Policy HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

Object

Representation ID: 22407

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.

Support

Representation ID: 22440

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: First City Limited

1.0 Introduction & Preliminary Matters

1.1 The Black Country Plan (formerly known as the Black Country Core Strategy) is a plan
prepared by the four Black Country authorities (Walsall, Dudley, Sandwell, and
Wolverhampton) to identify and allocate for development sufficient land for housing
and employment needs for the next 15 years.
1.2 Government requires a review of all land use plans every five years. The current Core
Strategy was adopted in 2011. It is currently projected that the Black Country Plan will
be adopted during 2023 and will allocate sufficient land to meet housing needs for 15
years or until 2039.
1.3 During 2018, Government introduced a standard calculation for working out how many
new homes are required. Using this method, the Black Country had a need for 3,761
new homes each year or 71,459 homes in total over the Black Country period from
2020 – 2039.
1.4 In our view even allowing for the number of houses that can be accommodated on
brownfield land in Walsall and taking this number of the total number of houses
required there is still a gap which will require Walsall Council to allocate land in the
Green Belt.

Support

Representation ID: 22493

Received: 24/01/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Avison Young

Paragraphs 3.49-3.50 Supports the policy requirements for affordable housing and the recognition that the tenure and type of affordable dwelling would vary according to the market.

Comment

Representation ID: 22502

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes West Midlands

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

Policy HOU1 - Development Strategy


As drafted the BCP raises some very serious concerns over its inability to meet the minimum housing needs of the Black Country over the Plan period, and by some considerable margin. The Plan does not properly address the scale of unmet need it has identified and relies too heavily on neighbouring authorities to deliver its unmet needs. In doing so it fails to address in any tangible way how the homes needed in the Black Country during the BCP period can ever be delivered and fails to meet the tests of soundness set out in the Framework.

Even those sites that are relied upon in the draft BCP, as set out in its Table 3, are unlikely to deliver even the 47,837 net new homes it anticipates over the Plan period, such that the
true extent of unmet need within the BCA areas is likely to be significantly greater than the already substantial 28,239 homes it acknowledges.

In this respect, Paragraph 61 points directly to the "positively prepared" test of soundness (in particular) as set out at Paragraph 35 of the Framework. Plans are "positively prepared" if they provide a strategy which "as a minimum, seeks to meet the area's objectively
assessed needs1; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development" (our emphasis underlined).




1 Footnote 21 of the Framework sets out that "where this relates to housing, such needs should be assessed using a clear and justified method, as set out in paragraph 61 of this Framework".


2
planningprospects
planning and development consultancy


Policy HOUl of the draft BCP sets out that sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least
47,837 net new homes over the period 2020 - 2039. In its justification to Policy HOUl the draft BCP sets out that this will deliver a 10% increase in housing stock but confirms that will accommodate only 63% of current Local Housing Need up to 2039 within the Black Country, noting the Local Housing Need (LHN), or the minimum number of homes needed, in the Black Country over the BCP plan period is 76,076 homes when calculated following the
PPG's Standard Method2• The draft BCP (paragraph 3.21 for example) recognises that this amounts to a shortfall of 28,239 homes, or in other words 37% of the minimum number of homes needed in the Black Country will not be delivered by the Black Country Authorities
{BCA) between 2020 and 2039.


The BCP sets out that the BCA are asking their neighbouring authorities to work with them to meet this substantial shortfall under the "Duty to Cooperate" {DTC). The draft BCP refers to the current position being set out in the Draft Plan Statement of Consultation which will be elaborated on at Publication stage.

The Statement of Consultation sets out that those neighbouring authorities being relied on by the BCA include South Staffordshire, Lichfield, Cannock Chase, Shropshire and Telford & Wrekin and indicates that currently there have been offers from those authorities amounting to between 8,000 and 9,500 homes. This approach will not, by some margin, deliver the minimum number of homes currently needed in the Black Country over the BCP period. There is no explanation in the plan as to how the sizeable shortfall, or the homes that are needed in the Black Country over the BCP period, will be made up merely that "the engagement will extend beyond the adoption of this plan and will build on the partnership approach developed across the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area to address the combined housing shortfalls of the Birmingham and Black Country Authorities in particular". In essence, the draft BCP appears to be suggesting that its very significant unmet housing need will be dealt with at some point in the future as part of an already significant regional scale strategic challenge, without any clear or specific indication
of exactly how that will be achieved, or what guarantees or fallback mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that the Black Country's housing needs will be met.

This approach has not been successful in the Region previously as the West Midlands has struggled to meet the unmet needs of Birmingham for a number of years, following the adoption of the Birmingham Development Plan {2011 to 2031) in January 2017 with its stated housing shortfall of circa 37,900 homes. Indeed, the Black Country Authorities are relying on some of the same authorities that Birmingham City Council was relying upon to meet their unmet need including South Staffordshire and Lichfield for example. This unmet need is only likely to increase post 2031 as Birmingham grapples with an increased requirement for housing under the new Standard Methodology, a period commensurate with the latter part of the BCP period.

In essence the BCP need to;






2 Calculated in the Black Country Housing Market Assessment: Final Report (March 2021)


3
planningprospects
planning and development consultancy


• More clearly address its inability to meet the minimum identified housing needs of the BCA over the Plan period

• Reconsider its over reliance on neighbouring GBBCHMA authorities to address its needs.

The net plan requirement is exacerbated even by a cursory review of the component sources of housing land supply, not least the following;

Increasing Housing Density- whilst some additional supply will be achieved through increasing density, this must be balanced with market demands. Whilst some sites could achieve a slightly higher density where market evidence supports this and still makes the site deliverable, it will not be suitable for all sites. Even then, increasing development densities on existing BCCS allocation sites will result in minimal increases to the Black Country's housing supply over the Plan period.

Converting Employment Land to Residential Use - It is clear that there are numerous challenges associated with bringing housing development forward on employment sites and a number of those relied upon in the BCCS have been removed as they are not suitable or developable for housing. Despite this, Table 3 nonetheless indicates that 3,091 homes (6.5% of the total anticipated supply) are still anticipated from occupied employment sites, even with the 15% discount - raising questions as to whether these sites in the anticipated housing supply are truly suitable or developable for residential use and also why these sites are being lost for employment use when the BCA have such a significant shortfall in employment land supply and cannot meet their identified employment needs to the tune of
211 ha of land.


Windfall - The draft BCP's anticipated supply also includes a sizeable windfall allowance of
8,463 homes (or 17.3% of the total anticipated supply). The Policy justification sets out that this allowance is robust as it "reflects historic completion rates for sites of less than ten homes". Paragraph 71 of the Framework says Local Planning Authorities may make an allowance for windfall sites if they have compelling evidence that such sites will provide a reliable source of supply and any allowance should be realistic having regard to the strategic housing land availability assessment, historic windfall delivery rates and expected future trends (our emphasis underlined). The BCA's reliance on historic completion rates only suggests that its windfall allowance is not supported by compelling evidence that such sites will continue to provide a reliable source of supply as required by the Framework.

Demolitions - The total net housing supply identified in Table 3 (amounting to the 47,837 net new homes referenced in Policy HOU1) is derived from a gross figure of 48,908 homes and deducting 323 homes from "Dudley Estimated Housing Renewal Demolitions" and 748 homes from "Small-scale demolition windfalls". The Urban Capacity Review Update (May
2021), however, sets out that Dudley's 10 Year Asset Management Strategy (October 2018) identified around 2,500 homes (some 12% of the Council's stock) considered not viable and red-flagged for review for strategic investment, de-investment or demolition.

Comment

Representation ID: 22560

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: DNA Investment Holdings Ltd

Agent: Lavata Group Ltd

Policy HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

We are in support of the delivery of at least 47,837 dwellings across the Black Country through housing allocations and existing planning permissions.
We note that Table 4 has no housing allocations on Occupied Employment Land in Walsall at all despite all other authorities having some allocations. Also, in Table 4 there are no additional supply/site capacity in the strategic centre of Walsall. It states that this additional capacity is to be allocated in Local Plans which we assume means the relevant AAPs (please refer to comments made on Policy CSP2).
The adopted Walsall Town Centre AAP is predicated on the existing BCCS and does not therefore provide the sound basis for securing housing growth in the period to 2039 – i.e. it does not align now with the new BCP plan period and will need to be updated.
The site has not been submitted as part of the Call for Sites consultation period; however, it has also not been carried over as site for housing development despite it being allocated as suitable for employment land release in the Walsall Town Centre Area Action Plan (AAP) which is Appendix B of the current adopted BCCS. As set out above, it is not clear why this is the case, and whether Walsall attempted to revisit the sites in the AAP to check their status and ability to be carried forward.
We note that paragraph 6.6 of the Consultation Draft refers to the fact that the housing supply from allocations on occupied employment land has been discounted by 15% to take into account of the multiple delivery constraints that typically affect such sites and that are likely to reduce the delivery on a minority of sites. As a general approach, discounting can work but there is, in the case of major opportunities in town / strategic centres a realistic case to reduce the discount (especially as our Site already has an allocation for release via the AAP).
Paragraph 6.8 states that the Plan is not making or reviewing allocations within Strategic Centres, we assume as a result of the Urban Capacity Review 2021 conclusions about the ability of employment sites to come forward in the Plan Period. It goes on to say, “Existing allocations will be reviewed, and new allocations made in line with these targets when Local Plan documents covering Strategic Centres are updated, alongside or immediately following adoption of the BCP.” There is no clear route to update the AAP so no certainty as to if / when the allocation of housing land in Walsall Town Centre will be updated. The AAP will be out of sync with the new BCP potentially for many years (given how long it took to get the current AAP adopted).

This delay in updating the AAPs is not acceptable in light of the fact the DBCP is intending to release Green Belt land and the NPPF position concerning long-term review and release of GB through Local Plan process leading to long-term settled boundaries) and also asking other local authorities to accept their unmet housing and employment needs.
These representations have been made with regards in making it clear that the Site is available for housing development now, it can be allocated as part of the DBCP and the only constraints on the delivery of the Site will be the balanced placed on the level of impact on the historic environment verses the public benefits/good. Comments on draft Policy ENV5 are provide separately.

Comment

Representation ID: 22629

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: National Highways

Meeting the Housing Need:
The BLP commits to the delivery of 47,837 new homes over the course of the plan.
However, the Black Country Authorities have evidenced a significant shortfall through its
2019 Urban Capacity Review Update of up to 29,260 between 2019 and 2038. It is
anticipated that housing shortfall will be delivered by neighbouring authorities.
At present, based on our review National Highways cannot establish whether the level of
housing growth can be accommodated on the SRN as the transport evidence base or
strategic transport assessment which support the plan have been provided.
We therefore request the provision of the transport evidence base, strategic transport
assessment and any supporting modelling to be provided. This will enable us to undertake
a full and robust assessment of the proposals and understand the impact on the safe and
efficient operation of the SRN.

Comment

Representation ID: 23060

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Savills

Policy HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
Point 1(a) states that the plan will deliver at least 47,837 dwellings. We understand that all of the BC housing needs may not be able to be delivered within the plan area, however we consider that there is capacity for the plan area can accommodate additional growth through further Green Belt release to reduce the amount of dwellings that need to be accommodated by the HMA. The Duty to Cooperate Statement (July 2021) states that discussions to date have identified that circa 14,750 dwellings could be accommodated by adjacent authorities. Although we acknowledge that there could be capacity to increase this figure, this still leaves a significant shortfall (circa 14,000 dwellings). We support the proposed allocation of WSA9 and consider that there are exceptional circumstances that justify the release of the Green Belt sites in the plan.
In addition to the BC housing need and shortfall there is a wider HMA shortfall which has yet to be confirmed. Although the Draft BCP has not gone into detail at this stage on the wider HMA position. The HMA authorities have published three position statements to support their local plan reviews. The most recent statement was published in September 2020 (‘PS3’) and states that the 37,900 dwelling shortfall (from Birmingham’s housing shortfall not including the BCA shortfall) has decreased to just 2,597 dwellings. PS3 is now being relied upon by the HMA authorities to support their local plan reviews. We do not consider that this approach is sound given that:
- The PS3 only covers the plan period up to 2031 when the local plan reviews, including the BCA plan, are working beyond this period;
- The PS3 does not acknowledge the fundamental changes in the calculation of housing need since the adoption of the Birmingham Development Plan when the 37,900 dwelling shortfall was confirmed which has seen the Birmingham and Wolverhampton minimum housing need increase by 35%;
- The PS3 does not reflect the standard method housing figures and has no regard to other situations where the housing requirement should be higher than the standard method e.g. economic ambitions and affordable housing need;
- The PS3 has over-estimated housing land supply particularly in regards to strategic allocations in Birmingham (Langley site) and Stratford-on-Avon (Long Marston Airfield site).
- The 37,900 dwelling figure quoted in the PS3 also does not consider the BCA shortfall or any shortfall associated with Birmingham with the 35% uplift, and
- The data used to support the findings of PS3 has neither been made readily available nor tested at an Examination yet.
In light of the above, we consider that the HMA housing shortfall is greater than is currently being suggested by the HMA authorities. The NPPF states that in order to be ‘effective’ a plan should deal with cross-boundary strategic matters rather than deferring them to the next plan period (paragraph 35). Therefore, given the BCA has determined that Green Belt release is already required to meet current housing needs (which we consider is significantly lower than it should be), it is accordingly expected that additional Green Belt release could be required to meet the development needs of the District within and beyond the plan period.
St Phillips have worked collaboratively with Taylor Wimpey (adjacent landowner to the south) to produce a combined masterplan to show the potential for community infrastructure delivery across a wider strategic development site, including the land to the west of Site WSA9 (Illustrative Masterplan attached with this submission). This site has the potential to deliver circa 800 dwellings, land for a new school, local centre/health facility and significant public open space including a country park. This wider proposal may also be of a scale that could support a new/improved bus service on Chester Road which would enhance the sustainability credentials of the existing settlement. The scale of the combined proposals gives rise to a more comprehensive opportunity than the constrained and fragmented proposition contained in the draft plan at present and would allow for the inclusion of significant community infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 23078

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

4.1 - 4.5 The existing allocations in the Strategic Centres should be reviewed and findings fed into a revised land supply position and housing trajectory. More pressing need to release Green Belt than is being suggested in the dBCP.

Object

Representation ID: 23081

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Bromsgrove District Council

Policy HOU1 and CSP3
7. Sites DUH206, DUH207 and DUH209 are being proposed to be taken out of the green belt and allocated for development of 115 houses. This has been done irrespective of the fact that (DUH209) was rated as causing very high harm to the GB, and all three sites are found to be within an Area of High Historic Landscape Value. This development is in close proximity to the settlement of Hagley which is within Bromsgrove District. Table 14 indicates that policy CSP3 provides further information regarding these allocations. CSP3 provide little detail on how it is expected that this site will be developed, it not clear how these allocations relate to the requirements of CSP3. BDC is aware that there is a significant policy base by which this allocation will be determined should a planning application be submitted, subject to the site being allocated.
8.BDC has also reviewed the site assessment work (Appendix A pages 96-107) accompanying these three sites, and would wish to understand the full impact on the infrastructure in the surrounding area, before forming a view on the suitability of these sites for allocation.
9.It is noted that the sites have been ranked as follows with the following comments in relation highways access and transportation and impact on the wider road network.
Site Known as Highways access and transportation Impact on the wider road network
RAG Rating RAG Rating
SA-0010- DUD-A / DUH206 Worcester Lane North , Green , Access via Worcester Lane, Green Potential junction improvement Racecourse Lane / Worcester Lane to North. To south Park Rd/ Worcester Rd
SA- 0010- DUD-B / DUH207 Worcester Lane Central, Green Access via Worcester Lane, potential mitigation junction improvement Racecourse Lane / Worcester Lane to North, To south Park Rd/ Worcester Rd Green Further information would be required to assess this
SA- 0018- DUD-C / DUH209 Worcester Lane South, Green Access via Worcester Lane. Loss of hedgerow should be kept to a minimum. Green If developed with call for sites site to north (SA-0010-DUD A and B) potential junction improvements Racecourse Lane/Worcester Lane to the north and to the south Park Rd/ Worcester Rd.




10. For these sites to be ranked green, it is a requirement of the published methodology that they have for:
• highway access and transportation - No / negligible access constraint (Site Assessment Report – page 23)
• impact on the wider network - No / negligible impact (Site Assessment Report – page 24)
11. There is inconsistency in the narrative which accompanies these site assessments:
• Does the mitigation at the junctions north and south of the sites get assessed under the highways access and transportation section, or impact on the wider transport network section? At the moment this is not clear or consistent.
• Irrespective of the point above, for a potential mitigation scheme to be identified, that would suggest that there is some form impact under either of the categories which is more than negligible, and therefore an amber rating would be more suitable.
• For site DUH207/SA-0010-DUD-B it appears no assessment has been carried out of the impact of the wider network and still the site is ranked green, it is concerning that
this ranking can be determined without any assessment taking place.
12. BDC would suggest this assessment is re-run and the outcomes shared with BDC and other interested parties prior to the publication of the next stage of plan making.
13. Other elements of the infrastructure assessment also require clarification, the assessment of: Primary schools, Secondary Schools, GP/Health Centre/Walk in Centre, Strategic Centre/Employment areas, and Centre/Foodstore all refer to walk times which are achieved ‘following any viable mitigation’. BDC would like clarification on what this mitigation is and that it is in fact viable. Unviable mitigation is not considered to be appropriate mitigation.
14. These comments are officer only comments at this stage, BDC members will be considering the formal response at committee meetings following the deadline for submission of comments, should any additional comments be required officers will submit them following these meetings.
15. Bromsgrove District Council remains committed to successful plan making and will continue to engage with the BCA under the Duty to Cooperate. Upon receipt of these and any additional comments, officers will be happy to meet with BCA representatives to discuss all the points raised in further detail. less

Comment

Representation ID: 23084

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Worcester Lane Resident's Group

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

On behalf of the Worcester Lane Resident’s Group, we are instructed to make a representation to the above plan. The concern of the group relates largely to sites DUH206, DUH207 and DUH209 which are proposed for a cumulative total of around 115 new homes during the next plan period:
Firstly, the residents do accept the need to plan for new housing over the course of the next plan period and that growth opportunities within the Borough are limited as many brownfield sites have already been redeveloped or viability remains a constraint.

Comment

Representation ID: 23148

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Black Country UNESCO Global Geopark Partnership

Agent: Black Country UNESCO Global Geopark Partnership

Whilst this section is inevitably strongly biased towards growing population driving target numbers of new homes and improved design/refurbishment of homes etc, we feel it is important to also emphasize quality, connectivity to landscape, natural and cultural heritage and environment here too within the plan. Such things offer considerable added value to such developments and In the context of the Geopark, new development often offer potential benefits for the connection of residents to the special features of their local area, the encouragement of healthier and happier lifestyles and the enhancement and maintenance of greenspaces and local distinctive features of their surrounding landscapes. The proximity of educational greenspace in connection with residential areas with schools and colleges is also understated in the plan at present. Connectivity to walking and cycling routes is alluded to in paragraph 6.16 and in policy HOU5 but wider connectivity to the landscape around by cross referencing with ENV policies would be a very useful addition to this section.

Comment

Representation ID: 23193

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Bloor Homes Midlands

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

5.1. It is clear that the overwhelming housing need in the Black Country has resulted in the need to ensure the best use of land, but it is our opinion that the housing numbers proposed on a number of the allocated sites are unrealistic even considering the discounts applied to these sites as described in the justification to Policy HOU1.

Object

Representation ID: 23204

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Francesca Jarvis-Rouse

The over all plans use a significant amount of land for housing further limiting wildlife and access for local communities to green spaces. In this climate emergency all effort should be focused on low carbon housing and increasing green spaces for the benefit of all life.

Also some of the land suggested would further fragment the habitat for wildlife that is already very limited

Object

Representation ID: 23215

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Heyfield Development

Agent: Harris Lamb

Housing Supply

We also have a number of concerns with the deliverability of various sources of the housing demand supply identified by the Plan. Table 3 – Black Country Housing Land Supply Indicative Phasing 2020-2039, identifies the various sources of housing land supply. We have 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 plan period. It is understood from the BCAs 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 (e.g. 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.

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 trend-based analysis should be undertaken in order to see if the discount rate is robust for the Other Commitments category. There is insufficient information available to determine whether the discount rate suggested is robust.




Furthermore, the age of these resolutions is not clear. It is our view that is 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 excludes 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. In most cases there has been a significant period for the sites allocated for development in the Strategic Centre to come forward for development, particularly at a time when multiple housebuilders have been actively searching for any potentially deliverable site searching due to a severe lack of supply. In this context, the fact that these sites have not delivered 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 Plan Period. In addition, we have frequently reviewed such sites that have been allocated in the aforementionedDevelopment Plan Documents with the site owners and/or housebuilders look for sites. In doing so, we have found that industrial values outweigh residential values in large parts of the Black Country. Furthermore, even if land values are similar or slightly exceed the employment values, owner occupiers have no incentive to move because there are no alternative units to move to or the cost of a new unit outweighs the land receipt, whilst landlords will lose their income. Consequently, it simply may not be economic to bring a site forward for residential development and/or an attractive proposition for the owner.

This has already been proven through the adopted development plan, where most of the allocated sites have remained in employment use.


It is also pertinent to note that there is a significant shortfall of employment land within the Black Country, and across the conurbation. 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. 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 could also have a detrimental effect on the supply of employment land through the plan area.

On the rare occasion currently occupied employment sites come forward for development during the Plan Period they will be part of the proposed windfall allowance.
• Green Belt sites - No discount is applied to Green Belt land release sites. In it simply unrealistic to assume every single predicted house will come forward on these sites in the plan period. It is possible that not all sites come forward or the lead in time is longer than expected (Langley SUE in the Birmingham Development Plan is a prime example of this where delivery was originally predicted to have commenced by now, and this has already been pushed back by several years, with the prospect of this timeframe slipping further); that when a planning application is submitted the aspirational target figures are not met for the site when the long list of policy requirements within the BCP have been properly accounted for; and/or not all of the site is delivered in the plan period.

• 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.

Conclusion

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, failing the Housing Delivery Test and failing to provide much needed market and affordable housing within the Black Country for those that need it.

Object

Representation ID: 23232

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament

The Plan states, "the density of housing development in the existing urban areas will be increased to ensure that the land is used efficiently". There is widespread support to ensure the better utilisation of existing development land especially were it allows an increase in density and infilling for new homes, however there are no details or examples contained within the Plan as to how this can be fully achieved.
Whilst such an approach is to be welcomed, to fully understand whether this approach has been adopted by the Plan more information is required, particularly to understand if these are reflected in the proposed numbers.
Strategic Priorities 3 and 4 contained within the Plan carry widespread public support: ­
"to provide a range and choice of accommodation, house types and tenures to meet the needs of current and future residents".
"to improve and diversify the Black Country housing offer".
However, the proposed Plan identifies a large number of sites within the Aldridge-Brownhills constituency that will certainly not meet the identified strategic priorities as set out. The average spend by a first time buyer across England stands at £205,246. Average house prices in Aldridge, Pelsall and Streetly all stand above the average first time buyer rate and the West Midlands average.
Indeed, in the case of two of the proposed sites (Aldridge Road/Queslett Road East and Stonnall Road) average prices based on the West Midlands average are between 51% and 110% higher.
Several of the current proposed sites will not manage to meet the stated objectives in these strategic priorities, they could in fact further fuel levels of unaffordability as this proposed plan will not provide the necessary housing mix.

Comment

Representation ID: 23289

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Redrow Homes Ltd

Agent: Harris Lamb

The housing requirement

Table 2 of the draft Plan suggests that a total of 76,076 dwellings are 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 that 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 house the Black Country’s workforce. 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 will be via Section 106 agreements.

Comment

Representation ID: 23290

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Redrow Homes Ltd

Agent: Harris Lamb

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 will be via Section 106 agreements.

Comment

Representation ID: 23292

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Redrow Homes Ltd

Agent: Harris Lamb

Sources of Housing Land Supply

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 sites with a resolution to grant planning permission, but the S.106 has not been signed, where the resolutions are several years old have been included. 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
• Occupied Employment Land
• Green Belt sites
• Other Allocations
• Additional Site Capacity in Strategic Centres

Comment

Representation ID: 23294

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Redrow Homes Ltd

Agent: Harris Lamb

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: 23324

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 7.3 - 7.5 - "The dBCP now proposes to reduce the discount applied to sites with planning permission but not yet started (at April 2020) to just 5%." - "the research has only considered the rate of development in a single BCP authority area (Wolverhampton) " An assessment of Wolverhampton's AMR demonstrates that the lapse rates have stayed the same or decreased.

Support

Representation ID: 23348

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Barberry

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

WOH265 & Perton Court Farm, Wrottesley Park Road, Perton.
1.1. This is a representation to the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan which is subject to
consultation until 11 October 2021. It is made on behalf of Barberry in respect of land they are promoting for residential development at Perton Court Farm, Wrottesley Park Road, Perton.
1.2. The site itself falls entirely within South Staffordshire, however, a neighbouring area of land
(which falls within the Wolverhampton City boundary) to the south east at Perton Road (Ref
WOH265 WTNA) has been proposed to be released from the Green belt as a housing allocation.
1.3. This is relevant to Barberry and the site they are promoting as they are directly adjacent and share a boundary.
1.4. Barberry have submitted a Vision Document to South Staffordshire Council communicating the
constraints and opportunities of the site, together with a proposed masterplan.
1.5. Barberry would like Wolverhampton City Council to consider this and how their site might better
tie in with the proposed allocation at Perton Road.
1.6. Clearly, Barberry intend to make representations to the South Staffordshire Preferred Options
plan, where consultation is due to begin in the coming weeks.
1.7. Barberry reserve the right make further representations to the Black Country Plan as
opportunities arise. It should be noted that not commenting on an aspect of the emerging plan
does not mean they agree with that content.

2. REPRESENTATION
2.1. Barberry would like to begin by expressing their support for the allocation of the land (inside the
Wolverhampton CC boundary) East of Perton Road, Wightwick (Ref WOH265 WTNA) particularly
as it relates well to the existing established settlement edge, with the opportunity to provide a
more definitive boundary to the Green Belt beyond.
2.2. Barberry agree that there should be mitigation for green belt loss to be provided through
accessibility, biodiversity and environmental quality improvements to nearby Smestow Valley
Local Nature Reserve. However, Barberry dispute the fact that the ‘track to the north west, which
runs along the Wolverhampton / South Staffs District boundary’ , (which forms at the junction
between Pattingham Road and Perton Road) is capable of providing a defensible new green belt
boundary. The track itself is neither robust nor enduring and could easily change over time.
2.3. Paragraph 143 (f) of the NPPF is clear that when defining new Green Belt boundaries, plans
should ‘define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely
to be permanent.’
2.4. We consider a better solution would be to holistically plan for the wider site, which is controlled
by Barberry, as shown in the attached Vision Document. Here, it is shown that the development
of the site would result in new parks and play spaces, as well as a safe route to school for children
living in Perton itself.
2.5. The following table summarises the policies that we have commented on in this representation:
Table 1 – Policies/Paragraphs subject to comment:
Policy/Para Title Page
HOU1
and
WOH265 WTNA
Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth 89 (Table 3 and
Table 4)
HOU2 Housing Density, Type and Accessibility 96
HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth and WOH265 WTNA - Land East of Perton Road,
Wightwick.
2.6. The land east of Perton Road is proposed to be allocated for about 4 dwellings on 0.6 ha of land,
which is substantially low in terms of density, and an inefficient use of land. We consider this
could be increased because there are opportunities within the wider site for compensatory
access to open spaces. Of course, the wider site would have to be included as an allocation in the
emerging South Staffordshire Local Plan. Moreover, a development density of around 30
dwellings per ha would be more aligned to the established densities within the immediate
vicinity of the site. An extract of the proposals map is shown overleaf:
2.7. We consider, in reality, that if this site were to be allocated that it is unlikely just 4 dwellings
would be delivered, particularly with the added burden of delivering any noticeable
improvements to the Smestow Valley Local Nature Reserve. Nor would 4 dwellings deliver any
affordable housing or tangible public benefits, other than marginally improving housing choice
within the local area. Developers of this site are likely to push for more.
2.8. Clearly, Green Belt is a strategic planning policy which exists on a permanent basis, transcending
plan periods. It should only be released in exceptional circumstances. To that end, a small ‘nibble’
of the Green Belt as proposed is unlikely to pass the exceptional circumstances test, nor is it
likely to be warranted on such a small-scale site. It is our view that the wholesale removal of the
wider site, together with the small site should be considered, where the exceptional
circumstances test could be met and where the compensatory measures as set out in the NPPF
at para 142 could be properly addressed: ‘Strategic policy-making authorities should……. also set
out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through
compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green
Belt land’.
2.9. There are some strategic allocations included in the BC Plan proposed at Linthouse Lane, Cross
Green and Bilbrook, all of which will require substantial lead-in times, smaller strategic sites like
the land at Perton Court Farm could conceivably come forward quicker as they do not require
substantial infrastructure investment.
2.10. The BC authorities aspire to deliver 47,837 new homes over the course of the plan period 2020 to
2039. 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 Wolverhampton 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 (postremediation).
We are not clear whether this has been considered carefully enough.
2.11. 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.
2.12. 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 considerable 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.’
HOU2 - Housing Density, Type and Accessibility
2.13. We are broadly supportive of the densities proposed in the emerging plan, however for reasons
already given, we consider that the densities on the proposed allocation at WOH265 are far too
low and represent an inefficient use of land, contrary to paragraph 124 of the NPPF, which states:
‘Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land’.
4. CONCLUSION
4.1. Overall Barberry welcome the inclusion of the land at Perton Road, Wightwick as a housing
allocation and its removal from the Green Belt. Barberry will make further representations to the
emerging South Staffs Local Plan when the consultation begins as they believe there is an
opportunity for further land to be included in this allocation within their administrative
boundary.
4.2. Barberry consider a holistic and strategic approach is clearly preferable and this is demonstrated
within the Vision Document, which is submitted with this representation.
4.3. We have made comments on more generic planning policies where we consider it is justified,
and we urge the BC councils to consider the points we have made.

Comment

Representation ID: 23354

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
2.3. The BC authorities aspire to deliver 47,837 new homes over the course of the plan period 2020 to
2039.
2.4. 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 Dudley 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 (postremediation).
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 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.’

Object

Representation ID: 23373

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: West Midlands CPRE

Agent: Gerald Kells

Policy HOU1
We object to this policy in line with CSP1 and based on work we commissioned to examine housing need and supply as set out above. This would in our view remove the need for wide -scale and damaging allocations in the Green Belt and reduce the requirement to rely on Duty to Cooperate.

Support

Representation ID: 23420

Received: 15/02/2022

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Barton Willmore

7.0 SECTION 6 - HOUSING

7.1 Paragraph 66 of the NPPF requires strategic policy-making authorities to establish a housing requirement figure for their whole area, which shows the extent to which their identified housing need can be met over the plan period. Draft Policy HOU1 (Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth) of the draft Black Country Plan states that sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 47,837 net new homes over the period 2020-2039. 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. We are supportive of this draft policy which aligns with the aims of NPPF Paragraph 66.

7.2 It should be noted that Barton Willmore LLP has prepared a critical review of the Black Country Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021) on behalf of a Consortium of housebuilders, land promoters and developers (including L&Q Estates). This review, which is being submitted separately in response to the draft Black Country Plan Regulation 18 Consultation, includes a detailed response on the Housing Requirement for the Black Country.

7.3 The Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021) identifies a combined housing need for the Black Country Authorities of 4,004 homes per annum which equates to 76,076 homes over the period 2020-39. This is based upon the current standard methodology for calculating housing need (using the 2020-2030 household projections, new 2020 affordability ratios published in 2021, and reflects the 35% uplift to Wolverhampton’s local housing need figure introduced by changes to the standard method in December 2020). The Urban Capacity Review Update notes that this figure is subject to change, for instance when the Draft Black Country Plan reaches its Regulation 19 Publication (Pre-submission) stage in mid-2022 the figure will reflect any changes to the inputs (such as household projections and affordability ratios) and it will cover the period 2021-2039, as the standard methodology only applies to future years.

7.4 It is important to emphasise that the Planning Practice Guidance is clear in its approach that the “standard method for assessing local housing need provides a minimum starting point in determining the number of homes needed in an area” (Paragraph 010; Reference ID: 2a-010-20190220). The Draft Black Country Plan should therefore reflect that the proposed ‘Housing Need’ figure is only a starting point and additional housing may be required to facilitate economic growth or the delivery of affordable housing.

7.5 For example, an appeal decision for up to 800 dwellings at the Former North Worcestershire Golf Club highlighted the chronic shortfall in affordable housing which has come forward within Birmingham City since 2011 (Appeal Ref: APP/P4605/W/18/3192918) – a decision which was ‘called-in’ by the Secretary of State. Paragraph 14.108 of the Inspector’s Report states that only 2,757 new affordable homes were provided in the City over the first 6 years of the Plan period. This represents less than half of the target provision and a net increase of only 151 affordable homes if Right to Buy sales are taken into account. The Inspector goes on to state that given the heavy reliance in the five-year housing land supply on City Centre apartment schemes, it is difficult to see how that trend can be reversed in the short to medium term (paragraph 14.109).

7.6 Whilst it is noted that Birmingham City Council does not form one of the Black Country Authorities, it highlights the recent difficulties with delivering homes on brownfield sites. The high proportion of flatted developments, coupled with the increased likelihood of viability issues, has led to a chronic shortfall in the provision of affordable homes. Should the Black County Authorities follow a similar approach, it may therefore be necessary to increase the Housing Requirement, in accordance with national guidance, to improve affordability.

7.7 The latest Black Country Housing Market Assessment (dated March 2021) advises that the total annual affordable housing need in the Black Country represents 21.6% (867 per year) of the annual dwelling growth in the housing market area. The Housing Market Assessment considers it would be reasonable to expect this proportion of new housing as affordable to be delivered on a large housing site in the Black Country, where a figure of 25% would be plausible (subject to viability). The Assessment concludes by suggesting that Councils can be confident that the affordable housing need identified in the model will be addressed by the dwelling growth identified by the Standard Method and no adjustment is required to this figure. However, as noted above, flatted developments and an increased likelihood of viability issues on brownfield sites could mean that meeting the total annual affordable housing need in the Black Country would be much more challenging than predicted within the Black Country Housing Market Assessment.

7.8 In light of the above, it is considered that any shortfall in housing supply should be regarded as a minimum given that it is currently calculated against an untested housing target that may require an upward adjustment to take account of affordability. Therefore, we support Draft Policy HOU1 in principle, particularly the reference to delivering ‘at least’ 47,837 net new homes, given this could facilitate that increased housing number is feasible through good design.

Comment

Representation ID: 23461

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: Acres Land & Planning Limited

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

Object

Representation ID: 23569

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Save the Seven Cornfields Campaign Group

Agent: Save the Seven Cornfields Campaign Group

Broadly and Summarised:
1) We support the exclusion / non-inclusion of the Seven Cornfields as a site for housing development.
2) We support the saving of the Green Belt Seven Cornfields site.
3) We oppose development on the Green Belt and important greenfield sites.
4) We do not support the housing forecast model used. Equality Impact assessment is needed.
5) We do not support the excessive housing target of 76,000 homes.
6) We believe there should be greater equity and equality within the local planning process and Nolan standards of public office be upheld.
7) We believe the Seven Cornfields is an important carbon sink, it contributes to care of the planet and local areas, avoids flooding and provides equality of access.
8) The report addresses amongst others Para 3.15-3.16, Policy DEL2, Policy HOU1, Policy CC1
9) Brownfield, derelict land, retail and office spaces can meet the housing demands.

PREJUDICIAL DECISION ON GREEN BELT LOSS & ADDITIONAL HOUSING BASED ON EXAGGERATED HOUSING FORECASTS (Policy HOU 1 in the Black Country Plan 2039)

The Save the Seven Cornfields Campaign Group insists that the decision to meet an over-exaggerated Housing Target of 76,000 unilaterally and automatically erodes important Green Belt provision and dismisses the concerns of local residents and campaign groups. It is ultimately prejudicial to the integrity, cogency and strategic and tactical decision-making of the Black Country Housing Review to presume any acceptability of development in the Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 23586

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Planning & Design Group (UK) Limited

4.3 WDL have significant concerns that despite these housing figures only meeting the minimum need required, as they are not based on the most up to date emerging evidence, the figures underestimate both need and deliverability leading to a significant shortfall. We do not in these representations seek to interrogate the housing numbers or the approach taken by the Council in relation to the level of housing accommodated in the Plan (WDL has done this through a joint submission with other developers prepared by Turleys attached as Appendix 1). However, what this does highlight is the need for the allocated sites to be fully supported by the Council to enable them to be carried forward through the Plan process and any barriers to development or restrictions on deliverability minimised.

Comment

Representation ID: 23588

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Planning & Design Group (UK) Limited

4.0 Policy HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
4.1 The Plan identifies an overall need for 4,004 dwellings per annum over the plan period (2020-39) – or 76,076 homes in total. While not specified, it is assumed that this has been calculated using the ‘standard method’ for determining ‘the minimum number of homes needed’, as is required in all but ‘exceptional circumstances’ according to the NPPF (Paragraph 61).
4.2 However, the Plan intends to only make provision through Policy HOU1 for 2,518 homes each year, or 47,837 homes in total. The justification for this policy clearly identifies that this will only accommodate 63% of current Local Housing Need up to 2039 within the Black Country. We assume, as it is not stated, that the Council will expect the shortfall of circa 28,198 homes to be met by the neighbouring authorities.
4.3 WDL have significant concerns that despite these housing figures only meeting the minimum need required, as they are not based on the most up to date emerging evidence, the figures underestimate both need and deliverability leading to a significant shortfall. We do not in these representations seek to interrogate the housing numbers or the approach taken by the Council in relation to the level of housing accommodated in the Plan (WDL has done this through a joint submission with other developers prepared by Turleys attached as Appendix 1). However, what this does highlight is the need for the allocated sites to be fully supported by the Council to enable them to be carried forward through the Plan process and any barriers to development or restrictions on deliverability minimised.
4.4 WDL also note that in addition to the sites already allocated in the Plan, there may be a need to identify additional sites to supplement these figures and to ensure that the Plan is prepared positively. It appears that currently the Plan cannot be found sound on the basis that the Council’s full level of housing need is not being met in its Plan.
4.5 Policy HOU1 provides the total number of houses to be delivered in the Plan period but does not specifically identify any individual housing sites. The proposed housing allocations are shown on ‘Figure 4 – Housing Key Diagram’, and Section 13 of the Plan contains a table setting out the allocations in each area. However, as neither the tables are worded as ‘policy’, nor the individual site descriptions in Section 13 within Policy HOU1 or that the individual site allocations are worded as a separate policy. This will ensure that the Plan is clear, and the individual allocations are accorded the appropriate weight.

Support

Representation ID: 23589

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Planning & Design Group (UK) Limited

Paragraph 4.5 - "The proposed housing allocations are shown on ‘Figure 4 – Housing Key Diagram’, and Section 13 of the Plan contains a table setting out the allocations in each area. However, as neither the tables are worded as ‘policy’, nor the individual site descriptions in Section 13 within Policy HOU1 or that the individual site allocations are worded as a separate policy. This will ensure that the Plan is clear, and the individual allocations are accorded the appropriate weight."

Object

Representation ID: 23599

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

6.2
Policy HOUI — Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
Housing requirement
We address our objections to the proposed housing requirement in our response to Policy CSPI.
We consider that local housing need should be met in full.
Housing land supply
HIMOR has jointly commissioned Turley to undertake a review of housing need and supply in the
Black Country. A copy Of the report is provided at Appendix EPI The report draws the following
key conclusions in relation to housing land supply:
• The Framework requires Local Plans to be aspirational but deliverable, identifying a
sufficient supply of sites taking into account their availability, suitability and likely
economic viability. Those sites should meet the tests of deliverable and developable
contained in the Framework's glossary. It is vital to realistically assess the amount of
deliverable supply in plan period, as to overestimate the amount of housing coming
forward in the plan period, as appears to be the case here, causes a significant planning
harm connected to the unnecessary creation Of an acute shortfall Of housing when
individuals require them.
The Black Country authorities have evidently made a set of assumptions in relation to the
housing capacity and deliverability Of certain sources Of supply. relied upon in the Draft
BCP. This report has assessed the proposed sources of supply and identified significant
concerns with the assumptions being relied on, with a clear absence of any up-to-date
and robust evidence. In some areas the Councils' assumptions are not rigorous enough.
the evidence base is inadequate to draw out the conclusions being relied on, and in
our opinion the justification provided falls short given the context and scale of the
implications Of misjudging the true amount Of housing supply.
• Setting realistic delivery assumptions, as required by the Framework, is essential as
planning harm crises when delivery does not come to fruition. This is evident in the Black
Country, where there has been clear issues in delivering sites previously identified in the
Black Country Core Strategy (BCCS). Despite this, the Councils seek to simply roll forward
the approach taken in that previous plan, with little scrutiny or regard to the
effectiveness (Or not) of that strategy. The report highlights that:
In relation to non-implementation of commitments, the Councils seek to lower
the opposed discount rate based on entirely inadequate evidence, and a
reduction of 695 homes to this source in the plan period is proposed;
The Councils rely on existing allocations from previous Plan documents, which
are not subject to review through the BCP but have evidently struggled to come
forward in the preceding decade. A reduction of 4,973 homes to this source in
the plan period is proposed; 6.3
The Councils rely on a significant amount of supply from currently occupied
employment land, on which there is patently no reasonable prospect that
development will come forward at the point envisaged considering the local
delivery track record on employment sites, and the wider economic context. The
Councils' strategy on these sites may contradict the wider context in the
Framework which also seeks to ensure a sufficient supply Of employment sites. A
reduction of 3,091 homes to this source in the plan period is proposed; and
The Councils rely on a significant number of dwellings in Wolverhampton Ci
Centre. where upper floor conversions of retail units are expected to Come
forward at a given rate. There is no compelling evidence to include this windfall
allowance in the BCP supply, and the removal of the entirety of this source (812
homes) in the plan period is proposed.
• Based on the above, the Draft BC? exaggerates the housing supply that is likely to come
forward from its identified sources, by almost 10 000 homes. Unless additional sites are
identified, this could lead to the provision of only 38,266 homes over the plan period. or
2,014 dwellings per annum, which is barely half of the identified minimum need for
housing in the Black Country. With this report showing that even delivering in line with the
proposed requirement would have negative consequences for the area. it follows that
these consequences would be even more pronounced if delivery were to be lower still.
In progressing the BCP, the Black Country authorities are encouraged to fundamental
reconsider the proposed approach to housing provision. adding to and scrutinising the
identified supply with the aim of further boosting delivery and meeting housing needs in
Therefore, there is a significant shortfall in housing land supply even against the SCP's artificially
constrained housing requirement, bt alone a higher requirement in line with bcal housing need
as we propose in Our response to Policy CSPI The strategy needs to be fundamentally changed
to address these significant issues of soundness. This means significantly boosting the supply of
housing land to meet local housing need in full.