National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Object

Representation ID: 12789

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Rhiannon and Tony Fearn

Number of people: 2

I object firstly on the grounds that this is completely contradictory to the National Planning Policy Framework, which states; Proposals affecting the Green Belt 147. 'Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 148. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.'

Comment

Representation ID: 22303

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Investin PLC

Agent: Lichfields

1.4 Investin seeks to work constructively with the Black Country Authorities (‘BCA’) as it progresses towards the submission and adoption of the BCP and trusts that the comments contained within this document will assist Officers in this regard.
1.5 It is noted that the publication of the replacement (20th July 2021) National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’) post-dates the publication of the BCP (approved at BCA cabinets on 5th and 7th July 2021) and therefore its revised contents will not have been accounted for in the consultation document. The representations draw on the revised provisions where relevant in responding to the questions posed, though it is noted that the BCA recognises the need for future stages of the BCP to take into account the revised NPPF.

Comment

Representation ID: 22431

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields

1.4 St Philips seeks to work constructively with the Black Country Authorities (‘BCA’) as it progresses towards the submission and adoption of the BCP and trusts that the comments contained within this document will assist Officers in this regard.
1.5 It is noted that the publication of the replacement (20th July 2021) National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’) post-dates the publication of the BCP (approved at BCA cabinets on 5th and 7th July 2021) and therefore its revised contents will not have been accounted for in the consultation document. The representations draw on the revised provisions where relevant in responding to the questions posed, though it is noted that the BCA recognises the need for future stages of the BCP to take into account the revised NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 23566

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

[Attachment 1: Representations to the Black Country Plan]
Land at Greenwood Road, Aldridge

Contents:
1. Introduction and Executive Summary 1
2. National Planning Policy and Guidance 2
3. Plan Period 4
4. Policy CSP1 - Development Strategy 6
5. Policy GB1 - The Black Country Green Belt 15
6. Policy HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth 18
7. Policy HOU2 - Housing Density, Type and Accessibility 20
8. Policy HOU3 – Affordable Housing 21
9. Chapter 13 – Sub-Areas and Site Allocations 22
10. Proposed allocation: Land at Greenwood Road, Aldridge 24
11. Summary and conclusions 29
12. Appendices 30 [see below]
Appendices
GBBCHMA housing need and land supply review
Black Country housing need and land supply critique
Site location plan
Sketch layout plan

[additional appendices that accompany this document: Tables 3.1 and 3.4]

1.4
Introduction and Executive Summary
Emery Planning is instructed by HIMOR to submit representations to the draft Black Country Plan
(BC?) : Regulation 18 consultation. These submissions relate specifically to the land at Greenwood
Road, Aldridge, which is promoted for residential development.
We do not consider that the plan as drafted is sound for the following reasons:
The plan fails to meet local housing need, which results in significant social and
economic adverse impacts.
• There is insufficient justification for failing to meet the Black Country's needs within the
Black Country. In fact, the starting point for the Black Country should be to meet its
own needs and to meet Birmingham's unmet needs.
• There are no firm agreements with neighbouring authorities to meet the identified
unmet needs.
• The identified housing land supply has been exaggerated. A significant shortfall exists
even against the current artificially reduced housing requirement.
Continued reliance upon a supply mainly comprising brownfield sites in the urban area
will not deliver enough affordable housing to meet the identified needs, and it will not
address the need for specific types Of housing, in particular family housing.
The application of the site selection methodology is flawed. Impacts are significantly
over-stated, particularly in relation to landscape and Green Belt harm, seemingly to
justify not meeting the local housing need in full. The methodology has also been
applied inconsistently between draft allocations and omission sites.
Additional site allocations are needed to address the identified issues of soundness. These
representations propose the allocation of the land at Greenwood Road, Aldridge. Whilst the
Black Country Authority (BCA) evidence base claims that developing the site would result in high
levels of landscape and Green Belt harm, these representations demonstrate that:
• The assessment of visual amenities is flawed and fails to consider potential mitigation,
such as landscaping or setting development back from the ridge.
• The Green Belt and landscape assessments relate to a much wider parcel of land and
the conclusions cannot be attributed to the subject site.
The site represents a logical, small-scale rounding-off opportunity, that would have a very minor
local impact upon the Green Belt. The site is deliverable and can contribute to meeting the
identified development needs of the Black Country in a sustainable way.
2.3
National Planning Policy and Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework)
The Framework sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are
expected to be applied. The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement
Of sustainable development. The Framework, taken as a whole, constitutes the Government's
view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system.
Paragraph 11 requires plans and decisions to apply a presumption in favour of sustainable
development. In relation to plan making, it states:
"a) plans should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs
of their area, and be sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change;
b) strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed
needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met
within neighbouring areas, unless:
i. the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of
particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale,
type or distribution of development in the plan area; or
ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably
Outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework
taken as a whole. "
Paragraph 35 provides the following in relation to soundness:
"35. Local plans and spatial development strategies are examined to assess
whether they have been prepared in accordance with legal and procedural
requirements, and whether they are sound. Plans are 'sound' if they are:
a) Positively prepared — providing a strategy which, as a minimum,
seeks to meet the area's objectively assessed needs 1211; and is
informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need
from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to
do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
b) Justified — an appropriate strategy, taking into account the
reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
c) Effective — deliverable over the plan period, and based on
effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have
been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the
statement Of common ground; and 2.4
2.5
) Conslstent With national pollcy — enablng the delivery of
sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this
Framework. "
Footnote 21 clarifies that where the area's objectively assessed needs relate to housing, such
needs should be assessed using a clear and justified method, as set out in paragraph 61 Of the
Framework. Paragraph 61 states:
"TO determine the minimum number Of homes needed, strategic policies should
be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the
standard method in national planning guidance
- unless exceptional
circumstances justify an alternative approach which also reflects current and
future demographic trends and market signals. In addition to the local housing
need figure, any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas should
also be taken into account in establishing the amount Of housing to be planned
for."
National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
The PPG was launched in March 2014. It replaced a number of practice guidance documents
that were deleted when the PPG was published. Local Plan making is addressed under Section
12. The relevant sections are referred to in our representations.
3.4
Plan Period
Paragraph 20 of the Framework makes clear that strategic policies are those which make
provision for housing, employment and other types of growth:
"Strategic policies should set Out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and
quality of development, and make sufficient provision for:
a) housing (including affordable housing), employment, retail, leisure and other
commercial development;
b) infrastructure for transport, telecommunications, security, waste
management, water supply, wastewater, flood risk and coastal change
management, and the provision Of minerals and energy (including heat);
c) community facilities (such as health, education and cultural infrastructure);
and
d) conservation and enhancement Of the natural, built and historic
environment, including landscapes and green infrastructure, and planning
measures to address climate change mitigation and adaptation. '
Paragraph 22 Of the Framework states:
"Strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15 year period from
adoption, to anticipate and respond to long-term requirements and
opportunities, such as those arising from major improvements in infrastructure.
Where larger scale developments such as new settlements or significant
extensions to existing villages and towns form part Of the strategy for the area,
policies should be set within a vision that looks further ahead (at least 30 years),
to take into account the likely timescale for delivery."
Paragraph 22 therefore requires strategic policies to cover a 15-year plan period
adoption.
The proposed plan period for SCP extends to 2039. The base date, primarily used for the
monitoring of the housing and employment land supply, is I April 2020, and therefore the end
date Of the strategic policies relating to housing and employment land supply is 31 March 2039.
This means for the strategic policies to cover at least 15-years from adoption, it must be adopted
by 31 March 2024.

3.8
e BCA schedule for the adoption of the plani is as fol
• Consultation on the Draft Publication Plan (Regulation 19): August — September 2022
• Submission (Regulation 22): March 2023
• Examination in Public: April 2023 - March 2024
Adoption: April 2024
Therefore, even on the BCA timetable, the plan will not be adopted by the end of March 2024.
But notwithstanding, the above timetable is not realistic. There has been slippage at every stage
of the plan's production to date, and further slippage seems likely.
The examination is also highly unlikely to only last 1 year. There are limited comparable examples
for a complex joint development plan document including multiple site allocations, but the
experience seen in the North Essex and West Of England Plans suggests that an examination
lasting several years is likely:
• The North Essex Local Plan (Section 1) was submitted for examination in October 2017.
The plan was not adopted until February 2022.
• The West Of England Joint Spatial Plan was submitted for examination in April 2018, but
was eventually withdrawn in April 2020 without ever even reaching the stage of main
modifications.
Even significantly less complex, single authority bcal plans can be subject to examination lasting
multiple years. Examples of lengthy examinations include the Birmingham Development Plan and
the Local Plans for Bath and North East Somerset, Cheshire East, Wiltshire, Central Bedfordshire,
Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire; all Of which took much longer than 2 years between
submission and adoption.
The plan is therefore inconsistent with national planning policy. TO make the plan sound, the plan
period should be extended to allow for a realistic timeframe to adoption, plus the minimum 15-
year plan period required by the Framework. Given that the 15-year plan period a minimum
requirement, the likelihood of further delays to the adoption of the plan, we consider that the
plan period end date should be extended by at least 5 years to 2044.

[taken from the end of the document and moved here to accompany the introduction]

I I. Summary and conclusions
We do not consider that the plan as drafted is sound for the following reasons:
The plan fails to meet local housing need, which results in significant social and
economic adverse impacts.
• There is insufficient justification for failing to meet the Black Country's needs within the
Black Country'. In fact, the starting point for the Black Country should be to meet its
own needs to meet Birmingham's unmet needs.
• There are no firm agreements with neighbouring authorities to meet the identified
unmet needs.
• The identified housing land supply has been exaggerated. A significant shortfall exists
even against the current artificially reduced housing requirement.
Continued reliance upon a supply mainly comprising brownfield sites in the urban area
will not deliver enough affordable housing to meet the identified needs, and it will not
address the need for specific types Of housing. in particular family housing.
• The application of the site selection methodology is flawed. Impacts are significantly
over-stated, particularly in relation to landscape and Green Belt harm, seemingly to
justify not meeting the local housing need in full. The methodology has also been
applied inconsistently between draft allocations and omission sites.
Additional site allocations are needed to address the identified issues of soundness. These
representations propose the allocation of the land at Greenwood Road, Aldridge. Whilst the
Black Country Authority (BCA) evidence base claims that developing the site would result in high
levels of landscape and Green Belt harm, these representations demonstrate that:
• The assessment of visual amenities is flawed and fails to consider potential mitigation,
such as landscaping or setting development back from the ridge.
• The Green Belt and landscape assessments relate to a much wider parcel of land and
the conclusions cannot be attributed to the subject site.
The site represents a logical, small-scale rounding-off opportunity, that would have a very minor
local impact upon the Green Belt. The site is deliverable and can contribute to meeting the
identified development needs of the Black Country in a sustainable way.

Object

Representation ID: 43816

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

12. Summary and conclusions
12.1 We do not consider that the plan as drafted is sound for the following reasons:

The plan fails to meet local housing need, which results in significant social and
economic adverse impacts.

Black Country. In fact, the starting point for the Black Country should be to meet its
own needs and et needs.
There are no firm agreements with neighbouring authorities to meet the identified
unmet needs.
The identified housing land supply has been exaggerated. A significant shortfall exists
even against the current artificially reduced housing requirement.
Continued reliance upon a supply mainly comprising brownfield sites in the urban area
will not deliver enough affordable housing to meet the identified needs, and it will not
address the need for specific types of housing, in particular family housing.

justified. The land mainly comprises improved grassland of low ecological value.
The application of the site selection methodology is flawed. Impacts are significantly
over-stated, particularly in relation to landscape and Green Belt harm, seemingly to
justify not meeting the local housing need in full. The methodology has also been
applied inconsistently between draft allocations and omission sites.
12.2 Additional site allocations are needed to address the identified issues of soundness.

12.3 The proposed allocation of can contribute to meeting the identified
development needs of the Black Country in a highly accessible location. The site could also
deliver a new, state-of-the-art replacement school for Aldridge High School to secure its long-
term future. This is a significant, site-specific benefit which amounts to exceptional circumstances
justifying the release of the site from the Green Belt. As addressed within these representations,
the site can be delivered without any significant adverse harm to the Green Belt, the landscape
or ecology interests.

12.4 We are currently in the process of refining the proposals for the site. We intend to prepare and
submit a development framework document, including more detailed proposals for the
replacement school and the findings technical information, in the coming months.


39

13. Appendices [supporting evidence: see attachments]
EP1. GBBCHMA housing need and land supply review
EP2. Black Country housing need and land supply critique
EP3. Site location and concept masterplan
EP4. Ecological walk over survey
EP5. Secretary of State appeal decision (Effingham)
EP6. Secretary of State appeal decision (Seashell Trust)