Policy HOU5 – Education Facilities

Comment

Representation ID: 10588

Received: 19/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Satterthwaite

The closure of Stourbridge college (formerly Foley college) has left Stourbridge devoid of engineering technical and art further education,
And the selling off of the public buildings vested into the townfurther exacerbating the decline of Stourbridge since losing its own borough council under Worcestershire county council, and being taken over by Dudley,
The restoration of school sixth forms, the grammar school, and trade further eduction should be a priority for the local future generations

Support

Representation ID: 11195

Received: 26/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Morgan Brookes

You should invest in existing education regardless of housing needs it’s under funded. No wonder people in the Black Country are under qualified.

Object

Representation ID: 11393

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Mr David Shaw

There is no stipultaion around timing of the availability of new facilities. Housing developments should only be allowed to start once the core infrastructure has been completed as there is a risk that those facilities will never materialise.

Comment

Representation ID: 12111

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Jones

Concerns for impact on schools in the area and children’s education

Comment

Representation ID: 12735

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Dr Gill Pearce

Spend more money on schools for computers and learning. Spend more money on pre-school education for 3-4 year olds
Have more special needs schools for disruptive kids in classes
Open libraries that have closed and stop closing libraries.
Have more disabled access computers in libraries and nNy more computer terminals generally in libraries.
Employ more teachers in schools

Object

Representation ID: 14454

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Flavell

Where are the children going to school? When all the ground has been use?

Support

Representation ID: 17546

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Sport England

Policy HOU5 - Education Facilities Sport England supports part 4) of the policy which promotes the shared use of education facilities for wider community use for sport. The evidence in the emerging draft Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Strategy (PPOSS) points to the importance of protecting and enhancing accessibility to the existing network of sports facilities at education sites across the Black Country as they contribute to meeting the community needs for outdoor sports facilities including playing pitches and courts for the existing population, and this will continue to be important to contribute to meeting the needs of proposed population growth to 2039. We also know from past work with each of the Local Authorities that access to school sports halls and other indoor sports facilities at education sites are also important to meeting community needs. Sport England would recommend a minor modification to the wording to refer to securing community use of new and redeveloped/extended education facilities in line with evidence of need, and to secure this through a suitably worded community use agreement. Sport England supports the reference in part 5) of the policy to protecting and enhancing the existing network of education facilities for the reasons given above. Under the section on delivery reference should be made to securing community use agreements. Sport England's guidance on Community Use Agreements is provided in the link below: https://www.sportengland.org/how-we-can-help/facilities-and-planning/planning-for-sport/community-use-agreements

Object

Representation ID: 18490

Received: 02/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Hughes

Policy HOU5 talks about the increment in educational facilities 'where this is financially viable'. And what if it is not financially viable? Please see the Wintringham Estate in St Neots, Cambridgeshire as a great example of a new build estate that has successfully included the required infrastructure. Or, on a smaller scale, the development planned for Canalside south is Wolverhampton next to Wyrley and Essington Canal.

Comment

Representation ID: 19393

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Paragraph 6.12 - The requirement for developer contributions for education as set out in HOU5 is supported, however the policy should recognise that the local education authority or free schools will deliver these facilities.

Comment

Representation ID: 21264

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Redrow Homes Ltd

Agent: Savills

Policy HOU5 – Education Facilities
The Policy states that where a scheme of more than 10 dwellings increases the need for education facilities, planning obligations will be required to meet the increase need. We understand that the Education team have not yet confirmed education requirements. This needs to be confirmed so that we can better understand what level of contribution is required from development sites to meet education needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 23063

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Savills

Policy HOU5 – Education Facilities

The Policy states that where a scheme of more than 10 dwellings increases the need for education facilities, planning obligations will be required to meet the increase need. We understand that the Education team have not yet confirmed education requirements – this needs to be confirmed so that we can better understand what level of contribution is required from development sites to meet education needs.
St Phillips have worked collaboratively with Taylor Wimpey (adjacent landowner to the south) to produce a combined masterplan to show the potential for community infrastructure delivery across a wider strategic development site, including the land to the west of Site WSA9 (Illustrative Masterplan attached with this submission). This site has the potential to deliver circa 800 dwellings, land for a new school, local centre/health facility and significant public open space including a country park. This wider proposal may also be of a scale that could support a new/improved bus service on Chester Road which would enhance the sustainability credentials of the existing settlement. The scale of the combined proposals gives rise to a more comprehensive opportunity than the constrained and fragmented proposition contained in the draft plan at present and would allow for the inclusion of significant community infrastructure.

Support

Representation ID: 23423

Received: 15/02/2022

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Barton Willmore

7.14 Draft Policy HOU5 states that where a housing development of ten or more homes would increase the need for education facilities to the extent that new or improved facilities would be required to meet this need, planning obligations or Community Infrastructure Levy will be secured sufficient to meet the need, where this is financially viable. For strategic allocations, the likely requirement for on-site provision of new schools is set out in Chapter 13. Accordingly, Draft Policy WSA4 (Yieldfields Farm) (contained in Chapter 13) sets out that Yieldfields could deliver a new on-site primary school, in addition to a contribution to improvements for secondary school provision in North Bloxwich.

7.15 We support Draft Policy HOU5 and consider that Yieldfields could deliver a primary school to be positioned centrally within the site. The Vision Document demonstrates that the Site could also provide a significant amount of open space to include informal sports provision and children’s play areas.

7.16 In addition, the development would also make a financial contribution towards other local infrastructure, such as transport and secondary school provision. Therefore, we also support of Part 2 of Draft Policy HOU5, which states that where land is provided for a new school as part of a housing development, the financial contribution made by that development towards education facilities will be reduced accordingly.

7.17 Draft Part 4 of Policy HOU5 advises that new and redeveloped education facilities should include provision for wider community use of sports and other facilities where appropriate. Whilst we support the general requirements and intentions of Draft Part 4 of Policy HOU5, clarification is required in relation to whether this policy would apply if strategic allocations include provision for community use of sports and other facilities elsewhere within the site, but not necessarily as part of education facilities

Object

Representation ID: 43866

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

7.11 Policy HOU5 relates to education facilities and indicates that where land is provided for a new school as part of a housing development, the financial contribution made by that development towards education facilities will be reduced accordingly. Taylor Wimpey supports this approach but would suggest that it is also recognised that delivery of education facilities such as new schools is outside of the remit of developers and relies on the Local Education Authority or free schools.
7.12 Taylor Wimpey also supports the recognition that funding will only be sought that will not undermine the viability of a development.

Comment

Representation ID: 43904

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Department of Education

School Rebuilding Programme

The DfE is currently undertaking a nationwide school rebuilding programme (SRP) based on condition and need. A number of sites within the Black Country
Plan area will benefit from this programme. In light of the SRP programme of works, we would welcome the support of the local authorities within the Black Country Plan area to help ensure that the programme of school rebuilds and expansions can be delivered in a timely fashion. Specifically, it would be helpful if policy HOU 5 Education Facilities (page 112/3) could be revised to make clearer its support for the improvement of existing school sites, as required by the NPPF (para 95).

Comment

Representation ID: 43938

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: Turley Assocs

Policy HOU5 (education facilities)
3.50 IM Land support this policy and part 2 subject to sufficient evidence being provided to
demonstrate a need for a site for a new primary school on land at Queslett Road,
Walsall. The Vision Document for the site and the associated illustrative masterplan
includes provision for a possible site for a new two form entry primary school should it
be demonstrated to be necessary.

Object

Representation ID: 44943

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy HOU5 - Education Facilities

14.1 Part 2 of Policy HOU5 states that where a housing development of ten or more homes would increase the need for education facilities to the extent that new or improved facilities would be required to meet this need, planning obligations or Community Infrastructure Levy will be secured sufficient to meet the need, where this is financially viable. For strategic allocations, it states that the likely requirement for on-site provision of new schools is set out in Chapter 13. In this regard we note that Policy WSA.2 suggests that a new primary school will be required on the allocation.

14.2 Whilst Taylor Wimpey recognises the need to provide sufficient education facilities to support new development where there is an identified shortfall, we object to the policy as it does not currently appear to be supported by any evidence to identify the impact of future development on current provision and the subsequent needs for additional school places.

14.3 It is vital that this evidence is produced as part of the preparation of the BCP. The need for education facilities should be established now as this is the only way that the policy requirements for strategic allocations and future contribution from sites where on-site provision is not being made can be transparently and accurately assessed.

14.4 With regard to these policy requirements, the BCP Viability Study29 states the following for generic typologies and Key Large Sites [KLS]:

“For both the generic Typologies and the KLS we have included the sum of £4,471.40 per home, unless there is a site-specific assumption for the cost of a new school to be provided to serve a KLS.

Notwithstanding these allowances, the policy is specifically stated to be ‘subject to viability’”

14.5 The BCP Viability Study provides no explanation as to how this £4,471.40 cost has been derived so it is not clear whether it is justified and whether it would be effective in providing sufficient mitigation. Further information needs to be provided to clearly explain how this cost has been derived and why this amount is sought.

14.6 In addition, the Viability Study30 states that a separate confidential report provides viability and delivery advice in respect of the portfolio of KLSs so this information is not available for review and cannot therefore be assessed on this basis. 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.

14.7 The justification text to Policy HOU5 [§6.50] states that depending on the extent of other planning obligations required, this provision may not be viable on some sites. This appears to be inconsistent with §4.21 of the Draft BCP which states that greenfield sites and most brownfield sites will be able to sustain the full range of planning obligations required. It is therefore essential that clarity is provided on any education contributions required and their associated costs.

Comment

Representation ID: 44974

Received: 09/03/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

14.0 Policy HOU5 - Education Facilities
14.1 Part 2 of Policy HOU5 states that where a housing development of ten or more homes would
increase the need for education facilities to the extent that new or improved facilities would be
required to meet this need, planning obligations or Community Infrastructure Levy will be
secured sufficient to meet the need, where this is financially viable. For strategic allocations, it
states that the likely requirement for on-site provision of new schools is set out in Chapter 13. In
this regard we note that Policy WSA.2 suggests that a new primary school will be required on the
allocation.
14.2 Whilst Taylor Wimpey recognises the need to provide sufficient education facilities to support
new development where there is an identified shortfall, we object to the policy as it does not
currently appear to be supported by any evidence to identify the impact of future development
on current provision and the subsequent needs for additional school places.
14.3 It is vital that this evidence is produced as part of the preparation of the BCP. The need for
education facilities should be established now as this is the only way that the policy
requirements for strategic allocations and future contribution from sites where on-site provision
is not being made can be transparently and accurately assessed.
14.4 With regard to these policy requirements, the BCP Viability Study29 states the following for
generic typologies and Key Large Sites [KLS]:
“For both the generic Typologies and the KLS we have included the sum of £4,471.40 per home,
unless there is a site-specific assumption for the cost of a new school to be provided to serve a
KLS.
Notwithstanding these allowances, the policy is specifically stated to be ‘subject to viability’”
14.5 The BCP Viability Study provides no explanation as to how this £4,471.40 cost has been derived
so it is not clear whether it is justified and whether it would be effective in providing sufficient
mitigation. Further information needs to be provided to clearly explain how this cost has been
derived and why this amount is sought.
14.6 In addition, the Viability Study30 states that a separate confidential report provides viability and
delivery advice in respect of the portfolio of KLSs so this information is not available for review
and cannot therefore be assessed on this basis. 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.
14.7 The justification text to Policy HOU5 [§6.50] states that depending on the extent of other
planning obligations required, this provision may not be viable on some sites. This appears to
be inconsistent with §4.21 of the Draft BCP which states that greenfield sites and most
brownfield sites will be able to sustain the full range of planning obligations required. It is
therefore essential that clarity is provided on any education contributions required and their
associated costs.
29 Black Country Viability and Delivery Study, 2021, page 26
30 Black Country Viability and Delivery Study, 2021, §1.13