Policy HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

Object

Representation ID: 44813

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Wolverhampton City Centre upper floor conversions

5.61 Being unallocated sites, the upper floor conversions source of supply comprises a windfall allowance.

5.62 The principle behind reliance on a significant windfall from ‘upper floor conversions’ in Wolverhampton presumably comes from the NPPF reference at paragraph 71 which states that any allowance can consider expected future trends.

5.63 Following consultation in December 2020, the Government proposed a number of amendments to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO) which have now been laid before Parliament in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) Order 2021. The changes include Class MA business and commercial to residential permitted development rights, which in practice provide permitted development (‘PD’) from Class E to Class C3 residential. The rights took effect from 1st August 2021.

5.64 There is no evidence to show what delivery has materialised from this source in previous years and there can be no up-to-date and reliable data to show the potential from this source as a result of the expansion of the above PD rights.

5.65 Paragraph 71 also states that 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.

5.66 To this end, the NPPF clarifies that windfall allowances should be realistic, with regard had to the strategic housing land availability assessment and historic windfall delivery rates. There is no evidence in the SHLAA or any data on historic windfall delivery rates of this nature in the Black Country.

5.67 There is no compelling evidence currently provided that a windfall allowance of this nature will provide the supply claimed.

5.68 There are limitations on the scale, conditions to the rights (including that the building must be vacant for 3 months prior to application) and the take-up/market impacts of this change remain to be seen in practice.

5.69 If upper floor conversions are to form part of the Councils’ supply, then they should be considered a part of the windfall allowance, which is identified as a separate source.

5.70 We suggest removal of this source entirely (812 homes), as no compelling evidence has been provided to demonstrate that this will constitute a source of supply in the plan period, nor can possibly be available given the time elapsed since the relevant policy change has been in place. If evidence is provided that a realistically consistent source of windfall will arise from upper floor conversions, then they should be considered as part of the main windfall allowance.

Object

Representation ID: 44815

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

6.8 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.

6.9 Setting realistic delivery assumptions, as required by the NPPF, 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. This 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 we propose a reduction of 695 homes to this source in the plan period;

• 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. We therefore propose a reduction of 4,973 homes to this source in the plan period;

• 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 NPPF which also seeks to ensure a sufficient supply of employment sites. We propose a reduction of 3,091 homes to this source in the plan period; 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 we therefore suggest removal of the entirety of this source (812 homes) in the plan period.
6.10 Based on the above, we conclude that 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.

6.11 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.

Support

Representation ID: 44839

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ruskin Properties

Policy HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
Policy HOU1 relates to delivering sustainable housing growth. Criteria 4) states that:
“The development of sites for housing should demonstrate a comprehensive approach, making best use of available land and infrastructure and not prejudicing neighbouring uses…Masterplans and Supplementary Planning Documents will be produced, where appropriate, to provide detailed guidance on the development of strategic allocations.”
Support is given to this part of the policy subject to the Local Planning Authority supporting the extension of the allocated housing site DUH006 as referred to above. The Masterplan submitted in support of these representations and supporting technical reports demonstrates how site DUH006 needs to be delivered to achieve a comprehensive approach that will regenerate and remediate the entirety of the site. Without the extension of the allocation, the wider site will not be remediated, managed, or maintained.

Object

Representation ID: 44892

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Folkes Holdings

Agent: Harris Lamb

P1661
SUBJECT: BLACK COUNTRY PLAN – DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

RESPONSE TO POLICY CSP1 – DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (HOUSING DELIVERY)
Housing Requirement
Policy CSP1 – Development Strategy, of the draft Plan provides the overarching policy guidance on housing delivery during the course of the Plan Period. Part 1.(a) of the policy states that during the course of the Plan Period “at least” 47,837 net new homes will be provided in the Black Country. However, the housing target of 47,837 dwellings will not deliver the total number of houses that are required. Table 2 – Black Country Development Strategy 2020-2039, of the draft Plan identifies a need for the development of 76,076 dwellings. The residual requirement of 28,239 dwellings will be directed to other local authority areas through the duty to cooperate.

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

In the first instance, Table 2 of the draft Plan suggests that a total of 76,076 dwellings is required
during the Plan Period. This is, however, less than the Standard Method housing requirement identified by the Black Country Housing Market Assessment 2021 (“BCHMA”), produced by the Black Country Authorities. At paragraph 4.13 it is advised that “the final housing need in the Black Country, assessed using the revised Standard Method, is 4,019 per year”. The Plan period runs from 2020 to 2039. As such, the BCHMA concludes with a total of 76,361 dwellings required during the course of the plan period (4,019dpa 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 figure set out in the above will apply”. That being the case, the BCHMA does not test whether the minimum standard of housing requirement figure should be increased, in accordance with the requirements of the PPG.

Paragraph ID:2a – 010 – 20201216, of the PPG advises that “there will be circumstances where it is
appropriate to consider whether the actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates”. This will need to be assessed prior to, and separate from, considering how much of the overall need can be accommodated (and then translated into a housing requirement figure for the strategic policies in the plan). Circumstances where this may be appropriate include, but are not limited to situations where increases in housing need are likely to exceed past trends because of:
• Growth strategies for the area that are likely to be deliverable;
• Strategic infrastructure improvements that are likely to drive an increase in the homes needed
locally; or
• An authority agreeing to take on unmet need from neighbouring authorities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Housing Delivery
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 20202039, 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. There is insufficient information available to determine whether or not the discount rate suggested is robust. Furthermore, it is not clear whether
there are sites with a resolution to grant planning permission, but the S.106 has not been signed, where the resolutions are several years old. If the resolution to grant planning permission is more than 6 months old the site should not be included as a source of supply.

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

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

Furthermore, there is a significant shortfall of employment land within the Black Country, and
the conurbation as a whole. Whilst new employment allocations are proposed by the Plan these will be new build estates where rents will be significantly greater than second hand stock. It is unlikely that businesses that are located on the poorer quality employment sites
will be able to afford to rent or buy a new premises. Secondary, and lower cost stock, plays a vital role in the West Midlands economy. Losing land of this type to residential use may result in businesses closing. We are, therefore, extremely concerned that this source of supply is by and large undeliverable but could also have a detrimental effect on the supply of employment
land through the plan area. We therefore recommend that this source of supply be deleted from the supply. If allocated employment sites come forward for development during the course of the Plan Period they should simply be treated as part of the proposed windfall
allowance.

• 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 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 rate should, therefore, be applied to sites in this category.

Furthermore, as detailed in our response to policy HOU2, we are concerned that the density requirements identified are unrealistic. The emerging plan seeks to adopt a space standard policy which will increase dwelling sizes impacting upon density. It is not unusual, in our experience, for brownfield sites within the Black Country to have constraints that adversely affect density, such as
mineshafts or their relationship to surrounding uses.
It is, therefore, our view that the density policies are over ambitious and unrealistic, and the densities suggested will not be achieved. This in turn suggests that the capacity of the allocations has been over estimated and housing delivery will be reduced accordingly.

In conclusion, we are concerned that the identified sources of supply will be incapable of meeting that
part of the housing requirement identified by the Plan to be developed in the Black Country. 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 providing much needed market and affordable
housing within the Black Country for those that need it.

Support

Representation ID: 44903

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Cannock Chase Council

Support paragraph 6.8 that BCP recognises that additional capacity may exist within
the strategic centres and through windfall sites and support a review of this evidence
following the adoption of the BCP.

Object

Representation ID: 44935

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy HOU1 - Delivering Sustainable
Housing Growth

11.1 For the reasons set out in our response to Policy CSP1 Taylor Wimpey objects to Policy HOU1 which states that sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 47,837 net new homes over the period 2020 – 2039.

11.2 Draft Policy HOU1 is unsound as the BCPs own identified unmet housing need has been deferred rather than dealt with, contrary to the Framework (§35(c)), and the Duty to Cooperate has not been fulfilled.

11.3 The BCP has failed to provide sufficient land to meet the minimum housing needs, as per the Framework §11(b), and it will need to ensure that additional housing land is provided through further Green Belt release and the allocation of additional housing sites. In order to ensure that the plan is sound is considered that the minimum housing target for each authority area needs to be increased accordingly.

Housing Land Supply

11.4 In accordance with the Framework (§68 and §76) the BCP should ensure the availability of a sufficient supply of deliverable and developable land to meet the housing needs, ensure the maintenance of 5 Years Housing Land Supply (YHLS) and achieve Housing Delivery Test (HDT) performance measurements.

11.5 Taylor Wimpey notes that the majority of housing growth (40,117 dwellings) will be located within the existing built-up area. The use of brownfield sites has been optimised and BCA have undertaken a densification of existing and new allocations. However, whilst 81% of supply is on brownfield land and only 19% of supply is on greenfield land, there is limited information available from which to assess the robustness of the BCA proposals for the densification of sites in Strategic Centres (over 1,300 dwellings) and on new allocations, and densities may be overly ambitious.

11.6 Table 3 of the Draft BCP suggests that the supply for the period 2022 to 2039 will include 4,973 dwellings on existing allocations in Strategic Centres. We note that these sites are not subject to review in the BCP and there needs to be some assurance that these dwellings are deliverable given that they have been allocated for some time. In this regard, we note the findings of the BCP Viability Study (§7.7) which casts doubt over their deliverability:

“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”.

11.7 The BCP proposes that a total of 7,720 dwellings will be allocated on sites removed from the Green Belt, which are mainly located in the Neighbourhood Growth Areas and the remainder on smaller sites on the edge of the Towns and Neighbourhoods Areas in the form of rounding-off or through the redevelopment of previously developed land. Taylor Wimpey supports the release
of Green Belt land including that released to accommodate Strategic Allocation WSA.2.
However, additional Green Belt release is required for the reasons we have identified in these representations.

11.8 Taylor Wimpey considers it is critical that an accurate assessment of availability, suitability, deliverability, developability and viability is undertaken. The BCA assumptions on lead in times and delivery rates should be correct and supported by parties responsible for the delivery of housing on each individual site.

11.9 The Framework (§71) requires that 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. The windfall allowance of 7,651 dwellings should be robustly evidenced and there should be no double counting between windfall allowances, additional capacity and Wolverhampton upper floor conversions.

11.10 The discounts of 5% for other commitments and existing allocations, 10% for other BCP
allocations, and 10% & 15% for occupied employment land should also be robustly evidenced.

11.11Taylor Wimpey also considers that flexibility needs to be provided in the supply. At present, the supply matches the housing requirement of 47,837 dwelling identified in the Draft BCP. There is no headroom to account for slippage in anticipated delivery rates and additional flexibility needs to be provided in order to ensure that sufficient housing land is provided. The allocation of additional housing land, including Taylor Wimpey’s sites at Chester Road, Streetly and Clent View Road, Stourbridge, would contribute to providing this flexibility. As the BCP is highly dependent upon development in the existing built-up area (40,117 dwellings) and brownfield sites (81% of HLS) and the BCP Viability Study confirms that 65% typologies tested are marginally viable (27%) or unviable (38%), Taylor Wimpey considers that a significant flexibility
allowance is justified.

11.12 We are also concerned that insufficient detailed background information on each site has been provided to allow delivery assumptions to be transparently assessed. The Framework (§74) is clear that strategic policies should include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of housing delivery over the plan period and all plans should consider whether it is appropriate to set out the anticipated rate of development for specific sites.. The Housing Trajectories in Appendix 17 of the BCP show projected yearly completions but are not site specific. More detailed site specific evidence should be provided in order that deliverability can be robustly assessed.

11.13 The Framework (§68) requires planning policies to identify specific, deliverable sites to provide a 5 year housing land supply [5 YHLS]. A 5 YHLS Statement has not been provided by the BCA. and if a 5 YHLS cannot be demonstrated on adoption of the BCP and maintained throughout the plan period, the BCP should not be found sound. In addition, it is unclear whether the BCA are wishing to demonstrate 5 YHLS via adoption of the BCP as set out in the Framework (para 74b).

Viability and Deliverability

11.14 Viability will be central to determining the soundness of the BCP. The BCP Viability Study tests the cumulative impact of proposed policies on a representative sample of development site and scheme typologies. It notes that viability and delivery advice in respect of a portfolio of Key Large Sites is provided in a separate confidential report. Taylor Wimpey considers that this information should be provided as part of the BCP evidence base in order that the cost applied for such provision can be properly reviewed to ensure that it is sound.

11.15 The Viability Study concludes that of the total housing capacity tested 38% are assessed as unviable and 27% are assessed as marginally viable based on the original target rates of affordable housing contributions of 30% for greenfield sites and 25% for brownfield sites. In accordance with the Framework (§34), the contributions expected from development including the level & types of affordable housing provision required and other infrastructure for education, health, transport, flood & water management, open space, digital communication, etc. should be set out in the BCP , and development should not be subject to such a scale of obligations that the deliverability of the BCP is threatened. If a robust approach is not undertaken, the BCP will be unsound. Landowners and developers will have to submit site- specific assessments to challenge assumptions in the Black Country Viability & Delivery Study and such negotiations at planning application stage causes uncertainty for both the BCA and developers, which may result in significant delay to housing delivery or even non-delivery.

11.16 We have provided further commentary on viability issues in our representations to individual policies in this report. Further commentary on the BCP Viability Study has been prepared by Bruton Knowles on behalf of Taylor Wimpey and is attached at Appendix 5.

11.17 Before the pre-submission BCP consultation, further viability work should be undertaken to address the concerns raised.

Part 4
11.18 Part 4 of the policy states that Masterplans and Supplementary Planning Documents will be produced, where appropriate, to provide detailed guidance on the development of strategic allocations. Taylor Wimpey considers that this guidance would best be provided in the BCP in order to ensure that sites are genuinely deliverable and the viability implications of any infrastructure provision etc. can be properly considered at examination prior to the adoption of
the plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 44971

Received: 09/03/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

11.0 Policy HOU1 - Delivering Sustainable
Housing Growth
11.1 For the reasons set out in our response to Policy CSP1 Taylor Wimpey objects to Policy HOU1
which states that sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 47,837 net new homes over
the period 2020 – 2039.
11.2 Draft Policy HOU1 is unsound as the BCPs own identified unmet housing need has been
deferred rather than dealt with, contrary to the Framework (§35(c)), and the Duty to Cooperate
has not been fulfilled.
11.3 The BCP has failed to provide sufficient land to meet the minimum housing needs, as per the
Framework §11(b), and it will need to ensure that additional housing land is provided through
further Green Belt release and the allocation of additional housing sites. In order to ensure that
the plan is sound is considered that the minimum housing target for each authority area needs
to be increased accordingly.
Housing Land Supply
11.4 In accordance with the Framework (§68 and §76) the BCP should ensure the availability of a
sufficient supply of deliverable and developable land to meet the housing needs, ensure the
maintenance of 5 Years Housing Land Supply (YHLS) and achieve Housing Delivery Test (HDT)
performance measurements.
11.5 Taylor Wimpey notes that the majority of housing growth (40,117 dwellings) will be located
within the existing built-up area. The use of brownfield sites has been optimised and BCA have
undertaken a densification of existing and new allocations. However, whilst 81% of supply is on
brownfield land and only 19% of supply is on greenfield land, there is limited information
available from which to assess the robustness of the BCA proposals for the densification of sites
in Strategic Centres (over 1,300 dwellings) and on new allocations, and densities may be overly
ambitious.
11.6 Table 3 of the Draft BCP suggests that the supply for the period 2022 to 2039 will include 4,973
dwellings on existing allocations in Strategic Centres. We note that these sites are not subject to
review in the BCP and there needs to be some assurance that these dwellings are deliverable
given that they have been allocated for some time. In this regard, we note the findings of the
BCP Viability Study (§7.7) which casts doubt over their deliverability:
“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”.
11.7 The BCP proposes that a total of 7,720 dwellings will be allocated on sites removed from the
Green Belt, which are mainly located in the Neighbourhood Growth Areas and the remainder on
smaller sites on the edge of the Towns and Neighbourhoods Areas in the form of rounding-off or
through the redevelopment of previously developed land. Taylor Wimpey supports the release
of Green Belt land including that released to accommodate Strategic Allocation WSA.2.
However, additional Green Belt release is required for the reasons we have identified in these
representations.
11.8 Taylor Wimpey considers it is critical that an accurate assessment of availability, suitability,
deliverability, developability and viability is undertaken. The BCA assumptions on lead in times
and delivery rates should be correct and supported by parties responsible for the delivery of
housing on each individual site.
11.9 The Framework (§71) requires that 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. The windfall allowance of 7,651 dwellings should be robustly evidenced and there
should be no double counting between windfall allowances, additional capacity and
Wolverhampton upper floor conversions.
11.10 The discounts of 5% for other commitments and existing allocations, 10% for other BCP
allocations, and 10% & 15% for occupied employment land should also be robustly evidenced.
11.11 Taylor Wimpey also considers that flexibility needs to be provided in the supply. At present, the
supply matches the housing requirement of 47,837 dwelling identified in the Draft BCP. There
is no headroom to account for slippage in anticipated delivery rates and additional flexibility
needs to be provided in order to ensure that sufficient housing land is provided. The allocation
of additional housing land, including Taylor Wimpey’s sites at Chester Road, Streetly and Clent
View Road, Stourbridge, would contribute to providing this flexibility. As the BCP is highly
dependent upon development in the existing built-up area (40,117 dwellings) and brownfield
sites (81% of HLS) and the BCP Viability Study confirms that 65% typologies tested are
marginally viable (27%) or unviable (38%), Taylor Wimpey considers that a significant flexibility
allowance is justified.
11.12 We are also concerned that insufficient detailed background information on each site has been
provided to allow delivery assumptions to be transparently assessed. The Framework (§74) is
clear that strategic policies should include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of housing
delivery over the plan period and all plans should consider whether it is appropriate to set out
the anticipated rate of development for specific sites.. The Housing Trajectories in Appendix 17
of the BCP show projected yearly completions but are not site specific. More detailed site
specific evidence should be provided in order that deliverability can be robustly assessed.
11.13 The Framework (§68) requires planning policies to identify specific, deliverable sites to provide
a 5 year housing land supply [5 YHLS]. A 5 YHLS Statement has not been provided by the BCA.
and if a 5 YHLS cannot be demonstrated on adoption of the BCP and maintained throughout the
plan period, the BCP should not be found sound. In addition, it is unclear whether the BCA are
wishing to demonstrate 5 YHLS via adoption of the BCP as set out in the Framework (para 74b).
Viability and Deliverability
11.14 Viability will be central to determining the soundness of the BCP. The BCP Viability Study tests
the cumulative impact of proposed policies on a representative sample of development site and
scheme typologies. It notes that viability and delivery advice in respect of a portfolio of Key
Large Sites is provided in a separate confidential report. Taylor Wimpey considers that this
information should be provided as part of the BCP evidence base in order that the cost applied
for such provision can be properly reviewed to ensure that it is sound.
11.15 The Viability Study concludes that of the total housing capacity tested 38% are assessed as
unviable and 27% are assessed as marginally viable based on the original target rates of
affordable housing contributions of 30% for greenfield sites and 25% for brownfield sites. In
accordance with the Framework (§34), the contributions expected from development including
the level & types of affordable housing provision required and other infrastructure for
education, health, transport, flood & water management, open space, digital communication,
etc. should be set out in the BCP , and development should not be subject to such a scale of
obligations that the deliverability of the BCP is threatened. If a robust approach is not
undertaken, the BCP will be unsound. Landowners and developers will have to submit sitespecific
assessments to challenge assumptions in the Black Country Viability & Delivery Study
and such negotiations at planning application stage causes uncertainty for both the BCA and
developers, which may result in significant delay to housing delivery or even non-delivery.
11.16 We have provided further commentary on viability issues in our representations to individual
policies in this report. Further commentary on the BCP Viability Study has been prepared by
Bruton Knowles on behalf of Taylor Wimpey and is attached at Appendix 5.
11.17 Before the pre-submission BCP consultation, further viability work should be undertaken to
address the concerns raised.
Part 4
11.18 Part 4 of the policy states that Masterplans and Supplementary Planning Documents will be
produced, where appropriate, to provide detailed guidance on the development of strategic
allocations. Taylor Wimpey considers that this guidance would best be provided in the BCP in
order to ensure that sites are genuinely deliverable and the viability implications of any
infrastructure provision etc. can be properly considered at examination prior to the adoption of
the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 45865

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen Developments Ltd

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

2.24 The observations in this section speak to the general strategy of the BCP. The detail of how that is expressed in terms of the housing requirement, and how a contribution to meeting that requirement can be met through a further strategic allocation, are considered in Sections 3 and 4 respectively.
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 8

3. THE HOUSING REQUIREMENT


3.1 As discussed in Section 2, above, there are issues in the way the spatial strategy of the BCP is framed in policy terms and the extent to which at the outset it properly acknowledges the scale and character of development need, and the way it expresses it will be met, including in particular through Green Belt release. However, there are also more detailed issues with the quantum of need identified, its distribution, and how it will be met. Those matters are discussed in this section of the representations, principally in relation to the housing requirement. The points made in this section reflect back on the content of the strategic policies discussed in Section 2, and should be understood in that context.

3.2 The concerns raised below in reference specifically to Policy HOU1 are however far reaching and point to a fundamental failing of the draft Plan to meet the tests of soundness set out in the Framework.

3.3 This section first looks at the quantum and distribution of housing proposed in the draft Plan in principle and then at the proposed components of the draft Plan’s anticipated supply in more detail. It then identifies some additional points of concern with regard to the draft Plan’s anticipated provision of housing, before setting out a summary of the points raised.

Comments on: Policy HOU1 – Development Strategy


Nature of comment: Objection


Quantum and Distribution of Unmet Housing Need in the Black Country over the BCP

period


3.4 The Framework (paragraph 61) expects strategic policy-making authorities to determine the minimum number of homes needed in strategic policies by following the Standard Method set out in Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) for assessing Local Housing Need. It also states that in addition to the Local Housing Need figure, any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas should also be taken into account in establishing the amount of housing to be planned for.

3.5 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
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 9

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).

3.6 Policy HOU1 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 HOU1 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.

3.7 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 but that ultimately this matter will be elaborated on in more detail in Statements of Common Ground at Publication stage.

3.8 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. In other words, even this approach of relying heavily on neighbouring authorities will not, by some margin, deliver the minimum number of homes currently needed in the Black Country over the BCP period.

3.9 Whilst the draft BCP says that the BCA recognise that this approach may only address “a proportion of the housing (and employment) shortfall”, it does not offer a solution as to how the sizeable shortfall, or the homes that are needed in the Black Country over the BCP period, will be made up.
3.10 The draft BCP simply says 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


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 Calculated in the Black Country Housing Market Assessment: Final Report (March 2021)
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 10

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.

3.11 To put this into context, the West Midlands has struggled unsuccessfully 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 that Birmingham is also relying on neighbouring authorities (including the BCA) to deliver. Notwithstanding the various housing need and supply Position Statements published by Birmingham and its neighbouring authorities since the adoption of the Birmingham Development Plan, which suggest that Birmingham’s unmet need has gradually reduced over time reflecting changing unmet housing need figures derived for the whole Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA) and supply evidence including ‘commitments’ (allocated or emerging contributions) from neighbouring authorities, the only adopted, and examined, shortfall figure for Birmingham is 37,900 homes. Simply put, no other shortfall figures have been tested at Examination, and ultimately no other housing shortfall figures have been adopted.

3.12 Moreover, the ‘commitments’ made by the GBBCHMA authorities to deliver some of Birmingham’s unmet need are from the same authorities that the BCA are also now relying on to deliver their substantial unmet needs (28,239 homes up to 2039) – including South Staffordshire and Lichfield for example.

3.13 To summarise, Birmingham’s unmet housing needs have not been fully addressed within the GBBCHMA. Several neighbouring authorities are unable to help meet those needs, and several others have already committed homes elsewhere. It is clear that the GBBCHMA’s current approach to plan-making and to strategically address the significant unmet needs of Birmingham, and now the Black Country, through DTC is not working, and should not continue to form the focus of plan making in the GBBCHMA and in particular the BCA.

3.14 To compound this, as matters stand there is also likely to be a very considerable amount of additional unmet need from Birmingham beyond 2031 as a result of the City being subject to the 35% uplift in Local Housing Need that applies to each of the 20 largest urban areas (which includes Birmingham, and also Wolverhampton) as now included as part of the Government’s Standard Method.

3.15 In short, and in headline terms, the draft BCP raises some very serious concerns over its inability to meet the minimum identified housing needs of the BCA over the Plan period,
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 11

and by some considerable margin. It does not fully grapple with the scale of unmet housing need it has identified and relies too heavily on neighbouring GBBCHMA authorities to deliver it. This is a strategy that has so far not worked for neighbouring Birmingham. Ultimately, the draft Plan fails to address in any tangible way how the minimum number of homes needed in the BCA during the BCP period can ever be delivered. As a result it fails to meet any of the tests of soundness set out at Paragraph 35 of the Framework.

Distribution of the draft BCP’s Anticipated Housing Supply


3.16 Delving deeper into the draft Plan’s key component sources of housing land supply, the very serious concerns raised above from the headline figures are exacerbated.

3.17 Policy HOU1 itself refers to the key sources of housing land supply being summarised in Tables 3 and 4, and illustrated in the Housing Spatial Diagram. The Policy goes on to say that the majority of the housing requirement, or the 47,837 homes it says it can deliver, will be delivered through sites with existing planning permission and sites it allocates for housing and allocated in other local plan documents. Additional housing supply will also be secured on windfall sites throughout the Black Country Urban Area and through the update of local plans covering the Strategic Centres, where appropriate. It also says that the estimated net effect of housing renewal up to 2039 will be reviewed annually and taken into account in the calculation of housing land supply. It then deducts 1,071 homes from Dudley’s estimated Housing Renewal (deductions) and Small-Scale Demolitions (windfall). For the reasons set out below (para. 3.39 et seq.) this deduction is likely to be an underestimate, and the true figure would have a greater, negative, effect on supply.

3.18 To summarise, Table 3 sets out that the BCP anticipates 21,413 homes (43.7% of the gross new homes total) will be delivered from “current supply” or commitments as of April
2020; 17,732 homes (36.3%) will be delivered from allocations in the draft BCP (including through Green Belt release); 8,463 homes (17.3%) will be delivered from windfall sites as part of a windfall allowance of small sites (less than 10 homes or 0.25 ha); and 1,300 (2.7%) will be delivered from additional site capacity in strategic centres (to be allocated in Local Plans), once discounts are applied to account for non-implementation and delays to delivery for example.

3.19 The justification to the policy sets out that 81% of identified supply is on brownfield land and 19% on greenfield land.

3.20 The minimum housing target for each BCA over the period 2020 – 2039, and for each of the phases of the BCP, is set out in Table 4.

3.21 Detailed concerns highlighting shortcomings in the components of the draft BCP’s anticipated supply are set out as follows (numbered i – vi):
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 12

i. Increasing Housing Density


3.22 The housing supply figures set out in Table 3 are informed by the Black Country Urban Capacity Review Update (Urban Capacity Review, May 2021) which reviewed all housing and employment allocations in the Black Country Joint Core Strategy which fall outside the Strategic Centres. This included a review of the Black Country Core Strategy’s (BCCS) density assumptions leading to the new density policy in the emerging BCP (draft Policy HOU2). It recognised that increasing minimum densities throughout the Black Country from 35dpa to 40dpa, 45 dpa or 100 dpa (as set out in draft Policy HOU2) could give rise to an additional supply of 476 homes, or just under 1% of the total 47,837 homes anticipated in the Plan.

3.23 In other words, the Urban Capacity Review Update confirms that a continuation of the BCCS strategy to focus growth in the Urban Areas, but increasing development densities to those now set out in draft Policy HOU2, will yield just 476 additional homes or just under
1% of the total homes anticipated in the draft BCP. It is clear that increasing development densities on BCCS allocation sites will result in minimal increases to the Black Country’s housing supply over the Plan period.

ii. Converting Employment Land to Residential Use


3.24 The Urban Capacity Review also refers to new evidence prepared in support of the draft BCP which has resulted in removal of suitable / developable status from a “significant number” of existing (BCCS) housing allocations on surplus occupied employment land. The draft BCP refers to retention of the BCCS discount rates of 15% on residential allocations on occupied employment land “in order to take account of the multiple delivery constraints that typically affect such sites and that are likely to reduce delivery on a minority of sites”. The GBBCHMA Growth Study (February 2018) prepared by GL Hearn however concluded that this (15%) rate reflects the “significant proportion of land supply on occupied employment land with delivery challenges” (our emphasis underlined), notwithstanding that a “significant number” of the most constrained residential allocations on occupied employment land have been removed from the housing supply in any event. 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.

3.25 The Urban Capacity Review also points to the shift in evidence now demonstrating a net need for an increase in employment land rather than the surplus of such land as previously identified around the Black Country, to inform the BCCS. As such, the Urban Capacity Review sets out that the BCA have looked at increasing the number of employment sites
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 13

that could be given over to housing but recognised that this would also mean more employment sites would be needed to replace those being lost, noting there is already a substantial unmet need of employment land of 211 ha that the draft BCP is relying on neighbouring authorities to deliver (in addition to the substantial unmet housing need). Whilst the focus of these representations is on the housing land requirement, it is clear that the shortcomings of the BCP in meeting development needs are also significant in terms of employment land.

3.26 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.

iii. Green Belt Release - Sites


3.27 By contrast, the draft BCP recognises that green field sites, including those proposed to be released from the Green Belt, will generally not be affected by delivery constraints and as a result no discount has been applied to allocations on sites released from the Green Belt. The Policy’s justifying text does however recognise that for five of the larger Green Belt release sites in Walsall, the Viability and Delivery Study has indicated that housing capacity up to 2039 is likely to be limited by market constraints such that not all of the homes identified from these sites will be delivered in the BCP period, and around 1,715 homes will be delivered post 2039. This indicates that greenfield sites, including Green Belt sites, are necessary to deliver the homes needed in the Black Country but that the draft Plan relies heavily on a relatively small number of sites, including in locations that are limited by market constraints.

3.28 Despite this, the Key Spatial Diagram / Spatial Strategy demonstrates, for example, that there are no large-scale housing allocations at all to the south and south west of the Black Country conurbation, and only 3 small to medium sized allocations (50 to 100 homes) in this area generally.

3.29 The limited release of Green Belt sites within the BCA also raises a further concern around the ability and suitability of neighbouring authorities to deliver the homes, and scale of homes, needed in the Black Country over the BCP period.

3.30 The Black Country and neighbouring Birmingham form a conurbation which is surrounded by the metropolitan Green Belt. The Green Belt is drawn quite tightly around the conurbation meaning it largely extends into neighbouring authorities, the majority of which
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 14

are rural in nature, and are largely covered by Green Belt in the parts closest to the BCA. This means that locations in those neighbouring authorities that are suitable to contribute towards the housing (and employment) needs of the Black Country are (literally) few and far between, and some distance from the Black Country itself whose needs they would be meeting. The Black Country’s needs cannot be met by displacing the requirement to generally quite distant towns in neighbouring authorities. Locations close to the BCA would require release of Green Belt from those neighbouring authorities rather than releasing Green Belt from the BCA.

3.31 This is notably the case to the south and southwest of the Black Country, in Dudley (where there is very limited Green Belt release proposed) but whose needs would have to be met in neighbouring South Staffordshire and Bromsgrove District, which are particularly rural in nature and whose countryside is almost entirely comprised of Green Belt, if they are to suitably contribute to the needs of the Black Country (and to the south and southwest of the Black Country in particular).

3.32 This provides another indicator that the BCA need to identify more Green Belt release sites themselves to contribute towards their own identified housing needs, rather than relying heavily on neighbouring authorities to deliver those needs and for those neighbouring authorities to release sites in their own Green Belts.

iv. Strategic Centres


3.33 The justification to Policy HOU1 also says that the draft BCP does not make or review allocations within Strategic Centres, but additional capacity above existing supply is nonetheless expected to come forward within Strategic Centres over the Plan period (amounting to 1,300 homes, or 2.7%, of the draft Plan’s total anticipated supply). The justification to the Policy goes on to say that 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.

3.34 The uncertainty provided at this stage of the draft BCP suggests that the 1,300 homes included in the anticipated supply from this source is an arbitrary figure and cannot be relied upon within the draft BCP at this stage, casting further doubt over the ability of the draft BCP to deliver the homes needed in the Black Country during the Plan period, if relying on the strategy set out within the draft Plan.

v. Windfall


3.35 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”.
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 15

Paragraph 71 of the Framework says Local Planning Authorities may make an allowance for windfall sites in their 5 year supply, 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).

3.36 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.

3.37 Moreover, windfall sites are by their definition unknown and have therefore not been identified yet. The BCP’s heavy reliance on windfall sites, to the tune of 17.3% of its total anticipated supply, represents an over-reliance on this source of housing supply particularly given the ineffectiveness of the BCCS’ strategy to date to focus and support development within the Strategic Centres and Urban Areas more generally since its adoption in 2011. An over-reliance on windfall sites is particularly notable in Dudley where of the 13,235 net new homes anticipated over the Plan period (as set out in Table 4), 2,816 (or 21%) are from the windfall allowance.

3.38 The heavy reliance on windfall further calls into question the ability of the draft BCP to deliver the homes needed in the Black Country during the Plan period.

vi. Demolitions in Dudley Borough


3.39 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”.


3.40 The justification text sets out that parts of Dudley have been identified as needing some form of housing market intervention. A combination of renovation, improvement, refurbishment, and / or redevelopment is proposed, to be determined on a site-by-site basis having regard to the most sustainable approach and the needs of the Borough and its community. As such, the likely amount of demolition across current Dudley housing renewal sites (-323) has been estimated for the purposes of the BCP (Table 3).

3.41 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. In doing so it acknowledges that this may result in an overall loss in housing capacity but is also subject to detailed consultation. To date, the Urban Capacity Review Update sets out that 323 demolitions have been programmed
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 16

and it is this figure that is shown in Table 3 of the draft Plan. This figure is likely to be a significant underestimate of the number of demolitions required in Dudley during the BCP period and if it does increase (as is likely), would further reduce the number of net new homes that could be delivered within the BCA during the BCP period.

3.42 Each of the points highlighted above – including around increasing housing density of BCCS allocation sites, converting employment land to residential use, green belt release sites, additional capacity in Strategic Centres, over reliance on windfall sites and deductions arising from anticipated demolitions in Dudley - indicates that those sites that are relied upon in Table 3 of the draft BCP are unlikely to deliver even the 47,837 net new homes that are anticipated in the draft Plan, such that the true extent of unmet need within the Black Country is likely to be significantly greater than the already substantial 28,239 homes it acknowledges. They also highlight that the Black Country’s neighbouring authorities are extremely unlikely to meet the Black Country’s unmet housing needs. Each of these fundamental points of principle concern indicate that the BCA need to identify significantly more sites to deliver the homes needed in the Black Country, and this will require additional Green Belt release above that which the Plan currently identifies.

Trajectory


3.43 Added to the concerns around distribution of anticipated supply raised above, the Housing Trajectory set out at pages 706 and 707 of the draft BCP indicates that there is no contingency in the housing supply identified in the draft BCP, such that cumulatively the sites identified in Table 3 will not meet the HOU1 target supply until the final year of the BCP period (2038/39), when the trajectory suggests the anticipated supply will enter into surplus, but only then by a single home.

3.44 Notwithstanding this approach would leave the BCA susceptible to 5 Year Housing Land Supply challenges throughout the BCP period, this also suggests that if just two homes from all of the sources of supply identified in the draft Plan do not come forward as planned, the 47,837 net total homes anticipated in the BCP will not be delivered – meaning the shortfall in supply will be exacerbated beyond the 28,239 homes that are currently not being planned for.

3.45 Whilst there is no ‘rule’ for how much flexibility should be built into a strategic development plan to ensure delivery of a housing requirement, many experts, including the HBF, often advocate a 20% buffer. The lack of any buffer here is considered particularly remiss given the reliance on sites that are unlikely to deliver the housing set out in Table 3 and in neighbouring authorities for the reasons set out above. The lack of flexibility to deliver the
47,837 homes identified in Table 3 further necessitates additional housing sites being
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 17

identified in the Black Country in the BCP to provide sufficient flexibility to meet any unforeseen circumstances over the course of its Plan period. This is of course in the context that the BCP fails to plan for enough homes to deliver its Local Housing Need in any event, and by a significant margin.

Green Belt Release - Strategy


3.46 Policy HOU1 does not make any specific reference to Green Belt release forming an integral part of the draft BCP strategy to deliver the homes needed in the BCA. This despite the BCA acknowledging that the Black Country’s significant housing needs cannot be met if the current BCCS strategy to focus growth in Strategic Centres and on brownfield land within the Urban Areas generally necessitates release of Green Belt land, and ultimately that this need amounts to the exceptional circumstances required to alter the Green Belt in accordance with Framework (Paragraph 140). The BCAs have acknowledged that Green Belt release is essential in order to deliver housing growth in accordance with national planning policy.

3.47 Paragraph 140 of the Framework goes on to say that “Strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries, having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so they can endure beyond the plan period.”

3.48 With this in mind, it is important to consider that a Green Belt Review is generally regarded as a “once in a generation” occurrence whereby Green Belt boundaries should endure well beyond the Plan period. The justification for Policy HOU1 refers to green field land contributing just 19% of the Table 3 anticipated supply despite the acknowledged inability to continue to rely on brownfield land in the Urban Areas. Green Belt release sites contribute 16% of the Table 3 anticipated supply highlighting the very limited amount of suitable greenfield land available in the Black Country that is not in the Green Belt. The contribution of Green Belt land to meeting the housing requirement in the draft Plan as currently formatted is very limited. In the context of the comments set out above dealing with the inability of the BCP to meet a significant proportion of its requirement within the BCA area, and in terms of the extent to which it has been shown that event the current limited level of provision to be made within the BCA area rather than exported has been overstated, there is a clear justification for identifying further sites in the Green Belt for release.

3.49 Similarly, the inability of the Black Country’s neighbouring authorities to deliver the homes needed by the Black Country (and neighbouring Birmingham), is compounded where those neighbouring authorities would have to release sites from their own Green Belts.
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 18

3.50 As we have discussed above, the inability of the Strategic Centres and Urban Areas generally of the BCA and of the wider GBBCHMA to meet their minimum housing needs is a recurrent strategic planning issue, which requires significant bold intervention.

3.51 With brownfield opportunities exhausted, and in any event failing to deliver, the BCP must identify more Green Belt release sites within the Black Country to meet the Black Country’s own housing needs during the BCP period, and beyond.

SUMMARY


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

3.53 This fundamental concern is exacerbated where 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.

3.54 It is exacerbated further still where the neighbouring authorities being relied upon to deliver the homes needed in the Black Country lack suitable growth locations that are well related to the Black Country whose needs they would be meeting and are in any event constrained heavily by their own Green Belts, such that they would need to release sites within their own Green Belts to meet the Black Country’s unmet needs.

3.55 There is also a distinct lack of flexibility to deliver the 47,837 homes identified in Table 3 of the draft BCP, and this also necessitates identifying additional housing sites to provide flexibility in the Black Country’s housing supply over the BCP period.

3.56 The BCAs have acknowledged that Green Belt release is essential in order to deliver housing growth as part of the BCP strategy and in accordance with national planning policy.

3.57 With this in mind, it is important to consider that a Green Belt Review is a “once in a generation” occurrence and Green Belt boundaries should endure well beyond the Plan period. Despite this, and the inability of the Strategic Centres and Urban Areas of the BCA and of the wider GBBCHMA generally to meet their minimum housing needs being a
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 19

recurrent strategic planning issue, which requires significant bold intervention, Green Belt release sites contribute just 16% of the BCP’s anticipated supply over the plan period.

3.58 With brownfield opportunities exhausted, and in any event failing to deliver, the BCP must identify (significantly) more Green Belt release sites to help meet its minimum housing needs during the BCP period, and beyond, and to avoid the need for another Green Belt Review in the near future.

3.59 The concerns raised above in reference specifically to Policy HOU1 are far reaching and point to a fundamental failing of the draft Plan to meet the tests of soundness set out in the Framework.

3.60 In terms of a remedy for these shortcomings, at a basic level, Policy HOU1 requires amendment to identify significantly more deliverable and developable housing sites and to achieve that additional Green Belt release sites must be identified.

3.61 However, and crucially, the draft Plan fails to address in any tangible way how the minimum number of homes needed in the BCA during the BCP period can ever be delivered, and this exacerbates the very serious shortcomings within the GBBCHMA generally. This is a recurring strategic planning issue and requires significant bold intervention including a step-change in approach to avoid the new homes that are needed in the GBBCHMA, and the Black Country in particular, being unprovided over the BCP period.

3.62 This is a fundamental point. The BCP must do everything possible to meet as much of the requirement as possible within the BCA area. It must also demonstrate convincingly how it will ensure any remaining requirement will be taken up by the importing Authorities. As drafted, it fails on both counts.
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 20

4. OPPORTUNITIES TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT


4.1 In Section 2 of these representations, it was noted that at a strategic level the BCP does not adequately deal with important issues around comprehensively meeting need, providing range and choice, and delivering improvement and diversification in housing provision; or with properly acknowledging the requirement for Green Belt release; or with properly addressing how any export of development requirements will be guaranteed.

4.2 In Section 3 representations are made in terms of the quantum of housing need identified, its distribution, and how it will be met. It is noted there that the BCP as drafted fails by some considerable margin to meet the housing need over the Plan period, that even the limited extent to which it does purport to meet that need is overstated, and the mechanism by which the significant shortfall will be dealt with is lacking.

4.3 In this section, these themes are brought together. Read as a whole, the representations made in Sections 2 and 3 demonstrate that transparency and clarity of purpose is needed in the BCP in terms of the extent of Green Belt release required to avoid the housing requirement to a significant degree being unmet. The clear conclusion reached is that additional allocations for housing development within the Green Belt should be made, including within Dudley. To that end it is proposed that a strategic housing allocation should be made on land at Uffmoor Vale. This is discussed below.

Comments on: Policy HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth, and Tables

3 and 4; Chapter 13 Part A, including Tables 13 and 14 and Policies for Strategic

Allocations


Nature of comment: Objection


4.4 For the reasons set out elsewhere in these representations it is considered that the BCP should plan for a higher level of housing delivery to be achieved within the Authorities’ area, reducing the number of dwellings to be exported to other areas. The BCP Spatial Strategy as currently formulated acknowledges the exceptional circumstances that exist to justify Green Belt release for residential development, with opportunities to meet the need within the urban area and outside the Green Belt fully exploited. It must be the case that additional Green Belt sites need to be allocated if the requirement is to be met more fully within the Authorities’ area; all possible non-Green Belt sites must necessarily already have been accounted for before any Green Belt release could be countenanced.

4.5 In Section 3 of these representations, it is noted that an important limitation on the extent to which part of the requirement might be exported is the extension of the Green Belt into potential importing authorities. If Green Belt land on the edge of the Black Country urban
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 21

area is not more fully used it is unlikely to be appropriate simply to pass development over the BCA boundary into the nearby Green Belt of neighbouring authorities. Urban areas within neighbouring authorities which might be better suited to accommodating residential development are relatively distant from the Black Country and hence poorly placed to meet the specific (i.e. Black Country) need.

4.6 The appropriate response is to plan for more growth within the BCA Green Belt on the edge of the existing urban area, and make fuller use of that resource with further allocations for well-planned developments.

4.7 In this context it is proposed that land to the south of Manor Way, Dudley (Uffmoor Vale) should be removed from the Green Belt and allocated to deliver approximately 1,200 homes at an average net density of 40 dph. The effect of this allocation should be reflected throughout the BCP including in particular the Strategic Policies and Policy HOU1 and associated Tables, Tables 13 and 14 in Part A of Chapter 13, and the introduction of a new Strategic Allocation Policy DSAn. Uffmoor Vale should be recognised as a Neighbourhood Growth Area, contributing to the provision of a reasonable level of choice of sites and to enable several locations to be developed simultaneously. This will help to sustain the rate of housing delivery needed across the Black Country to meet requirements.

4.8 Land at Uffmoor Vale has previously been advanced through the plan process via the call for sites. The Uffmoor Vale site extends to 66.62ha and is located immediately adjacent to the southern urban edge of Dudley. It offers the opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to meeting the requirement within the BCA area through expansion of the urban area and with a corresponding reduction in the number of dwellings to be exported to other authorities.

4.9 It is notable that the BCP as currently drafted proposes no sizeable housing allocations (greater than 100 units) at all in the southern part of the Plan area, south of the A458. An allocation at Uffmoor Vale would contribute towards achieving a more balanced distribution of housing growth.

4.10 Detailed information to support the allocation of the site is set out in a series of documents appended to these representations including:

 Appendix 1: A Landscape, Visual and Green Belt Assessment prepared by Bradley Murphy Design – this comprises an Executive Summary and extensive analysis through a Green Belt & Landscape Capacity Study and a Green Infrastructure Study.
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 22

 Appendix 2: A Heritage Note prepared by RPS – this provides an overview of matters around archaeology, built heritage and historic landscapes.

 Appendix 3: A Highways and Access Technical Note prepared by PJA – this reflects on submissions previously made at the Call for Sites stage and sets out analysis dealing with the crossing of Manor Way, innovative transport solutions, cycle infrastructure, public transport, and demonstrating the suitability of the Site generally.

 Appendix 4: A Vision Document prepared by Barton Willmore – this brings together the supporting case for an allocation and includes an Illustrative Land Use Concept Plan to demonstrate how residential led development with associated green infrastructure can be successfully delivered here. This document is central to understanding the credentials of the Site for allocation.

4.11 The content of these documents forms part of these representations and should be noted carefully in understanding the suitability of the Uffmoor Vale site for allocation.

4.12 The analysis used by the BCA to inform the proposed allocations, expressed for example in the Site Assessment Report and reflected in the Sustainability Appraisal, raises a number of concerns in terms of the allocation of land at Uffmoor Vale. In circumstances where this analysis covers all relevant locations considered through the plan process to date it is necessarily high level rather than providing a detailed, focused site-specific assessment. The concerns raised include:

4.13 The extent to which a defensible Green Belt boundary could be achieved, and the extent of landscape and visual impact. These matters are addressed here principally in Appendix
1. From a landscape perspective, this concludes that the landscape of the Site and its context is not sensitive to sustainable development guided by a landscape-led masterplan; that there is an opportunity to improve existing landscape features; that there is an opportunity to improve access and provide space for recreation; and this is allied to wider landscape improvement opportunities at Coombeswood. The Site is not considered to be visually sensitive. Noting, as above, that Green Belt release is required to meet the housing need of the Black Country it is considered that the Site makes a limited contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, whilst offering the opportunity to retain a strong Green Belt boundary and improving access to the Green Belt. The overall conclusion is that the Site has the capacity to support development, based on a truly landscape led masterplan.

4.14 The implications from a heritage perspective. This is addressed here principally in Appendix 2. This concludes that there are no known archaeology and built heritage constraints to bringing the Site forward as an allocation for development. The Site
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 23

contains no statutorily designated heritage assets. It notes that the archaeological potential of the Site is such that it can be adequately managed in the planning development control process. It acknowledges that while impacts caused by the Site’s development to any affected archaeological and built heritage assets may be suitably mitigated and minimised within planning and through appropriate design and master planning, the Site’s historic landscape (part of a non-statutory AHHLV designation) is more vulnerable to change, even in its currently degraded form. Any scheme for the Site would need to be of a scale and density sensitive to the identified non-statutory designation and have regard to the associated local policy. It observes that all surviving historic field boundaries would need to be retained and there would be a benefit if those removed in the post-medieval period were reinstated.

4.15 The effect on trees and ecology. The ways in which development here can incorporate and enhance habitat and respect biodiversity are addressed here principally in Appendices 1 and 4. The submitted Green Infrastructure Strategy seeks to deliver a vision based on a public open space and habitat network interconnected through wildlife corridors and a pedestrian movement network that moves through the Site, creating an interwoven fabric of green infrastructure. It would comprise an ecological network based on consolidating woodlands, hedgerows, wetlands and grasslands and prevent surface water running off by creating a network aimed at capturing, storing and recycling water through use of SuDS. Landscaped buffers to the Site’s boundaries, focused on introducing transitional woodland edge habitat, would protect and enhance existing boundary features as well as defining a new Green Belt boundary. Particular emphasis would be placed on delivering ecological improvements by enhancing the riparian corridor through the Site, and securing green infrastructure connectivity.

4.16 The extent to which development can be successfully integrated with the existing urban area. This is addressed here principally in Appendices 3 and 4. The Highways and Access Technical Note demonstrates that measures including a new bridge, pedestrian and crossing improvements, and an effective corridor treatment on Manor Way, are deliverable and will ensure the Site is integrated effectively with the rest of the urban area. These measures can be complemented through the provision of local facilities, a mobility hub, further pedestrian and cycle improvements, and public transport enhancements, to link the Site fully with the wider area.

4.17 The Vision Document sets out the ways in which development at Uffmoor Vale can embody the latest best practice place-making design principles, embedded within the existing landscape and providing a vibrant response and accessible environment. It shows how high-quality design can ensure that proposals are integrated within their
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 24

context and inter-connectivity between existing and new residents and facilities are maximised. It demonstrates that a residential led scheme at Uffmoor can be created to form a natural expansion of, rather than separate development to, the existing urban area.

4.18 It is considered that the more detailed site-specific analysis presented here demonstrates the Uffmoor Wood site can successfully and appropriately be brought forward for residential development as an expansion of the existing urban area and should be allocated by the BCP.

4.19 Moreover, for other major Green Belt releases proposed by the BCP in Dudley it should be noted that measures to provide sufficient mitigation have not been identified; the requirements in this regard are relegated to later versions of the document. Mitigation is an important point and one that is recognised as a requirement for Green Belt release elsewhere in the BCP (Policy GB1). This is also reflected in national policy. The NPPF provides (paragraph 142) that where (as is the case in the Black Country) it has been found necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should, “…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.”

4.20 Exceptionally in this regard, development at Uffmoor Vale can secure the delivery of compensatory improvements which can be identified at this stage.

4.21 The Landscape, Visual and Green Belt Analysis submitted as part of these representations (Appendix 1) identifies ways in which access from the existing urban area and the site to the wider Green Belt countryside can be enhanced, and complemented by woodland planting, improvements to biodiversity and habitat connectivity. However, it also identifies the unique opportunity to link development at Uffmoor Vale with compensatory improvements elsewhere in the Green Belt locally, at Coombeswood.

4.22 The land at Coombeswood is owned by St Modwen, thereby providing certainty in terms of its availability for improvement. It extends to over 37ha of land approximately 2.5km to the northeast of Uffmoor Vale, adjacent to the Dudley Canal (identified as a geotrail as part of the recently recognised UNESCO Geopark) and the Grade I listed Leasowes Park. Consultation has identified a desire to retain the wildness of Coombeswood with improvements focusing on biodiversity and creating calm spaces for people to relax.

4.23 A strategy is presented which would retain and enhance Coombeswood’s natural characteristics whilst offering improved opportunities for recreation. Proposals include habitat enhancement areas and the introduction of a variety of uses such as a public art trail and a sensory garden for quiet reflection and relaxation. In this way, enabled by
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 25

development at Uffmoor Vale, enhanced Green Belt land at Coombeswood has the potential to improve the health and wellbeing of the community as well as providing important benefits to biodiversity and wildlife. The Vision Document (Appendix 4) shows how this can be imagined as a “Health and Wellbeing Heart” for the community.

4.24 As such, alongside the suitability of Uffmoor Vale to be released for residential led development, it has been demonstrated that there is a clear, deliverable opportunity nearby for compensatory improvements to be provided across a large and important area of Green Belt.

SUMMARY


4.25 Transparency and clarity of purpose is needed in the BCP in terms of the extent of Green Belt release required to avoid the housing requirement to a significant degree being unmet. Additional allocations for housing development within the Green Belt should be made, including within Dudley. To that end it is proposed that a strategic housing allocation should be made on land at Uffmoor Vale.

4.26 This Site should be removed from the Green Belt and allocated to deliver approximately

1,200 homes. The effect of this allocation should be reflected throughout the BCP including in particular the Strategic Policies and Policy HOU1 and associated Tables, Tables 13 and 14 in Part A of Chapter 13, and the introduction of a new Strategic Allocation Policy DSAn.

4.27 Detailed information to support the allocation of the Site and demonstrate its suitability for development has been prepared addressing landscape, visual and Green Belt issues; heritage; highways and access; and bringing relevant matters together through a Vision Document. This material also addresses concerns in relation to the allocation of the Site expressed through the Councils’ Site Assessment Report.

4.28 For other major Green Belt releases proposed by the BCP in Dudley the required measures to provide sufficient mitigation have not been identified. Exceptionally in this regard, development at Uffmoor Vale can secure the delivery of compensatory improvements which can be identified at this stage. This can be achieved through measures on and around the Site but additionally, and uniquely, by linking development at Uffmoor Vale with compensatory improvements elsewhere in the Green Belt locally, at Coombeswood.

4.29 The land at Coombeswood is owned by St Modwen and extends to over 37ha. It is adjacent to the Dudley Canal which is identified as a geotrail as part of the recently recognised UNESCO Geopark and the Grade I listed Leasowes Park. A strategy has
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 26

been prepared which would retain and enhance Coombeswood’s natural characteristics whilst offering improved opportunities for recreation. Enabled by development at Uffmoor Vale, enhanced Green Belt land at Coombeswood has the potential to improve the health and wellbeing of the community as well as providing important benefits to biodiversity and wildlife.
DRAFT BLACK COUNTRY PLAN REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION 27

Comment

Representation ID: 46180

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

Policy HOU1 states that the Black Country Authorities (BCA) will deliver at least 47,837 net new homes over the period 2020 to 2039. This represents a significant shortfall on the number of homes calculated as being required over this period using the Government standard methodology. The Government published on 16 December 2020 indicative annual housing need by local authority area, using a revised calculation methodology. The stated annual requirement for the Black Country is 4,019 comprising: Dudley (636); Sandwell (1,488); Walsall (882); and Wolverhampton (1,013). This suggests the total number of houses required is 76,361 (over 19 years). It is not clear how the quoted requirement of 76,076 houses (paragraph 6.4) is arrived at, and this should be set out explicitly in policy HOU1.

Comment

Representation ID: 47039

Received: 13/09/2022

Respondent: HIMOR

Agent: Turley Associates

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.

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 20203) 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 annum4).

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.

Table 3 (Black Country housing land supply and indicative phasing 2020-39)

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 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.

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 grown5. 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.

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 2001-20046. 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 ownership, viability, the need to relocate existing uses, or ground contamination7.

• 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.

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).

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 homes8. So a 30,500home shortfall remains based on Turley’s analysis of the supply.

To provide some context to the scale of the shortfall, 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.

This is further exacerbated by the Black Country’s shortfall only being a component of a greater shortfall within the wider Greater Birmingham and Housing Market Area, as demonstrated by the Turley’s Falling Short: Taking Stock of Unmet Needs across the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area report (August 2021) (Appendix 8). That report shows that up to 2040 the potential shortfall within the Housing Market Area could be between 53,000 and 64,000 homes.

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 Birmingham Road, Great Barr 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.