Policy GB1 – The Black Country Green Belt

Object

Representation ID: 21646

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Marian Doswell

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Object

Representation ID: 21650

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Michael Walters

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Object

Representation ID: 21653

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Wing Leung

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Object

Representation ID: 21656

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Laird Stephen J Taylor

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Object

Representation ID: 21659

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Heather Taylor

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Object

Representation ID: 21662

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Christine Hill

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Object

Representation ID: 21665

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: M Pardon

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Object

Representation ID: 21668

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: M Ashmore

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Object

Representation ID: 21672

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Josephine Stubbins

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Object

Representation ID: 21681

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Patricia Greenfield

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Object

Representation ID: 21703

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Carol Wood

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Object

Representation ID: 21708

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Janet Greenfield

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Object

Representation ID: 21712

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: RS Greenaway

Number of people: 2

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Object

Representation ID: 21717

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Claire Probert

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Object

Representation ID: 21721

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Philomena Whyle

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Object

Representation ID: 21724

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Barrie Harris

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Object

Representation ID: 21729

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Valerie Allen

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Object

Representation ID: 21737

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: LJ Stone

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Object

Representation ID: 21742

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Michael Beardsmore

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Object

Representation ID: 21746

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Martyn Brown

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Object

Representation ID: 21763

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields

Draft Policy GB1 (The Black Country Green Belt)

2.104 Draft Policy GB1 is unsound as it does not seek to identify, allocate and release a sufficient supply of land within the Green Belt for housing.

2.105 As set out in its response to Draft Policies CSP1 and HOU1, St Philips objects to the BCP on the basis that it seeks to provide only 47,837 dwellings in the plan period, leaving a significant shortfall of 28,239 dwellings. The BCP has failed to provide sufficient land to meet the minimum housing needs, as per NPPF paragraph 11(b), and will need to ensure that additional housing land is provided through further Green Belt release.

2.106 As earlier indicated, there are several shortcomings in the Black Country Green Belt Study: Stage 1 and 2 Report (Land Use Consultants, September 2019), and it is considered that the omission of several sites submitted through the Call for Sites is unsound on the basis that the Green Belt Study has applied an inconsistent and flawed approach in the assessment of sites submitted through the Call for Sites.

2.107 This is because the Stage 1 Contribution Assessment has been prepared at such a strategic level as to render its findings on the extent of the potential harm to the Green Belt purposes, as a result of development, questionable when applied to smaller individual potential development sites adjacent to the urban areas.

2.108 By way of example, the geographical scale of some parcels is extremely vast (e.g. between 100-
500 ha) whilst others are of a much smaller scale (e.g. between 1-50 ha).

2.109 This varying scale will undoubtedly have a negative and inconsistent impact on the scoring identified in the Green Belt purposes ratings for each parcel, as set out at Table 5.1 within the Stage 1 Findings (page 44).

2.110 St Philips considers the larger Green Belt parcels are capable of logical sub-division based on defensible boundaries. It also recommends that all of the parcels should be of a similar size and that care should be taken to ensure that a consistent approach is taken in respect of the assessment of different parts of the Black Country. This could be achieved through the subdivision of some parcels to ensure that they are all more equally sized. Indeed, it would logically follow that the larger and wider a parcel is delineated, the stronger the parcel performs in terms of its Green Belt purposes as, inherently, it encompasses a greater geographic scale.

2.111 The approach taken in respect of generating the land parcels for assessment is set out at paragraph 4.29:

“By combining the lines marking variations in contribution to Green Belt purposes, a list of land parcels was generated, each of which has a reference number and a rating for contribution to each purpose. The parcels are the product of the assessment rather than a precursor to it. The reasoning behind this approach was to draw out variations in contribution to inform the site-specific assessments undertaken at Stage 2, avoiding broad variations in contribution within prematurely and more arbitrarily defined parcels. Avoiding significant variations in contribution within defined parcels prevents the need for ratings to be
generalised to reflect the strongest or average level of contribution within a defined area.”

2.112 Whilst the Stage 2 Harm Assessments consider the sub-parcels at a smaller scale, it is noted that not only are some of these sub-parcels still at a significantly large and inconsistent scale (some extend to <10ha whilst others are >100 ha), but that the assessment of harm is effectively an average of the scorings identified at Stage 1, therefore ultimately being skewed by the Stage 1 findings.

Land west of Foxcote Farm, Oldnall Road, Stourbridge

2.113 This issue is evident through the assessment of land west of Foxcote Farm, Oldnall Road, Stourbridge (Call for Sites ID 178).

2.114 St Philips is promoting land west of Foxcote Farm, Oldnall Road, Stourbridge and submitted the site accordingly through the Call for Sites process. A Vision Document is submitted alongside these representations that demonstrates how approximately 180 dwellings could be delivered on site ID 178. This could come forward as an early phase as part of a wider future strategic
allocation on ID 295.
[see site specific representation]

2.121 This is a fundamental flaw in the methodology of the Green Belt Study which results in a failure to account for a more localised assessment of how sub-parcels and promoted sites perform against the Green Belt purposes. As a result of this shortcoming, the land west of Foxcote Farm, Oldnall Road, Stourbridge which would have otherwise been selected for Green Belt removal, has been artificially omitted.

Object

Representation ID: 21774

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Kevan Jones

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Object

Representation ID: 21779

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: P.J Mason

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Support

Representation ID: 21781

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Matt Bird

Please record my unwavering and full commitment to the protection of Halesowen's Green Belt in response to The Black Country Plan.

In relation to the current public consultation of the Black Country Plan I would like to make it clear that I support the proposed protection of Green Belt in Halesowen (Illey, Lapal, Uffmoor, Hayley Green, Coombeswood), Lutley and Foxcote.

I am local and have lived in Halesowen all my life, the local countryside is historic, scenic and good for walking amongst nature. The pandemic highlighted our open spaces, green belt and countryside as being essential for our mental health and general well being, although we recognised the benefits of our treasured green belt long before 2020.

It is essential that you recognise the importance of the Green Belt in Halesowen (Illey, Lapal, Uffmoor, Hayley Green, Coombeswood), Lutley and Foxcote to its local community, and beyond, by ensuring it is protected for generations to come.

Please reply with an acknowledge email.

Object

Representation ID: 21784

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Jean Gwilt

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Object

Representation ID: 21787

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Pamela Monk

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Object

Representation ID: 21790

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Matthew Goode

We do not want any houses built on greenbelt land in the borough.
Please take this email as an objection to the proposals. The Black Country is FULL of brownfield sites that should be redeveloped into housing, not greenbelt.

Object

Representation ID: 21792

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Stewart Monk

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.

Object

Representation ID: 21793

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Wood Abbey Ltd

Agent: Mr Richard Cowell

Introduction
1.1 This representation is made in response to the consultation on the Draft Black Country Plan 2039 (Regulation 18) (hereafter referred to as "the Plan").
1.2 This representation is objecting to the Plan and specifically in relation to the following policies and evidence base:
Policy
• Policy CSP1- Development Strategy
• Policy GB1- The Black Country Green Belt
• Policy HOU1 - Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
Evidence base
• Black Country Green Belt Study
• Black Country landscape sensitivity assessment
• Sustainability Appraisal of the Black Country Plan
Basis of the objection
2.1 The Plan contains planning policies and land allocations to support the growth and regeneration of the Black Country over the years to 2039.
2.2 The Plan contains a Vision for the Black Country in 2039. This is underpinned by strategic objectives and priorities designed to deliver the Vision and associated outcomes. The proposed policy framework will guide and shape development across the Black Country and will set clear parameters for growth and transformation.
2.3 The Black Country Plan is being produced to, amongst other things, specifically facilitate the delivery of the right development types to meet identified and emerging needs in the most sustainable places; and to meet housing needs between now and 2039.
2.4 The importance of producing the Black Country Plan is to address local challenges and issues and specific reference is made to, "Providing good quality housing that meets the needs of a growing population - the Plan needs to identify sufficient land for housing to meet the needs of people who are likely to live in the area over the period of the plan."
2.5 The Black Country Housing Market Area Assessment sets out the housing need for the area with The Black Country Urban Capacity Update 2020 providing an updated statement on the current housing need. This is confirmed at paragraph 2.1.4 on page 7 as being 4,004 homes per annum, which equates to 76,076 homes over the Plan period 2020-39.
2.6 One of the core objectives of the Plan is, "Housing that meets all our needs".
2. 7 The Development Strategy for the Black Country is set out in Policy CSP1. The Policy provides the overarching spatial strategy for the Black Country, setting out the scale and distribution of new development for the Plan period to 2039.
2.8 The housing target for the Black Country, as defined in Policy CSP1, is 47,837 new homes over the period 2020-39.
2.9 Compared to a local housing need of 76,076 homes the Plan has a shortfall of 28,239 homes.
2.10 The Black Country Urban Capacity Update 2020 concludes at paragraph 4.3 page 34 that "the identified shortfall -- that is the amount of housing need which cannot be accommodated in the Black Country urban areas - remains significant... despite reviewing all potential sources of housing capacity, making a series of structured assumptions around density and windfalls, and comprehensively exploring the capacity on occupied employment land in the context of up-to-date employment land evidence."
2.11 This shortfall doesn't account for the current and emerging wider housing shortfall position across the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA), within which the Black Country is located.
2.12 The failure to deliver sufficient housing supply in the Black Country continues the failure from the Core Strategy period. As stated on page 16 of the Urban Capacity Update 2020 the Black Country as a whole has an under-supply of 10,347 homes at 2025/26 - 37% of the remaining target of 28,325 homes. The under-supply is continuous throughout the Plan period with the main reasons for the increased under-supply since 2019 being the further loss of supply on occupied employment land and the re-phasing of sites beyond 2026 to reflect realistic delivery timescales, in line with Government guidance on deliverability.
2.13 In order to meet this significant shortfall The Plan places an emphasis on the Duty to Cooperate, with The Plan stating that 28,239 homes will be exported through Duty to Co-operate.
2.14 The latest letters dated 2018 from neighbouring authorities identify their own challenges and inability to contribute to the level expected by the Black Country Authorities. The Reg 18 Duty to Cooperate Statement makes significant assumptions about contributions from other authorities to meeting housing needs in the Black Country. The Black Country cannot rely on solving their housing needs by exporting housing supply to neighbouring authorities, many of which are unable to meet their own needs.
2.15 The Black Country Plan currently fails to identify sufficient land to meet its needs. As a result over 30% of the housing needed in the Black Country is not provided for. This is a significant failure to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework. The Plan fails to provide a sufficient supply of land to meet the housing needs of local people and fails to meet the objectives that it has set for itself.
2.16 At para 3.15 of the Plan it is acknowledged that Black Country Authorities ("BCA") have demonstrated that exceptional circumstances exist to justify the redrawing of green belt boundaries around the urban edge to release land for development due to significant housing and employment needs and a deficit in the brownfield land supply within the Black Country.
2.17 Land should therefore be fully assessed not just against its suitability for green belt status but also with regard to the sustainability of the development it might accommodate.

2.18 At paragraph 3.16 the BCA have stated that they have undertaken an extensive Green Belt and landscape sensitivity assessment to identify land that, if developed, would cause the least harm to the purposes of the Green Belt and to landscape character, is suitable and available for development and that could create long-term and defensible Green Belt boundaries.
2 .19 The review of the Green Belt has yielded land to supply 7,720 homes, however the assessment has failed to properly assess all land and identify sites which would meet the stated aims. It is also imperative that due to the extent of the housing shortfall the balance needs to be weighed in favour of delivering land for housing.
2.20 The site of Pedmore Hall Farm, as shown in Appendix A (the "site"), was promoted (site reference 203) through the call for sites and subsequently assessed as part of a wider area in the following:
• Dudley Landscape Sensitivity Assessment - reference BL 16
• Call for Sites Assessment - site reference SA-0031-DUD
• Green Belt Study - parcel ref B65
• Sustainability Appraisal - SA-0031-DUD-A.
2.21 In those assessments there was a failure to acknowledge the different characteristics, setting, and status of land, including existence of previously developed land and consider how parts of the site could be released from the Green Belt.
2.22 The release of a smaller parcel of land, as shown in Appendix A, would make an important contribution to meeting the significant housing shortfall in the area and deliver other important social and environmental benefits, further contributing to the exceptional circumstances for the site's release.
2.23 By drawing a tighter boundary to that originally promoted (reference 203) the conclusions of the various studies listed above would result in a positive consideration of the site.
Assessment against the SA Framework
3.1 In overall terms the smaller site focused on the previously developed land and frontage plots to Pedmore Lane would perform positively against the SA framework. The site would perform better than other land in the Green Belt that have been allocated for residential development. The following is an overview demonstrating this:
3.2 In relation to Cultural Heritage (Objective 1) the smaller site has been demonstrated to be in proximity to one scheduled monument (Wychbury Ring hillfort) and one Grade II listed building (Parish Church of St Peter) both lying within 500m of the site.
The intervening topography prevents any degree of intervisibility or co-visibility from the Grade I Hagley Hall Registered Park & Garden, and as such it is not considered that the site would form part of its setting. In consideration of the Church of St Peter, there is already some existing development between this and the site, negating the potential for the development of the site to have any significant impact upon its setting, or on its significance. The Grade II* Obelisk is located to the south of Wychbury Ring hillfort and is not visible from the site and as such it is not considered that the Site would form part of its setting or impact on its significance.

3.3 In regard to the Scheduled Monument, whilst its setting remains partially rural in general character, this is limited to the north and west in particular, where the southern edges of Stourbridge have been developed, and where existing buildings
form already-developed land, whilst that to the south, albeit partially encompassed by a designed landscape in the form of Hagley Hall, remains largely open. Views from the Scheduled Monument are limited if not completely negated, by virtue of the extent and nature of tree planting across its boundary, limiting the degree to which the promontory can be experienced and understood as a hill-fort. Views to the hill-fort from all directions are similarly harmed by this planting, and in particular, views from Pedmore Lane are already encumbered by existing buildings at Pedmore Hall Farm, both by their appearance as well as their scale and massing, and the trees and other landscape elements. In addition, due to the existing character and appearance of the Scheduled Monument, in particular the extensive tree cover, there may be some opportunity to improve the general understanding of the asset through improved publicly access and interpretation linked to redevelopment of the site.
3.4 This position is further detailed by the document attached as Appendix B, Initial
Heritage Assessment.
3.5 It is concluded for Landscape (Objective 2) that the smaller contained site area including previously developed land would provide an opportunity to enhance the landscape character with the removal of the large industrial appearance buildings that occupy and dominate the site detracting from the surrounding area. By taking a landscape led approach to future development features on site such as trees and vegetation along with field boundaries could in incorporated. There would also be some opportunities to enhance characteristics and connections to the wider landscape bringing positive benefits.
3.6 The impact of the site on the heritage of the landscape is considerably different from the wider area previously promoted. This is demonstrated through the site assessment attached as Appendix B and C. There will be no perceivable impact on the historic landscape character, thus negating the concern of impact on this historic landscape character. The potential visual envelope of the proposed development will be contained to within close proximity to the site due to the screening effect of the surrounding built form, the topography, and the existing trees and vegetation.
3.7 In relation to the Green Belt and the 5 purposes as set out in NPPF, the site provides a weaker contribution to Green Belt purposes 1-3 than that assessed in the Black Country Green Belt Study. For purpose 4 there is no contribution. The site is contained alongside Pedmore and would contribute to purpose 5 by re-developing and reusing part of the site that contains existing built form. The site would be able to define a clear defensible boundary using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.
3.8 This position is further detailed by the document attached as Appendix C,
Landscape Study and Appendix B.
3.9 In relation to Biodiversity, flora, fauna and geodiversity (Objective 3) the site has negligible / neutral impact due to the area covered and the distance to assets referenced in the assessment framework. There are opportunities for enhancements to be delivered as a result of future development with development focused on previously developed land and horse paddocks and retention and improvement of existing habitat features.
3.10 For Climate Change mitigation (Objective 4) the SA identifies at F .5.11 that sites with development of 95 dwellings or less would be likely to result in negligible contribution to Dudley's total carbon emissions. The site performs better than the wider area assessed.
3.11 The smaller site does not alter the location in relation to Flood Zones and the impact in relation to Climate Change adaptation (Objective 5).
3.12 The smaller site which includes previously developed land alters the consideration of the impact in relation to Natural resources (Objective 6) leading to more positive impacts.
3.13 Pollution (Objective 7), the SA identifies at F .8.5.2 that sites for the development of between ten and 99 dwellings could potentially have a minor negative impact on air pollution in the local area. The smaller site has limited impact when assessed against the framework.
3.14 In relation to Waste (Objective 8) the SA identifies at F.9.11 that sites for the development of 124 dwellings or less would be expected to have a negligible impact on household waste generation in comparison to current levels. The smaller site has limited impact when assessed against the framework.
3.15 For Transport and accessibility (Objective 9) the smaller site is still in an accessible location with many local services to meet the everyday needs of future residents located within walking and cycling distances and/or accessible by public transport.
3.16 It is recognised that the smaller site would result in a capacity of 99 dwellings or less and in line with F.11.1.1 of the SA would be expected to result in a minor positive impact on Housing provision (Objective 10). This change in impact must be balanced against the shift in impact from major negative impacts on Cultural Heritage, Green Belt and landscape aspects of the SA.
3.17 The smaller site does not alter the location in relation to the 10% most deprived LSOAs and so the assessment in relation to Equality (Objective 11) remains unchanged.
3.18 The smaller site does not alter the location and position in relation to Health (Objective 12). The smaller site is however better related to the existing urban area and residents will be able to access all services by public transport as well as walking and cycling to local provision.
3.19 The smaller site does not alter the location and proximity in relation to the performance against Economy (Objective 13).
3.20 The smaller site does not alter the location and proximity in relation to Education, skills and training (Objective 14).
3.21 It is clear that the smaller site boundary focused on the previously developed land, paddock and frontage plots, and within a contained and defined area would have an overall positive outcome against the SA Framework with minimal negative impacts. There would be positive social and economic benefits from development and opportunities to deliver environmental enhancements.
Conclusion
4.1 The Plan states that there are exceptional circumstances for releasing land from
Green Belt to meet housing needs.

4.2 The Plan however fails to identify sufficient land to meet its housing needs and there is no realistic strategy to address this. Further land needs to be identified within the Black Country to meet housing needs and ensure that the Plan can be found sound at examination.
4.3 By allocating land identified in Appendix A, that being a smaller parcel from that originally submitted via the call for site, a valuable contribution to meeting the acute housing needs of the Black Country can made.
4.4 If the BCA had taken a more reasoned and justified approach to assessing sites and fully considered the specific characteristics of the site submission they would find that a smaller parcel of land, as shown by Appendix A, would have performed positively against the SA Objectives and subsequently allocated land for housing. Detailed studies on heritage and landscape, attached to this submission, have been undertaken to assess the site and demonstrate this position.
4.5 The site:
• Is available now- the landowner is actively promoting the site through the Local
Plan.
• Offers a suitable location for development now- it contains previously developed land and has been demonstrated to be a sustainable location for development in line with the SA Framework.
• Is achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered within five years - the site has no constraints to bring forward development and requires no identified infrastructure to enable delivery.
4.6 The allocation of the site, as shown in Appendix A, for residential development can deliver significant local benefits further contributing to the exceptional circumstances case for its release from the Green Belt including:
• Delivering much needed housing with circa 75 homes including affordable and family housing.
• Redevelop previously developed land and buildings supporting the national objective to make effective use of land.
• The removal of visually detracting features from the landscape with the redevelopment of poor quality buildings.
• Opportunities to improve the understanding and appreciation of the Scheduled Monument.
• Improving the existing public footpath which is currently in poor condition.
• Retaining the south and east portions of the site as undeveloped allowing for opportunities for compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility.
• Through the design and layout take a landscape led approach incorporating existing landscape features and introducing better visual permeability.
• Define a defensible boundary using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.
4. 7 The BCA should therefore review their existing evidence base, reassessing sites and allocate further land, including Pedmore Hall Farm as shown in Appendix A, to meet their pressing and unmet housing need.

Object

Representation ID: 21798

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Alan & Kerry Kelly

We the undersigned wish to object to all proposals in the Black Country Plan to sell parts of our green belt and green spaces to enable homes to be built. Development on these green sites threatens to undermine wildlife and the general health and well-being of a population emerging from the pandemic that now places even greater value on them.