Policy HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

Comment

Representation ID: 43818

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Tony Cox

Agent: Mid West Plannning Ltd

Land at Allens Lane, Walsall Site (SA0071)

5.6 Core Policy HOU1 outlines that district will have the target of 63,000 new houses between 2006 and 2026. For Walsall, the local housing need for the year 2020-21 was 882 dwellings per annum so the five-year requirement is 4,410 plus a 5% buffer, i.e. 4,631. However, the 2020 results for Walsall, which were published in January 2021, indicate that delivery was 88% of the requirement, so no additional buffer applies. This site therefore will help the District Planning Authority reach this target through the use of land unsuitable for modern farming and therefore the proposal corresponds with planning policy.

Very Special Circumstances for Development In the Green Belt
5.7 The application site at Allen’s Lane is within the green belt, however the site has been submitted under the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), which is updated each year and identifies potential housing sites. The Draft Black Country Plan for Walsall has identified the need for enough land to build an additional 13,344 new homes and provide 164ha of employment land over the period to 2039. A total of5,418 of the homes and 47ha of the employment land will be provided on land that is currently in the green belt.

5.8 Land has been allocated in the draft Black Country Plan for housing development in the green belt around Walsall, including land used for agricultural production, on the outskirts of the conurbation. Much of this land is considered to be prime agricultural land, and woodland, and therefore the Allen’s Lane site should be developed before the prime agricultural land is used for development. The application site at Allen’s Lane is in fact previously developed land now used for horse grazing. Please refer to the examples of land depicted at Plates Three and Four below which clearly show the land in woodland and in arable production.

Object

Representation ID: 43821

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

18

6. Policy HOU1 Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
Housing requirement
6.1 We address our objections to the proposed housing requirement in our response to Policy CSP1.
We consider that local housing need should be met in full.
Housing land supply
6.2 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 EP1. 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 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
umptions 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 arises 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;










19

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
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 City
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 BCP 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 fundamentally
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
full.
6.3 Therefore, there is a significant shortfall in h
constrained housing requirement, let alone a higher requirement in line with local housing need
as we propose in our response to Policy CSP1. 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.

Object

Representation ID: 43845

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

2.6. 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 (post-remediation). We are not clear whether this has been considered carefully enough.

2.7. 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.

2.8. 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 o f 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: 43863

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

7.1 The preamble to the chapter identifies that the provision of sufficient land to promote sustainable housing growth is the cornerstone of delivering cohesive, healthy and prosperous communities across the Black Country. It also indicates that the policies in the Plan ensure the provision of a balanced range of housing in terms of type, tenure, wheelchair accessibility and affordability. The supporting text does not, however, refer to the need to provide a range of housing sites in differing locations in order to meet the needs of the population as a whole. This factor is a key part of providing a balanced range of housing and should be referred to explicitly in the text.
7.2 Policy HOU1 relates to delivering sustainable housing growth. It sets out that sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 47,837 (net) new homes over the period of 2020-2039. Taylor Wimpey supports the reference to both net new homes and also that the housing land supply will deliver 'at least' 47,837 new homes.
7.3 However, Policy HOU1 does not refer to the fact that the housing need for the Black Country collectively amounts to 76,076 homes across the Plan Period (4,004 per annum). The fact that the Plan only intends to provide 47,837 dwellings leaves a significant 28,239 dwelling shortfall that the Plan is proposing to apportion via the duty-to-cooperate. Reference should be made to the shortfall and the means by which this housing supply shortfall could be made up, particularly in the event that the full extent of the shortfall cannot be accommodated through agreement with neighbouring authorities.
7.4 Paragraph 6.4 sets out that a balanced range of sites had been provided within the Plan in terms of size, location, and market attractiveness, which will help to maximise housing delivery over the plan period. This recognition of the need for variety in location and market attractiveness is supported by Taylor Wimpey and should be referenced within Policy HOU1 as it is considered to be integral to the overall housing strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 43917

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Turley Associates

3.40 Firstly, similarly to our response to policy CSP1 above, the policy should be clear that
47,837 new homes is the proposed supply only and that the full need for the Black Country is 76,076 new homes. To ensure it is not ambiguous the policy should also clearly state the exact scale of the remaining unmet need so it is clear for any authority working with the Black Country on assisting with its unmet needs.
3.41 In terms of the overall need of 76,076 homes (4,004 dwellings per annum), the plan must be clear that this is a minimum. As set out at page 31 of Appendix 7, this represents a relatively small number of new homes compared to the size of the Black Country’s existing housing stock (501,464 homes as of 20201) and would only require growth at a rate which almost half of the thirty West Midlands region’s authorities have achieved since 2006 (0.7% per annum2).
3.42 Indeed the proposed housing need, which is based on the area’s standard method
need only, represents a benchmark of the minimum need for housing only. For
1 MHCLG (2020) Table 125: dwelling stock estimates by local authority district
2 Based on the outcome of the standard method as of August 2021, estimated for every local authority by Turley and aggregated to the West Midlands (21,829dpa) and England (297,619dpa)

instance, it does not account for changing economic circumstances, such as the Councils’ assurances that there will be sufficient labour to meet the economic growth ambitions of the area (draft policy EMP1). This could be justification for increasing the Black Country’s housing needs.
3.43 This demonstrates that there is no evidence for lowering the Black Country’s total
housing needs, indeed it should be increased if it is to ensure sufficient labour is provided to meet the sub-region’s economic growth ambitions.
Table 3 (Black Country housing land supply and indicative phasing 2020-39)
3.44 The proposed supply of 47,837 new homes between 2020 and 2039 is the equivalent of 2,518 dwellings per annum. At demonstrated at page 9 of Appendix 7, this is less than what the authorities have delivered per annum for the last six years (2,863 dwellings per annum). Whilst the supply within the urban area may be more exhausted going forward than in those previous six years, this level of delivery demonstrates the scale of demand in the Black Country and that the market is capable of absorbing it.
3.45 The increased supply of homes has directly contributed to the area more effectively attracting and retaining people than it has historically. One benefit of this is that the Black Country’s working age population has grown3. The proposed supply in the draft BDP therefore risks this recent trend and ultimately will result in reducing the size of the working age population.
3.46 Notwithstanding the above, based on the findings of Turley’s Technical Review of Housing Need and Supply in the Black Country, we have significant concerns regarding the robustness of the Councils’ proposed supply, which we summarise below:
· There are a number of sources of the supply which are proposed on existing vacant or occupied employment land (6% of the total proposed supply). Similarly to the response to draft policy DEL2 above, this approach significantly risks the NPPF’s requirement for the plan to provide a sufficient supply of employment sites, as well as for housing supplies to only include land with a realistic prospect that it is available and could be viably developed. It also contradicts the plan’s objective to support economic growth.
· The above is not a new approach. The BCCS also allocated a total of 16,182 homes on occupied employment land. Based on the Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021) only 679 (4.2%) of those homes have been delivered to date (with less than five years of the plan period remaining).
· The BCCS assumed a 10% non-implementation rate for sites under construction. The BCP plans to reduce this to 5%, based only on evidence from Wolverhampton City for the period 2001-20044. There is insufficient evidence at this stage to justify such a change in approach.
· 4,973 new homes are proposed on existing allocations (circa 10% of the total supply). The largest contributions to this are from Dudley (2,506 homes) and
3 ONS (2021) Mid-year population estimates, 2001 to 2020
4 Paragraph 2.1.14 of the Black Country Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021)

Wolverhampton (2,248 homes). These sites are largely located in Strategic Centres and allocated in Area Action Plans which followed the BCCS. There is no new evidence to demonstrate their deliverability to support their continued allocation in the draft BCP, there is however evidence where the Councils concede a number of these sites are constrained given issues such as land ownership, viability, the need to relocate existing uses, or ground contamination5.
· No compelling evidence (as required by NPPF paragraph 71) has been provided to justify including 812 new homes (circa 2% of the supply) in Wolverhampton City Centre on upper floor conversions. There is no evidence in the SHLAA or any data on historic windfall delivery rates of this nature in the Black Country.
3.47 Making the appropriate reductions in supply based on the above reduces the Black Country’s housing supply by almost 10,000 homes, leaving a potential supply of only 38,266 homes (2,014 dwellings per annum).
3.48 This would see the shortfall grow to 37,810 homes, just under 50% of the area’s total housing needs. This is significant, especially given there are other sites which can make a contribution to ensuring the Councils’ housing supply is robust, such as land at Pennwood.
3.49 There is currently no evidence to demonstrate how the Black Country’s shortfall of circa 28,000 homes will be met, let alone the more likely scale of the shortfall – circa 38,000 homes. The plan refers to Lichfield, South Staffordshire and Shropshire contributing to the shortfall – this totals a maximum of 7,500 new homes6. So a 30,500 home shortfall remains based on Turley’s analysis if the supply.
3.50 Even if Wolverhampton City’s 35% standard method cities uplift was removed, the shortfall including contributions from other authorities would still stand at circa 16,000 based on the Black Country’s claimed supply, or circa 24,000 homes based on Turley’s analysis of the supply. There is reference to Telford potentially also assisting (and at the Solihull Local Plan examination reference was made to Stafford potentially contributing), but this is unlikely to be a significant contribution or anything close to ensure the unmet need is fully resolved.
3.51 The Black Country should therefore be examining its potential supply of greenfield sites to ensure its supply is robust and to further reduce the shortfall to be exported to neighbouring authorities. As set out at Section 4 below land at Pennwood has been unfairly scored in the Councils’ SA and Site Assessment scoring exercise. When reasonably and appropriately considered it is capable of delivering new homes which can assist in reducing the scale of the Black Country’s shortfall, whilst providing real benefits for existing and new residents.
5 Referenced at paragraph 7.7 of the Viability and Delivery Study (May 2021), paragraph 6.6 of the draft BCP, specific site commentary in the SHLAAs, and paragraph 3.1.24 of the Black Country Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021)
6 Based on page 2 of the Black Country Authorities’ hearing statement to Matter 2 of the Solihull Local Plan examination

Comment

Representation ID: 43936

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley Assocs

Housing delivery
Policy HOU1 (delivering sustainable housing growth)
3.40 Firstly, similarly to our response to policy CSP1 above, the policy should be clear that
47,837 new homes is the proposed supply only and that the full need for the Black
Country is 76,076 new homes. To ensure it is not ambiguous the policy should also
clearly state the exact scale of the remaining unmet need so it is clear for any authority
working with the Black Country on assisting with its unmet needs.
3.41 In terms of the overall need of 76,076 homes (4,004 dwellings per annum), the plan
must be clear that this is a minimum. This represents a relatively small number of new
homes compared to the size of the Black Country’s existing housing stock (501,464
homes as of 20202) and would only require growth at a rate which almost half of the
thirty West Midlands region’s authorities have achieved since 2006 (0.7% per annum3).
3.42 Indeed the proposed housing need, which is based on the area’s standard method
need only, represents a benchmark of the minimum need for housing only. For
instance, it does not account for changing economic circumstances, such as the
Councils’ assurances that there will be sufficient labour to meet the economic growth
ambitions of the area (draft policy EMP1). This could be justification for increasing the
Black Country’s housing needs.
3.43 This demonstrates that there is no evidence for lowering the Black Country’s total
housing needs, if there is to be any change it should be to increase it to ensure
sufficient labour is provided to meet the sub-region’s economic growth ambitions.


2 MHCLG (2020) Table 125: dwelling stock estimates by local authority district
3 Based on the outcome of the standard method as of August 2021, estimated for every local authority by Turley
and aggregated to the West Midlands (21,829dpa) and England (297,619dpa)




12

Table 3 (Black Country housing land supply and indicative phasing 2020-39)
3.44 The proposed supply of 47,878 new homes between 2020 and 2039 is the equivalent
of 2,518 dwellings per annum. This is less than what the authorities have delivered per
annum for the last six years (2,863 dwellings per annum). Whilst the supply within the
urban area may be more exhausted going forward than in those previous six years, this
level of delivery demonstrates the scale of demand in the Black Country and that the
market is capable of absorbing it.
3.45 The increased supply of homes has directly contributed to the area more effectively
attracting and retaining people than it has historically. One benefit of this is that the
Black Country’s working age population has grown4. The proposed supply in the draft
BCP therefore risks this recent trend and ultimately will result in reducing the size of
the working age population.
3.46 Notwithstanding the above, we have some concerns regarding the robustness of the
Councils’ proposed supply, which we summarise below:
• There are a number of sources of the supply which are proposed on existing
vacant or occupied employment land (6% of the total proposed supply). Similarly
to the response to draft policy DEL2 above, this approach significantly risks the
NPPF’s requirement for the plan to provide a sufficient supply of employment
sites, as well as for housing supplies to only include land with a realistic prospect
that it is available and could be viably developed. It also contradicts the plan’s
objective to support economic growth.
• The above is not a new approach. The BCCS also allocated a total of 16,182
homes on occupied employment land. Based on the Urban Capacity Review
Update (May 2021) only 679 (4.2%) of those homes have been delivered to date
(with less than five years of the plan period remaining).
• The BCCS assumed a 10% non-implementation rate for sites under construction.
The BCP plans to reduce this to 5%, based only on evidence from
Wolverhampton City for the period 2001-20045. There is insufficient evidence at
this stage to justify such a change in approach.
• 4,973 new homes are proposed on existing allocations (circa 10% of the total
supply). The largest contributions to this are from Dudley (2,506 homes) and
Wolverhampton (2,248 homes). These sites are largely located in Strategic
Centres and allocated in Area Action Plans which followed the BCCS. There is no
new evidence to demonstrate their deliverability to support their continued
allocation in the draft BCP, there is however evidence where the Councils
concede a number of these sites are constrained given issues such as land


4 ONS (2021) Mid-year population estimates, 2001 to 2020
5 Paragraph 2.1.14 of the Black Country Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021)




13

ownership, viability, the need to relocate existing uses, or ground
contamination6.
• No compelling evidence (as required by NPPF paragraph 71) has been provided
to justify including 812 new homes (circa 2% of the supply) in Wolverhampton
City Centre on upper floor conversions. There is no evidence in the SHLAA or any
data on historic windfall delivery rates of this nature in the Black Country.
3.47 The above reinforces the importance of, as a minimum, protecting those sites that are
in sustainable locations, can deliver real benefits for the community, and are
demonstrably deliverable in the proposed supply, such as IM Land’s site at Queslett
Road, Walsall. Indeed paragraph 6.7 of the draft BCP recognises that the Councils’ own
evidence on market delivery constraints has already been taken into account in
determining the capacity at the site.

Object

Representation ID: 44768

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Housing need
• In terms of the overall need of 76,076 homes (4,004 dwellings per annum), the plan must be clear that this is a minimum. As set out at pages 5 and 33 of the report, this represents a relatively small number of new homes compared to the size of the Black Country’s existing housing stock (501,464 homes as of 20201) and would only require growth at a rate which almost

half of the thirty West Midlands region’s authorities have achieved since 2006 (0.7% per annum2).

• Indeed the proposed housing need, which is based on the area’s standard method need only, represents a benchmark of the minimum need for housing only. For instance, it does not account for changing economic circumstances, such as the Councils’ assurances that there will be sufficient labour to meet the economic growth ambitions of the area (draft policy EMP1). This could be justification for increasing the Black Country’s housing needs.
This demonstrates that there is no evidence for lowering the Black Country’s total housing needs, indeed it should be increased if it is to ensure sufficient labour is provided to meet the sub-region’s economic growth ambitions.

Object

Representation ID: 44769

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Supply
• The proposed supply of 47,837 new homes between 2020 and 2039 is the equivalent of 2,518 dwellings per annum. As demonstrated at page 11 of the enclosed report, this is less than what the authorities have delivered per annum for the last six years (2,863 dwellings per annum). Whilst the supply within the urban area may be more exhausted going forward than in those previous six years, this level of delivery demonstrates the scale of demand in the Black Country and that the market is capable of absorbing it.

• The proposed supply therefore threatens to reduce the recent rate of delivery across the Black Country by 12%. Demographic modelling suggests that this would dramatically slow the recent rate of population growth and effectively force around 5,500 residents to move elsewhere every year, over three times more than in recent years.

• The recent increased supply of homes has directly contributed to the area more effectively attracting and retaining people than it has historically. One benefit of this is that the Black Country’s working age population has grown3. The proposed supply in the draft Black Country Plan therefore risks this recent trend and ultimately will result in reducing the size of the working age population

Object

Representation ID: 44770

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

In terms of the proposed supply, there are a number of sources which are proposed on existing vacant or occupied employment land (6% of the total proposed supply). This approach significantly risks the NPPF’s requirement for the plan to provide a sufficient supply of employment sites, as well as for housing supplies to only include land with a realistic prospect that it is available and could be viably developed. It also contradicts the plan’s objective to support economic growth.

The above is not a new approach. The Black Country Core Strategy (BCCS) also allocated a total of 16,182 homes on occupied employment land. Based on the Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021) only 679 (4.2%) of those homes have been delivered to date (with less than five years of the plan period remaining).

Object

Representation ID: 44771

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

The BCCS assumed a 10% non-implementation rate for sites under construction. The BCP plans to reduce this to 5%, based only on evidence from Wolverhampton City for the period 2001-20044. There is insufficient evidence at this stage to justify such a change in approach.

Object

Representation ID: 44772

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

• 4,973 new homes are proposed on existing allocations (circa 10% of the total supply). The largest contributions to this are from Dudley (2,506 homes) and Wolverhampton (2,248 homes). These sites are largely located in Strategic Centres and allocated in Area Action Plans which followed the BCCS. There is no new evidence to demonstrate their deliverability to support their continued allocation in the draft BCP, there is however evidence where the Councils concede a number of these sites are constrained given issues such as land ownership, viability, the need to relocate existing uses, or ground contamination5

Object

Representation ID: 44774

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

No compelling evidence (as required by NPPF paragraph 71) has been provided to justify including 812 new homes (circa 2% of the supply) in Wolverhampton City Centre on upper floor conversions. There is no evidence in the SHLAA or any data on historic windfall delivery rates of this nature in the Black Country.

Object

Representation ID: 44775

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

5. There may well be an even greater need for housing given that the standard method makes no attempt to predict the impact of changing economic circumstances, for example, and the Councils’ existing evidence base does not properly consider whether there will be sufficient labour to meet the economic growth ambitions of the sub- region. It equally provides no assurance at present that the prevailing need for houses, estimated to account for two thirds of the overall housing need in the Black Country, can and will be met through the proposed supply.

Object

Representation ID: 44776

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Housing supply and shortfall

6. The Draft BCP intends to make provision for only 47,837 homes over the plan period, equivalent to 2,517 dwellings per annum, leaving a shortfall of circa 28,239 homes to 2039 with an assumption – but no guarantee – that this will be met in neighbouring areas. The proposed level of annual provision has been exceeded in each of the last six years, when roughly a third more homes have been delivered. The Black Country has seen tangible benefits as a result, more effectively attracting and retaining people than has been the case historically and once again growing its working age population.

7. Rather than planning positively for a similar “boosting” that would very nearly meet the minimum need for housing suggested by the standard method, the Draft BCP instead threatens to reduce the recent rate of delivery by 12%. Demographic modelling suggests that this would dramatically slow the recent rate of population growth and effectively force around 5,500 residents to move elsewhere every year, over three times more than in recent years.

8. The associated reduction in the size of the working age population, combined with potential behavioural changes, would be expected to leave a labour force capable of supporting only 615 new jobs every year, whereas at least one economic forecast suggests that the Black Country has the potential to create over three times as many jobs (c.2,100 per annum) and indeed the LEP has previously expressed a target that appears to be over ten times greater, at in excess of 6,000 jobs per annum.

9. This demographic modelling could even be reasonably described as optimistic as it assumes that the proposed requirement can be met through the supply identified in the Draft BCP, which may not be the case based on the analysis in this report. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 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 NPPF glossary. This report assesses the Councils’ claimed supply against the NPPF guidance and concludes that 9,571 homes are unlikely to be deliverable/developable during the plan period. This has a significant impact because it would result in the shortfall increasing to 37,810 homes, circa 50% of the minimum need for housing.

10. Given the large gap between supply and need, compounded by previously over optimistic assumptions on what can be delivered, the Councils’ sources must be scrutinised further as the BCP advances, and the implications of the possible additional housing supply shortfalls considered closely.

11. This report follows on from Turley’s ‘Falling Short – Taking stock of unmet needs across the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area’ published in August 2021. That report identifies a housing shortfall across the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA) of between circa 18,700 and 42,000 dwellings up to 2031, and between 68,700 and 78,000 homes up to 2040. This includes the Black Country shortfall as currently reported in the Draft BCP. Any reduction to the Councils’ proposed supply would only exacerbate and worsen the wider GBBCHMA shortfall up to 2031 and 2040.

Object

Representation ID: 44778

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

2.2 While not specified, this is assumed to have 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 National Planning Policy Framework4 (NPPF). It is of note, however, that the quoted figure does not quite align with the need for 4,019 dwellings per annum calculated, with a 2020 base date, in the recently published Black Country Housing Market Assessment5 (BCHMA). It likewise does not align with the current outcome of the formula, when rebasing to the current year (2021) and accounting for the new affordability ratios released in March 2021. It does not even align with the higher figures that were briefly generated earlier this year, when the method was necessarily rebased to 2021 but these updated affordability ratios had yet to be published. While Table 2.1 shows that the difference over the plan period is relatively modest, it is considered that the origin of the local housing need figure must be clarified within the next iteration of the Draft BCP.

Comment

Representation ID: 44779

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Setting the minimum need in context

2.4 The resultant combined need for at least 4,011 dwellings per annum, like the slightly lower figure of 4,004 dwellings per annum referenced in the Draft BCP, initially appears significant and potentially challenging to meet where the authorities have jointly delivered no more than 3,129 homes in any year since 20067.

2.5 It appears markedly less so when considered in context, however. Both figures suggest a need to grow the existing housing stock of the Black Country by an average of 0.7% during each year of the plan period8, which is not unrealistic or necessarily unattainable where the West Midlands as a whole has successfully grown its stock at this exact rate on average since 2006. Almost half of its thirty authorities have performed even better, as shown at Figure 2.2 overleaf.
See attachments for Figure 2.2:Regional precedents for housing growth needed in the Black Country

2.6 The implied need to grow the housing stock of the Black Country by at least 0.7% per annum over the plan period appears still less daunting when acknowledged that the West Midlands needs to grow its housing stock by at least 0.8% per annum over an equivalent period, according to the standard method, and England by 1.1% per annum9.
See attachments for Figure 2.3:Benchmarking the minimum housing need generated by the standard method (2020-39)

2.7 This shows that the outcome of the standard method for the Black Country is not excessively high, rather providing a reasonable benchmark of the minimum need for housing in this area where it would boost the historic rate of delivery – in line with the general aim of the NPPF10 – and allow Wolverhampton, as one of the country’s largest cities, to make its expected contribution towards a nationwide need for housing.

Object

Representation ID: 44780

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Prospect of a greater need for housing

2.8 There may well be an even greater need for housing in the Black Country than implied by the standard method, when recognised that it provides only ‘a minimum starting point’ and ‘does not attempt to predict the impact that future government policies, changing economic circumstances or other factors might have on demographic behaviour’, such that ‘there will be circumstances where it is appropriate to consider whether actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates’11.

2.9 The BCHMA does not appear to even contemplate such a prospect, only estimating – in a relatively crude way12 – the ‘broad economic consequences’13 of meeting the minimum housing need suggested by the standard method without considering whether this would provide sufficient labour to meet economic ambitions, for example. This is contrary to the NPPF, which expects planning policies to ‘create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt’ and ‘seek to address potential barriers to investment, such as inadequate infrastructure, services or housing’14. This should be rectified in the next iteration of the Draft BCP, through the commissioning of further evidence.

Comment

Representation ID: 44783

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

3. Consequences of failing to meet need

Planning to reduce the recent rate of housing delivery

3.1 The Draft BCP acknowledges a need for 76,076 homes, equivalent to 4,004 dwellings per annum throughout the plan period, but only identifies sufficient land to provide 47,837 homes or 2,518 dwellings per annum17. It openly admits that this would meet less than two thirds (63%) of the reported housing need, with a presumption – but no guarantee – that neighbouring authorities will accommodate the shortfall18.

3.2 Such an approach, whilst evidently threatening to leave a substantial amount of need unmet, would reverse the progress that has recently been made in boosting housing delivery in the Black Country. Figure 3.1 shows that the proposed requirement for 2,518 dwellings per annum is less than what has been delivered in each of the last six years, the average rate of provision in this period having been boosted by around one third (34%) compared to the six years prior but now apparently at risk of falling by some 12% under the approach proposed by the Draft BCP. This would represent a missed opportunity, as positively planning for a further boosting – of the scale achieved recently (+34%) – would very nearly meet the minimum need suggested by the standard method19.

See attachments for Figure 3.1:Proposed housing requirement relative to recent delivery
Risking the benefits associated with recently increased provision

3.3 The recent boosting of housing supply has brought demonstrable benefits to the Black Country which will be put at risk if delivery is allowed to fall.

3.4 One such benefit relates to the attraction and retention of people within the Black Country. This area has historically tended to lose residents to other parts of the UK without attracting the same number from elsewhere, but Figure 3.2 shows that the average size of this net annual outflow over the past six years (2014-20) has been less than half that recorded previously, over the years for which consistent data is available20 (2001-14).

See attachment for Figure 3.2: Recent change in the average net outflow from the Black Country

3.5 This smaller net outflow of people has helped to restore a trend of growth amongst the working age population (16-64) which had been faltering in the years before21. Having declined throughout the 1990s, this cohort grew in size for ten straight years to 2011 before effectively remaining static for three years, with average annual growth of close to zero (0.04%). The boosting of supply from 2014 onwards, however, has helped to once again grow this key cohort of the population as shown at Figure 3.3 overleaf.
See attachment for Figure 3.3:Annual change in the working age population of the Black Country

3.6 The positive trends outlined above appear extremely unlikely to continue if the rate of housing delivery slows to the rate proposed by the Draft BCP, according to demographic modelling by Edge Analytics which has been commissioned to inform this report. This is intended to illustrate how the provision of 2,518 dwellings per annum from 2020 onwards could, in combination with other demographic factors, affect the size and profile of the Black Country population. Further detail on the methodology is provided at Appendix 1.

3.7 The model suggests that the proposed level of housing provision would be unable to accommodate a net inflow of people from outside of the Black Country, effectively forcing circa 5,525 residents every year to move to other parts of the UK. This is more than three times greater than the net outflow of recent years, shown at the earlier Figure 3.2, and indeed is without recent precedent where it is larger than recorded in any year since at least 2001. This does technically allow for a net inflow of international migrants, albeit one that is smaller than recorded in recent years, but even if this does not materialise and their homes accommodate those otherwise assumed within the model to move elsewhere, the overall net outflow – shown as a dotted grey line at Figure 3.4 below – would remain larger than seen historically.
See attachment for Figure 3.4: Modelled impact of reduced housing provision on net migration

3.8 Population growth would be expected to dramatically slow in this scenario, falling to only 0.1% per annum over the 19-year plan period compared to 0.6% per annum over the equally long historic period (2001-20).

See attachment for Figure 3.5: Modelled impact of reduced housing provision on total population

3.9 The working age population would also be expected to shrink by circa 2% in total – as shown at Figure 3.6 overleaf – while the elderly population, aged 65 and over, could grow by as much as a quarter. This would increasingly and markedly shift the demographic profile of the Black Country towards older age groups.

See attachment for Figure 3.6: Modelled impact of reduced housing provision on selected age groups

Implications for the Black Country economy

3.10 Such limited population growth, combined with a changing age profile, would in turn affect the size of the resident labour force, and its ability to support the creation of new jobs in the Black Country. Edge Analytics’ modelling suggests, based on the assumptions detailed at Appendix 1, that the labour force could support the creation of only 615 jobs per annum over the plan period if housing delivery aligns with the proposed requirement.

3.11 At least one economic forecast, produced by Experian, suggests that the Black Country has the potential to create over three times as many jobs over the same period (2,116pa). The Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), meanwhile, has previously expressed a target that – although not officially annualised – appears to equate to more than 6,000 jobs per annum if reasonably assumed to cover a period of twenty years22. This is over ten times more jobs than could be supported by the Draft BCP, as shown by Figure
3.7 overleaf.

See attachment for Figure 3.7: Benchmarking job growth annually supported through the proposed approach

3.12 The proposed housing requirement will therefore hamper, rather than support, the recovery and growth of the Black Country economy. This is contrary to one of the overarching aims of the Draft BCP, which explicitly seeks to ‘attract new businesses and jobs’ to the area and:

“…increase employment opportunities to support the delivery of the Black Country and West Midlands Combined Authority Strategic Economic Plans (SEP), the Local Industrial Strategy and Covid-19 recovery plans”23

3.13 It later describes the LEP’s ‘overall aim of transforming the sub-regional economy by creating the conditions for enterprise to flourish, resulting in greater economic prosperity across the Black Country’24. It states that its own ‘challenge’ is to maintain the ‘momentum’ that has recently led to economic growth, particularly in light of the pandemic, suggesting that ‘the Black Country Plan is part of that process’25 in terms of providing employment sites without acknowledging the parallel importance of attracting and retaining labour through making sufficient provision for housing.

3.14 The proposed approach to housing supply does not rise to this ‘challenge’, threatening instead to stall any ‘momentum’ that has developed in recent years. It must therefore be reconsidered, with the aim of further boosting housing supply and retaining the benefits that have recently been generated through increased delivery.

Object

Representation ID: 44787

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

4.4 A Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) has been prepared by each authority. It is understood that the SHLAAs are a principal supporting document to justify the Councils’ supply, however there is a disconnection between the amount of supply identified in the SHLAAs and the scheduled number of homes in the BCP. The Draft BCP does not include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of housing delivery over the plan period (apart from an overall figure for each authority), as required by paragraph 74 of the NPPF. The BCP should therefore be updated to include a trajectory detailing the expected rates of delivery for individual sources of supply, for the benefit of the Inspector and interested parties, to readily allow review and scrutiny of the housing supply in the Plan, which is a fundamental issue and affects soundness.

4.5 Furthermore, given the complexity in this case of the numerous sources of supply, it is considered that the Councils should set out the anticipated rate of development for specific sites, as directed by NPPF paragraph 74.

4.6 The Sites Assessment Report included in the Councils’ evidence base specifically considers some sites’ constraints, capacity and availability, but the connection between these sites, the SHLAA, and to which total source of supply they are intended to contribute is unclear.

Object

Representation ID: 44789

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

4.7 The BCP is stated to be a Local Plan Review. Paragraph 33 of the NPPF states that reviews should take into account changing circumstances affecting the area, or any relevant changes in national policy. The Council refer back to assumptions derived from the Black Country Core Strategy (BCCS) which was adopted in 2011, more than ten years ago, with an evidence base prepared even before that. The policy context was significantly different, especially in relation to housing provision, than is before us now and under which the BCP will be examined.

4.8 The various iterations of the NPPF over the preceding decade have pivoted the emphasis of national policy even further towards significantly boosting the supply of housing, which inevitably requires taking the most robust and realistic approach to what supply is truly deliverable in plan-making.

4.9 On this basis, and with full regard to the Councils stating that the BCP is a ‘Review’, it is concerning that the Councils have attempted to simply roll forward assumptions derived from the BCCS. In the main, these relate to non-implementation discount rates, the deliverability of existing allocations and approach towards some key sources of supply.

Comment

Representation ID: 44790

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

4.10 The Urban Capacity Review (May 2021) explains the utilisation of various assumptions derived from the BCCS in determining the urban capacity of the Black Country. It is concerning to see given the age of the evidence upon which the BCCS assumptions are based. The assumptions taken forward include:
• Existing allocations not being reviewed which are discounted by 10%; and

• A 15% discount rate on proposed allocations on occupied employment land.

4.11 The Councils also apply a 5% discount rate on sites under construction (considered further below) which has been amended from 10% in the BCCS, but this discount rate has been reconsidered in the 2021 Urban Capacity Review document, and adjusted in the BCP supply assumptions.

4.12 It is not appropriate to roll forward these assumptions without due scrutiny of new evidence in this context. The application of realistic discount rates, taking account of the best available evidence since the BCCS, suggests significant changes should be made to the Councils’ claimed deliverable housing supply.

4.13 The Inspector’s report on the BCCS at paragraph 48 stated:

“48. In particular, we are reassured about the likely potential delivery of new housing by the identified current surplus of about 8% of new housing capacity available against the JCS target, having already allowed for a 15% discount on surplus employment land and a 10% discount on other commitments to take into account delivery constraints, such as ground contamination. Both adjustments seem reasonable and appropriate in general terms for a strategic level assessment, particularly as there is no specific evidence available to justify any preferable alternatives. We therefore conclude that this aspect of the JCS is sound.”

4.14 It appears that the BCCS Inspector adopted a set of assumptions in relation to non- implementation rates in a fairly general way, and in the absence of any evidence suggesting any alternative approaches.

4.15 As this report will show, in reality sites have not come forward as predicted by the Councils. As a result, a more cautious approach should therefore be taken in the Draft BCP given the evidence which has come to light in the intervening period, and the changing circumstances in national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 44791

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

The relationship with the need for employment land and reliance on the SHLAA

4.16 The BCP evidence base26 concludes there is a gap (shortfall) of 140.3 ha against the demand requirement for employment sites in the Black Country area. The Councils state this will need to be addressed through ongoing Duty to Co-operate engagement with neighbouring local authorities.

4.17 There are a number of sources of the Councils’ housing land supply which are proposed on existing vacant or occupied employment land. The NPPF states that a sufficient supply of employment sites should be provided as well as housing. The NPPF is also clear at paragraph 81 that planning policies and decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. It states that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for
development. The approach taken should allow each area to build on its strengths, counter any weaknesses and address the challenges of the future.

4.18 In this way, the reliance on occupied employment sites to deliver housing instead directly contradicts the intention of national policy to support economic growth and productivity.

4.19 The NPPF requires there to be a realistic prospect that a site will be available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged. The fact that many sites in the Councils’ trajectory are likely to be in demand for employment land, given the shortfall of 140.3ha identified, increases doubt that they will be developed for housing at the point envisaged.

4.20 The NPPF also states at paragraph 68 that strategic policy-making authorities should have a clear understanding of the land available in their area through the preparation of a strategic housing land availability assessment. From this, planning policies should identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites, taking into account their availability, suitability and likely economic viability.

4.21 Having reviewed the four SHLAAs, which are a key source in determination of the urban capacity in the Black Country, we have concerns with the approach taken, and any plan making decisions based upon them. The SHLAAs state that:

“Only where a site has a realistically implementable permission for an alternative, non- housing use will it be removed from the list of SHLAA sites”

4.22 This does not account for the likely high number of sites which may have potential for alternative, non-housing uses, but that simply do not benefit from an implementable permission. It could be argued that based on the SHLAA conclusions, these sites are as much possible employment sites as they are housing sites.

4.23 If this is the approach taken to understanding the stock of available housing sites, it is vital that reasonable and realistic planning judgement is then applied when relying on their delivery to meet requirements in the plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 44795

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Current supply – 5% discount on commitment and sites under construction

5.2 The current supply source is broken down by source/phasing and local authority below.

See attachment for Table 5.1:BCP Current Supply by Period


See attachment for Table 5.2:BCP Current Supply by Local Authority


5.3 The Councils have adjusted the BCCS discount rate of 10% on sites under construction and which have planning permission, to a lesser rate of 5%. The stated justification for the change is based only on data from Wolverhampton City and is absent of data from the three other authorities. This is considered to be insufficient evidence to warrant a

significant change in approach which affects a large proportion of the Councils’ supply (12,638 homes under construction or sites with PP or PA).

5.4 Worse still, the data obtained from Wolverhampton City Council only covers a period from 2001 and 200427. The Council then assert that of the 1,246 homes granted permission in that period, 96% had been built out in the subsequent 17 years.

5.5 This does not constitute rigorous evidence to justify the significant change proposed. There is clearly a significant data gap here – the assessment period is very short, and from almost two decades ago, in a different policy context and market conditions. This data gap must be addressed before robust conclusions can be made on what the true level of non-implementation has been in the Black Country.

5.6 The Councils should provide evidence on what the non-implementation rates have been in all of the four Black Country authorities, across a practical period, preferably more up to date and comprehensive than considering planning applications granted only between 2001 and 2004. If this evidence is not forthcoming, the Councils should revert to at least the 10% non-implementation rate on sites under-construction.

5.7 The Councils’ supply from committed sites and those sites under construction, when a 10% non-implementation discount is applied, reverts to (13,270 - the full stock of permissions without a discount applied), 11,943 homes in the plan period, a reduction of 695 homes in the plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 44796

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Current supply – 10% discount on existing allocations

5.8 A total of 4,973 new homes are identified as being deliverable from this source of supply over the new plan period (2020-39) with the largest contributions to supply coming from Dudley (2,506 homes) and Wolverhampton (2,248 homes).

5.9 The ‘Existing Allocations’ included in this source of supply are stated by Table 4 in the Draft BCP as to be located in defined Strategic Centres.

5.10 As a result of being located in Strategic Centres, these sites are allocated in the subsequent Area Action Plans (AAPs) that were intended to deliver the strategic policies for those areas of the BCCS. As far as we can tell, there is no new evidence in relation to them in the Draft BCP. The sites are not, for example, listed individually in the Draft BCP but do appear in the SHLAA.

5.11 The evidence in relation to the deliverability of these sites is therefore included in the AAPs, within which (from our assessment) there is limited evidence of developer involvement or justification/explanation that the allocations were sound, developable or deliverable.

5.12 There are numerous examples in the supporting evidence base and documentation where it is acknowledged by the Councils themselves that there are possible constraints including land ownership, viability, need to relocate existing uses and remediation issues. This immediately casts doubt on whether the sites can be considered developable, which requires the sites to be in a suitable location for housing development with a reasonable prospect that they will be available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged.

5.13 The BCP Evidence Base includes a Viability and Delivery Study (May 2021), where at para 7.7 it is concluded that:

“The analysis also excludes housing development in Strategic Centres, given that the BCP will not allocate land in the Strategic Centres. No specific sites have been identified in those centres for the purposes of this assessment. The viability assessment above has however found that development there is unviable, even with zero developer contributions. Without grant support therefore, it is likely that no housing – either market or affordable – would be delivered in the Strategic Centres. The viability assessment does not consider what level of grant would be required to make development viable in the centres - because each strategic centre scheme is likely to be unique, with its own set of challenges and subject to site-specific assessment.”

5.14 This is a critical finding when considering whether these sites can be relied on to be developed in the plan period.

5.15 Turley have analysed the status of existing allocations in the Councils’ evidence base and consider each authority area in turn below.

Object

Representation ID: 44798

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Existing Allocations in Dudley
5.16 The Strategic Centre for Dudley is Brierley Hill. In 2011 the Brierley Hill Area Action Plan was examined and adopted (the AAP sets out the details of the sites to deliver the level of housing growth set by the BCCS 2011). The vision for the area in that Plan was that development would have delivered more than 3,200 new homes by 2026.

5.17 Over 26 sites are listed in the AAP as delivering residential uses in the period, the AAP was adopted in 2011 and so the evidence base for these sites is considered dated.

5.18 There is an Appendix 3 of the Dudley AAP (Implementation Framework) which shows the investment needed to regenerate the area, including identifying funding gaps and possible issues relocating existing uses. Even at the time of allocating these sites it was acknowledged that significant investment would be needed to bring them forward.

5.19 Within the AAP, at Appendix 4, set out the anticipated trajectory for delivery at the time of adoption.

See attachment for Table 5.3: Projected Net Dwelling Completions in Dudley AAP

5.20 This delivery has not materialised. The Dudley AMR (2020-2021) explains that the results from this year’s monitoring is ‘consistent with previous years’; i.e ‘limited development has yet taken place within the Brierley Hill APP Plan Area’.
5.21 The only development recorded as progressing in the last monitoring year was the redevelopment of the Canal Street Site (DOB H11) for 65 new affordable dwellings which has now completed, with 33 dwellings completed in this monitoring year and 11 residential units as part of an office conversion (see page 37 of AMR).

5.22 The evidence base suggests that 291 homes (net) have been delivered in the area since 2011. This is less than was anticipated to be delivered in the first five years following the adoption of the AAP (369 were anticipated 2011-2016).

5.23 It is understood that other sites have been granted planning permission, such as Oak Court with 78 approved residential units (ref. P18/1105/PN30 and P19/0830), however completions have not been forthcoming.

5.24 The following table sets out completions against the BCCS requirement in Brierley Hill Strategic Centre and shows that just 10.4% of the requirement has been delivered, with a 2,632 home shortfall.

See attachment for Table 5.4: Brierley Hill Net Completions

5.25 The lack of the delivery in the Strategic Location of Brierley Hill is a factor in the under delivery of Dudley as a whole against the adopted CS requirement, as is shown in Table
5.5 below.

See attachment for Table 5.5: Brierley Hill Completions against target

5.26 The Draft BCP does not provide an up to date assessment of the deliverability of Existing Allocations in Strategic Centres. They appear to have simply been re-included in the Councils’ supply without due scrutiny. The Councils also continue to include AAP sites in their assessment of five year housing land supply.

5.27 When reviewing the Council’s housing land supply and the sites from the AAP area (page 31 of the 2020 SHLAA) it is clear that there is no up to date evidence to demonstrate that these sites can be relied upon. The evidence for inclusion in the land supply table is described as ‘Yield determined through AAP evidence’. This is relying on evidence that was prepared to support a plan that was adopted over a decade ago, where there has been clear and present deliverability issues.

Object

Representation ID: 44801

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Existing Allocations in Wolverhampton
5.28 As with Dudley, the 2,248 homes due to deliver in the Strategic Centre in Wolverhampton (which is the City Centre) are identified in an Area Action Plan, the latest version of which was adopted in 2016. The aim was for 2,043 homes to be delivered by 2026, with 475 of these by 2021.

5.29 In this case, the AAP does not even explicitly identify all the sites it relies on to deliver these homes. The Core Strategy targets for the AAP area include 2,130 commitments and 1,100 unidentified sites in the City Centre, and 560 homes on employment land to the south of the City Centre.

5.30 At the time of AAP adoption (2016) there had been 470 homes completed in the City Centre and there were 163 homes on committed sites, according the latest SHLAA (2020) there are still 163 commitments to be delivered by 2021. The latest Wolverhampton SHLAA (2020) states that there had been 948 completions in the City Centre between 2006 and 2019. Although the documentation is not explicit, it appears that delivery has fallen behind what was expected and relied on.

Object

Representation ID: 44804

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Existing Allocations in Sandwell
5.31 The supply figures relied on from existing allocations in Sandwell are lower. The Strategic Centre in question is West Bromwich for which an AAP was adoptedin 2012. The evidence base was older than that, with Issues and Options in June 2006, Preferred Options in June 2008 and Changes to Preferred Options in January 2011.

5.32 The AAP should have delivered 201 homes before 2026, however it is difficult to identify specific numbers allocated as the adopted AAP is vague.

5.33 It is acknowledged that delivery may be slow in the AAP itself with paragraph 4.3 stating that some of the opportunity areas are considered to be more long term and in some instances will require other proposals to have come forward first before they can be delivered.

5.34 It is apparent that there are a number of allocations where delivery issues have come to light in the period since adoption of the AAP. The Lyng Industrial Estate, for example, was relied on for 300-430 homes, but Table 9 of SHLAA now assigns this site under the category “Sites allocated for housing but now considered not suitable / developable up to 2039”. The change arises from the viability and feasibility study commissioned which highlighted significant viability issues. In addition, the Eastern Gateway North site was identified for around 100 dwellings in the AAP and is now acknowledged in the SHLAA to have delivery issues relating to its occupation, the generally poor condition of the buildings and external environment and the fact that businesses would need relocating if the site was to come forward for residential development.

Comment

Representation ID: 44807

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Existing Allocations in Walsall
5.35 The Walsall Town Centre AAP (adopted in 2019) allocated the following sites for residential uses as shown on the Policies Map:

• TC11 Kirkpatricks, Charles Street; and

• TC15 FE Towe Ltd, Charles Street.
5.36 Both sites are industrial employment sites proposed to be redeveloped. The sites are now expected in the period ‘post 2025’ according to the 2020 SHLAA. This AAP was more recently adopted than some of the other AAPs, in 2019, and the Councils only appear to rely on 18 homes from this source in the Draft BCP

Object

Representation ID: 44810

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Conclusion on Existing Allocations
5.37 This source of supply (Existing Allocations in Strategic Centres not subject to review through the BCP) is relied on to deliver 4,973 homes between 2020 and 2039. The Councils claim that the application of a 15% discount rate to these sites is adequate to account for non-implementation.

5.38 There is significant doubt that the sites making up this source of supply are either deliverable or developable.

5.39 The sites are included in documents prepared in the context of the BCCS, and some are more than ten years old. There is a clear record of delivery issues with these allocations, with many of the Strategic Centre AAPs delivering significantly less than was originally anticipated.

5.40 They should not be relied on in the Draft BCP without investigation of site specific evidence through which it can be demonstrated that the sites are deliverable and developable, and thereby passing the NPPF tests. If site specific evidence is available to suggest the sites are deliverable or developable (which we do consider may exist for some sites), then they should be re-allocated through the Draft BCP, and fall into another source of the Councils’ supply.

5.41 We propose that beyond that no reliance should be placed on sites that have previously been allocated but have not come forward. If the allocations had come forward as planned, they would presumably be now counted as commitments

5.42 Furthermore, the Council’s own Viability and Delivery Study concludes that existing allocations in Strategic Centres are unviable.

5.43 As a result, without the necessary evidence base, it is necessary to remove the 4,973 homes, being the total quantum of homes relied on from this source in the plan period. It is nonetheless considered that some of this number could be offset through appropriate re-allocation, or identification of a specific existing allocation where up to date evidence is provided to confirm there is a reasonable prospect that they will be available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged.

5.44 Continued reliance on existing allocations where there is no realistic prospect they will come forward carries a risk of further compounding the pattern of delivery failure.

Object

Representation ID: 44811

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Proposed allocations on occupied employment land – discounted by 15%

5.45 The Councils rely on 3,091 homes in the plan period from this source. When considered against the NPPF tests, which emphasises ‘availability’ as a key tenet of being both developable and deliverable, these sites are unavailable as they are presently occupied by existing uses. There are particular risks with bringing forward occupied employment sites, in that they:
• have existing commercial value

• require business relocation

• are often in multiple ownerships without any form of collaboration agreement or equalisation

• have other commercial considerations (such as lease status)

• require land assembly

• will most likely require complex phases of remediation and new infrastructure

5.46 Whilst the Councils do highlight that investment may be forthcoming to assist land assembly and viability, specific evidence should be submitted for what sites this may affect. The allocation of occupied employment land for housing, in the context of the Councils’ own evidence base concluding that there is a gap (shortfall) of 140.3 ha against the demand requirement for employment sites in the Black Country area, casts doubt over whether there is a reasonable prospect that any of this source of supply is developable at all.

5.47 The Councils report, in the Urban Capacity Review, the following historic rates on occupied employment sites.

See attachment for Table 5.6: Homes Allocated and Delivered on Occupied Employment Land

5.48 The above demonstrates that of the occupied employment land allocated in the previous round of development plan documents associated to the BCCS, just 4.2% of the homes have been delivered.

5.49 It is acknowledged that there are additional permissions which have been granted (193 homes on 4.5ha of land in Dudley, and 510 homes on 23ha of land in Sandwell) but these do not substantially change the conclusion, and these sites remain undelivered.

5.50 The NPPF states that Local Plans must be aspirational but deliverable. We suggest that a precautionary approach to occupied employment sites as a source of supply must apply given the local track record of delivery, and due to the known constraints to delivery of these sites.
5.51 The precautionary principle should apply even more so, given the findings of the Councils’ evidence base and conclusions on employment land over the Draft BCP plan period.

5.52 The Councils apply a 15% discount rate to account for non-implementation, but it is considered that this does not go nearly far enough. The Councils state that the 15% non-implementation rate is supported by the GL Hearn Greater Birmingham HMA Strategic Growth Study (2018) which endorsed application of a 15% discount in the Black Country to:

“…take account of the significant proportion of the land supply which comprises employment sites where there are challenges associated with delivery related to assembling land, relocating existing occupiers, and development viability.”

5.53 Paragraph 4.123 of that report acknowledges that the discount is:

“…judgement-based and applied for the purposes of this report only and should not be considered to prejudge what allowance should be made for non-implementation in individual local plans or authorities’ land supply assessments, which can take account of locally-specific circumstances and evidence.”

5.54 It is clear then that the 15% discount was not intended to be relied on in Local Plan preparation, and does not assist in endorsing the Black Country authorities’ approach on this matter. It is still necessary for the Councils to prepare their own, authority specific, evidence to support their approach.

5.55 Dudley have undertaken a landowner engagement exercise in relation to assessing the availability of existing employment sites. The Dudley Employment Landowner Engagement Technical Report (August 2021) Appendix B sets out the responses to a direct land owner approach survey. There appears to be only two sites out of circa 45 sites documented where the owners have confirmed availability for the proposed use and the site has also been submitted into the SHLAA for housing availability.

5.56 For the significant majority of sites proposed in the Landowner Engagement Exercise Technical Report his document to be re-allocated for housing, the evidence suggests that no response was received from the landowner.

5.57 Evidence from only one of the four authorities covered by the BCP is insufficient to justify an approach with such strategic implications.

5.58 Given the Councils’ track record of delivery and the findings of their evidence base, the BCP should only include sites on occupied employment land that is known to be available, suitable and where some evidence is available of likely economic viability.

5.59 In reality this involves removal of all sites where there is any ambiguity around leases/current employment occupation etc.

5.60 This results in a reduction of the full 3,091 homes relied on from this source in the plan period, based on the Councils’ current limited and insufficient evidence base. However, it is suggested that some of this number could be offset through appropriate re-allocation, or identification as specific developable existing allocations where up to date evidence provided to confirm there is a reasonable prospect that they will be available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged.