Duty to Co-operate

Comment

Representation ID: 12191

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Jacqueline Wellings

Not enough emphasis has been made on the Duty to Cooperate and its effect on the periphery areas. Eg. the impact of new house building close to the Wolverhampton Boundary in South Staffs (Bilbrook) impacts Wolverhampton whose residents seek to live in an area with lower Council Tax but where their proximity to Wolvrhampton's facilities provide the best of both worlds. This is also true for Dudley ( and Wombourne - South Staffs)

Comment

Representation ID: 18418

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Redditch Borough Council

Consultation on Draft Black Country Local Plan
Redditch Borough Council (RBC) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the above document and
to continue to engage constructively with the Black Country Plan in the best interests of positive planmaking. The response below has been written in consultation with the Council’s Portfolio Holder for
Planning, Economic Development, Commercialism and Partnerships and is due to be reported
to Members at Executive Committee on 26th October.

Secondly, we recognise the significant shortfall of 28,239 homes and 210 hectares of employment
land currently identified within the Draft BCP. In particular Paragraph 3.27 is noted, which places
emphasis on the Black Country Authorities’ support to neighbouring authorities in bringing forward
land for housing and employment that “sits adjacent to the existing administrative boundaries.”
As currently set out in the Draft Plan, it is RBC’s interpretation that there are unlikely to be potential
requirements for RBC to be involved in cross boundary discussions under the Duty to Co-operate with
regard to meeting a proportion of the Black Country’s housing and employment needs. This is because
the authorities do not share any common boundaries.

Support

Representation ID: 22267

Received: 21/01/2022

Respondent: Miss Jodi Stokes

Duty to Co-operate

3.9 We understand that the Black Country Authorities are committed to continued and
constructive engagement, through the Duty to Co-operate, with their neighbours to secure the most appropriate and sustainable locations for housing and employment growth to meet Black Country needs. Whilst the current position is set out in the Draft Plan Statement of Consultation, we understand a more detailed position will be provided within Statements of Common Ground at Publication (Regulation 19) stage, and we will provide our comments once this is available.

Object

Representation ID: 23125

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Tarmac Trading Ltd (Sharne Sahajpal)

Agent: David Lock Associates

Duty to Cooperate

Policy CSP1 of the BCP identifies a housing target of at least 47,837 dwellings against a housing need of 78,239 dwellings. Table 2 of the BCP sets out that the shortfall of 28,239 would be met through ‘Duty to Cooperate’ with other authorities in the housing market area. LDC has
‘offered’ a contribution of 2,665 dwellings to wider housing market needs, 2,000 of which would be towards Black Country needs.

Full evidence has not yet been prepared and made available by the Black Country authorities to demonstrate the Council has engaged constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with Lichfield District Council (LDC) with respect to the amount of housing proposed towards unmet housing needs in the wider housing market area.

LDC published and consulted on its Regulation 19 Plan earlier this year but has not published a Statement of Common Ground with the Black Country authorities. In addition, no specific evidence has been made available which demonstrates LDC has actively, constructively and on an ongoing basis engaged with the Black Country Authorities over the proposed 2,665 dwellings towards the wider housing market area, in the context of the scale of emerging unmet needs in the Black Country. DLA has reviewed the Black Country Duty to Cooperate Statement (July 2021). Whilst there is reference to a meeting on 19th January 2021 with LDC, at this stage the evidence base is insufficient to demonstrate that the Black Country Authorities and LDC are cooperating constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis.

Central to this this concern is whether the full range of options have been considered and there is agreement between LDC and the Black Country authorities over the extent of housing land in Lichfield that is available to contribute towards the substantial shortfall in the Black Country. Paragraph 7.7 of the Duty to Cooperate Statement (July 2021) states that the 2,665 dwellings (2,000 towards the Black Country) is “significantly less than set out in the previous stages of the plan (4,500)”.

The recent situation between Sevenoaks and Tonbridge and Malling districts is comparable. Both Sevenoaks Local Plan and Tonbridge and Malling Local Plan have been found to have failed on Duty to Cooperate by Inspectors. Similar to the BCP, the Sevenoaks Local Plan identified a housing target lower than the published need. The Inspector was not convinced that there was evidence that the authority had continued to engage with neighbouring authorities, including Tonbridge and Malling, over whether they could assist with housing target. In the case of Tonbridge and Malling, it was a matter of whether the Borough Council engaged with SDC at the point of their own Regulation 19 plan being prepared. Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (TMBC) argued that the figure was not yet agreed but the Inspector was clear that there was enough evidence for TMBC to have known there was likely to be unmet housing need and that this was a strategic matter to which Duty to Cooperate applies. Sevenoaks District Council challenged the decision on their plan in the Courts and were unsuccessful.

In summary, there is insufficient evidence that the Black Country Authorities have engaged on an active, constructive and ongoing basis with LDC with regards to the full amount of housing that LDC can contribute to the Black Country. It is suggested that discussion are held with LDC and the higher scenario of housing contribution of 4,500 dwellings to come from sites in Lichfield be included clearly in the next version of plan; and a clear evidence base is prepared, including Statement of Common Ground, outlining the active, constructive and on-going cooperation between the authorities.

Green Belt allocations

This objection relates to Policy GB1 Green Belt and related strategic allocations in Walsall (Policies WSA 2, WSA3, WSA4, and WSA5). In order to alter Green Belt boundaries, exceptional circumstances need to be “fully evidenced and justified” (NPPF paragraph 140). It is also clear in national policy (NPPF paragraph 141) that, before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist, the authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined all other reasonable options for meeting its need, including “informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground” (NPPF Paragraph 141 C).

In the light of the above concerns over Duty to Cooperate and housing numbers, it is essential to explore the full extent of housing that can be delivered in neighbouring authorities before allocating land in the Green Belt. A letter from LDC to Black Country authorities (18th September 2019) suggests the Black Country authorities need to consider all growth options, including Green Belt releases prior to seeking housing numbers from adjoining authorities. This approach is inconsistent with NPPF paragraph 141 which states such discussions should occur before Green Belt sites are released.

It is suggested the Black Country authorities re-asses the amount of land that is available in Lichfield outside of the Green Belt to contribute to wider needs before re-examining the necessity for and scale of any Green Belt releases in Walsall. In this context, it should be reiterated that Tarmac owns land at Alrewas Quarry, outside of the Green Belt and suitable on other regards, that could deliver housing to meet both LDC and Black Country authorities’ needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 23127

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: FGD Limited

Agent: Savills

Response to the Draft Black Country Plan Consultation
Land at Mile Flat, Kingswinford

On behalf of our client, FGD Limited, we are writing in response to the Draft Black Country Plan ('BCP')
consultation in relation to their land interests at Mile Flat, Kingswinford ('the Site'). Draft BCP Policy CSP1
Policy CSP1 (Development Strategy) states that the BCP will seek to deliver at least 47,837 dwellings and at least 355ha of employment land between 2020 - 2039. However, paragraphs 3.21 and 3.22 of the BCP state that there is actually an overall need for 76,076 homes and 565ha of employment land over that period. This will leave a shortfall of circa 28,239 homes and 210ha of employment land that will need to be accommodated by the Housing Market Area ('HMA') under the Duty to Cooperate. We understand that although some HMA authorities have suggested various contributions to meet this need, these contributions are still not enough to meet the identified shortfall therefore additional land will be required to meet housing and employment needs within the Black Country.

Our client's land is located within South Staffordshire District ('SSDC') Local Planning Authority (LPA) Area but is adjacent to Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council's (DMBC) LPA area. We are submitting our client's site to you for consideration to assist in meeting the unmet needs of the Black Country. The Site has been submitted separately to SSDC through their Call for Sites process.

Site Context

The Site is located off Mile Flat in Wall Heath, Kingswinford and is approximately 33 hectares (83 acres). The Site is in single ownership (FGD Limited) and is currently in agricultural use. As shown on the attached Site Location Plan, the Site is bound by Swindon Road, a Sub Station and Hinksford Caravan Park to the north, Mile Flat, residential dwellings and commercial properties to the east, agricultural land and Greensforge to the south and the Staffordshire Canal to the west.

It is considered that the site is in an accessible location in close proximity to Wall Heath (0.6 miles) which offers a number of shops and facilities. There are also a number of schools within 1.6km of the site: St John's C of E Primary School to the north and Summerhill School and Mitie Within Summerhill School to the south east. There are also existing bus stops on Swindon Road (immediately adjacent) and Enville Road (c. 50m from the Site) to the north of the Site. Both stops serve Bus 16 which offers a frequent service and connects the Site to Stourbridge, Wombourne, Kingswinford and Wolverhampton.

The Site is currently located within the Green Belt but there are considered to be no known heritage or environmental constraints that would impact on development being delivered on the site. Further technical work can be undertaken at a later stage to demonstrate the deliverability of the site if required.


It is considered that the Site is suitable for residential and / or employment uses, is available for development and could be delivered within the next 5 years if required.

Comment

Representation ID: 23184

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Historic England

3.21 shortfall of 28,239 homes that are not being planned for in the plan period within Black Country; will this unmet need be provided elsewhere in the region?

Comment

Representation ID: 23218

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Heyfield Development

Agent: Harris Lamb

Overspill

Notwithstanding the concerns about the capacity of the urban area in Black Country to deliver the development needs identified within the plan period and an additional capacity that might be identified in the Green Belt, it is evident that the overspill is going to be significant in terms of housing and employment land.

HD acknowledge that the BCP states this will be delivered through the duty to cooperate, however, at the draft plan stage we would have expected a clearer understanding on what this means and who is potential taking what in order to demonstrate the plan is positively prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Framework, which states:

“(a) Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs 21 ; 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;” (our emphasis).

The evidence is clear that Birmingham and South Staffordshire have the strong functional and geographic relationship, but they Birmingham is not able to assist as it cannot meet its own needs. If the development needs are to be met in a location that relates to the Black Country, rather than the other side of the conurbation, South Staffordshire will have to take a significant proportion of the overspill.

South Staffordshire has agreed to test 4000 dwellings at this time, with employment land to be determined. By any measure, this is nowhere enough. This is not to take away from the positive working relationship between the BCAs and South Staffordshire, which in many ways is to be commended. Instead, this is a product of the vast numbers we are talking about.

HD, therefore, strongly encourages the BCAs to reopen these discussions with South
Staffordshire to see if additional capacity can be agreed.

HD is promoting a site immediately adjacent to Wall Heath in South Staffordshire. The site adjoins the Black Country on two sides. It is available and deliverable. This could add to the number of houses in South Staffordshire and HD will be submitting a vision document to South Staffordshire consultation later this year to demonstrate how this site could come forward.

Comment

Representation ID: 23278

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: RPS

Draft Black Country Plan 2020-2029 – Regulation 18 Consultation 2021

RPS has been commissioned to prepare a response to the Draft Black Country Plan (dBCP) consultation on behalf of IM Land, who are working with landowners and have interests in land located within the neighbouring district of South Staffordshire. Accordingly, this response therefore focuses on the strategic matter of the unmet housing need emanating from the Black Country and how this is being addressed through the Duty to Cooperate (DTC) process.

Current Extent of Unmet Need in the Black Country

Table 2 of the dBCP identifies a housing shortfall in the Black Country of 28,239 dwellings between 2020-

2039, to be exported through the DTC process. The evidence underpinning this figure is derived from analysis presented by ABCA in the Black Country Urban Capacity Review (BCUCR) 2020. Paragraph 2.1.41 of the BCUCR concludes that local housing need outstrips housing supply from 2020/21 onwards, with the gap widening until there is a total shortfall of 38,595 homes in 2038/39. This shortfall represents 51% of the total need for 76,076 homes over the period 2020-39.

It should be noted that the extent of the shortfall has worsened since the previous capacity was undertaken in 2019, which had established a shortfall of 29,288 dwellings by 2037/38 and which was predicted to emerge from 2027 onwards. The reduction in the shortfall from 38,595 to 28,239 is based on the identification of additional sources land in the dBCP beyond current commitments and other known sources, including a proportion (c.7,700) of dwellings to be delivered on land to be released from the Black Country Green Belt. However, even after the release of Green Belt land, the shortfall remains substantial.

Thus, the worsening and unresolved nature of the unmet need from the Black Country is material to determining what an appropriate contribution towards the shortfall from neighbouring authorities should be.

Duty to Cooperate response

Comments on the approach to addressing unmet need
RPS notes that a number of neighbouring authorities have made ‘offers’ to meet ‘wider than local’ housing needs of the HMA, totalling 8,000 dwellings, of which 4,000 dwellings would be accommodated in South

Staffordshire1. Nonetheless, it is not clear how much of this 4,000 would go towards the Black Country or other parts of the HMA, including Birmingham. RPS notes that the 4,000 figure was chosen by South Staffordshire as their preferred option as part of the Spatial Housing Strategy and Infrastructure Delivery consultation as far back as August 2019 and so was clearly known by other authorities in the HMA, including ABCA. However, despite this, it remains unclear how much of this contribution will go to the Black Country. This lack of clarity on-going in the process does not represent a positively planned approach to addressing the shortfall in the Black Country.

This lack of clarity is further exacerbated by a lack of any clear outcomes to date on this issue, due to an absence of any statements of common ground (SOCG) prepared between ABCA and other HMA authorities. National policy is clear that these should be produced using the approach set out in national planning guidance, and be made publicly available throughout the plan-making process to provide transparency (NPPF 2021, paragraph 27). The lack of such details on progress towards addressing the strategic matters
at this stage is inconsistent with national policy and raises further concerns that the housing shortfall will not be properly addressed in the BCP.

Despite engagement between the GB&BCHMA authorities to date there is no conclusive outcome in relation to the strategic cross-boundary matter of redistribution of unmet housing needs from Birmingham and BCA. This is not a sound basis for plan-making. As stated in the recently published North Warwickshire Local Plan Inspector’s Final Report dated 20 July 2021 “the exercise of the D to C is not a matter of process without effect” (para 22). There is every likelihood that reaching a consensus on this strategic matter will be a
lengthy disharmonious process between the GB&BCHMA authorities.


The current piecemeal approach of independently preparing separate SoCG between individual authorities during the preparation of each Local Plan is unacceptable and provides no certainty that unmet housing needs will be met. The approach should be holistic. As a matter of urgency, the GB&BCHMA authorities should prepare a Joint SoCG. Without a Joint SoCG, there is no real commitment to resolving the redistribution of unmet housing needs in full across the GB&BCHMA. Similar approaches have been taken to good effect elswhere, including across the Coventry and Warwickshire HMA as well as between Leicester City and the other Leicestershire authorities. The GB&BCHMA authorities should set out where unmet housing need will be met. A Joint SoCG should confirm that:

• each authority will meet its own LHN calculated using the Government’s revised standard methodology plus a defined amount of unmet LHN (except Birmingham City Council, BCA, and other areas where the evidence is demonstrated they cannot meet their own needs). This cumulative
figure will be the housing requirement figure for each authority respectively; and
• an acknowledgement by the GB&BCHMA authorities that additionality in HLS will be required to ensure deliverability and flexibility.

Comment

Representation ID: 23279

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: RPS

Comments on the ‘offers’ from neighbours


In any event, RPS is of the view that the current contributions ‘offered’ by neighbouring authorities are insufficient to remedy the scale of the shortfall facing the Black Country (even after the potential supply from within the ABCA boundaries has been assessed). RPS notes that certain authorities, namely South Staffordshire, are relying for their 4,000 dwelling contribution on information taken from the Greater Birmingham HMA Strategic Growth Study (SGS) (February 2018)2, based on an urban extension of at least
1,500 dwellings, an urban extension to an existing strategic employment site for at least 1,500 dwellings, and two dispersal areas each of 500 dwellings.

However, the SGS is now over three years old and has been superseded by more recent events that bring into question the robustness of the evidence that underpins it. Notably, the basis for housing shortfall calculation used in the SGS are now likely to be out of date, for the following reasons.

Firstly, the SGS applied the previous methodology for calculating objectively assessed need using the national guidance applicable in 2018, and not the standard method approach now in operation. The new standard method now includes a 35% uplift applicable to the 20 largest cities, including Birmingham and, notably, Wolverhampton. The result is that the measure of housing need for the Black Country is now different compared to previous estimates that underpinned the SGS. The SGS identifies the housing need for the Black Country (using the old PPG methodology) of 3,554 dpa based on evidence prepared in 20163. This figure has been quoted as recently as July 2020 in the latest HMA-wide Position Statement on housing need and supply4. However, the evidence underpinning the dBCP now indicates a much higher need, showing a need for 4,004 dpa. Whilst not directly comparable, this indicates an additional 450 dpa are required to meet the minimum need going forward. Over the 19-year plan period, this equates to an additional 8,550 dwellings compared to previous estimates of need.

Secondly, evidence on housing land supply demonstrates that the SGS over-estimated the likely housing capacity in the Black Country. This is helpfully summarised in HMA Position Statement July 20205. Across the four Black Country Authorities, the estimated capacity in the SGS was 62,543 dwellings. By 2019, this had fallen to 58,737 dwellings, a decrease of 3,806 overall. It should be noted that the change in capacity
highlighted in SGS only relates to the period up to 2031, and so the SGS has not considered the capacity issues post-2031. Given the increase in the shortfall outlined above, the capacity issues facing the Black

Country will most likely have worsened in the post-2031 period.


And thirdly, the SGS did not assume any shortfall existed in the Black Country up to 20316 at the time the analysis was undertaken. This, as explained above, is now clearly not the case.

Based on this analysis, it is evident that the housing position of the Black Country has worsened since the findings of the SGS were published. RPS would therefore questions the reliance on the SGS as a basis for the 4,000 dwelling contribution towards the Black Country’s housing shortfall proposed by South Staffordshire. RPS would argue that the contribution should not be based on the strategic locations proposed in the SGS but, instead, should be derived from the scale of need and the housing shortfall stemming from it.

Comment

Representation ID: 23280

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: RPS

Conclusions


In conclusion, RPS has highlighted the deepening problems with respect to the scale of unmet need in the Black Country. Neighbouring authorities, including South Staffordshire, are using out of date evidence to underpin their ‘offer’ of assistance to ABCA to address the unmet needs of the Black Country. However, more recent evidence, summarised above, suggests that ABCA should not simply accept the ‘offer’ from South Staffordshire but should push for a greater contribution, one that properly reflects the scale of the shortfall now identified as well as recognising the strong functional links that exists between South Staffordshire and the Black Country. This should form a component of the ongoing discussions between ABCA and South Staffordshire under the duty to cooperate, with a clear outcome set out in a Statement of
Common Ground signed off by both parties at the earliest opportunity.

Comment

Representation ID: 23458

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miller Homes Ltd

Agent: Turley Assocs

Turley is instructed to submit a representation on behalf of Miller Homes Ltd (“Miller”) to Policy CSP1
“Development Strategy”, and accompanying Table 2, of the Draft Black Country Plan (BCP), in relation to
the significant unmet housing need in the period to 2039.
This representation highlights the availability of a significant area of land within Miller’s control at Shifnal
(Shropshire), which provides a highly sustainable option to deliver a community of c.1,300 dwellings to
meet Shropshire’s own housing needs but which could also contribute towards the Black Country’s
identified housing shortfall. With all of this land being controlled by a national housebuilder, delivery of
this sustainable community would be swift.
The Miller land is identified on the plan attached as Appendix 1 (see attachment), and is proposed to be removed from the Green Belt and “safeguarded” to meet housing needs beyond 2038 in the submitted Shropshire Local Plan Review (LPR). However, Miller are promoting this land for allocation so that it can meet needs to
2038, as explained below.
Policy CSP1 and Table 2
CSP1 sets out the proposed Development Strategy for the Black Country including the scale and
distribution of new development and proposes to deliver “at least 47,837” dwellings to 2039. This will
require Green Belt release given the capacity of the urban area. This scale of housing provision falls well
short of the sub-region’s minimum Local Housing Need, by at least 28,239 dwellings. We have made
separate representations to the BCP which question the soundness of certain components of the
assumed supply so the already significant shortfall has the potential to grow even further.

The unmet need is to be “exported” to the wider Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market
Area (GBBCHMA), or other authorities, as presented in Table 2, and this will be achieved through the
Duty to Co-operate. Paragraphs 3.24 and 3.26 state that the Black Country Authorities (BCA) have, and
will continue to, work constructively with neighbouring authorities to deliver the housing shortfall. We
are aware that formal requests for assistance have been raised with the other HMA authorities, as well
as wider local authorities.
Miller supports the positive and proactive approach adopted by the BCA to seek assistance and secure
commitments to the significant housing shortfall through preparation of the BCP, rather than seeking to
defer this strategic cross-boundary issue post-adoption. It is noted that a number of local authorities
have already pledged contributions, albeit there will remain a considerable “gap”. Shropshire Council’s
submitted LPR (3 September 2021) is proposing to contribute 1,500 dwellings towards the Black Country
shortfall which “…responds to the functional relationship between the two areas” (paragraph 3.7).
Miller has made representations to the submitted Shropshire LPR to request an increased housing
requirement so that an even greater contribution can be made to the Black Country, given Shropshire’s
connections to the housing and economic markets through sustainable transport linkages such as railway
corridors and the M54 Motorway.
The opportunity at Shifnal
Shifnal has a particularly strong functional relationship with the Black Country, benefitting from a railway
station with hourly services to Wolverhampton and Birmingham, as well as immediate access to M54
Junction 3. 18% of Shifnal residents work in the GBBCHMA (Census 2011).
Whilst the Shropshire LPR recognises the sustainable credentials of Shifnal and proposes it is the focus
for growth in the regionally and nationally significant M54/A5 “Strategic Corridor” (including allocation of
a strategic employment site (SHF018)), housing development is restricted to only 300 new dwellings to
2038, beyond completions and existing commitments.
No new Green Belt releases are therefore proposed at Shifnal to deliver housing before 2038. Instead,
Green Belt is proposed to be “safeguarded” to meet housing needs beyond 2038. This includes 65ha of
land controlled by Miller (SHF029 and SHF015; Policies Map extract at Appendix 2) which Shropshire
Council propose will form a longer term “strategic housing extension capable of creating a new
neighbourhood” (paragraph 2.215). It is capable of delivering a sustainable community of c. 1,300
dwellings, as presented on the Illustrative Masterplan at Appendix 3.
This land is sustainable and deliverable and should therefore be “elevated” from safeguarded land to
form a residential allocation in the Shropshire LPR to meet the County’s needs to 2038. However, such
an allocation could also assist in making a contribution to the Black Country housing shortfall over this
period. With the land being controlled exclusively by a national housebuilder, the sustainable community
can be delivered swiftly.
We hope this representation provides helpful insight into the availability of sustainable land at Shifnal
which is already proposed for Green Belt release and which can deliver c.1,300 dwellings to meet
Shropshire’s housing needs but which is also ideally placed to contribute towards the Black Country’s
housing shortfall.

Comment

Representation ID: 23459

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: Acres Land & Planning Limited

I am writing to you on behalf of my client Hallam Land Management, a company which has
an established track record in working with local authorities and partners to promote land
for both housing, industrial, commercial and mixed-use development all over the country.
They take a positive approach towards promoting land through the planning process,
including bringing forward land through local plans to ensure that homes and jobs are
delivered for the benefit of local communities and for the wider economy.
Their interests are not specifically within the Black Country area, but on two strategic sites -
one at Sandy Lane in Codsall (South Staffordshire DC) within a few miles of the Black Country
boundary. This site forms a logical extension to the village next to a recently completed
former safeguarded site. The other is on the urban edge of Telford beyond the green belt
(Telford & Wrekin BC) and represents a sustainable urban extension to the town. Both of
these sites offer sensible alternatives to developing ‘green belt’ land in the Black Country.
Black Country Local Plan opportunities & challenges.
Hallam Land Management submitted representations to the Issues and Options stage of the
Black Country Plan in September 2017 and this Regulation 18 Draft Plan has now emerged in
late 2021. We worry that the draft Black Country Local Plan (BCP) has taken 4 years to
deliver and that the plan-led process is proceeding at such a ‘glacial’ pace – both in the Black
Country and in surrounding authorities.
Nevertheless, we welcome the Black Country Local Plan (consultation draft) which
represents an important step in the planning of the wider West Midlands Metropolitan subregion.
It has a critical bearing on the surrounding local authorities including South
Staffordshire and Telford & Wrekin with whom the Black Country authorities are
accustomed to working closely as a means of delivering their wider housing needs.

Duty to Co-operate
We very much welcome the clear strategy within the BCP to work with neighbouring
authorities and to provide certainty and transparency to residents, businesses and
developers for a Local Plan up to 2039. However, the absence of a strategic planning tier
presents some critical challenges in terms of:
1. The difficulty of planning across administrative boundaries and co-ordinating
infrastructure, housing and employment which are better planned on a wider scale,
2. Problems created by neighbouring authorities planning to different time-horizons
and at different times with no natural integration between them,
3. The difficulties of involving the private sector in the ongoing cross boundary
discussions between authorities through the so-called ‘duty to Co-operate’.
According to the guidance on Duty to Co-operate, negotiations between authorities need to
be constructive, active and ongoing. As a replacement for the former strategic planning
process, the Duty to Co-operate process is less than ideal. It is largely opaque and limited in
scope. However, it is an essential element of the plan-led process if Councils are to engage
and negotiate in a meaningful way and overall housing needs in a wider area are to be met
which is necessary to render the emerging Local Plan ‘sound’.
Currently, the situation on the Duty to Co-operate between the Black Country and other
local authorities is by no means clear, as outlined within the supporting evidence. The Black
Country Councils undertake within paragraph 1.10 of the Draft BCP that there will be
Statements of Common Ground in the Deposit version of the Local Plan. But so far, all the
letters from neighbouring authorities contained within the BCP evidence base are around 3
years old – mostly written in mid-2018 and so are somewhat dated. However, they do give a
flavour of the respective Councils’ stances in relation to addressing the Black Country’s
growing housing shortfall.
Telford & Wrekin: By way of example, the letter from Telford and Wrekin BC is dated 26th
July 2018 (over 3 years ago) just after the adoption of the Telford & Wrekin Plan (in January
2018). Telford & Wrekin Council had resisted attempts by the Black Country authorities to
accept the dispersal of some of its housing needs to Telford during the T & W Local Plan
Inquiry, despite its past role as a New Town accepting outflow from the Black Country
authorities. The letter written subsequent to the Local Plan adoption states, inter alia, that:
The matter of Telford & Wrekin accommodating unmet need from Birmingham and the Black
Country was discussed at the Examination in Public for the Telford & Wrekin Local Plan (Local
Plan). The Local Plan Inspector found there to be no evidence to convince him at that point
that Telford & Wrekin should accommodate the unmet housing needs of your authorities.
The Council has, however, committed to monitoring this matter in light of emerging
evidence. Your letter does not provide the Council with any further evidence to support a case
for Telford & Wrekin to contribute to meeting your unmet housing need. The Urban Capacity
Study referenced identifies a raft of evidence work to be undertaken this year.
The letter from T & W goes on to suggest: ‘In reference to your request that the Council
consider its position regarding meeting some of the Black Country’s unmet housing need, in
order to consider this, we’d need more specific proposals and evidence regarding the
quantum and type of development you are seeking Telford & Wrekin to accommodate as
well as your strategy for meeting unmet need. In addition to this we would need a clear indication as to how the necessary supporting infrastructure to facilitate ourselves
accommodating unmet need, were this to be agreed, would be enabled and resourced’.
This might have been the position in 2018, however since then, a more substantial shortfall
in housing land capacity has been identified within the Black Country (evidenced in your
current work). Furthermore, the situation with regard to Telford & Wrekin is somewhat
different. In Issues and Options stage of the emerging Telford & Wrekin Local Plan Review
the authority recognised that there were pressures to accept in-migration from the Black
Country and (had the Draft Telford & Wrekin Local Plan been issued in May 2021 as
expected) we would have expected this to have been acknowledged and quantified.
We would therefore expect the Black Country Councils to have a constructive dialogue with
Telford & Wrekin BC, so that Telford & Wrekin (which has potential development land
outside the green belt, including our site at Wappenshall which is suitable for a large
Sustainable Urban Extension), can assist the Black Country in addressing its housing shortfall.
We have not yet seen evidence of any further dialogue – but expect it to appear in the
evidence base at the Pre-submission (Reg 19) stage.
South Staffordshire: The picture in South Staffordshire is much more optimistic. Their letter
dated 23rd August 2018 (again 3 years ago) explains that their Site Allocations Document
(SAD) published in 2017 did allocate 1,000 dwellings for the needs of the Black Country and
more important their subsequent emerging South Staffs Local Plan Review has earmarked
some 4,000 dwellings for the wider needs of the Black Country.
The 2018 letter also states, very positively, that; ‘South Staffordshire Council is clear on its
obligations to work constructively and positively with our Black Country neighbours on a
range of key issues, not least on meeting housing and employment needs. Likewise the Black
Country Authorities will also play an important role in helping to meet some of our needs too
and we look forward to continuing our ongoing co-operation and delivery with you’.
With that in mind it is important to emphasise that Hallam Land Management has a suitable
and sustainable site on the northern edge of Codsall within easy reach of Wolverhampton
which is surrounded on three sides by development and lies immediately adjacent to former
safeguarded land which has since been developed by Taylor Wimpey, (now fully completed).
Shropshire, on the other hand undertook a Strategic Sites Review in 2017, which, inter alia,
explored a major site at Junction 3 of the M54. They emphasised in their undated 2018
emailed Duty to Co-operate response that they were undertaking a review of opportunities
along the M54 corridor as part of a study by consultants, GVA, and would consider working
with the Black Country despite it falling within a different HMA. In practice however,
Shropshire Council subsequently decided not to support a major new settlement at Junction
3 of the M54 – although they have promoted an employment growth point at RAF Cosford
nearby. There is no prospect therefore that Shropshire will accommodate a major
proportion of the Black Country’s housing overspill but might allocate some land close-by.
Other authorities: According to the 2018 Duty to Co-operate letters, none of the other
authorities in the West Midlands region have expressed a willingness to provide for the
Black Country’s needs. Birmingham City Council has a capacity problem of its own (and now
needs to allocate a further 35% ‘bonus’ on top of its previous allocation, despite the
apparent reduction in its pressure for overspill). Other Council’s in the Birmingham & Black
Country Housing Market area – such as Cannock Chase, Lichfield, Bromsgrove and Solihull have all expressed concerns about problems of their own – many of them in helping to
alleviate Birmingham and the Black Country’s capacity shortfall. Other authorities are
further afield and have no functional relationship and hence have urged the Black Country to
review its own green belt before seeking to share its overspill with them. This is something
that your authority has now done as part of the draft BCP.
In summary therefore, the only two authorities which stand out as having the capacity or
the willingness to contribute to the Black Country’s surplus housing needs are South
Staffordshire DC and Telford & Wrekin BC – with the possibility of some assistance from
Shropshire Council (albeit their Local Plan shows few allocations close to the Black Country
boundary). The Hallam Land Management sites at Codsall and Wappenshall (Telford)
therefore provide a key opportunity to help address the Black Country’s long-term needs.
There has been a long history of engagement between the GB&BCHMA authorities (and
between the public and the private sector stakeholders) prior to the abolition of regional
and strategic planning in 2011. But to date, there has been no conclusive strategic crossboundary
distribution of unmet housing needs from Birmingham and the Black Country
Authorities. This creates huge uncertainty for both the local authorities, the private sector
and for local people and is not a sound basis for decision making.
The complex network of relationships between 10-15 authorities within the surrounding the
West Midlands Metropolitan Area creates a potential network of 100-150 communications
between respective authorities all sent at different times and completely uncoordinated.
This is a grossly inefficient means of engaging in debate and establishing consensus. We feel
negotiation between authorities should be replaced by a Standing Conference of Local
Authorities, open to private sector interests who have much to contribute.
We would therefore firmly support the HBF in arguing that the GB&BC HMA authorities
should prepare a Joint Statement of Common Ground in conjunction with the private sector
interests (through a joint planning conference) which would explore, in a systematic way,
the need for strategic housing provision across Birmingham and the Black Country to ensure
that housing needs across the sub-region are properly planned and adequately met.
Housing Needs in the Black Country – Policy CSP1.
The Black Country area (including Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton forms an
integral part of Greater Birmingham & Black Country Housing Market Area (GB&BCHMA).
Both Birmingham City Council and the Black Country Authorities have long had unmet
housing needs but the situation is somewhat fluid as circumstances change over time.
In January 2017 the adopted Birmingham Development Plan identified a housing shortfall of
37,900 dwellings which was expected to be met from contributions by surrounding
authorities (including possibly the Black Country). The Birmingham Local Plan Inspector
imposed a 3 year deadline within which Local Plans were meant to come forward to address
the shortfall otherwise Birmingham would be thrown into a further Local Plan review.
Since then, Birmingham City Council has re-assessed it shortfall and recalculated the housing
output from for example, completions, plots under construction, windfalls, additional sites
within the City Centre and assumptions on new development on the Commonwealth Games
site at Perry Barr. A Joint Local Authority Position Statement on the GBBCHMA – dated July
2020 claims that the housing shortfall at that time had reduced to only 2,597 dwellings based on the GL Hearn Strategic Growth Study (February 2018) baseline figure of 207,979
dwellings needed to 2031. This is clearly a sharp reduction on the shortfall expressed in the
GL Hearn Strategic Growth Study (2018) of 28,000 dwellings and has not yet been tested.
In addition, the Strategic Growth Study (2018) looked forward to 2036 and identified a
minimum baseline figure of almost 61,000 dwellings and hence this will add to both the
Birmingham and the Black County requirement – which looks further forward to 2039.
Currently (as I write) the Solihull Local Plan Inquiry is considering these figures (alongside
other assessments of housing shortfall from the private sector) as part of the parallel debate
about Solihull’s true housing requirements and hence – in the absence of any agreed figures
(or a strategic planning input) decisions about the overall shortfall will be made by the
Solihull Inspectors which could have a wider bearing on the Black Country Local Plan.
The situation in the Black Country creates a further shortfall. The Draft BCP states that the
capacity of the Black Country is finite and not all of the Black Country’s housing needs will be
met within its own administrative boundaries (see para 3.20). The Draft BCP sets a housing
target for the Black Country of 47,837 dwellings over the plan period 2020 – 2039 or 2,518
dwellings per annum against a minimum Local Housing Need of 76,076 dwellings (see para
3.21 & Policy CSP1).
Measuring the housing requirement against the Local Housing Need (LHN) from the
government’s Standard Methodology the combined figures produce a minimum LHN of
76,361 dwellings (or 4019 per year) between 2020-2039, which according to paragraph 60 of
the NPPF are intended to be regarded as a minimum. This comprises:
12,084 new homes in Dudley (636 per year)28,272 new homes in Sandwell (1,488 per year)
16,758 new homes in Walsall (882 per year)
19,247 new homes in Wolverhampton (1,103 per year) – including a 35% uplift.
76,361 new homes for Black Country area.
The Turley report comments that despite the challenge of meeting potentially 76,361 new
homes in the Black Country, the resultant figures from the Standard Method are not
especially high in terms of growth in relation to existing stock. Indeed, despite the City of
Wolverhampton receiving a 35% uplift, as one of the country’s 20 largest cities, its ultimate
target is relatively modest and it is only the tight administrative boundaries which make it
difficult to meet its expected contribution towards a nationwide need for housing. The
adjacent authority of South Staffordshire – and especially Codsall which borders
Wolverhampton, provides a valuable opportunity to provide new housing very close by.
Housing Shortfall in the Black Country.
As a result of the foregoing analysis, Table 2 of the Black Country Development Strategy
2020 – 2039 expects a housing shortfall of 28,239 dwellings to be exported to other
authorities through the operation of the Duty to Co-operate. This ignores any shortfall from
the wider Greater Birmingham area. As I indicate above, currently there are no firm
commitments from other authorities to accommodate this shortfall despite all authorities
within the GBBCHMA having been asked to contribute (as indicated within the Duty to Cooperate
section.

Furthermore, as we indicate above, there is an outstanding shortfall from the Birmingham
Housing Needs Assessment which could lie somewhere between 2,597 dwellings (the
number declared in the joint position statement and 28,0000 highlighted in the GL Hearn
report to 2031 – or indeed higher). This would be in addition to the shortfall of 28,239
dwellings now evident in the Black Country which creates an overall shortfall of up to
50,000-60,000 dwellings in the GBBCHMA.
However, Turley’s previous report ‘Falling Short – Taking stock of unmet needs across the
Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area’ published in August 2021
identified a housing shortfall across the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing
Market Area (GBBCHMA) of between 68,700 and 78,000 homes up to 2040. This tends to
suggest that the acknowledged shortfall of 28,239 represents a serious under-estimate.
As I have described above, there are only two local authorities – Telford & Wrekin BC and
South Staffordshire DC – within the wider Housing Market Area who have expressed any
willingness or indeed have the capacity to absorb any major overspill – with the possibly
addition of Shropshire Council who are now well advanced in their own plan and have
rejected proposals for development at Junction 3 (M54) within the green belt. However,
this does not necessarily represent the full shortfall. Private sector interests co-ordinated by
planning consultants Turley, have undertaken further research which looks at the pressures
for development in and around the Birmingham and Black Country HMA.
Housing Land Supply.
The achievement of the net provision of 47,837 dwellings over the plan period 2020 – 2039
or 2,518 dwellings per annum, relies entirely on achieving and delivering sufficient readily
available land to build enough homes – and that those homes will be viable to build and will
appeal to the market (or tenants) and hence will be delivered and occupied. Any significant
shortfall will result in further overspill to adjacent areas -added to the 28,239 dwellings
which are estimated to be required elsewhere to satisfy the Black Country’s housing needs.
A separate exercise by consultants, Turley, submitted on behalf of a number of housebuilders,
highlights the very high reliance on brownfield land (85%) and estimates that some
10,000 plots which are included in the Councils’ Black Country Local Plan may not be
achieved for a variety of reasons. This likely shortfall is also picked up in the HBF’s response
where they identify many sites within the Strategic Centres as being unviable, based on the
Councils’ own ‘Black Country Viability and Delivery Study’. The Turley report comments that
many existing housing allocations especially those on established employment land have not
been delivered and the decision to simply roll these forward presents a high-risk approach in
terms of achieving delivery. They calculate the need for firstly, reductions to commitments (-
695 homes), secondly, existing allocations (-4,973 homes), thirdly, occupied employment
land (-3,091 homes) and finally upper floor conversions in Wolverhampton (-812 homes),
equating to 9,571 dwellings in all.
There is also concern within the HBF response that high levels of affordable housing
(including what could be onerous requirements for First Homes, rented housing and
Accessibility housing) and also high densities and pressures from Biodiversity requirements –
important though they are – may frustrate the ability of developers to deliver the scale of
housing within the Black Country. They also note that the figures provided provide little
flexibility in numbers so that all virtually all the housing land provision identified will need to
be built to achieve the Councils’ targets with little or no room for flexibility.

The impact on the Black Country’s Green Belt.
The Black Country Green belt is unusual insofar as it comprises a network of green wedges
which separate induvial settlements within the Black Country communities. Unlike the
London Metropolitan or Birmingham Green Belts it does not simply surround the
conurbation.
The BCP makes the controversial proposal to remove areas of green belt to provide room for
some 7,720 dwellings across the Black Country. This comprises land for:
1,117 homes in Dudley,
171 homes in Sandwell,
5,418 homes in Walsall, and
1,103 homes in Wolverhampton
Understandably, these proposals have proved unpopular with local people and with local
politicians to the point where public statements have been made challenging the loss of
green belt and it is doubtful whether the Black Country Local Plan will ultimately receive
members’ support. The West Midlands Mayor (who doesn’t have strategic planning powers)
but does seem to have a wider influence, has also declared himself resistant to green belt
development within the boundaries of the conurbation.
Under Paragraph 140 of the NPPF Government guidance stresses that ‘green belt boundaries
can only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified,
through the preparation or updating of plans. Strategic policies should establish the need for
any changes to green belt boundaries…’
Whilst in circumstances such as these it is likely to be feasible to meet the criteria for some
green belt releases through the Local Plan process, but it is important to recognise that
paragraph 141 stresses that ‘Before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify
changes to Green Belt boundaries, the strategic policy-making authority should be able to
demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified
need for development. This will be assessed through the examination of its strategic policies’.
In this particular case, it is important to note that other opportunities to develop beyond the
green belt in and around Telford do exist without affecting green belt land in the Black
Country. Indeed, in years gone by, Telford New Town served as a formal overspill function
and provided just such a ‘safety valve’ to enable people to move elsewhere in the sub-region
to enjoy new opportunities, whilst not encroaching on the West Midlands green belt.
(Those formal overspill arrangements have long since expired, but the new town of Telford
has still not reached its original target population of 225,000 and yet still enjoys the benefit
of extensive infrastructure provided by the Exchequer to service the overspill population).
Furthermore, arguably, in a post-covid world, the Black Country now badly needs to protect
its landscape, environmental and ecological assets (as well as its recreational green space)
rather than gradually encroaching on its green belt and filling in the network of gaps
between established settlements which makes the Black Country so unique. At the same
time, it is entirely feasible that many people may relish the prospect of moving to a new
sustainable waterside development in Telford – against the background where many people
now appreciate the value of better space standards and greater open space which a new site
at Telford – or indeed at Codsall can offer. These opportunities need to be explored.

Summary and Conclusions.
The Black Country Local Plan (BCP) has been deposited for public consultation under
Regulation 18. It provides for 47,837 dwellings (or 2,518 new homes per year), some 29,239
short of the estimated requirement for 76.361 dwellings (or 4,019 per annum). It is assumed
(but it cannot be guaranteed) that the residual will be deflected to other local authorities.
In addition, there is a considerable housing shortfall in neighbouring Birmingham City
ranging from around 2,600 dwellings (as now anticipated by the West Midlands authorities)
up to 2031 to some 28,000 estimated by Turley (plus a further shortfall to 2039.
The Turley study further estimates that the scale of housing supply may have been overestimated
by up to 10,000 dwellings attributed to a change in the non-implementation
allowance from 10% to 5%, a reliance on existing allocations which have failed to come
forward, an over-dependency on changes of use from employment sites and a possible
double-count from dwellings provided on Wolverhampton upper floors with windfalls. The
Black Country Authorities have already identified land for some 7,720 dwellings from green
belt land which is proving very controversial.
In total, based on the analysis above, there is likely to be an overspill of between 30,000 and
40,000 surplus plots to find elsewhere, with the expectation that an additional 3,000 –
30,000 will need to be found elsewhere in the Birmingham and Black Country housing
market to cater for Birmingham’s longer-term needs.
From the published letters received in response to the Duty to Co-operate exercise in 2018,
few neighbouring authorities have volunteered to assist the Black Country Councils. The
only willing authorities so far are potentially Telford and Wrekin BC and South Staffordshire
DC – with the possibility of some limited overspill to Shropshire Council within the already
proposed allocations bordering the Black Country and possibly along the M54 corridor, but
they too would be in the green belt.
Hallam Land Management has two strategic sites;
Firstly, a greenfield site with a potential capacity of up to 2.500 dwellings at Wappenshall on
the northern edge of Telford (not within the green belt) which would provide a sustainable
mixed use urban extension, linked to a proposed employment site on Homes England land,
Secondly, a smaller green belt site (adjacent to a former safeguarded site now released from
the green belt and developed) on the northern edge of Codsall in South Staffordshire DC,
Either or both of these sites would provide admirable opportunities for future development
to offset development displaced from the Black Country.
Whilst this may not require a specific amendment to the Black Country Plan, it can serve as
valuable evidence to the Black Country authorities in their negotiation with the two
authorities during the Duty to Co-operate process.

Comment

Representation ID: 43830

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Philip Stevens

Duty to Co-operate
3.21
It is stated in the Plan that there is a local housing need for 76,076 homes. But where does this figure come from. That's a staggering population growth.
We suspect this 'Target' cane about prior to Brexit, and the assumption that growth would come from continuous immigration. - However we know that since the vote, these figures must be thrown into doubt.-