Policy HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

Object

Representation ID: 18491

Received: 02/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Hughes

*Policy HOU1 follows on from the prediction that the Black Country will need an additional 71,459 houses in the next 19 years, based on 'Government standard calculation'. A standard calculation can not possible predict how many homes will be required. These are too many variables, Covid being one, Meanwhile you are destroying our green spaces for ever for homes that more than likely will not be required.

Object

Representation ID: 18561

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Councillor Tim Crumpton

The premise that we have to build so many houses is flawed, we have in place a plan that has
dramatically underachieved over the past years building nowhere near the targets that were put in
place. This current plan puts forward enormous numbers of houses and industrial land targets that can, in any real world scenario, never come to fruition. The danger in such numbers is that areas of green belt and green spaces are now put at risk in some crazy attempt to get near to the impossible.

Object

Representation ID: 18566

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dudley Labour Group

Agent: Councillor Qadar Zada

[Housing numbers]

We consider there are three fundamental aspects of the process which the BCP has failed to address adequality, which, as a consequence, discredit the proposals and places them at risk of potential legal action. These include the determination of the housing need, timing, duration and nature of the consultation process (including scrutiny) and equality considerations.

Determination of housing need

The government has indicated that the Black Country has a requirement for 76,000 additional new homes and the proposals produce just 46,000 of which Dudley is proposing sites for 13,000 homes, a number that appears to be a contribution that is a disproportionately high level compared to other Boroughs. No information has been forthcoming about how government has calculated these figures or why Dudley is providing more than one quarter of the total proposed and despite
asking at every opportunity, the Authority has refused to explore this further


We consider that Dudley Council has not provided sufficient challenge regarding;


Projected Population Figures


The figures come from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The ONS have assumed growth will continue at the same average rate that it has for the last 20 years. The ONS states specifically that it has not taken account of the impact of Brexit in it’s projections and assumes the same rate of growth will continue into the future. The figures also do not
appear to account for the number of excess deaths, some of which are related to covid. It also does not appear to take account of the falling birth rate. Instead the figures presented by the ONS seem to be very
much a worst case scenario and should not be used for planning purposes.


The ONS produced a second dataset based on the previous ten years growth that takes greater account of the changes to net migration since the Brexit vote in 2016. Using this dataset, which is likely to be more realistic, the Black Country will require 10,000 fewer homes during the Plan period. Given that the plan projects that 7,000 homes will have to be built on Greenbelt land; the use of this dataset would mean that no homes will have to be built on the greenbelt or green spaces at all.


It seems inconceivable that green belt and green spaces could be lost because “someone” has decided to use an unrealistic worse case growth scenario. We believe that once greenbelt and green spaces are allocated for housing these sites will be amongst the first of the sites within the Plan to be developed, not the last as has been suggested.


If the decision to go with a particular set of forecasts has been made at Ministerial level, which we suspect, then if the new ministerial team is minded to review them, there is little point in proceeding.


Finally, on this issue, planning does not exist in isolation. It is there to help meet future needs. If those future needs are assessed wrongly the plan will be wrong. We are convinced the best strategy is to challenge the future growth projections as these are inaccurate and undermine the whole plan. The Plan should not be approved by the Council until the projections have been re-examined and adjusted to be more realistic rather than presenting the worst case scenario.

Support

Representation ID: 19383

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Paragraph 6.2 - L&Q Estates supports the reference to both net new homes and also that the housing land supply will deliver 'at least' 47,837 new homes.

Comment

Representation ID: 19384

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Paragraph 6.2 - "Policy HOU1 does not refer to the significant shortfall in housing land supply that the BCP is proposing. Reference should be made to the shortfall and the means where this housing supply shortfall could be made up."

Object

Representation ID: 19385

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Table 4 - "It is unclear how the Council identified that 800 dwellings would be delivered by 2039, as it is L&Q Estates position that a significantly greater proportion could be delivered before the end of the plan period (see Appendix B for projected trajectory for Home Farm). Similarly, it is unclear why other sites which involved Green Belt release would also provide limited amounts of housing by the end of the plan period"

Object

Representation ID: 21345

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

POLICY HOU1 – DELIVERING SUSTAINABLE HOUSING GROWTH: OBJECT
Policy HOU1 sets out that “sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 47,837 net new homes over the period 2020-2039.” WDH’s response to Policy CSP1 above sets out their objection to this scale of growth as follows:
• Housing Needs: Whilst WDH recognises that the BCAs’ housing need over the plan period is 76,076 dwellings when calculated in accordance with the Government’s Standard Method, a further uplift should be incorporated to reflect the anticipated economic activity relating to the arrival of HS2 in the wider area.
• Scale of Growth / Housing Requirement: The BCAs should seek to maximise the delivery of housing within their jurisdiction before exporting any unmet need, given the BCAs’ own substantial housing needs and the context in the wider HMA of a significant housing need. Given that there are a number of suitable and available development sites that have not been included as proposed allocations (see below), the BCAs have failed to provide sufficient justification for their proposed approach of limiting growth to 47,837 dwellings. The BCAs should therefore revisit their audit of promoted sites to ensure that their purported housing capacity is accurate and maximises the potential of sites in the area. Alongside that, the plan’s SA should be revisited to fully consider the maximum level of housing that could be accommodated before additional significant adverse impacts arise.
• Housing Supply: In addition to the concerns in relation to providing a level of housing supply that is well below the overall housing needs of the BCAs, WDH also has concerns as to whether the BCP would deliver the quantum of housing that the BCAs are expecting.
WDH’s response to Policy CSP1 highlights the particular dependence on a number of brownfield sites that can often be constrained, resulting in sites being delayed or failing to deliver. That matter, when combined with the BCAs’ unreasonable approach to the windfall allowance, is likely to result in a scenario where actual delivery in the plan period does not reach 47,837 dwellings, which itself falls a long way short of the BCAs’ housing needs. WDH’s response therefore outlines the importance of allocating small-medium sized greenfield sites (including Green Belt sites) both to increase the proportion of the BCAs’ housing needs that are met, and to provide further delivery early in the plan period.
• Spatial Strategy: The lack of a spatial strategy that is informed by an audit of settlements is concerning, and raises queries in relation to the justification for the BCP’s focussing of growth to particular settlements. Notwithstanding that, however, a spatial strategy should be prepared based on an audit of the housing needs of settlements and their suitability to accommodate growth. That spatial strategy should direct additional growth to sustainable settlements so as to meet a higher proportion of the BCAs’ housing needs. The suitability of Pedmore should be reflected in that, given its location adjacent to the Black Country conurbation, the presence of numerous services and facilities within the settlement, and its excellent connectivity to nearby settlements and the services and facilities therein.
• Green Belt release: In principle, the BCAs’ justification of Green Belt release is sound and justified in accordance with the NPPF. That said, given that the BCAs should seek to meet more of their own housing needs for the reasons set out above, the BCP should maximise delivery from Green Belt sites where there are suitable sites in sustainable locations that have not yet been allocated for development. The suitability of WDH’s site at Bromwich Lane, Pedmore is set out below in that regard.


Bromwich Lane, Pedmore
As set out above and in detail in response to Policy CSP1, Pedmore is an inherently sustainable location for growth. In that context, Bromwich Lane, Pedmore (SA Site Assessment Ref. SA-0016-DUD, the location of which is shown in the Vision Document that has been submitted alongside these representations) is a suitable development site that accords with the BCPs’ approach to releasing Green Belt sites that would ‘round-off’ the existing built form (see BCP paragraph 3.17) in a manner that would result in “the least harm to the purposes of Green Belt and to landscape character” (see BCP paragraph 3.16).

As such, the site’s development would accord entirely with the BCP’s proposed approach. The failure of the BCAs to allocate the site, therefore, reflects WDH’s concerns regarding the assessment of sites and application of the assessment methodology, as set out below.
A series of technical and environmental assessments have been undertaken in relation to Bromwich Lane, Pedmore that have highlighted that the site has no insurmountable development constraints that cannot be mitigated. Those site assessments are summarised in the Vision Document that has been submitted alongside these representations.

Principally, an appropriate vehicular access with achievable visibility splays can be provided via a new junction with Bromwich Lane, with a new footpath along the southern edge to be provided within the site as well as a small section to the north of Bromwich Lane to connect with the existing footpath on the southern side. The opportunity to widen Bromwich Lane along the site frontage would be taken where feasible to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the proposed development, which would include removing the west priority-controlled section of road to achieve unrestricted two-way vehicular movements along Bromwich Lane.

An ecological assessment of the site has confirmed that the site is not subject to any nature conservation designations, that the majority of the site is of low ecological value, and that, whilst some protected species are likely to be present in the area, they can be accommodated and the ecological value of the site as a whole can be enhanced through the proposed development. Indeed, whilst the hedgerows and areas of scrub along the boundaries provide suitable habitat for foraging and commuting bats and black poplar with moderate potential to support roosting bats is present in the site’s south-west, those areas will be retained as open space with an appropriate development offset and enhanced through planting, landscaping and the creation of an attenuation pond. Similarly, the site’s hedgerows that are of ecological value at a local level will be retained and enhanced where possible in accordance with the recommendations of the ecological assessment. , the site has been found to offer limited foraging habitat. As such, there are no ecological constraints to the site’s development, and indeed the development scheme can realise ecological enhancements through its sensitive landscape scheme.

Given their location, the majority of the trees at the site’s boundary will not be impacted by proposals and instead will be retained and incorporated into areas of public open space that will reinforce the site’s green infrastructure connections. An arboricultural assessment has considered the unavoidable removal of trees from a tree group of moderate arboricultural and landscape value at the site’s access, and has confirmed that the loss of this small section of the tree group would not diminish the group’s overall amenity value and that appropriate mitigation for the loss can be provided.

An archaeological desk-based assessment and a consideration of the site’s heritage impact has established that there are no designated or recorded heritage assets within the site or listed buildings within its vicinity, and that the site is not visible from the Hagley Conservation Area and thus that the site will not impact on its setting and character. Whilst Wychbury Ring is located c. 1km from the site, it is shrouded by woodland and separated from the site by the busy Hagley Road and the residential development alongside it. That is also the case for Hagley Hall Park and Garden and its listed buildings and structures that are located to the south and south-east of the site. As such, the proposed development is unlikely to have a detrimental impact upon the site’s surrounding heritage assets.

In relation to drainage, the site is located in flood zone 1 and is therefore at low risk of flooding. In addition, whilst there are small areas of the site that are at low and medium risk of surface water flooding, they are contained to the site’s western boundaries and therefore can be accommodated within the proposed open space corridor in that location. It is intended that surface water is attenuated within the site within the proposed attenuation basins at the site’s south-west corner before being discharged via an existing surface water sewer at Redlake Drive. There is also capacity within the existing foul sewerage network to accommodate the proposed development.

A landscape and visual assessment of the site has also been carried out. That assessment outlines that the site is designated by Dudley MBC’s Urban Historic Landscape Characterisation Study as falling within an ‘Area of High Historic Landscape Value’ that largely relates to the landscape relating to Wychbury Hill and Hillfort, and Hagley Park and Garden. The assessment of the site finds that there is a clear physical and visual break between the more valued landscape to the east and south-east of Hagley Road by virtue of the presence of the busy Hagley Road and the development along it, and that the site shares limited visual interconnectivity with those landscape / heritage features as a result. Rather, the landscape character of the site itself is undoubtedly affected by its relationship with the adjacent built form that encloses the site on two sides and gives significant visual containment.

The assessment therefore finds that the site’s development would have only minimal impact on landscape character, and would not at all appear incongruous given that it would be contained on 2 of its 3 sides by existing residential development. Moreover, it found that the key landscape features defining the site can be retained, enhanced, and supplemented to provide a softer transition to the countryside to the south and the area of higher value landscape. A visual appraisal has also highlighted that distant views of the site are limited by the visual containment that the site benefits from by virtue of the surrounding topography and the existing built form, and that any views of the site are seen in the context of the existing built form, which is often more prominent than the development would be (by virtue of its robust landscape framework and proposed boundary planting). Thus, any residential development would be integrated in its context, and the impact on visual amenity would be minimal.

A Green Belt appraisal has also been undertaken to ascertain the harm associated with the release of the site. That appraisal highlights that the site’s location and aspect mean that it does not form a particularly sensitive part of the Green Belt. Indeed, the site is already bordered to the west, north and east by well-established development, and the proposed development would not encroach south as far as the existing built form that borders it to the east and west. As such, the site’s development would consolidate the existing built form (rather than resulting in urban sprawl), would have minimal impact in terms of the coalescence of settlements given that the development would sit in front of and below the existing settlement and therefore would not impact on the perception of the separate identity of Pedmore and Hagley, and would result in limited countryside encroachment (further negated by the site’s strong landscape structure). The appraisal therefore outlines that the location of the site and its strong landscape structure mean that the degree of harm resulting from its release would be limited and that, rather, the site’s development offers an opportunity to round-off the built form and create a clear, robust and defensible boundary.

As such, it is clear from the assessments of the site that it is an inherently suitable development site that is not subject to any insurmountable constraints.

The BCP’s assessment of Bromwich Lane, Pedmore
The site’s inherent suitability for development as demonstrated through that suite of technical and environmental assessments has not, however, been reflected in the BCP’s evidence base and its approach to the site’s assessment, thus raising serious concerns in relation to the suitability and consistent application of the BCAs’ site assessment methodology. Indeed, WDH have previously written to the BCAs to express those concerns, and that letter has been submitted alongside these representations (Ref. 332 MR 160620 DMBC).
The unsuitability of the site assessment methodology and its inconsistent application is reflected both within the assessment of the site within the BCP’s Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and the Site Assessment Report (SAR), both of which assess the site under Site Reference SA-0016-DUD. When interrogating the justification for the site’s performance against the criteria of those assessments, it is clear that the assessment of the site has failed to consider the site’s true context, the ability for site’s development to readily and easily incorporate suitable mitigation to reduce any impacts, and the potential benefits that the site’s development could bring.

However, the BCAs’ assessments of other promoted sites did take into account those matters, for example in the assessment of the site(s) between the railway line and Worcester Lane that are proposed to be allocated in the BCP, which themselves are assessed under Site Refs. SA-0010-DUD-A, SA-0010-DUD-B, and SA-0018-DUD-C. The unsuitability and inconsistencies in the BCAs’ assessment of each site is set out below with reference to the SAR, highlighting that the site assessment would have identified Bromwich Lane, Pedmore as a suitable allocation site had the methodology been justified and applied consistently.

WDH’s principal objection to the site assessment methodology relates to the approach taken when assessing Green Belt harm and landscape impact, with the SAR registering a Green Belt harm rating of ‘Very high’ and a landscape sensitivity rating of ‘moderate to high’ for the site. Those conclusions are informed directly by the Black Country Green Belt Study (BCGBS) and Black Country Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (BCLSA), and indeed the letter submitted to the BCAs by WDH (as above) set out concerns in relation to the methodologies of both of those assessments; highlighting the manner in which an unsuitable methodology can result in inaccurate conclusions being attributed to a promoted site, which has clearly now directly resulted in the failure of the BCPs to allocate the site.

In relation to the BCGBS, WDH notes that the site is assessed as part of the broader Green Belt parcel of B60, which is a parcel of 181.3 hectares (of which the site is 4.2ha) that covers an area with significant variations both in terms of its character and contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt. That parcel varies from areas in urban fringe locations that are influenced largely by the adjacent urban environment (such as the site) to overwhelmingly open, vast and rural elements of the countryside (such as the land at the parcel’s west), and as such is clearly an incorrect scale upon which to assess the site and its Green Belt contribution. That resulted in a Stage 1 assessment that found strong contribution towards purposes 1, 2, 3 and 5. That clearly, as set out above, does not reflect the reality of the site itself and its contribution towards Green Belt purposes. Rather WDH’s previous comments highlighted that a contribution at the lower end of moderate would be more appropriate for purposes 1, 2 and 3 given the site’s context as set out in the above analysis.

As such it is clear that the Stage 1 assessment of Parcel B60, which was then attributed to the site and informed the assessment of the harm attributed to the release of any land within the parcel, was directly informed by an unsuitable methodology that sought to assess a very large and varied Green Belt parcel, rather than breaking the parcel down into smaller parcels that more accurately reflect the clear variations in character and Green Belt contribution. That Stage 1 assessment then fed into the Stage 2 assessment of the release of ‘any uncontained land’ within Parcel B60 (under Scenario B60s1). Notwithstanding that the site cannot be considered ‘uncontained’ given that it is clearly contained by the built form, that approach was itself inconsistent in comparison to the assessment of other promoted sites, some of which were assessed as part of their own ‘scenarios’ whilst others were included in broader release scenarios such as that seen in scenario B60s1. As a result of that flawed methodology, the release of B60As1 was attributed ‘very high’ harm. An accurate assessment that took into account the site’s context and characteristics would have found low-moderate harm associated with the release of the site from the Green Belt.

The manner in which the inconsistent application of the BCGBS’ methodology has directly influenced its findings and, ultimately, the fortunes of promoted sites when the BCAs came to identify allocation sites is highlighted further when that methodology is compared to the Worcester Lane site(s), where more suitable assessment parcels resulted in a more favourable conclusion. For example, the northernmost parcel (SA-0010-DUD-A) was assessed as its own assessment parcel (B63) of just 1.1ha (compared to the 181.3ha parcel that Bromwich Lane was included in) for all stages, which lead to favourable outcomes early on that then, in turn, fed into the conclusion that there would only be low to moderate harm. That is despite that element of the site having similar characteristics to WDH’s site at Bromwich Lane (albeit on a slightly smaller scale) in that it is surrounded on its east and west sides by existing development that protrudes further into the open countryside than the site itself, with an open southern boundary. The approach of including Bromwich Lane as its own Green Belt parcel would have been more suitable, therefore. Had that not been the case, Bromwich Lane should at the very least have been afforded its own ‘release scenario’ at Stage 3, which was the approach taken to the central parcel at Worcester Lane (SA-0010-DUD-B) despite the fact that that parcel was less contained than the Bromwich Lane site (with built development covering only half of its western boundary and the proposed allocation building further south than its adjacent urban form to the west).

The matter of Green Belt appraisal methodology was recently considered in an appeal in St Albans District (Appeal Ref. 3265926), whereby the Inspector found that, as a result of the inclusion of a more discrete Green Belt site within a much larger Green Belt assessment parcel that included more significant Green Belt parcels, that the characteristics of the wider assessment parcels “bear little or no relationship to the appeal site.” The Inspector therefore concluded that there was “only very limited correlation between the conclusions drawn here in relation to the function of the land or assessment of its function relative to the purposes of the Green belt when compared to the appeal site” in allowing the release of that Green Belt site.

WDH also has similar concerns to the methodology and findings of the BCLSA, which acts as ‘Stage 3’ of the BCGBS. Again, the site is attributed to Parcel BL15 that is a 223.8ha parcel which again includes more urbanised land such as the site, as well as open, clearly more sensitive landscape to the west. Even when considered at the smaller scale of BL15s2, the site is assessed alongside land that would clearly represent a considerable visual extension into the countryside beyond the well-contained site and into the landscape that separates Pedmore and Hagley, and is therefore inherently more sensitive in landscape terms. The result of the assessment was therefore naturally weighted in light of this.

Indeed, and as set out in the attached letter to the BCAs, the conclusions found were often not relevant to the site; given its context as the least sensitive location within both Parcels BL15 and BL15s2. Principally, the assessment of those parcels found their ‘moderate to high’ sensitivity arose as a result to its “additional role in providing a perceived gap” between Pedmore and Hagley. Clearly, that is not the case for a development site that would not extend development any further south beyond the already established built form. As set out in the letter to the BCAs, a more accurate judgement of the site would be that is has low-moderate sensitivity to built development.
Given that, as set out above, there are no technical or environmental constraints relating to the site, it can only be seen that the unevidenced and inaccurate assessment of the impact of the site’s development on the Green Belt and landscape has significantly weighted the BCAs decision not to allocate the site. Had the site been assessed correctly therefore, by considering the opportunity for the site’s development to actually bring a benefit to the integrity of the retained Green Belt through the provision of development that rounds off the built form and delivers a clear and robust new Green Belt boundary, the site would have been identified for its clear suitability and would have been allocated.

Notwithstanding that, it is also noted that other elements of the site’s assessment are inaccurate, and do not reflect the site’s credentials. The ‘red’ rating in relation to heritage assets suggests that the site’s capacity is “significantly limited unless harm is caused to asset(s) which cannot be wholly mitigated.” As set out above, the site’s development is unlikely to have any detrimental impact upon designated assets, and moreover the provision of an enhanced southern boundary would create a clearer transition between the redefined built form and the surrounding historic landscape. It would be more accurate for the site to be attributed a green rating, given that there are no assets on the site and that assets in its surrounds would have a “negligible impact on site capacity.”

Similarly, the site is incorrectly attributed a ‘red’ rating in relation to ‘visual amenity and character of the area’, which is applied to sites where the capacity would be “significantly limited unless harm is caused to visual amenity / local character which cannot be wholly mitigated.” As set out above, the site should have been assessed to have only low-moderate landscape sensitivity, and therefore development could be accommodated within the site without reducing the site’s capacity. Rather, a green result should have been attributed.

The amber rating in relation to Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) also suggests that the presence of TPO trees on the site would limit development capacity. Again, the Vision Document submitted alongside this document demonstrates that this is not the case. Indeed, previous arboricultural assessments of the site have highlighted that the loss of only a small section of the protected tree group would not diminish the group’s overall amenity value and that appropriate mitigation for the loss can be provided within the development. Therefore, the site can be delivered at full capacity without impacting upon TPO trees, and as such the site should have been attributed a green result for this criteria.

That is similarly the case in relation to the amber rating given to ‘Flood risk, drainage and ground water’ which would suggest that the site’s capacity would be ‘significantly’ reduced to allow for mitigation relating to drainage and flood risk issues. Again, that is not reflective of the nature of the site, which has a very limited area of low-moderate surface water flood risk at the site’s western boundary which could be incorporated within an open space corridor with no impact on the site’s capacity. Therefore, the site should also have been attributed a green result for this criteria. It is noted that the splitting of the allocated site(s) between the railway line and Worcester Lane, despite the fact that they will likely be developed comprehensively, has resulted in the surface water flooding issues relating to an area of high surface water flood risk at the site’s north being attributed only to one parcel, despite being a (more significant) constraint to the sites as a whole.

The SAR also attributes a red rating to the site in relation to ‘Highway Access and Transportation’ that suggests that the development has access constraints that cannot be viably overcome. As set out above, that is clearly inaccurate. Rather, access to the site is achievable and viably deliverable, and would also bring about limited improvements to the functionality of Bromwich Road by introducing unrestricted two-way travel. A green, or at least amber, rating should have been attributed for this criteria.

The approach taken in the SAR towards ‘opportunities’ also fails to take into account the benefits that the site’s development would deliver. Indeed, whilst the assessment of the proposed allocation sites (Site Refs. SA-0010-DUD-A, SA-0010-DUD-B, and SA-0018-DUD-C) gives a green rating by virtue of the perceived opportunity to deliver a defensible green belt boundary, that approach is not taken at SA-0016-DUD (Bromwich Lane) despite the clear benefits that the development would bring in that regard, as set out above. The opportunity to round off the built form and improve the functionality of Bromwich Lane through the delivery of unrestricted two-way travel is also overlooked. A green rating should have been attributed for this criteria therefore.

In contrast to the unjustifiably negative approach to Bromwich Lane, the BCAs appear to have come to more favourable conclusions for the proposed allocation site between Worcester Lane and the railway line (SA-0010-DUD-A, 0010-DUD-B, and 0018-DUD-C). Indeed, despite the presence of a number of Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINCs) at the site’s north, south and western boundaries, the sites are afforded an amber rating in relation to ‘biodiversity and geodiversity.’ However, it would be reasonable to expect a significant development offset from those boundaries to sensitively accommodate those designations, and as such that should arguably be ‘red.’

In addition, the sites are given only an ‘amber’ rating in relation to noise impact, despite the location of the railway line that runs adjacent to the western boundary of all parcels. To accommodate that and achieve required acoustic levels, it is reasonable to expect that a significant offset from the western boundary would be required. Given that the narrow nature of the site, it is reasonable to suggest that the requirement for an offset would “significantly limit” the development’s capacity; and that a ‘red’ rating should be attributed to all parcels.

Therefore, when making appropriate adjustments to reflect the true potential of the site, it would have performed more favourable than the sites between the railway line and Worcester Lane that are proposed to be allocated. The adjusted results for those sites in light of the above analysis are highlighted in bold, underlined and italicised below.

Implications
As such, it is clear that, had the SAR fully taken into account the site’s context and the merits of the proposed development, WDH’s site at Bromwich Lane, Pedmore (Site Ref. SA-0016-DUD) would have performed more favourably than the proposed allocation sites at Worcester Lane (SA-0010-DUD-A, SA-0010-DUD-B, and SA-0018-DUD-C), reflecting that the former is an inherently suitable development site with no insurmountable constraints.

That is not to say that the site at Worcester Lane should be removed in favour of WDH’s site at Bromwich Lane, but that Bromwich Lane should be allocated in addition to the proposed allocations to date given its inherent suitability and its more sustainable location near to Hagley Road (as correctly reflected in the SAR’s assessment of the site). Critically, the allocation of suitable sites such as Bromwich Lane, Pedmore would result in the BCAs meeting more of their housing needs within their own jurisdiction, thus reducing the amount of that need that must be exported and thus potentially may not be met.

Furthermore, the allocation of Bromwich Lane, Pedmore would be entirely in-keeping with the approach set out within the BCP of allocating those sites that would have the least impact in Green Belt and landscape terms and pursuing development opportunities that would round off the existing urban form. It would also reflect the sustainability of the settlement as a whole and as such the release of a Green Belt site in this area would be justified and appropriate, and would promote sustainable patterns of development in accordance with NPPF paragraph 142.

Thus, the allocation of Bromwich Lane would be an entirely justified and appropriate approach that should be incorporated alongside the wider significant modifications that are required to the future Regulation 19 publication (as set out in WDH’s comments to other policies).

The Proposed Scheme for Bromwich Lane, Pedmore (SA Site Assessment Reference SA-0016-DUD)
In that context, the emerging Masterplan for the site (as set out in the submitted Vision Document) provides for the delivery of c. 85 – 100 dwellings, and in doing so demonstrates how a well-designed scheme that integrates entirely with the existing built form will be delivered to provide much-needed housing in a sustainable location, with residents having direct access to, and providing support for, the range of local facilities within the settlement.

As set out above, access to the site will be provided via a new junction off Bromwich Lane, with a new footpath provided within the site along the southern edge of Bromwich Lane and a small section to the north of Bromwich Lane to connect to the existing footpath on the northern side. The opportunity to introduce unrestricted two-way movements along Bromwich Lane will also be considered by removing the west priority-controlled section of the road along Bromwich Lane.

The residential aspect of the scheme responds sensitively to surrounding uses, integrating well with the existing built form. In responding to the existing pattern of development to the west of Bromwich Lane, the existing western hedgerow and tree corridor adjacent to the site’s access will be retained and enhanced to reinforce the ‘leafy’ settlement character and filter views of the housing. Meanwhile, to respond positively to the dwellings along Hagley Road, dwellings that back onto the site’s eastern boundary incorporate generous rear gardens with enhanced buffer planting to prevent overlooking into the existing properties.

The site’s residential aspect will be designed in a perimeter block layout in order to promote activity and provide natural surveillance over streets and public spaces whilst also securing private boundaries (including the current existing exposed boundaries to the east). That built form will be served by a clear hierarchy of streets that establishes good legibility and also incorporates informal open spaces. That layout also includes a small residential square at the centre of the site, creating a focal / meeting space within the development.

To ensure that the site is well integrated into the wider landscape and reflect the leafy nature of surrounding residential areas, the residential aspect of the site will incorporate street trees and significant planting within gardens and open spaces to provide a green canopy effect to the development, within which residential properties will nestle. That planting will particularly increase at the site’s higher slopes (such as the eastern boundary) to limit any views of the development and soften the appearance of the settlement edge as it is viewed from the wider landscape.

The treatment of the site’s southern boundary also contributes to the development’s sensitive approach to landscape character. The site’s southern boundary will be reinforced through significant native tree and hedgerow planting that will offer further screening of the site from the surrounding landscape and create a clear and robust Green Belt boundary whilst rounding-off the built form. Beyond that southern boundary, the site’s south-western corner will be free of residential development to allow for the provision of attenuation features, whilst the built aspect along the southern boundary to the east will also be offset from the site’s boundary to accommodate an open space corridor. That open space corridor will also incorporate significant tree planting to provide an attractive setting for the open space, and border the proposed pedestrian link through the open space corridor that in turn links to the play space that is proposed near to the site’s southern boundary.

A further open space corridor will be provided at the site’s north-west, providing opportunities for habitat mitigation, informal recreation and also helping to assimilate the site with its surrounds. That open space area and the residential aspect adjacent to it will be well connected to the aforementioned more significant open space area to the site’s south via a footpath link that will travel along the site’s western boundary before heading towards its southern boundary. The footpath will then exit the site at its south-western corner, providing access to Bromwich Lane and Redlake Drive. That will provide a key pedestrian link towards the services and facilities available within Pedmore to the north.

As such, it is clear that a well-designed and sensitive development scheme can be delivered to maximise the potential of a suitable site in a sustainable location, in a manner that will promote the BCPs’ approach to development by focussing development to a site that will round off the built form and promote clear and have the least impact on the Green Belt and surrounding landscape. Indeed, the development of the site will establish a robust Green Belt boundary that will strengthen the integrity of the retained Green Belt.

In the context that the BCP should maximise delivery from within the jurisdiction of the BCAs so as to meet a higher proportion of their own needs, the site should clearly be allocated without delay as part of the significant modifications that should be made to the plan ahead of the publication of the Regulation 19 document.

Object

Representation ID: 21361

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Pegasus Grab Hire Ltd

Agent: Emery Planning

. Policy HOUl - Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth


3.1 Proposed Policy HOU 1 identifies housing allocations in Black Country Areas. Land at Bott Lane is identified for the delivery of 168 dwellings within allocation DUH003 and the BCP states it is likely to come forward as part of the Lye regeneration project; however, the site should be considered for other uses for the reasons discussed below and in the remainder of these representations.

3.2 Policy HOUl at paragraph 6.6 also acknowledges the fact that the allocations of occupied employment sites can have "multiple delivery constraints that typically affect such sites and that are likely to reduce delivery on a minority of sites", including poor ground conditions. Policy HOUl cannot be considered sound in regard to this site allocation.

3.3 In summary, the allocation of sites such as DUH003 for housing development is not effective. The viability of delivering housing on occupied employment sites is uncertain and the BCP acknowledges that there are constraints relating to this.

Object

Representation ID: 21436

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Bradford Estates

Agent: Savills

Draft Policy HOU1 (Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth) states that sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 47,837 dwellings (2020-2039) with the majority of the requirement to be met through sites with existing planning permission and sites allocated for housing. Below we set out our concerns regarding sites identified in the UCS which not only brings into question the reliance that should be placed on the UCS and proposed housing sites identified, but also the identified shortfall of circa 28,239 homes which we consider to be even greater.
We therefore object to draft policy HOU1 and the evidence base used to support it.

Based on the information we have gathered, a list of sites which are deemed to be undeliverable within the plan period has been compiled. Along with Savills Development colleagues (who are active in the Black Country residential land market), we have extended our review of the sites proposed in the UCR to include a view on potential development and viability issues.
From our review of the sites set out in the UCR it is estimated that around 5,000 dwellings are likely to be undeliverable for a variety of planning and deliverability. This figure could be higher should any of the existing employment sites identified for housing not come forward.
We consider that not all sites included within the draft Black Country Plan are deliverable and this juxtaposed with the housing shortfall in the Black Country clearly means that additional sites will be required to meet the Black Country’s housing need. In that regard, we consider that the housing “offers” currently proposed fall significantly short of what is needed to deliver an effective and sound strategy for meeting the Black County (and wider HMA) housing shortfall which is clearly evidenced and significantly worse than is being presented.

Object

Representation ID: 21481

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Policy HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

5.1. The Policy establishes that sufficient land is to be provided to deliver at least 47,837 net new homes over the period 2020-2039. As set out in response to Policy CSP1, it is considered that the authorities’ approach to determining this figure, is not sound, in that it does not accord with the Framework’s requirement for Plan’s to be positively prepared. The Framework requires that Plan’s should as a minimum, seek to meet the area’s objective assessed needs, which the Plan as currently drafted is not seeking to achieve. Whilst this approach may be reasonable and justified, it is not considered that sufficient justification has been provided at this stage.

5.2. As such, the scale of housing the Plan seeks to achieve is not considered appropriate, or robust, and should be reconsidered as the preparation of the Plan progresses. Given the scale of the shortfall, and the proposed reliance on neighbouring authorities to deliver housing despite a lack of formal agreement on where this is to be accommodated, it is considered that the Plan as a whole and Policy HOU1 in particular should reflect a higher level of housing to be delivered within the Plan area.

5.3. This is particularly the case in light of the opportunity to deliver housing on Land at Corbett Hospital, which has been overlooked in the draft of the Plan that has been published for consultation at this stage. The site could accommodate in the region of 100 dwellings including a range of house types and sizes and affordable housing, which would be delivered in a highly sustainable location within the urban area. These would be accommodated within a sensitively designed development, which responds to the site’s natural features including the variations in topography and existing mature trees, as well as provides substantial areas of public open space and soft landscaping.

Object

Representation ID: 21492

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Policy HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

5.1. The Policy establishes that sufficient land is to be provided to deliver at least 47,837 net new homes over the period 2020-2039. As set out in response to Policy CSP1, it is considered that the authorities’ approach to determining this figure, is not sound, in that it does not accord with the Framework’s requirement for Plan’s to be positively prepared. The Framework requires that Plan’s should as a minimum, seek to meet the area’s objective assessed needs, which the Plan as currently drafted is not seeking to achieve. Whilst this approach may be reasonable and justified, it is not considered that sufficient justification has been provided at this stage.

5.2. As such, the scale of housing the Plan seeks to achieve is not considered appropriate, or robust, and should be reconsidered as the preparation of the Plan progresses. Given the scale of the shortfall, and the proposed reliance on neighbouring authorities to deliver housing despite a lack of formal agreement on where this is to be accommodated, it is considered that the Plan as a whole and Policy HOU1 in particular should reflect a higher level of housing to be delivered within the Plan area.

5.3. This is particularly the case in light of the opportunity to deliver housing on Land at Corbett Hospital, which has been overlooked in the draft of the Plan that has been published for consultation at this stage. The site could accommodate in the region of 100 dwellings including a range of house types and sizes and affordable housing, which would be delivered in a highly sustainable location within the urban area. These would be accommodated within a sensitively designed development, which responds to the site’s natural features including the variations in topography and existing mature trees, as well as provides substantial areas of public open space and soft landscaping.

Comment

Representation ID: 21617

Received: 11/01/2022

Respondent: Pall Mall Investments

Agent: Highgate Land and Development

Policy HOU1 – ‘Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth’
Draft Policy HOU1 guides the development of residential sites across Sandwell and the other BCAs.
Limb 4 of draft Policy HOU1 states that: ‘the development of the sites for housing should demonstrate a comprehensive approach, making the best use of available land and infrastructure and not prejudging pre-existing uses’.
Draft Policy HOU1 also goes on to state that: ‘incremental development of an allocated site would
only be allowed where it would not prejudice the achievement of high-quality design and the allocation as a whole’.
Care will need to be taken to ensure that this limb of the policy does not prohibit the early release of the first phases of wider site allocations. The nature of development sites across the BCP area are often fragmented in terms of ownership, and are likely to need to come forward on a ‘phased’ basis. This will be critical to ensure that sites can be delivered over time.
Therefore, we propose that this is recognised in draft Policy HOU1 by ensuring that the first sentence is updated to include the words ‘as comprehensive approach as possible’. This will ensure that the first phases of wider allocations and CRA’s can come forward and provide a catalyst for later phases/development sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 21624

Received: 11/01/2022

Respondent: Pall Mall Investments

Agent: Highgate Land and Development

Policy HOU3: Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self-Build/Custom Build Housing
Limb 1 of draft Policy HOU3 states that development sites that have ten homes or more should, where
financially viable provide a range of tenures that will meet the accommodation needs of both existing and future residents, in line with the most recently available information.
The qualification that tenure provision should be subject to the ‘viability test’ is welcomed by my client.
Limb 2 of draft Policy HOU3 states:
‘All development of ten homes or more should provide a proportion of affordable housing, where this is financially viable. The minimum proportion of affordable housing that should be provided is:
a. On all sites in lower value zones and brownfield sites* in medium value zones: 10% affordable housing;
b. On greenfield sites* in medium values zones: 20% affordable housing;
c. On all sites in higher values zones: 30% affordable housing.’

Limb three also states that: ‘the tenure and type of affordable housing will be determined on a site by site basis, based upon amongst other things, viability considerations.’

The requirement for viability to be considered is welcomed by my client, as the nature of sites across the Black Country will mean that there are varying degrees of viability and deliverability.
This is acknowledged at Paragraph 6.27 of the justification text to the draft policy, which states
that:
‘However, viability issues can vary significantly from site to site and are often caused by poor ground conditions, the extent of which cannot be accurately assessed until planning application stage. Therefore, to maximise delivery of affordable housing over the Plan period, it is important that affordable housing is sought on all eligible sites, that viability is assessed on a site by site basis where required, and that a flexible approach is employed wherever possible to allow for changing market conditions’.

Therefore, the findings of the draft BCP evidence base in respect of viability and the supporting policy justification text suggests that in some cases, site specific circumstances will mean that the minimum percentages in the sliding scale proposed in Limb 2 of draft Policy HOU1 will need to be ‘flexed’. Limb 2 of the draft policy should therefore be updated to make this clear, be rewording it to state that: ‘the target proportion of viability of affordable housing (subject to viability) is:’.
This refinement will ensure that the findings of the Aspinall Verdi viability study, which forms part of the evidence base of the BCP, are adequately reflected in the draft policy. This will be important particularly for sites in the Higher Value Zone areas, where the
affordable requirement is 30%.

Comment

Representation ID: 21640

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Spitfire Homes

Agent: JLL

Draft Policy HOU1: Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth states that,


‘1. Sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 47,837 net new homes over the period 2020 – 2039. The key sources of housing land supply are summarised in Tables 3 and 4 and illustrated in the Housing Spatial Diagram. Housing allocations for each BCA are set out in the relevant tables of Chapter 13…’

Table 14 – Dudley Housing Allocations in the Black Country Plan (BCP Policy HOU1) notes that the site (former Sandvik offices at Manor Way in Halesowen) is allocated for housing under Ref. No. DUH066. It is noted that the site has not previously been allocated.

The indicative development capacity is noted as being 60 homes and the indicative density is listed as being 40dph. The gross and net site area is listed as 1.5 hectares. The anticipated delivery timescale to deliver 60 homes is noted as being
2024-2029. The further information states that this is a mixed-use development opportunity.


It should be noted that:
1. The correct gross site area is 2.27 hectares (5.607 acres), not 1.5 hectares as listed in the draft policy wording.
2. The correct net developable area is 1.75 hectares (4.325 acres), not 1.5 hectares as listed in the draft policy wording.

3. Based on a density of 40dph, the site could therefore deliver 70 dwellings, not 60 as listed in the draft policy wording.
4. The draft policy wording notes that the delivery timescales for residential development being 2024-2029.
However, residential development could be delivered at the site much sooner than this. It is considered that residential development could be delivered from 2022-2027.

We respectfully request that changes are made to the draft policy wording with the correct information as set out above.

Object

Representation ID: 21766

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields

3.5 As outlined in its responses to draft Policy CSP1, St Philips objects to HOU1 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.

Object

Representation ID: 21794

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 21820

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dr Osman Dervish

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

2.3. The BC authorities aspire to deliver 47,837 new homes over the course of the plan period 2020 to 2039. We welcome this as a minimum target.
2.4. We note that in Table 4, there has been a lapse rate allowance of l0% discounted to allow for some sites which may not come forward over the course of the plan. We would like to know whether this truly represents the historic lapse rate pattern, as we are aware of a substantial number of sites within Dudley Borough that have not come forward because of persistent viability problems associated with heritage, site contamination, landscape harm and other issues which include tensions between commercial/industrial land values being similar to those of residential (post-remediation). We are not clear whether this has been considered carefully enough.
2.5. Further, the BC authorities propose to 'export' 28,239 dwellings outside of its boundary- but as South Staffordshire Council have just publicised their preferred options Local Plan, it remains the case that they propose to take c.4,000 dwelling as (unmet need), but it is not clear whether this is unmet need from the GBSLEP area, or the Black Country. This needs clarification.
2.6. At 7,657 {Table 3), we consider the windfall allowance to be high - it represents around 16% of the total housing target for the plan period, which is a considerably proportion. Given the requirements of the NPPF, we consider the plan is at risk of not being 'positively prepared' given this (we feel) overreliance on unallocated housing in the emerging plan. Paragraph 7l of the NPPF sets this out clearly: 'Where an allowance is to be made for windfall sites as part of anticipated supply, there should be compelling evidence that they will provide a reliable source of supply. Any allowance should be realistic having regard to the strategic housing land
1 Based on the Dartford judgment, the site falls outside of a built up area boundary and residential garden land is therefore previously developed land in this respect.
availability assessment, historic windfall delivery rates and expected future trends. Plans should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development ofresidential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area.'

Object

Representation ID: 21821

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dr Osman Dervish

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

2.3. The BC authorities aspire to deliver 47,837 new homes over the course of the plan period 2020 to 2039. We welcome this as a minimum target.
2.4. We note that in Table 4, there has been a lapse rate allowance of l0% discounted to allow for some sites which may not come forward over the course of the plan. We would like to know whether this truly represents the historic lapse rate pattern, as we are aware of a substantial number of sites within Dudley Borough that have not come forward because of persistent viability problems associated with heritage, site contamination, landscape harm and other issues which include tensions between commercial/industrial land values being similar to those of residential (post-remediation). We are not clear whether this has been considered carefully enough.
2.5. Further, the BC authorities propose to 'export' 28,239 dwellings outside of its boundary- but as South Staffordshire Council have just publicised their preferred options Local Plan, it remains the case that they propose to take c.4,000 dwelling as (unmet need), but it is not clear whether this is unmet need from the GBSLEP area, or the Black Country. This needs clarification.
2.6. At 7,657 {Table 3), we consider the windfall allowance to be high - it represents around 16% of the total housing target for the plan period, which is a considerably proportion. Given the requirements of the NPPF, we consider the plan is at risk of not being 'positively prepared' given this (we feel) overreliance on unallocated housing in the emerging plan. Paragraph 7l of the NPPF sets this out clearly: 'Where an allowance is to be made for windfall sites as part of anticipated supply, there should be compelling evidence that they will provide a reliable source of supply. Any allowance should be realistic having regard to the strategic housing land
1 Based on the Dartford judgment, the site falls outside of a built up area boundary and residential garden land is therefore previously developed land in this respect.
availability assessment, historic windfall delivery rates and expected future trends. Plans should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development ofresidential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area.'

Object

Representation ID: 21830

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Gutteridge & Nichols

Agent: Tyler-Parkes

Site: Land to the rear of 24 and 30 Gorge Road, Sedgley, Dudley, DY3 1LA

OBJECTION to POLICY HOU1 and in particular the omission of our Client’s site for delivery of new dwellings in a highly sustainable location within the Borough.

Policy HOU1 (Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth) restates the overall housing delivery figure for the Plan Period before moving on to provide a breakdown of Housing Supply at Table 3, which includes reference to a sizeable reliance upon “Windfall” sites (small sites of less than 10 dwellings or less than 0.25 hectares).

Section 13 “Sub-Areas and Site Allocations” sets out, inter alia, proposed Housing Site allocations for the Dudley MBC administrative area. Sites listed include a number of modest sized sites (with a site capacity of 10-15no. dwellings) as well as larger more strategic sites (in excess of 500no. dwellings).

For the following reasons, we consider that our Clients’ combined site should not have been omitted, either separately or combined, from the list of Housing Sites under Policy HOU1 of the draft BDP, and we OBJECT on such grounds and our Clients seek for the site to be reconsidered and included within the Housing Allocations (under Policy HOU1).

Object

Representation ID: 21832

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mesbah Sharfait

I am a resident of Dudley and I object to yet more housing being built and reducing the green spaces that has a negative impact on the local wildlife as well as making the roads even more congested.
These green spaces are where we walk our dogs, where children play and by building even more houses, this vastly reduces these areas which are important for our wellbeing, mental and physical health.

The traffic, pollution and noise problems all this will bring to the boroughs of Dudley will create further damage to the quality of life for the residents of Dudley.
Please consider all the above before destroying more green spaces.

Support

Representation ID: 22130

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Brockmoor Properties Limited

Agent: CBRE

Policy HOU1 (Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth)
Brockmoor Properties Limited support the policy requiring 'at least' 47,837 net new homes over the plan period. The policy however, should also recognise the role of Core Regeneration Areas as locations appropriate for housing development as set out in Policy CSP2.

Support

Representation ID: 22175

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ms & Mr Jill & I Stevens & Huskisson

Number of people: 2

Agent: JVH Town Planning Consultants Ltd (rep Walton Homes Ltd)

Policy HOU1
We support the housing requirement of at least 47,837 net new homes over the period 2020 – 2039. Table 3 illustrates that the sites to be released from the Green Belt 7,720 dwellings will deliver over the plan period. Clearly smaller sites can be delivered earlier in the Plan period as they do not have the lead in time of larger sites and are an important part of the supply to make sure land is available to meet the 5 year land supply, and to provide smaller sites suitable for local and regional development companies.

Comment

Representation ID: 22186

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Druids Heath Golf Club

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policies CSP1 and HOU1 of the draft Plan provides the overarching policy guidance on housing delivery over the course of the Plan Period. Part 1.(a) of policy CSP1 states that during the course of the Plan Period “at least” 47,837 net new homes will be provided in the Black Country. However, the housing target of 47,837 dwellings will not deliver the total number of houses that are required. Table 2 – Black Country Development Strategy 2020-2039, of the draft Plan identifies a need for the development of 76,076 dwellings. The residual requirement of 28,239 dwellings will be directed to other local authority areas through the Duty to Cooperate. This approach has been adopted due to a perceived lack of suitable additional sites to allocate for development within the Black Country.

We have a number of concerns with the overall housing requirement identified in the Plan and the sources of housing land supply that have been identified to meet the target. This has consequential implications for the quantum of development that will be needed to be exported to other local authority areas unless additional allocations are made.

In the first instance, Table 2 of the draft Plan suggests that a total of 76,076 dwellings is required during the Plan Period. This is, however, less than the Standard Method housing requirement identified by the Black Country Housing Market Assessment 2021 (“BCHMA”), produced by the Black Country Authorities. At paragraph 4.13 of the BCHMA it is advised that “the final housing need in the Black Country, assessed using the revised Standard Method, is 4,019 per year”. The Plan period runs from 2020 to 2039. As such, the BCHMA concludes with a total of 76,361 dwellings is required during the course of the plan period (4,019 dpa x 19 years).

The National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”) advises at paragraph 61 that to determine the “minimum” number of homes needed strategic policies should be informed by a local housing needs assessment conducted using the Standard Method, unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach, which also reflects current and future demographic trends and market signals. The draft Plan suggests a minimum housing figure below that identified by the BCHMA, and consequently fails to meet the requirement of the Framework. That being the case, as a very minimum the overall housing requirement needs to be uplifted by 285 dwellings to be consistent with the Council’s evidenced based documents.

Paragraph 4.14 of the BCHMA advises that whilst paragraph 010 of the PPG identifies a series of circumstances where it may be appropriate to pursue a higher housing needs figure than is indicated by the Standard Method “this assessment is carried out on the basis that the Standard Method figures set out above will apply”. That being the case, the BCHMA does not test whether the minimum Standard Method housing requirement figure should be increased, in accordance with the requirements of the PPG.

Paragraph ID:2a – 010 – 20201216, of the PPG advises that there will be circumstances where it is appropriate to consider whether the actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates. This will need to be assessed prior to, and separate from, considering how much of the overall need can be accommodated (and then translated into a housing requirement figure for the strategic policies in the plan). Circumstances where this may be appropriate include, but are not limited to situations where increases in housing need are likely to exceed past trends because of:

• Growth strategies for the area that are likely to be deliverable;
• Strategic infrastructure improvements that are likely to drive an increase in the homes needed locally; or
• An authority agreeing to take on unmet need from neighbouring authorities.

We are not aware of any assessment to establish whether the minimum Standard Method housing requirement should be exceeded. It could be the case that the minimum Standard Method housing requirement is not sufficient to meet the housing needs of the Black Country.

In this regard we note that Table 5.1 of the BCHMA identifies that the percentage of people of working age in the Black Country will be less in 2039 than it is in 2020. In order to meet the emerging Plan’s economic growth aspirations it is necessary to ensure that a sufficient number of houses are provided to meet the jobs which will be created during the course of the Plan Period. An assessment should be undertaken to establish if the housing requirement needs to be uplifted to support economic growth.

In addition, the demand for affordable housing is a significant factor that should be considered in establishing the housing requirement. Paragraph 6.6 of the BCHMA advises that there is a requirement for 867 affordable properties per year in the Black Country. This is the equivalent of approximately 21.6% of the annualised housing requirement (including the proportion of the housing requirement that will be directed outside of the Plan area). It is expected that the principal way of delivering this affordable housing would be via Section 106 agreements.

Policy HOU3 – Delivering Affordable Housing, Wheelchair Accessibility and Self Build/Custom Build Housing, advises that 10% affordable housing will be sought on sites in lower value areas and brownfield sites in medium value zones. 20% affordable housing will be sought on greenfield sites and in medium value area. On all sites in higher value areas 30% affordable housing will be sought. This approach has been adopted for viability reasons. That being the case, only the sites in the higher value areas deliver more than 21.6% affordable housing.

The draft Plan does not identify what proportion of the housing requirement is expected to take place in each of these zones. However, paragraph 6.4 of the Plan advises that 81% of the housing requirement is expected to be provided on brownfield land and 19% on greenfield land. That being the case the majority of the sites will provide either 10% or 20% affordable housing. This strongly suggests that the affordable housing policy within the Plan will be incapable of delivering a sufficient quantum of affordable housing to meet their identified need.

We are not aware of any assessment that seeks to establish the relationship between the quantum of affordable housing required by the BCHMA, and the likely level of affordable housing that it is expected Policy HOU3 of the Plan will deliver. This is a key piece of evidence that is missing from the emerging Plan. An increase to the minimum housing requirement may be required to ensure that a sufficiently supply of affordable housing is provided.

Drawing these matters together, it is our view that the housing requirement within the draft Plan is not justified given that it is below the minimum Standard Method requirement, and there appears to have been no supporting work undertaken to establish if there is a requirement for an uplift to the minimum Standard Method housing target on economic or affordability grounds.

Table 3 – Black Country Housing Land Supply Indicative Phasing 2020-2039, identifies the various sources of housing land supply. We have a number of concerns with the sources of supply, including:

• Sites with Other Commitment – The sites in this category are expected to deliver 3,802 dwellings during the course of the Plan period. It is understood from the Black Country authorities SHLAAs that an “other commitment” is a site with a resolution to grant planning permission but the Section 106 has not been signed. This source of supply is discounted by 10% in order to allow for non-delivery. It is not clear from the draft Plan how the 10% discount rate has been calculated. However, it is noted that the SHLAAs (eg. Walsall SHLAA 2019 paragraph 17) advise that Other Commitments are discounted by 10% as the adopted Black Country Core Strategy (“BCCS”) applied a discount rate of 10% to commitments. It is advised that a discount rate that is based on past trends may not be an appropriate way of establishing future delivery rates. Housing delivery in the Black Country has been affected by the 2008 recession and a number of government initiatives for improving future delivery, such as help to buy and ISA for first time buyers.

Whilst this may be the case, we would also suggest that it is equally unreliable to take a discount rate from the adopted BCCS, which was published in 2011. The BCCS is in excess of ten years old, and its supporting evidence documents even older. At the very least, a past trends based analysis should be undertaken in order to see if the discount rate is robust for the Other Commitments category. Furthermore, it is not clear whether there are sites with a resolution to grant planning permission, but the S.106 has not been signed, where the resolutions are several years old. If the resolution to grant planning permission is more than 6 months old the site should not be included as a source of supply.

• Existing Housing Allocations in Strategic Centres – These sites are expected to provide 4,973 dwellings. This is excluding those sites within the Strategic Centres that already have the benefit of planning permission, a resolution to grant planning permission, or are completed. The Walsall Site Allocations Document was adopted in 2019. The Dudley Borough Development Strategy was adopted in February 2017 and other various Dudley MBC AAPs were adopted between 2011 and 2017. The Sandwell Site Allocations and Delivery DPD was adopted in December 2012. The Wolverhampton Area Action Plans were adopted between 2014 and 2016. There has, therefore, been a significant period of time for the sites allocated for development in the Strategic Centre to come forward for development. The fact that these sites have not delivered despite the benefit of a positive planning framework suggests that there may be problems with their delivery. That being the case, the 10% discount rate suggested for these sites is entirely unrealistic.

• Occupied Employment Land - Occupied employment land is expected to deliver 3,091 dwellings towards the total housing requirement. This should not be included as a source of supply. There is no guarantee if or when such sites will come forward for development. Landowner’s intentions may change during the course of the Plan period. In addition, we have frequently found that industrial values outweigh residential values in large parts of the Black Country. As a consequence, it simply may not be economic to bring sites of this nature forward for residential development.

Furthermore, there is a significant shortfall of employment land within the Black Country, and the conurbation as a whole. Whilst new employment allocations are proposed by the Plan these will be new build estates where rents will be significantly greater than second hand stock. It is unlikely that businesses that are located on the poorer quality employment sites will be able to afford to rent or buy a new premises on these sites. Secondary, and lower cost stock, plays a vital role in the West Midlands economy. Losing land of this type to residential use may result in businesses closing. We are, therefore, extremely concerned that this source of supply is not only undeliverable but could also have a detrimental effect on the supply of employment land through the Plan area. If occupied employment sites come forward for development during the course of the Plan Period they should simply be treated as part of the proposed windfall allowance.
• Green Belt sites - No discount is applied to Green Belt land release sites as it is assumed they are readily deliverable. This is inappropriate. By way of example, Birmingham City Council have removed land from the Green Belt and allocated it for development in the adopted Birmingham Development Plan (“BDP”). This site is known as the Langley Strategic Urban Extension. The Langley Strategic Urban Extension is the largest allocation within the BDP and is expected to deliver a total of 6,000 dwellings.

The BDP was adopted in January 2017. Despite the Plan now being adopted close to five years there has been no delivery from the Langley Strategic Urban Extension. Indeed, a planning application has not been submitted proposing the development of the site. Whilst Birmingham City Council initially expected the site to start to deliver housing within the first five years of the plan period this has now been discounted, and Birmingham City do not expect any delivery from this site for several years. This is a prime example that Green Belt sites can have development difficulties. The statement in paragraph 6.7 of the emerging Plan, that Green Belt sites will not generally be affected by delivery constraints, is not justified.

• Other Allocations - The “Other” allocations within the plan have a 10% discount rate applied. It is not clear how this discount rate has been calculated. However, given the significant proportion of the allocations in the draft Plan that are not Green Belt are brownfield sites they are likely to have delivery constraints. A 10% discount rate is inadequate.
• Additional Site Capacity in Strategic Centres - The sites in this category are due to be identified and allocated through subsequent Local Plans produced later into the Plan period. We are concerned that the housing figures identified for these areas are not robust, and ultimately the plan making process will find that there is not the capacity to deliver this level of development within future Local Plans. A substantial discount rates should, therefore, be applied to sites in this category.

Furthermore, as detailed in our response to policy HOU2, we are concerned that the density requirements identified are unrealistic. The emerging plan seeks to adopt a NDSS policy which will increase dwelling sizes impacting upon density. It is not unusual, in our experience, for brownfield sites within the Black Country to have constraints that adversely affect density, such as mineshafts or due to their relationship to surrounding uses. In addition, Table 5.10 of the BCHMA, advises that 54% of the housing requirement should be delivered as three or more bedroom properties, with over 25% of the properties required as four bed plus. Larger dwellings take up more space. This will drive down the density that can be achieved.

It is, therefore, our view that the density policies are over ambitious and unrealistic, and the densities suggested will not be achieved. This in turn suggests that the capacity of the allocations has been over estimated and housing delivery will need to be reduced accordingly.

In conclusion, we are concerned that the identified sources of housing land supply will be incapable of meeting the housing requirement identified by the Plan. In addition, given the housing requirement should be a minimum there is clearly a distinct advantage in erring on the side of caution, and applying robust and realistic lapse rates to the various sources of supply as if additional housing does come forward this will be of no detriment to the Plan. However, a housing delivery shortfall has the potential to be extremely problematic, causing five year housing land supply issues, the LPA’s failing the Housing Delivery Test and preventing the provision of much needed market and affordable housing within the Black Country.

Object

Representation ID: 22237

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Steve Crutchley

Policy CSP1 – Development Strategy Policy HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

Policy CSP1 – Development Strategy, of the draft Plan provides the overarching policy guidance on housing delivery during the course of the Plan Period. Part 1.(a) of the policy states that during the course of the Plan Period “at least” 47,837 net new homes will be provided in the Black Country. However, the housing target of 47,837 dwellings will not deliver the total number of houses that are required. Table 2 – Black Country Development Strategy 2020-2039, of the draft Plan identifies a need for the development of 76,076 dwellings. The residual requirement of 28,239 dwellings will be directed to other local authority areas through the Duty to Cooperate. This approach has been adopted due to a perceived lack of suitable additional sites to allocate for development within the Black Country.

We have a number of concerns with the overall housing requirement identified in the Plan and the sources of housing land supply that have been identified to meet the target. This has consequential implications for the quantum of development that will be needed to be exported to other local authority areas.

In the first instance, Table 2 of the draft Plan suggests that a total of 76,076 dwellings is required during the Plan Period. This is, however, less than the Standard Method housing requirement identified by the Black Country Housing Market Assessment 2021 (“BCHMA”), produced by the Black Country Authorities. At paragraph 4.13 of the BCHMA it is advised that “the final housing need in the Black Country, assessed using the revised Standard Method, is 4,019 per year”. The Plan period runs from 2020 to 2039. As such, the BCHMA concludes with a total of 76,361 dwellings is required during the course of the plan period (4,019 dpa x 19 years).

The National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”) advises at paragraph 61 that to determine the “minimum” number of homes needed strategic policies should be informed by a local housing needs assessment conducted using the Standard Method, unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach, which also reflects current and future demographic trends and market signals. The draft Plan suggests a minimum housing figure below that identified by the BCHMA, and consequently fails to meet the requirement of the Framework. That being the case, as a very minimum the overall housing requirement needs to be uplifted by 285 dwellings to be consistent with the Council’s evidenced based documents.

Paragraph 4.14 of the BCHMA advises that whilst paragraph 010 of the PPG identifies a series of circumstances where it may be appropriate to pursue a higher housing needs figure than is indicated by the Standard Method “this assessment is carried out on the basis that the Standard Method figures set out above will apply”. That being the case, the BCHMA does not test whether the minimum Standard Method housing requirement figure should be increased, in accordance with the requirements of the PPG.

Paragraph ID:2a – 010 – 20201216, of the PPG advises that “there will be circumstances where it is appropriate to consider whether the actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates. This will need to be assessed prior to, and separate from, considering how much of the overall need can be accommodated (and then translated into a housing requirement figure for the strategic policies in the plan). Circumstances where this may be appropriate include, but are not limited to situations where increases in housing need are likely to exceed past trends because of:

• Growth strategies for the area that are likely to be deliverable;

• Strategic infrastructure improvements that are likely to drive an increase in the homes needed locally; or

• An authority agreeing to take on unmet need from neighbouring authorities. We are not aware of any assessment to establish whether the minimum Standard Method housing requirement should be exceeded. It could be the case that the minimum Standard Method housing requirement is not sufficient to meet the housing needs of the Black Country.

In this regard we note that Table 5.1 of the BCHMA identifies that the percentage of people of working age in the Black Country will be less in 2039 than it is in 2020. In order to meet the emerging Plan’s economic growth aspirations it is necessary to ensure that a sufficient number of houses are provided to meet the jobs which will be created during the course of the Plan Period. An assessment should be undertaken to establish if the housing requirement needs to be uplifted to support economic growth.

In addition, the demand for affordable housing is a significant factor that should be considered in establishing the housing requirement. Paragraph 6.6 of the BCHMA advises that there is a requirement for 867 affordable properties per year in the Black Country. This is the equivalent of approximately 21.6% of the annualised housing requirement (including the proportion of the housing requirement that will be directed outside of the Plan area). It is expected that the principal way of delivering this affordable housing would be via Section 106 agreements.

Policy HOU3 – Delivering Affordable Housing, Wheelchair Accessibility and Self Build/Custom Build Housing, advises that 10% affordable housing will be sought on sites in lower value areas and brownfield sites in medium value zones. 20% affordable housing will be sought on greenfield sites and in medium value area. On all sites in higher value areas 30% affordable housing will be sought. This approach has been adopted for viability reasons. That being the case, only the sites in the higher value areas deliver more than 21.6% affordable housing.

The draft Plan does not identify what proportion of the housing requirement is expected to take place in each of these zones. However, paragraph 6.4 of the Plan advises that 81% of the housing requirement is expected to be provided on brownfield land and 19% on greenfield land. That being the case the majority of the sites will provide either 10% or 20% affordable housing. This strongly suggests that the affordable housing policy within the Plan will be incapable of delivering a sufficient quantum of affordable housing to meet their identified need.

We are not aware of any assessment that seeks to establish the relationship between the quantum of affordable housing required by the BCHMA, and the likely level of affordable housing that it is expected Policy HOU3 of the Plan will deliver. This is a key piece of evidence that is missing from the emerging Plan. An increase to the minimum housing requirement may be required to ensure that a sufficiently supply of affordable housing is provided.

Drawing these matters together, it is our view that the housing requirement within the plan is not justified given that it is below the minimum Standard Method requirement, and there appears to have been no supporting work undertaken to establish if there is a requirement for an uplift to the minimum Standard Method housing target on economic or affordability grounds.

Table 3 – Black Country Housing Land Supply Indicative Phasing 2020-2039, identifies the various sources of housing land supply. We have a number of concerns with the sources of supply, including:

• Sites with Other Commitment – The sites in this category are expected to deliver 3,802 dwellings during the course of the plan period. It is understood from the Black Country authorities SHLAAs that an “other commitment” is a site with a resolution to grant planning permission but the Section 106 has not been signed. This source of supply is discounted by 10% in order to allow for non-delivery. It is not clear from the draft Plan how the 10% discount rate has been calculated. However, it is noted that the SHLAAs (eg. Walsall SHLAA 2019 paragraph 17) advise that Other Commitments are discounted by 10% as the adopted Black Country Core Strategy (“BCCS”) applied a discount rate of 10% to commitments. It is advised that a discount rate that is based on past trends may not be an appropriate way of establishing future delivery rates. Housing delivery in the Black Country has been affected by the 2008 recession and a number of government initiatives for improving future delivery, such as help to buy and ISA for first time buyers.
Whilst this may be the case, we would also suggest that it is equally unreliable to take a discount rate from the adopted BCCS, which was published in 2011. The BCCS is in excess of ten years old, and its supporting evidence documents even older. At the very least, a past trends based analysis should be undertaken in order to see if the discount rate is robust for the Other Commitments category. Furthermore, it is not clear whether there are sites with a resolution to grant planning permission, but the S.106 has not been signed, where the resolutions are several years old. If the resolution to grant planning permission is more than 6 months old the site should not be included as a source of supply.

• Existing Housing Allocations in Strategic Centres – These sites are expected to provide 4,973 dwellings. This is excluding those sites within the Strategic Centres that already have the benefit of planning permission, a resolution to grant planning permission, or are completed. The Walsall Site Allocations Document was adopted in 2019. The Dudley Borough Development Strategy was adopted in February 2017 and other various Dudley MBC AAPs were adopted between 2011 and 2017. The Sandwell Site Allocations and Delivery DPD was adopted in December 2012. The Wolverhampton Area Action Plans were adopted between 2014 and 2016. There has, therefore, been a significant period of time for the sites allocated for development in the Strategic Centre to come forward for development. The fact that these sites have not delivered despite the benefit of a positive planning framework suggests that there may be problems with their delivery. That being the case, the 10% discount rate suggested for these sites is entirely unrealistic.

• Occupied Employment Land - Occupied employment land is expected to deliver 3,091 dwellings towards the total housing requirement. This should not be included as a source of supply. There is no guarantee if or when such sites will come forward for development. Landowner’s intentions may change during the course of the Plan period. In addition, we have frequently found that industrial values outweigh residential values in large parts of the Black Country. As a consequence, it simply may not be economic to bring sites of this nature forward for residential development.

Furthermore, there is a significant shortfall of employment land within the Black Country, and the conurbation as a whole. Whilst new employment allocations are proposed by the Plan these will be new build estates where rents will be significantly greater than second hand stock. It is unlikely that businesses that are located on the poorer quality employment sites will be able to afford to rent or buy a new premises on these sites. Secondary, and lower cost stock, plays a vital role in the West Midlands economy. Losing land of this type to residential use may result in businesses closing. We are, therefore, extremely concerned that this source of supply is not only undeliverable but could also have a detrimental effect on the supply of employment land through the Plan area. If occupied employment sites come forward for development during the course of the Plan Period they should simply be treated as part of the proposed windfall allowance.

• Green Belt sites - No discount is applied to Green Belt land release sites as it is assumed they are readily deliverable. This is inappropriate. By way of example, Birmingham City Council have removed land from the Green Belt and allocated it for development in the adopted Birmingham Development Plan (“BDP”). This site is known as the Langley Strategic Urban Extension. The Langley Strategic Urban Extension is the largest allocation within the BDP and is expected to deliver a total of 6,000 dwellings.

The BDP was adopted in January 2017. Despite the Plan now being adopted close to four years there has been no delivery from the Langley Strategic Urban Extension. Indeed, a planning application has not been submitted proposing the development of the site. Whilst Birmingham City Council initially expected the site to start to deliver housing within the first five years of the plan period this has now been discounted, and Birmingham City do not expect any delivery from this site for several years. This is a prime example that Green Belt sites can have development difficulties. The statement in paragraph 6.7 of the emerging Plan, that Green Belt sites will not generally be affected by delivery constraints, is not justified.

• Other Allocations - The “Other” allocations within the plan have a 10% discount rate applied. It is not clear how this discount rate has been calculated. However, given the significant proportion of the allocations in the draft Plan that are not Green Belt are brownfield sites they are likely to have delivery constraints. A 10% discount rate is inadequate.

• Additional Site Capacity in Strategic Centres - The sites in this category are due to be identified and allocated through subsequent Local Plans produced later into the Plan period. We are concerned that the housing figures identified for these areas are not robust, and ultimately the plan making process will find that there is not the capacity to deliver this level of development within future Local Plans. A substantial discount rates should, therefore, be applied to sites in this category.

Furthermore, as detailed in our response to policy HOU2, we are concerned that the density requirements identified are unrealistic. The emerging plan seeks to adopt a NDSS policy which will increase dwelling sizes impacting upon density. It is not unusual, in our experience, for brownfield sites within the Black Country to have constraints that adversely affect density, such as mineshafts or due to their relationship to surrounding uses. In addition, Table 5.10 of the BCHMA, advises that 54% of the housing requirement should be delivered as three or more bedroom properties, with over 25% of the properties required as four bed plus. Larger dwellings take up more space. This will drive down the density that can be achieved.

It is, therefore, our view that the density policies are over ambitious and unrealistic, and the densities suggested will not be achieved. This in turn suggests that the capacity of the allocations has been over estimated and housing delivery will be reduced accordingly.

In conclusion, we are concerned that the identified sources of supply will be incapable of meeting the housing requirement identified by the Plan. In addition, given the housing requirement should be a minimum there is clearly a distinct advantage in erring on the side of caution, and applying robust and realistic lapse rates to the various sources of supply as if additional housing does come forward this will be of no detriment to the Plan. However, a housing delivery shortfall has the potential to be extremely problematic, causing five year housing land supply issues, the LPA’s failing the Housing Delivery Test and preventing the provision of much needed market and affordable housing within the Black Country.

Comment

Representation ID: 22275

Received: 21/01/2022

Respondent: Miss Jodi Stokes

6.0 HOUSING

Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

6.1 Draft Policy HOU1 (Delivering Sutstainable Housing Growth) sets out that sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 47,837 net new homes over the period 2020 – 2039. Part 2 of draft Policy HOU1 states that “the majority of the requirement will be met through sites with existing planning permission and sites allocated for housing by this Plan and other local plan documents. Additional housing supply will also be secured on windfall sites throughout the Black Country urban area and through the update of local Plans covering the Strategic Centres, where appropriate. The estimated net effect of housing renewal up to 2039 will be reviewed annually and taken into account in the calculation of housing land supply”. This draft policy and supporting text establish a housing requirement figure for the whole area, and shows the extent to which their identified housing need (and any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas) can be met over the plan period, as per the requirement of paragraph 66 of the NPPF. The draft supporting text also sets out a housing requirement for each authority and neighbourhood, which reflects the overall strategy for the pattern and scale of development and the relevant allocations.

6.2 The Black Country Authorities recognise that this will deliver a 10% increase in housing stock and will accommodate 63% of current local housing need up to 2039 (76,076 homes) within the Black Country. The total local housing need figure of 76,076 homes within the plan period is based on the standard method, paragraph 61 of the NPPF is clear that this is a minimum number of homes needed. The PPG is clear that “the standard method set out below identifies a minimum annual housing need figure” and that this “does not produce a housing requirement figure” (Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 2a002-20190220). The PPG also states that “the government is committed to ensuring that more homes are built and supports ambitious authorities who want to plan for growth. The standard method for assessing local housing need provides a minimum starting point in determining the number of homes needed in an area. It does not attempt to predict the impact that future government policies, changing economic circumstances or other factors might have on demographic behaviour. Therefore, there will be circumstances where it is appropriate to consider whether actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates” (Paragraph: 010 Reference ID: 2a-010-20201216)

6.3 Authorities are encouraged to make as much use as possible of previously developed or brownfield land, and therefore cities and urban centres, not only those subject to the cities and urban centres uplift may strive to plan for more home. 81% of the supply of homes within the Black Country will be provided on brownfield land with only 19% of supply to be provided on greenfield land. With the known difficulties associated with delivering homes on brownfield sites, it may be appropriate to consider a higher housing need figure to allow for delays or non-delivery of these brownfield sites.

6.4 In addition, the reliance of brownfield sites for the supply of new homes and the costs associated with the delivery of these sites may also have a detrimental impact on the number of affordable housing within the plan period. The housing need figure should consider affordability and it might be appropriate to have a higher figure to ensure that an adequate level of affordable housing (as set out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment) will still be provided.

Object

Representation ID: 22297

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Investin PLC

Agent: Lichfields

3.5 As outlined in its responses to draft Policy CSP1, Investin objects to HOU1 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.

Support

Representation ID: 22373

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: ROSCONN STRATEGIC LAND

Policy HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth sets out minimum targets for future housing growth by each BCA up to 2039. RSL fully support this approach and acknowledge the important statement at Paragraph 6.4 which recognises that in the context of the Plan area and nature of its housing land supply, it is essential that a balanced range of sites is provided in terms of size, location and market attractiveness, as this will help maximise housing delivery over the Plan period.

Whilst RSL concur that it is useful for Tables 3 and 4 to provide details of the likely housing land supply components and their associated indicative phasing over the Plan period, all of which have been informed by reasonable assumptions, it is critical to ensuring a constant supply of housing is delivered throughout the Plan period that these targets are indicative as this provides sufficient flexibility, particularly in view of the nature of a large proportion of the supply within the urban area which typically suffers from multiple delivery constraints. Realistic assumptions and ensuring a portfolio of sites are allocated will be essential in ensuring a steady supply of land for housing is brought forward from the outset following adoption of the BCP to ensure the housing trajectory remains on target. As detailed within Appendix 17 of the BCP, even based on delivering only 63% of the Plan area’s housing need, annual housing delivery will need to achieve a significant uplift from that which has been achieved in recent years.

It is noted that at paragraph 6.12, some respondents at the Issues and Options stage suggested that a sequential approach that prioritised sites in the urban area should be adopted. Conversely, it is also acknowledged that given the scale of housing need within the Black Country, phasing of sites outside the urban area might not be possible. RSL support the approach taken in the BCP of only providing indicative phasing and minimum targets which has been fully informed by a detailed analysis of individual sites. Any form of restriction on the delivery of housing sites is more than likely to have the effect of significantly reducing the scale of housing delivery, particularly in the early years of the Plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 22387

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Inland Waterways Association Lichfield

Policy HOU1 - Site SAH226 - Land to north of Painswick Close substation, Sandwell

This site is an important area of countryside alongside the Rushall Canal. It is part of the West Midlands Green Belt which serves to check the sprawl of built-up areas, to encourage the regeneration of urban land, and to safeguard the countryside. Its proposed removal from the Green Belt would undermine those purposes and damage the setting and economy of the canal. Therefore, IWA objects in principle to its allocation for development. However, if exceptional circumstances can be proven then it is important that the adverse impact of development on the canal is limited and mitigated by sensitive layout, design and landscaping.
The Rushall Canal is a historic waterway and a valuable amenity and recreational corridor, providing leisure boating, walking, angling, cycling and nature conservation benefits to the area. It is part of the national waterway system which attracts millions of visits each year from local people and holidaymakers from home and abroad, and is a major component of the nation’s tourism industry.
The rural environment of the canals plays a vital role in attracting and sustaining the recreation and tourism use of the whole canal system, which contributes to the visitor economy and helps support local businesses. The income from boating activities provides a major part of the funding necessary for the Canal & River Trust to maintain the canals for public use and enjoyment.
Although much of the canal network in the Black Country is urban or suburban in character, the northern parts of the system in Walsall in particular include several attractive countryside sections. Because of their limited extent, these are of particular value to sustaining tourism as well as an important amenity for nearby residents.
However, major built developments in the countryside adjacent to the canal system destroy the rural setting that contributes to their heritage interest, wildlife, amenity value and recreational use. Visually intrusive built development alongside the canals damages their tourism potential and economic benefits.
The Rushall Canal currently enjoys a pleasant open rural outlook across this site that enhances its attractiveness for recreational use. The canal towpath is open to the public and provides an accessible footpath. However, the attractive countryside setting of this section of the canal will be largely lost by this proposed allocation. Whilst the canal corridor will provide an amenity for the new residents, its overall value to the local community and the visitor economy would be diminished if the development is visually intrusive.
It is therefore important that the visual impact of the development on the canal is limited by sensitive design, layout and landscaping of the site. The site includes a Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINC) which the canal contributes to. This should be preserved and enhanced by setting back the built development behind a broad buffer zone alongside the canal with only limited built development forming a corridor of open amenity land to help preserve and enhance the canal environment. This corridor could encompass Public Open Space, parkland, woodland, wildflower meadows, sports fields, children’s play areas or informal recreation space.
This will be in line with the aspirations of Policy ENV7 – Canals, that development affecting the canal network should (1) “deliver a high quality environment”, (2e) “protect and enhance its visual amenity, key views and settings”, (3a) “enhance and promote its role in providing opportunities for leisure, recreation and tourism activities”, and (3d) “positively relate to the waterway by promoting high quality design, including providing active frontages onto the canal and by improving the public realm”.
The comments in Table 22 (page 446) recognise the Rushall Canal as the greatest asset of this site, but the suggestion that heights of buildings overlooking the canal should be raised is fundamentally misguided. This may provide a few residents with better views, but at the expense of a more visually intrusive development as seen from the canal by its many users.

Support

Representation ID: 22399

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: CT Planning

Support the proposal at Policy HOU1 (Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth) to provide land to
deliver some 47,837 new homes over the period 2020-2039.

Comment

Representation ID: 22404

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
2.4. The BC authorities aspire to deliver 47,837 new homes over the course of the plan period 2020 to
2039. We welcome this as a minimum target.
2.5. We note that in Table 4, there has been a lapse rate allowance of 10% discounted to allow for
some sites which may not come forward over the course of the plan. We would like to know
whether this truly represents the historic lapse rate pattern, as we are aware of a substantial
number of sites within Walsall Borough that have not come forward because of persistent
viability problems associated with heritage, site contamination and other issues which include
tensions between commercial/industrial land values being similar to those of residential (post-
remediation). We are not clear whether this has been considered carefully enough.
2.6. Further, the BC authorities propose to ‘export’ 28,239 dwellings outside of its boundary – but as
South Staffordshire Council have just publicised their preferred options Local Plan, it remains the
case that they propose to take c.4,000 dwelling as (unmet need), but it is not clear whether this is
unmet need from the GBSLEP area, or the Black Country. This needs clarification.

2.7. At 7,657 (Table 3), we consider the windfall allowance to be high – it represents around 16% of the
total housing target for the plan period, which is a considerably proportion. Given the
requirements of the NPPF, we consider the plan is at risk of not being ‘positively prepared’ given
this (we feel) overreliance on unallocated housing in the emerging plan. Paragraph 71 of the
NPPF sets this out clearly: ‘Where an allowance is to be made for windfall sites as part of
anticipated supply, there should be compelling evidence that they will provide a reliable source
of supply. Any allowance should be realistic having regard to the strategic housing land
availability assessment, historic windfall delivery rates and expected future trends. Plans should
consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential
gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area.’