt that will provide sustainable locations for growth and that their removal will not compromise the purposes of the Green Belt and, accordingly it will remain purposeful and functional.
Question 2: Do you think that the key evidence set out in Table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If not, what further evidence is required and, if there are any particular issues that should be taken into account in considering development on any particular sites or in any particular areas, please provide details
4.7 It is considered that the evidence contained within Table 1 is comprehensive, however, as suggested above and below, a number of concerns have been highlighted and it is therefore suggested that these are addressed in order to improve the soundness of the next iteration of the Core Strategy Review.
4.8 It is welcomed that an updated qualitative assessment of employment land has been undertaken in order to identify if the sites are fit for purpose, alongside the quantitative employment land study. It has been identified that a number of employment land sites that have been suggested for residential land allocations remain in occupation as functioning employment sites. These sites should be removed from the housing land supply. Conversely, there are vacant employment land sites that have been marketed over a period of time where no market interest has been forthcoming and, therefore, it is recommended that these sites should be considered for housing delivery.
4.9 It is noted that Viability Studies are identified as evidence base documents that are still to be prepared. Whilst not specifically identified, it is recommended that affordable housing viability is a key matter that needs to be addressed as part of this evidence base to ensure the level suggested by the SHMA Part 2 is deliverable. If this is not the case, the delivery of both market and affordable housing could be compromised and prevent the successful delivery of any new strategy.
Question 3: Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014-36 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.
4.10 In terms of the extent of the sub market, which includes the Black Country and South Staffordshire, this is considered to be appropriate. It is recognised and welcomed that the Black Country authorities and South Staffordshire have jointly undertaken a SHMA for the sub area, which facilitates the preparation of an Issues and Options Core Strategy Review. There is concern, however, that the remaining constituent authorities within the wider Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area have not taken part and there is a danger that housing need for the whole HMA may not entirely be comprehensively captured due to the different time periods covered by the separate studies. It is advised that a SHMA, consistent with the guidance in the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance, is prepared for the entire HMA over the same Plan period (as opposed to a housing needs study), which will properly consider all relevant factors in a consistent and comprehensive manner.
4.11 The OAN arrived at by the SHMA is generally appropriate in identifying the starting point for determining the dwelling requirement, however, it is suggested a further scenario should be tested to consider long term growth which includes balanced periods of economic prosperity and decline. There is concern that the economic growth scenarios contain potentially out of date employment forecasts and the methodology to determine appropriate dwelling requirements is not sufficiently robust to accurately determine the impact of forecasts based on existing circumstances. In addition, more aspirational job growth targets, such as those arising from the SEP, may not necessarily be appropriate for the Black Country (as discussed later in these representations).
4.12 In terms of providing an uplift for market signals, a 25% uplift for South Staffs is agreed to be appropriate. It is advised that dwelling requirements for the Black Country should not be reduced as a result of this and, accordingly, the application of such an uplift in South Staffordshire should not count towards meeting any unmet needs outside of the HMA as the main function is to provide slack or headroom within the housing market and prevent house prices from increasing at an accelerated rate, exacerbating issues of affordability.
4.13 Clearly, the evidence contained in the SHMA does not consider the potential to accommodate any of Birmingham City's housing needs and that this could result in increased dwelling requirements. We reserve our position in respect of this matter and await the publication of the HMA wide Strategic Housing Needs Study.
4.14 We shortly await a consultation publication from central Government in relation to providing a standardised methodology for generating dwelling requirements. This is anticipated in Autumn 2017. The Black Country authorities will need to take account of any proposed national policy changes identified through the consultation paper. We reserve our position on this matter, until the full details and implications for the Back Country are known. It is considered that, whilst a standard methodology will be helpful in identifying a baseline dwelling requirement, the consideration of long term trends and economic forecasts cannot be carried out in a mathematical calculation outside a demographic/ economic model. In light of this, the SHMA prepared for the sub-area could remain useful as evidence to inform the review of the Black Country Core Strategy.
4.15 In terms of meeting the dwelling requirements, it is understood that the 'Call for Sites' consultation will inform an updated SHLAA, which will assess sites both within and outside the urban area to determine the maximum number of dwellings that can be realistically delivered within the Black Country over the proposed Plan period. The Housing Background Report that has been published as part of the evidence base for the Issues and Options Core Strategy Review has considered assumptions contained within the SHLAA based on adopted policies and considers changes to the policies to boost the delivery of housing on existing sites. Whilst it is a commendable that the Black Country authorities are exploring all potential options to boost housing on urban land, there are wider implications of doing so and accordingly, caution is expressed in response to a number of the identified approaches proposed.
4.16 As confirmed in paragraph 3.15, it is extremely important that the Black Country authorities 'firm up' the housing supply in order to ensure that there is sufficient provision to meet the dwelling requirements. It is also considered appropriate to provide an additional buffer of housing land supply to provide a contingency when sites are delayed. As explained earlier in the Issues and Options Report, sites providing a total of 3,000 homes have not come forward as anticipated. It is considered that additional supply is required to provide flexibility and minimise any durations within the Plan period where the housing trajectory would otherwise dip.
4.17 In terms of the extent of a buffer for housing land, the Local Plan Expert Group suggested that additional land, equivalent to delivering 20% of the overall dwelling requirement, is added to the supply, which will provide a contingency of land to be used as and when necessary during the Plan period. It is suggested that this additional land will help ensure the dwelling delivery targets and housing needs are met in a timely manner, which will reduce the opportunity for households to become concealed or shared. Given the issues experienced in respect of delivery in the past, it could be argued that an increased buffer of circa 25% could be applied.
4.18 It is also appropriate to ensure that, as well as identifying the right amount of land, there is sufficient variety in the types of sites (brownfield, greenfield, Green Belt) are identified, reflecting different sizes, in a range of locations. This variety in provision will allow the best opportunity for multiple sites to come forward at the same time without market constraint and hence ensuring delivery targets are met. In addition, this approach will also provide market choice to existing and arising households looking to move into a new home in the Black Country, which will have wider social benefits (i.e. allow families to live nearby one another and provide an opportunity to diversify existing communities through providing alternative homes to the existing housing stock).
4.19 Indeed, as previously documented in the adopted Core Strategy, it is considered that the ambition to retain the young and professional population within the Black Country should be maintained and that suitable and attractive housing and complementary environments are encouraged.
4.20 Finally, it is welcomed that the Black Country authorities have agreed to test the dwelling requirement figures on an ongoing basis. It is hoped that the suggested changes/alternative scenarios suggested above are implemented in order to ensure the evidence base is robust and the resultant policies and proposals soundly based.
Question 4: Do you consider the employment land requirement identified for the Black Country up to 2036 in the EDNA is appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.
4.21 The Core Strategy review intends to utilise the Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) for the Black Country, published in May 2017, to inform future employment land requirements. The EDNA uses forecasts produced as part of the West Midlands Combined Authority Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) to calculate long-term growth, noting that the 'Super SEP Economy+ Scenario' is the preferred aspirational scenario. This scenario assumes average annual growth in employment of 1.3% across the Combined Authority and presents an ambitious view of future growth in the area, with 500,000 jobs created between 2013 and 2030.
4.22 The SEP Technical Appendix breaks down the job forecasts for the three Local Enterprise Partnerships that form the Combined Authority (Black Country; Coventry & Warwickshire; and Greater Birmingham & Solihull). Jobs growth in the Black Country LEP is forecast to be around 1.1% per annum, whilst it is forecast at 1.5% per annum in the other two LEP areas. This averages out at annual growth of approximately 1.3%. Using data from the Business Register & Employment Survey, published by the Office for National Statistics, it is possible to look at employment trends over the last five to six years (2009-15) and this analysis suggests that the growth rate used in the aspirational growth scenario may be too ambitious for the Back Country:
4.23 Between 2009 and 2015, total employment in the Black Country LEP increased from around 450,000 to approximately 453,000. This equates to average annual growth of 0.1%. Walsall (1.5% p.a.) and Sandwell (0.9% p.a.) experienced jobs growth, although Dudley (-1.1% p.a.) and Wolverhampton (-0.8%) both suffered a fall in employment.
4.24 By contrast, both the Coventry & Warwickshire and Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEPs saw total job numbers increase by 1.3% p.a. from 2009-13. A number of districts in these LEPs saw particularly strong growth over the period, notably Solihull and Lichfield in Greater Birmingham & Solihull, where employment grew by at least 3.0% on an annual basis. In short, the 1.3% average across the West Midlands Combined Authority Area is substantially bolstered by Solihull and Lichfield and therefore it is very ambitious to suggest this will occur across the Black Country area.
4.25 That said, growth in the Black Country needs to be faster than in previous years and the new Core Strategy has a vital role to play in supporting this, however the analysis presented above suggests that the growth targets need to be lowered to better reflect the local economic climate. It is considered unlikely that an annual increase of 1.0% or more will happen in the area in the long-term, especially with the Coventry & Warwickshire and Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEPs capturing new job opportunities at a faster rate in recent years. Lowering the employment growth rate means the amount of employment floorspace needed would be lower. This would not reduce the demographically based housing targets for the area but it would potentially free up previously allocated employment sites for other uses such as residential. This would help the Black Country meet its future housing targets and ensure that it has enough homes for its future workforce to live in.
4.26 As identified in the supporting report and above, it is known that employment sites that had previously been identified for housing are still operational with businesses continuing to use the land and, conversely, there are sites allocated for employment that have been vacant and subsequently market, however, remain unoccupied, which could be transferred to a residential use. It is therefore recommended that the Councils ensure that updated EDNA qualitative review conclusions are taken into account and correct uses applied where appropriate.
Question 5: Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt Review? Yes/No; If not, what additional work do you think is necessary?
4.27 In respect of the Green Belt Review, on the basis of the evidence published setting out housing need and supply, it is agreed that it will be necessary to find sites outside of the existing urban area, which will require removing land from the Green Belt where it is appropriate to do so. This will provide an opportunity to identify strategic sites that can provide a significant amount of homes to contribute to meeting identified housing needs. It is considered that there are a number of locations whereby housing sites can be identified, without the purposes of the Green Belt being compromised, ensuring the function and integrity of the Green Belt will remain.
4.28 In addition, areas on the urban fringe have the potential to ensure new homes can be delivered in an established, well landscaped environment, which could be attractive to those young families and professionals that the Black Country authorities have had difficulty in retaining, often through out-migration to neighbouring Shire districts considered to represent more aspirational locations.
4.29 In terms of the process and methodology for undertaking a Green Belt Review, it is understood that the awaited Strategic Housing Needs Study (SHNS) will be accompanied by Strategic Green Belt Review across Greater Birmingham and that the Black Country authorities have been engaged in presenting potential opportunities. It is reassuring that this engagement between consultants and local planning authorities is taking place as there is a danger that logical locations fail to be identified due to a lack of understanding of environmental conditions and/ or local circumstances that are applicable to sites.
4.30 It is agreed and makes sense for the local planning authorities to conduct a Stage 2 Green Belt Assessment following the completion of the higher-level work. Any input on reviewing the draft methodology for the Stage 3 Green Belt Review would be welcomed.
Question 6: Do you agree that the key issues set out in Part 3 are the key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy Review? Yes/No; If not, what other key issues should be taken into account?
4.31 The key issues presented are considered to be relevant, however, there are a number of inconsistencies relating to matters identified above against the previous questions raised.
5. REVIEWING THE STRATEGY TO MEET NEW CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
Question 7: Do you think that the Core Strategy vision and sustainability principles remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest?
5.1 In the main, the Core Strategy Vision and sustainability principles are considered to be appropriate, with exception to the principle of 'brownfield first'. It is understood that the NPPF, whilst it encourages an efficient use of land and for brown field land to be recycled, it does not suggest a sequential approach to development. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the development of greenfield land will compromise the development of brownfield land. Often the type of developers of the different land categories are different and, given the scale of the housing need, it is appropriate that the early delivery of housing is encouraged from all types of sites. In particular, the larger, potentially Green Belt, sites will have a longer lead in time due to the time it takes to plan for, determine and implement a comprehensive scheme. Indeed, a recent study entitled 'Start to Finish', prepared by NLP, supports this claim. When planning the housing trajectory for the Core Strategy, the larger sites should be planned in to come forward as soon as practically possible.
5.2 It is therefore suggested that the reference to 'putting brownfield first' is inappropriate and that it should be replaced by 'ensuring an efficient use of land to meet the identified housing needs', which encourages the recycling of land and recognises the contributions of greenfield/ Green Belt land to meeting housing delivery targets.
Question 8: Do you think that the Core Strategy spatial objectives remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest and how might these changes impact on individual Core Strategy policies?
5.3 Whilst the objectives outlined generally remain sound, there is concern that one of the NPPFs main priorities is absent. This is in relation to significantly boosting the supply of housing. It is suggested that an additional objective is added in order to ensure that meeting housing needs remains a priority within the Black Country. Once a preferred option is arrived at, spatial references as to where the housing growth will be delivered could be included (for example, meeting housing needs on urban (brownfield and greenfield) land and at extensions to the urban area).
5.4 Further, given the increased employment land requirements, the second objective relating to employment land being within the best locations within the Regeneration Corridors may no longer be appropriate. Indeed, as highlighted earlier, there is concern that there is a mismatch in land allocations, and it is appropriate for the Core Strategy review to ensure all employment sites are fit for purpose. This may conclude that employment opportunities should be identified on new land outside of the Regeneration Corridors. Should this be the case, the objective would be inappropriately worded.
Question 9: Do you agree that Policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the Growth Network? Yes/No; If not, what changes do you think should be made to Policies CSP1 and CSP2 in response to new challenges and opportunities?
5.5 It is agreed that the policies could remain, if the development requirements and related changes are made to ensure the policies are consistent with the overall strategy. The changes relate to both the quantum of development (homes, employment and retail space), the location of development (within and beyond the existing Regeneration Corridors) and the type of development (brownfield, greenfield and on land removed from the Green Belt). It is considered that references should be made to urban extensions (on land removed from the Green Belt) in Policy CSP2 specifically, to highlight the important contribution that such sites will make to meeting the development requirements of the Plan.
Question 10: In continuing to promote growth within the Growth Network, is there a need to amend the boundaries of any of the Regeneration Corridors in the existing Core Strategy? Yes/No; If so, which boundaries and why?
5.6 No comment.
Question 11a: Do you support Strategic Option 1A? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If no, do you support Option 1B? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If you support the release of further employment land for housing, what should the characteristics of these employment areas be?
5.7 Option 1A is considered to be appropriate for accommodating the growth needs of the Black Country over the Plan period to 2036. This option would significantly boost the supply of housing land and help to meet the significant current and future identified need.
Question 11b: Are there any current employment areas that might be considered suitable for redevelopment to housing? Yes/No; Please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form.
5.8 As highlighted previously, the key to understanding where the most appropriate employment/ housing locations are within the Growth Network and Corridors will be determined through a qualitative assessment of allocated employment sites. It is understood an updated assessment has been undertaken and such work, complete with responses to the Call for Sites consultation, will provide the Black Country authorities with evidence to determine the urban capacity for housing, which may include transferring some employment land to housing as well as housing land to employment. This work will then outline the number of dwellings to be accommodated beyond the existing Growth Network within the Green Belt.
5.9 It is welcomed that the Issues and Options Draft recognises the need to release Green Belt in all scenarios proposed.
Question 12a: Do you support Spatial Option H1? Yes/No; What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. ability to create a defensible new green belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services.
5.10 No comment.
Question 12b: Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.11 No comment.
Question 13a: Do you support Spatial Option H2? Yes/No; What should the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) be? e.g. minimum/ maximum size, mix of uses, mix of housing types, accessibility to other areas. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs, potential to support existing settlements / services, proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban regeneration.
5.12 Given the scale of the housing need, there is concern that the development requirements could not be met with just one of the suggested options presented and, therefore, a combination of both options will be necessary.
5.13 To be in the best possible position to significantly boost the amount of housing and meet the development requirements in the Black Country, in accordance with the NPPF, it is advised that opportunities to both round off edges of the Green Belt and Sustainable Urban Extensions are proposed in the Preferred Options Draft Core Strategy. As highlighted within the Issues and Options Draft, there are challenges and opportunities that come with both types of development, for example from a delivery perspective, smaller sites will come forward more quickly due to the nature of these being straight forward proposals (with limited infrastructure necessary and one or few land owners) and larger sites will ultimately take longer as they are more complex (with multiple land uses, infrastructure and land owners). This fact has been evidenced by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (now known as Lichfields) within their report 'Start to Finish' who concluded that the average planning approval period of schemes of 2,000+ dwellings is 6.1 years and the annual average build out rate is 161 dwellings per annum. These figures demonstrate the need to have a number of sites of different sizes and in different locations removed from the Green Belt. The report also identifies, with regard to housing delivery, that 50% more homes per annum are delivered on average on large greenfield sites than large brownfield sites. This is a significant benefit of including greenfield sites within the Preferred Option and will assist to secure its delivery.
5.14 In terms of the locations for removing land from the Green Belt, this should be informed by the Strategic Growth Study and a Black Country Review of the Green Belt. The more detailed study will provide an assessment of land parcels against the purposes of the Green Belt and is likely to recommend that those that compromise the purposes the least will be shortlisted for further consideration to be removed from the Green Belt. It is advised that the next stage should be a consideration of the shortlisted sites based on their suitability (i.e. are the neighbouring uses compatible, would any previous land uses prevent the development of the site), sustainability (i.e. proximity to/ ability to provide local services/ public transport/ employment opportunities) and deliverability (i.e. whether the site is available, being promoted for development, has no barriers to coming forward etc.) credentials. Clearly each site will fair differently against such criteria and the Call for Sites submission will assist the Council to come to a decision on the preferred sites. It is advised that the Black Country authorities should be mindful of the opportunities, through infrastructure and design, that development can bring that will enhance the diversity and character of a particular location.
5.15 In terms of the characteristics of a Sustainable Urban Extension, this is likely to vary depending on the location of each site. For example, some may be more urban and others suburban in their character and would, therefore, provide a different land use offer. It is important that each are considered on a site by site basis to ensure that any subsequent allocation delivers a successful development. It is important that the developer responsible for promoting the site helps to influence what is ultimately delivered. Often what is proposed on site has been informed by housing market intelligence undertaken by sales experts at development companies and, therefore, should be taken into account. Particularly given recent experience in the down turn in the apartment market, it is important that sites are allocated for the right type and mix of housing to ensure that it will be delivered, occupied and successful.
5.16 In the more suburban locations, it is suggested that Sustainable Urban Extensions should look to provide a different offer to potentially what exists in the Strategic Centres and Regeneration Corridors, such as a mix of larger and lower density homes, which will attract those households that in the past have migrated elsewhere. Given the emphasis on delivering more high density homes in the Strategic Centres, it is important that this housing mix is offset by more larger homes in appropriate locations. Otherwise, there is a concern that the Black Country will have a disproportional amount of small homes, which will further encourage more families to migrate elsewhere and not meet the aspiration to diversify the wider HMA.
Question 13b: What infrastructure do you think would be needed for different sizes of SUEs?
5.17 The type of infrastructure needed will vary depending on the different location and size of each site and must be compliant with paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations that requires planning obligations (which applies to most infrastructure) to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. With the above in mind, however, provision for open space (both formal and informal), local centre and potentially a primary school should be considered for sites in excess of 1,000 homes.
Question 13c: Are there any potential locations that should be considered for SUEs (please submit through the 'call for sites' form) and what infrastructure would be required to support these?
5.18 No comment.
Question 13d: Do you think that the Core Strategy should set out detailed guidance for the development of SUEs (e.g. type and tenure of housing, specific infrastructure required), rather than details being determined at a local level in light of local policies? Yes/No; Any further comments?
5.19 For the reasons outlined above, relating to considering existing local circumstances and CIL Regulation requirements in respect of any charging schedule and planning obligation requirements, it is advised that detailed guidance for the development of SUEs should not be specified within the Black Country Core Strategy as each site will vary and deserves a more detailed consideration, alongside the developer, at the local level.
Question 14: Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Housing Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details
5.20 There are no other sustainable and deliverable options that we are aware of within the Black Country administrative boundary that are capable of delivering the housing spatial options.
Question 15a: If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the 'export' of housing growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA? Yes/No; What factors should be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities in neighbouring authorities e.g. proximity to the edge of the urban area, proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs?
5.21 Even if all realistically deliverable options have been considered within the Black Country, there will remain an unmet need for housing. Therefore, it is necessary for the Black Country authorities to consider the possibility of exporting growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA. In particular, there are options to expand existing settlements that are close to the administrative boundary (for example, in South Staffordshire) across authorities and could help deliver the necessary growth in a sustainable and deliverable manner. These opportunities should be explored first prior to exporting further growth to other authorities within the HMA where there is less of a spatial connection.
Question 15b: Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.22 No comment.
Question 15c: Do you think there are ways to ensure that exporting housing will meet the needs of people who would otherwise live in the Black Country? (e.g. transport improvements, provision of affordable housing, creation of employment opportunities) Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.23 It is important to consider a number of factors, including migration and travel to work patterns, which have been used to identify the extent of the HMA, to determine where households relocate to when leaving the Black Country in order to understand where and why those moves are taking place. Whilst planning can attempt to influence where people relocate to, there is no mechanism to guide or restrict people moving to or from certain locations. Once knowledge of movers can be understood can the planning system can attempt to recreate those attractive characteristics (homes that are more affordable, good public transport links, employment opportunities etc.) in locations where there is capacity for the homes to be delivered. It is advised that an additional analysis of the data, where necessary, is undertaken to provide the Black Country authorities with the relevant intelligence to deliver a successful strategy for growth outside the administrative area.
Question 16: Do you support Spatial Option E1? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access) If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.24 No comment.
Question 17: Do you support Spatial Option E2? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites e.g. quick motorway access, good sustainable transport links? If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.25 No comment.
Question 18: Do you support Spatial Option E3? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access) If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.26 No comment.
Question 19a: Do you support Spatial Option E4? Yes/No; Any further comments?
5.27 No comment.
Question 19b: Should any factors be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities? Yes/No; If yes, what should they be? (e.g. quick motorway access, strong transport links with the Black Country, good sustainable transport links with the Black Country) If you think there are any potential locations that should be considered, please provide details.
5.28 No comment.
Question 20: Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Employment Land Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.29 As previously outlined, there is concern that some of the employment sites currently identified are potentially not fit for purpose and others that are identified to be transferred to housing remain in employment occupation. In light of this mismatch, it is welcomed that an updated qualitative assessment has been undertaken and has informed how much employment land is has be found outside the urban area.
5.30 In terms of where the employment land should be located outside the urban area, as with housing, decisions should be based on the results of the Green Belt Review and the suitability, sustainability and deliverability of sites. For employment land sites, the suitability of a site may well include good transportation links for goods and people. The Call for Sites consultation will assist in putting forward suggestions for sites.
6. DELIVERING GROWTH - INFRASTRUCTURE & VIABILITY
Question 21: Do you think that changes are required to Policy DEL1 to ensure it covers both development within the existing urban area and any within the Green Belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.1 Policy DEL1 is considered to be sound on the basis that it is sufficiently flexible to deal with different circumstances on different sites across the Black Country, including sites that are to be removed from the Green Belt.
Question 22: Do you have evidence of a requirement for new social infrastructure to serve existing needs? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.
6.2 No comment.
Question 23: Do you have evidence of social infrastructure that is no longer needed and where the site could be reallocated for alternative uses? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.3 No comment.
Question 24: Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current social infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new housing? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.4 No comment.
Question 25: Will there be any new social infrastructure requirements necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, please explain the type and scale of any new social infrastructure required.
6.5 It is recognised that delivery of new housing developments may give rise to the need to deliver supporting infrastructure. Committed to working with the relevant authorities and service providers to determine the capacity of existing infrastructure and determine the level of mitigatory provision necessary to support an increase in the population in this location. It is however important that each potential large new housing development is given independent consideration in respect of any infrastructure obligations, recognising that pressures will be dependent on location and existing infrastructure capacity.
Question 26: Do you have any evidence of a requirement for new physical infrastructure to serve existing needs? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.
6.6 No comment.
Question 27: Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current physical infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.7 No comment.
Question 28: Do you think physical infrastructure is necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, what type and scale of physical infrastructure is necessary?
6.8 As set out above, the need for infrastructure will vary for each site. Given such different circumstances, it would be inappropriate and potentially unlawful (as it would conflict with paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations) to incorporate a blanket policy requiring specific infrastructure on every large housing site.
Question 29: Do you think there are any other tools or interventions that could be used to ensure enough infrastructure is provided by developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.9 It is considered that the existing national framework (which includes the NPPF and CIL Regulations) provides a sufficient tool to ensure the relevant infrastructure is delivered. In addition, the CIL Charging Schedule allows authorities to raise funds for named infrastructure projects, which should be updated in line with any Core Strategy advanced. Therefore, it is considered that there are existing provisions to deliver infrastructure and no additional interventions through the Black Country Core Strategy Review are needed.
Question 30: Do you have any suggestions around how the strategy can be developed in order to maintain the urban regeneration focus of the Black Country while at the same time bringing forward sites in the green belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.10 There is no a need for any specific interventions, such as phasing, to protect the delivery of urban regeneration in the Black Country. Indeed, it is considered that development of greenfield and Green Belt sites can very much compliment urban regeneration through the provision of a more varied form of development that will help diversify the housing stock and profile of residents in the wider area, which will assist to sustain and improve the vitality of existing communities. Further, as highlighted above, given the priority to significantly boost the delivery of housing greenfield and Green Belt sites should come forward for development as soon as practically possible. Given lead in and build out rates of larger sites, the land should be encouraged to be developed as soon as possible so to ensure the homes are delivered in the Plan period and the needs are met.
Question 31: Do you think that the right scale and form of funding is available to support the delivery of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If no, what alternative sources of funding or delivery mechanisms should be investigated?
6.11 When delivering greenfield/ Green Belt sites, there is an opportunity to deliver infrastructure to meet the needs arising from the proposal, which may have wider benefits for the local community. In addition, it is likely that the communities created by the Sustainable Urban Extensions will potentially be more affluent and share their wealth using local shops and services within the wider Black Country, which will contribute to more successful and prosperous communities.
7. REVIEW OF EXISTING CORE STRATEGY POLICIES & PROPOSALS Housing
Question 35: Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No; If no, please explain why
7.1 As identified above, it is important that a range of sites in different locations are identified to be in the best possible position of delivering the development requirements. In terms of presenting these sites in the Core Strategy, whilst it is useful to identify a housing trajectory, it is important that there is not a phasing policy as such that would prevent the delivery of housing, given the current housing crisis. As stated above, the delivery of housing on greenfield and Green Belt land will not compromise the delivery of urban regeneration as the development on the urban edge will complement and rejuvenate the environment in a different way.
7.2 In terms of the proposed level of discounting, it is considered that if the LPA adopt an approach to identify a further 20% of sites in accordance with the LPEG recommendations identified above, there would not necessarily be a need for the application of discounting in determining the overall level of supply. It is interesting to note that the level of discounting proposed by LPEG is suggested for all LPAs, not necessarily those which have experienced difficulty in delivery. It could therefore be argued that an increased buffer of 25% could be applied in order to take a cautious approach.
Question 36: Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 should be changed? Yes/No; If yes, what standards should be applied instead, for example should the minimum net density of 35 dwellings per hectare be increased to maximise brownfield housing delivery?
7.3 It is clear that the current accessibility and density standards outlined in the adopted Core Strategy were formulated in the context of the vast majority of development taking place on brownfield sites within the defined urban area. As reiterated throughout these representations, there is now a clear need for Green Belt release as part of the Local Plan Review to meet emerging, objectively assessed housing needs. We outline in further detail below why the adopted accessibility and densities would not be applicable to Green Belt sites, however would suggest that the current standards do not allow sufficient flexibility on brownfield sites. A blanket application of prescriptive accessibility and density standards across the Black Country, be it brownfield or greenfield, does not allow sufficient flexibility which take into account site specific characteristics. The Council should allow for greater flexibility when assessing accessibility and density standards, with a more pragmatic approach which allows appropriate assessment for site-specific characteristics and also an assessment of market demand which may vary significantly across the large Black Country area.
7.4 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF outlines how local authorities should set out their own approach towards density. It is suggested that the currently adopted approach does not allow for sufficient assessment of local characteristics. It is clear that the chosen approach must be reflective of local circumstances, including the matters outlined above as well as infrastructure and services available in the locality. It is advocated that a more flexible approach to density and accessibility standards is taken as part of the emerging Local Plan Review.
Question 37a: Do you think that the existing Policy HOU2 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why
7.5 In line with the comments above, it is suggested that the Council should assess each site on a case by case basis in terms of accessibility and density standards. This approach would suggest that the numerical baseline trigger of 15 homes or more will not always be appropriate or applicable, and as advocated throughout these representations it suggested that there should be a complete reassessment on accessibility and density standards as part of the emerging Local Plan Review.
Question 38: Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards are appropriate for green belt release locations? Yes/No; If no, what standards should be applied in these locations and why?
7.6 No, it is not considered that the current standards would be applicable to Green Belt release locations. The adopted standards are overly prescriptive, and as previously discussed were written in the context of brownfield land. Green Belt release sites have a completely different type of character, therefore consideration of accessibility and density standards in relation to these sites should be reflective of local character and site characteristics. The more suburban settings of Green Belt release land lends itself to lower densities which are more appropriate to the Green Belt setting, which typically deliver more family homes. The Council must provide robust evidence to test any forthcoming accessibility and density standards in relation to Green Belt release locations, which allows for a flexible and pragmatic approach.
Question 39: Do you think separate accessibility standards are needed for particular types of housing e.g. housing for the elderly or affordable housing (as occupiers may be less mobile and more dependent on public transport)? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
7.7 It is clear that separate accessibility standards will apply to particular types of housing such as affordable and for the elderly population, however in line with the sentiment expressed above, any forthcoming standards should be based on robust evidence and allow for sufficient flexibility to avoid any unnecessary constraints to development coming forward.
Question 40: Do you agree that the 2017 SHMA findings should be used to set general house type targets for the Plan period? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.8 A general and blanket application for house types across the Black Country should not be advanced as part of the Local Plan Review. Paragraph 50 is clear that local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends and market trends. It is therefore notable that the NPPF specifically highlights 'market trends' in this context, which acknowledges that the market must inform such decisions.
7.9 Whilst the 2017 SHMA does provide an assessment of demographic and market trends, it is notable that it looks at a wider area assessment and is focused at a higher level. This assessment therefore does not draw out sub-market trends, and cover smaller areas within the vast Black Country area. Again, a blanket policy of house type targets across the Black Country area would not allow for sufficient flexibility to assess each site on a site by site basis, taking into consideration local market trends and demand. The NPPF does not state that specific policies should be set to enforce that local demand is met. As such, it is considered that this should be left for the market to decide, as opposed to applying rigid and prescriptive house size standards.
7.10 It is suggested that the evidence presented in the SHMA should be put into the Plan as an informative and general guide, but should not feed into a specific policy requirement which outlines housing mix percentages that should be applied across the Black Country. A policy containing general house type targets could present as a significant constraint to the delivery of a site where there is no local market demand for this house type, which in turn would have a negative impact on achieving the necessary housing growth targets to be delivered in the Black Country over the Plan period.
Question 41a: Do you support the introduction of a policy approach towards self and custom build housing in the Core Strategy? Yes/No; If yes, would you support:
7.11 It is not considered that there is a policy need for the Core Strategy to address self and custom build housing in the emerging Review. Paragraph 6.32 indicates that there are only nine records on self and custom build registers in the Black Country. It is evident that that there is very limited demand in the Black Country, which is unsurprising given that self and custom build housing is often more popular in rural areas. Given the limited demand it is therefore not considered necessary to take a policy approach towards self and custom build housing within the Local Plan Review.
Question 41b: A target for each authority? Yes/No; Any further comments
7.12 Given that there is evidence of little market demand, it is not considered necessary for the Core Strategy to set targets for each of the Black Country authorities. If it was considered to be necessary as the Local Plan Review progresses, any targets being set should be formulated on the basis of robust evidence such as monitoring of the registers, to provide an indication of how many self-build homes will be needed.
Question 41c: A requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots? Yes/No; Any further comments?
7.13 There should not be a requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots. This can pose an unnecessary market constraint for large housebuilders when there may be limited or no market demand for self-build plots. Self and custom build plots are often unusual and unique in character, therefore would not be best suited to be located within a large housing development with more uniform house types. If deemed necessary, self and custom build housing should be allocated specific site allocations, as discussed below.
Question 41d: Another approach altogether? Yes/No; If yes, please specify.
7.14 If it is considered necessary for the Review to address self and custom build housing, this should be addressed by the Council's identifying and allocating specific plots for these uses. Identifying site-specific plots would ensure that the most appropriate and suitable locations for self and custom-build will be allocated, via the assessment of appropriate evidence and market demand. In addition, this might be more likely to be achieved on surplus publicly owned land.
Question 42: Do you agree that the annual affordable homes target should be increased to reflect the 2017 Black Country Strategic Housing Market Assessment? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.15 As a general principle, the notion of applying different affordable housing ratios to different parts of the Black Country, based on an understanding of needs and viability, is acceptable. Given that the Black Country represents a vast area, there will not be a uniform housing market, and there will be sub-market trends within this wider area. As such, a more flexible approach which assesses local housing market evidence on a case by case basis could be justified. That said, there is an inherent simplicity and attraction to a single rate figure, which is easy for the development industry to understand.
7.16 In terms of the annual affordable housing target, it is unclear how the Issues and Options document has calculated the figure of 832 homes per year. At paragraph 7.42 of the June 2017 SHMA Part Two- affordable housing document, it is stated that the total annual affordable housing need is 677 dwellings, which represents 19.8% of the annual projected household growth. This differs to paragraph 6.36 of the Issues and Options document, which states that the affordable housing target is 23.4% of total housing need or 832 homes per year. From paragraph 7.47 of the SHMA, it appears that this figure may have been calculated by adding the overall requirement of 16.6% of housing to be affordable rented and 6.7% shared ownership. Clarity is sought on how this figure has been calculated, and we reserve the right to comment further on this matter.
Question 43a: Do you think that the existing Policy HOU3 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.17 We have not undertaken detailed analysis of the findings and assumptions of the SHMA and affordable housing delivery matters, therefore would like to reserve the right to comment on this matter further. However, on face value, it appears to be a reasonable threshold and is not dissimilar to other locations.
Question 44a: Do you think that the affordable housing requirement for eligible sites in Question 43 should be kept at 25% of the total number of homes on the site? Yes /No; Any further comments?
7.18 Based on the current evidence, a blanket rate of 25% affordable housing would appear to be sound.
7.19 However, irrespective of the final rate, any amendments to the currently adopted affordable housing policy must continue to have a clause in it which stipulates that this requirement is subject to viability tests. Any revised affordable housing requirements will also need to carefully consider the implications of adopted Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regimes. Both Sandwell and Dudley Councils have adopted CIL Charging Schedules. These will have implications on viability, therefore if revised affordable housing targets are to progressed then these CIL tariffs will need to re-assessed and re-visited.
Question 44b: If no, should the percentage be increased to allow for the provision of affordable home ownership? Yes/No; If yes, what should the percentage be and why?
7.20 At paragraph 6.39 of the Issues and Options Paper, it is stated that options need to be explored to increase affordable housing delivery of private sites. One option would be to increase the overall affordable housing proportion, which would require developers to provide affordable home ownership products plus an appropriate proportion of other affordable tenures. This paragraph follows on from commentary relating to the Housing White Paper.
7.21 The Housing White Paper discusses Starter Homes at Chapter 4, and explains how the government intend to amend the NPPF to introduce a clear policy expectation that housing sites deliver a minimum of 10% affordable home ownership units. It is later stated that it will be for local areas to work with developers to agree an appropriate level of delivery of starter homes, alongside other affordable home ownership and rented tenures.
7.22 The policy position on Starter Homes is not yet fully clear, and has yet to be formally established through a formal amendment and update to the NPPF. Until the national policy position on Starter Homes has been made clear, it would be premature for the Core Strategy Review to suggest an uplift in the affordable housing requirement to include affordable home ownership such as Starter Homes. Any suggestion to uplift the affordable housing requirement to include Starter Homes should be reflective of the national policy position, as well as founded upon a robust evident base which dictates exactly what percentage this element should be of the overall affordable housing requirement.
Question 45: Should an increased affordable housing requirement be set for green belt release sites, to reflect the likely financial viability of these sites? Yes/No; If yes, what should this be.
7.23 The likely financial viability of Green Belt sites will vary across different areas of the Black Country, therefore any affordable housing requirements for Green Belt sites will need to be reflective of these circumstances. Any affordable housing targets for Green Belt sites should be based on robust evidence, and acknowledge that many sites may need to support and deliver other infrastructure requirements.
7.24 Ultimately, any affordable housing strategy will need to address the affordable housing need as well as the need for market housing. Bearing in mind that the SHMA confirms over 70% of homes required are for homes to be sold on the open market, any affordable housing policy must not dilute the delivery of these needs/requirements. A higher figure on Green Belt sites over and above a standard blanket figure would potentially do this.
Employment Question 49a: Is there still a need for existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.25 The Black Country is to be the subject of large levels of both employment and housing growth over the Plan period. These uses are very much inter-linked with one another, and will drive each other's need for growth. The Local Plan Review, in order to meet emerging employment and housing needs, must identify a significant number of specific sites for employment and housing uses. By planning proactively and identifying suitable sites for both employment land and housing land, this should reduce the pressures to manage the release of poorer quality employment land, which may not always be suitable for release. The Local Plan Review should also seek to undertake a further review of poorer quality employment land to make it available for other suitable uses, if it proves to no longer be viable for employment land use. This is in line with policy provisions of the NPPF, which at Paragraph 22 outlines that planning policies should avoid the long-term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose.
Question 50: Do you think that the Core Strategy should continue to set a target for the total employment land stock in Policy EMP1? Yes/No; Please explain why.
7.26 The continuation of setting a target for employment land stock would be supported. Policy EMP1 should make it clear that these are not maximum figures, to encourage further flexibility for additional growth.
Retail Question 59: Have all the appropriate centres within the Black Country been identified? Yes/No; If not, please specify additional centres
7.27 No comment.
Question 61: In addition to para 4.33 of the current Core Strategy should the revised Core Strategy include criteria for the creation of new centres that might be needed as a result of any additional housing identified through the plan? Yes/No; Any further comments?
7.28 Criteria would be a useful policy tool to help assess the designation of new centres, and should be in line with previous methodologies used which set out clear thresholds.
Question 71: Should the Core Strategy set housing targets for the Town Centres?
7.29 Housing within Town Centres should be supported, in line with paragraph 23 of the NPPF which discusses the important role that residential development can play in ensuring the vitality of Town Centres. Any housing targets should be based on what sites are known to be readily available, suitable and viable for residential development. Market demand for housing in these areas will also need to be fully assessed. It is notable from the outcome of the 2017 SHMA that there is most demand for three bedroom properties (40%). The highest demand is therefore for family housing, and not for flats which are often the most popular within Town Centre locations. Any housing targets set for the Town Centre would therefore need to consider the findings of the SHMA, and be reflective of the fact that family housing is often more suitable for delivery on larger sites, including on sites which are currently located within the Green Belt.
Environment Question 99a: Do you think that national standards for housing development on water consumption should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.30 When referring to water consumption paragraph 6.1.52 of the Issues and Options document states that the Black Country does not currently lie in an area of serious water stress, therefore clear need may be difficult to demonstrate. This evidence suggests that there is limited or no need to introduce such a policy, therefore it is not considered that the Core Strategy Review should seek to introduce water consumption standards for housing development.
Question 99b: Do you think that national access standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.31 The introduction of any national access standards, with the Issues and Options document referring specifically to Lifetime Homes, again must be based on a robust evidence base which can demonstrate market demand. It is noted that Paragraph 50 of the NPPF states that planning authorities must plan for a mix of housing to meet a range of needs. In the same paragraph, it is later stated that these must be based on current and future market trends. If Lifetime Home standards are to be introduced these will therefore need to be based on robust evidence, to ensure that the standards are not overly onerous and prevent the delivery of other types of housing which have higher levels of market demand.
Question 99c: Do you think that national space standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.32 As reiterated throughout these representations, it is not considered that a blanket approach of prescriptive standards across the Black Country allows sufficient flexibility to assess local market and site considerations in an appropriate manner. Whilst it is recognised that space standards can be an important tool to ensure that high quality of homes are delivered, we agree with the sentiment expressed in the recent Housing White Paper. The Paper explains that the government are concerned that a one size fits all approach may not reflect the needs and aspirations of a wider range of households. The White Paper also states that the Government will be undertaking a review of the Nationally Described Space Standards. It is suggested that the Core Strategy Review should await the outcome of this national review of national space standards, to ensure compliance with national policy and to ensure that the most appropriate approach to space standards, if required, is taken.
Question 99d: Do you think that the standards should be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No; If yes, please explain how and why.
7.33 As discussed above, prescriptive standards do not always allow sufficient flexibility for local market needs, so we would not advocate a blanket approach of different standards to brownfield and greenfield sites.
Open Space, Sport and Recreation Question 102a: Do you support the proposed changes relating to open space, sport and recreation? Yes/No; If no, please explain
7.34 Paragraph 6.1.60 of the Issues and Options paper outlines how adopted Policy ENV6 creates the framework for open space policies at the local level. The Issues and Options paper outlines how this is in line with national guidance, and that it is proposed to retain this policy and update some references in the supporting text to reflect changing circumstances. It is agreed that the local level remains the appropriate place to set open space policies, and that Policy ENV6 should continue to endorse this approach.

BLACK COUNTRY CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION - LAND AT
FORMER GOSCOTE HOSPITAL SITE, GOSCOTE LANE, WALSALL, WS3 1SJ
On behalf of our client, NHS Property Services Ltd (NHSPS), who are the landowner of this site (plan
below), we wish to make representations, in respect of the above site, to the Black Country Core
Strategy Issues and Options Consultation. These representations are accompanied by a Site Location
Plan contained within the Constraints and Concept Plan design document. This document sets out an
indicative capacity to support these representations.
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2016. Ordnance Survey 100053719.
In addition, a Call for Sites form is submitted with these representations, in response to the Call for
Sites exercise which runs parallel to the Issues and Options Consultation.
2
a. NHS Property Services Site Ownership
In April 2013, the Primary Care Trust and Strategic Health Authority estate transferred to NHSPS, Community Health Partnerships and NHS community health and hospital trusts. All organisations are looking to make more effective use of the health estate and support strategies to reconfigure healthcare services, improve the quality of care and ensure that the estate is managed sustainably and effectively.
In particular, NHSPS's Property Strategy team has been supporting Clinical Commissioning Groups and Sustainability and Transformation Plan groups to look at ways of better using the local health and public estate. This will include identifying opportunities to reconfigure the estate to better meet commissioning needs, as well as opportunities for delivering new homes (and other appropriate land uses) on surplus sites emerging from this process.
By way of background, local health commissioners are currently developing a strategy for the future delivery of health services in this area. This will involve the release of certain NHSPS landholdings which are no longer required for the delivery of health services.
The existing health and social care buildings are to remain on site, and continue to be operational. However, the site includes a number of areas with development potential. In particular, the southern and western land parcels of the subject site including Goscote House are likely to be considered surplus to the operational healthcare requirements of the NHS. Confirmation is expected within the next 12 months. These site parcels should be therefore be considered suitable for alternative uses including a range of residential accommodation, depending on the needs of the local community. In addition, NHSPS are reviewing the wider site to understand any further development opportunities. In this regard, these representations seek the release of this entire site from the Green Belt. The subject site is considered available, suitable and deliverable within the initial 5 year period.
b. Site Context
Goscote Lane is located within the small town of Bloxwich, to the north of Walsall. The site lies on the western boundary of Bloxwich.
The site is approx. 2.0 Ha with direct access off Goscote Lane, to the north of the residential area of Walsall. Formerly Goscote Hospital, the site now includes a Social Care Centre and Palliative Care Centre, as illustrated on the drawing site constraints plan. The existing health and social care buildings are to remain on site, and continue to be operational. The wider site (all within NHSPS ownership) includes a number of areas with development potential.
The site is bound by low density residential development to the north, Goscote Lane to the west, Wyrley and Essingon Canal to the east and Goscote Greenacres to the south.
The site is located 2.4km to the east of Bloxwich Train Station. The site is served by bus routes 25 and 26, which provide excellent connections to the services and facilities of Walsall, Bloxwich and Kingstanding. These bus stops are located on Goscote Lane, which borders the site.
The southern (C) and western (A and B) land parcels are likely to become surplus to the operational healthcare requirements of the NHS, and are being promoted to provide additional residential development and/or the provision of care home uses. The southern element currently comprises the locally listed Goscote House and associated car parking. The western element is currently undeveloped, and provides surplus land to the existing health and social care facilities..
As set out within these representations, it is considered that the wider site, which falls within the landholding should be released in its entirety from the Green Belt.
3
c. National Policy (NPPF) - Requirements for a Local Plan
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is the preeminent national policy; in law, regard must therefore be had to it. In summary, the following paragraphs of the NPPF are of particular relevance to the Local Plan making process, and should be complied with:
a) Local Plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. They should be consistent with the principles and policies set out in the NPPF, including the presumption in favour of sustainable development (Paragraphs 150-151).
b) Proposed housing supply must meet evidential need for housing of all types, including a 5% buffer for five year housing targets (or 20% in cases of persistent under delivery), these targets must be deliverable. The Council must identify a supply for years 6-15 which is specific and developable (Paragraph 47).
c) Local Plans should be aspirational but realistic. Only policies that provide a clear indication of how a decision maker should react to a development proposal should be included in the plan (Paragraph 154).
d) Local Plans should be based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area.
e) There is a cross-boundary duty to co-operate, particularly with planning issues which relate to the strategic priorities. LPA's should work collaboratively with other bodies to ensure strategic priorities across local boundaries are properly co-ordinated and clearly reflected in Local Plans (Paragraph 178-179).
f) The Inspector's primary task will be to consider the soundness of the submitted plan, this will be assessed against the following soundness criteria:
 Positively prepared - the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development;
 Justified - the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence;
 Effective - the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and
 Consistent with National Policy - the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.
The Housing White Paper (February 2017) urges local authorities to make more land available for homes in the right places by maximising the contribution from brownfield land, releasing more small and medium sized sites.
d. Overview of the Black Country Core Strategy
The Issues and Options consultation is the first stage of the review of the Black Country Core Strategy. The Core Strategy is a key part of the Local Plan for the Black Country Local Authorities which covers
4
the areas of Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (MBC), Sandwell MBC, Walsall Council and the City of Wolverhampton Council.
The existing Core Strategy was adopted in 2011, covering the period up to 2026. Upon adoption, in accordance with national planning guidance, it was agreed that the Core Strategy would be reviewed in whole or in part at least every five years.
Since adoption there has been a number of changes to national policy, furthermore a housing shortfall has been identified in Birmingham which neighbouring authorities, notably the Black Country, have a duty to consider accommodating.
The Council state that although the Core Strategy is considered generally fit for purpose, this consultation stage will identify emerging issues and set out how the sustainable growth of the Black Country can be achieved.
The documents which make up the current evidence base for this consultation exercise, and are of key relevance to these representations, are set out as follows:
 Black Country and South Staffs Strategic Market Housing Assessment - March 2017; and
 Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP Black Country Local Authorities Strategic Housing Needs Study - August 2015
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.
The strategic challenges and opportunities are expressed as a set of nine key issues. Of note, and focussed within these representations are:
 Meeting the housing needs of a growing population
 Reviewing the role and extent of the green belt
Meeting the housing needs of a growing population
The Black Country and South Staffs Strategic Market Housing Assessment (SHMA) 2017 concluded that the Objectively Assessed Housing Need (OAN) for the Black Country over the period 2014-36 is 78,190 homes. It is anticipated that the housing supply, identified in the SHLAA, can deliver 48,185 of the homes needed, approximately 60%. Identified sites and "windfall" sites could deliver approximately 8,000 homes. Initially, there is a gap between need and anticipated supply of around 22,000 homes across the Black Country.
The Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP Black Country Local Authorities Strategic Housing Needs Study identifies a shortfall across the wider Housing Market Area (HMA) of approximately 38,000 dwellings.
The Black Country have committed to test the accommodation of an extra 3,000 homes up to 2031 beyond local need, to help address the shortfall in the wider HMA. This produces a total requirement for land to accommodate 24,670 new homes.
Given the foregoing, the Council acknowledge that a large number of new homes and supporting services will need to be accommodated outside the existing urban area of the Black Country. All such land in the Black Country is currently Green Belt.
Paragraph 3.15 of the Issues and Options Consultation document identifies that there may be potential to release limited areas of surplus open space for housing in some areas. The existing Goscote House site (Parcel A and B) could deliver 49 residential units.
5
In addition to this the vacant plot (Parcel C) could provide care-home uses comprising 5,600 sqm over 2 floors, and/or additional residential accommodation.
Needs of the ageing population
The SHMA provides guidance on the likely needs of different groups for housing over the new Plan period.
As set out within the Black Country Issues and Options Consultation, in addition to the SHMA, a key factor in household growth is that people are on average living longer than previous generations.
In particular, paragraph 6.30, of the Issues and Options Consultation, highlights a need for 162 new sheltered and extra care homes every year to meet the needs of older persons - 5% of the total housing need.
Utilisation of this site for the provision of care home uses, would contribute towards this need. Furthermore, a large percentage of the Black Country's ageing population rely on living within easy walking distance of healthcare. It is therefore important to locate new homes in areas with good access to existing healthcare and community services or where new, sustainable facilities can be created to serve new development.
Policy Area A, of the Issues and Options Consultation, focuses on Health and Wellbeing. Paragraph 6.10 stipulates that accessibility to health care and community facilities must be addressed in terms of location and physical access.
Accordingly, it is considered that redevelopment of this site, the provision of residential units, and or the provision of care home uses, would seek to achieve the objectives of Policy Area A. Furthermore, such redevelopment would meet the needs of the Black Country's ageing population, maintaining accessibility to existing health care.
Reviewing the role and extent of the Green Belt
As set out above, evidence has identified that a significant amount of Green Belt will be required to help meet the housing need within the Black Country and the wider HMA. Given this, is has been decided that a formal review of the Black Country green belt should be carried out through the Core Strategy review.
In this instance, two studies have been commissioned. The evidence base for Key Issue 6 will comprise:
 Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (HMA) Strategic Growth Study; and
 Black Country Green Belt Review.
We expect that the two studies together will provide a robust and thorough examination of the green belt to assess and identify the potential to release sites from the green belt, alongside growth within the urban area, to meet the projected needs identified for housing and employment growth up to 2036.
This site is located within the Green Belt. Given the existing built form, the land at Goscote Hospital which falls within the red line boundary, constitutes previously developed land within the Green Belt.
It is evident, as set out below, that the site in its entirety, encompassing the existing health and social care facilities, does not serve the five purposes of the Green Belt. Accordingly, these representations seek the release of the entire site from the Green Belt.
Given the Evidence Base for the Black Country Issues and Options document, it is apparent that extra homes required across the Black Country will need to be built on Green Belt land.
6
Paragraph 1.19, of the Issues and Options Consultation document, seeks to ensure that that any release of green belt sites for development does not take place at the expense of urban regeneration. Given the characteristics of this site, this is not a concern which should be associated with future development in this location, as small scale redevelopment would ensure that the characteristics of this area are retained.
The NPPF identifies that Green Belt serves five purposes:
 to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
 to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
 to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
 to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
 to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
The Green Belt is central to the Black Country Core Strategy. It is considered, that when assessing the function this site performs within the Green Belt, it is very low.
The sites natural boundaries, prevent future development from unrestricted sprawl and the countryside from encroachment. Given the sites location, redevelopment would not result in neighbouring towns merging together. Furthermore, redevelopment of this site, given its existing built form would encourage the recycling of derelict land, which should take preference over untouched green belt land.
Accordingly, when reviewing release of land from the Green Belt, given the foregoing, it is sites such as this which should be considered first.
e. Reviewing the Spatial Strategy
Strategic Option 2A seeks to accommodate housing growth outside the urban area. Within this option, two broad Housing Spatial Options have been identified.
Spatial Option H1
Spatial Option H1 is based on 'round off' the Green Belt edge. It is considered that this could be done by way of a large number of small to medium size sites.
We consider that this is a suitable option for future growth of the Black Country, specifically Walsall. It is anticipated by the Council that sites could range in size from a few homes to hundreds of homes, where this would provide a defensible new green belt boundary and sufficient services exist. Furthermore, identifying large and medium sites would not require significant infrastructure, and would be deliverable in a lesser time period.
The site at Goscote Lane should be identified as one of such sites, given that it adjoins the existing built up area and contributing to the housing need of Walsall and the Black Country. This site is available, achievable and deliverable.
Spatial Option H1 would provide for development to take place within the urban area closer to where need arises.
Spatial Option H2
Spatial Option H2 seeks to identify a limited number of large scale Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUEs). It is considered by the Council, that such an option would significantly boost the supply of housing and maximise provision of affordable housing.
7
Given that no SUEs are currently being promoted in the Black Country it is considered that a significant level of work would be required in order to identify suitable locations. Consequently, such sites would require a range of infrastructure and services.
It is considered that Spatial Option H2 would concentrate delivery later in the plan period, and place a heavy reliance on a limited number of large sites.
In our view, exploring both options H1 and H2 would seek to ensure housing is delivered across the Black Country in the short and long term. Both options would promote wider choice and opportunity within the housing market and allow diversification of the housing stock.
In utilising both spatial options, housing units could be delivered in the short term, building upon existing infrastructure. Whilst locations could be identified for SUE's and understand the need, timing and cost of the range of infrastructure and services required.
f. Walsall's Role within the Black Country Core Strategy
Two of the key objectives for the Walsall Site Allocations Document which the Black Country Core Strategy seeks to support are:
 To deliver sustainable communities through the development of new housing on vacant, derelict, and under-used land...to provide a range of homes that meet the needs of all members of the community.
 To provide a regeneration strategy for Walsall that promotes sustainable growth within the existing urban areas whilst protecting the Green Belt from inappropriate development.
Furthermore, re-using previously developed land and providing smaller housing sites means that there is unlikely to be a need for significant new infrastructure to serve the redevelopment of this site.
In addition to the aforementioned, Walsall have set a target of providing 95% of new dwellings on previously developed land. All of these principles are supported within the Black Country Core Strategy, and therefore support the release of this site from the Green Belt, and more specifically the redevelopment of parcels A, B and C for residential development and/or the provision of care home uses.
g. Development Potential
Given the foregoing, it is considered that this site would be suitable for small scale residential redevelopment and/or the provision of care home uses.
In the first instance, it is imperative to note, this site is being promoted at this stage, and within the Call for Sites, as it is achievable, capable of being delivered within the early years of the plan period (0-5 years) and viable. In addition, the site responds positively to a number of the Core Strategy objectives.
A conceptual masterplan is included within these representations at Appendix 1. This indicative masterplan demonstrates that the site can accommodate 49 residential units and the provision of care home uses (approximately 5,600 sqm). It is anticipated, at this stage, that redevelopment would comprise the existing Goscote House (A), existing car parking (B) and vacant land (C).
It is anticipated, at this stage, that this would provide 21 flats and 28 houses comprising the following housing mix:
 9 x 1 bed flats;
 12 x 2 bed flats;
 7 x 2 bed houses; and
8
 21 x 3 bed houses.
Policy HOU2: Housing Density, Type and Accessibility sets a framework for determining the most appropriate house type mix at a local level. The Policy also sets a net density range of between 35 dwellings per hectare and 60 dwellings per hectare for the majority of sites.
Paragraph 6.29 of the Issues and Options Consultation document notes the importance that Green Belt release locations should be chosen on the basis of good walking, or public transport, access to residential services, however achieving high levels of access may be more difficult on the urban fringe.
This mix is indicative only at this stage to demonstrate the potential capacity of the site. The landowners welcome the opportunity to engage with the planning authority in terms of the detailed design of the proposals and the nature of the residential mix.
h. Summary and Conclusions
The issues and options document sets out that a large number of new homes and supporting services will need to be accommodated outside the existing urban area of the Black Country, all of which is currently in the green belt.
These representations set out and confirm the justification for the release of this site from the Green Belt. It is evident, that the wider site does not perform against the purposes of the Green Belt set out in the NPPF.
Accordingly, redevelopment of parcels A, B and C would provide a contribution to the Black Country housing need, which is currently identified as 21,670 new homes, and/or the provision of care home uses. The Constraints and Concept Plan design document includes an indicative capacity to support the main representations at this early stage. These representations therefore promote and identify the land at Former Goscote Hospital as a suitable site to contribute towards these requirements.
As detailed above, it is considered that the redevelopment of the land at Former Goscote Hospital, would contribute to the Council's Housing Need. This site presents an excellent opportunity for a modest, residential redevelopment and/or the provision of care home uses on previously developed Green Belt land. Small scale redevelopment would ensure that the characteristics of this area are retained, without the need for significant infrastructure.
Given the foregoing, it is evident that the land parcels at the Former Goscote Hospital site are achievable, capable of being delivered and viable.
We would request to be kept informed of future stages of the Local Plan preparation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

see attachment