Question 1 - Do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies? Yes/No; If not, what do you

Q1. Do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies? If not, what do you think should be the scope of the review?

2.1 Paragraph 151 of the National Planning Policy Framework ('NPPF') establishes that Local Plans should be consistent with the principles and policies set out in the NPPF. The adopted BCCS was published in 2011, prior to the publication of the NPPF in March 2012. It is based on the housing needs identified by the now revoked West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy ('WMRSS') and the subsequent WMRSS Phase II Review Panel Report. The Solihull MBC v Gallagher Homes Limited and Lioncourt Homes Limited Judgment [2014] EWHC 1283 (Admin) was clear that the NPPF affected radical change in plan making.

2.2 The Housing White Paper (published in February 2017) establishes a national need for a minimum of between 225,000 to 275,000 new homes per year to keep up with population growth and to start addressing decades of under-supply in housing delivery.

2.3 The West Midlands Combined Authority Strategic Economic Plan ('WMCA SEP') (June 2016) recognises the importance of planning to meet these ambitious levels of growth. Indeed housing is one of the Plan's eight priority actions. Clearly the BCCS Review needs to provide a robust strategy to meet the significant growth across the Black Country, reflecting the priority actions set out in the WMCA SEP.

2.4 The adopted BCCS did not release any Green Belt land for development. In stark contrast, the emerging BCCS proposes the release of Green Belt land to deliver a minimum of 14,270 dwellings in order to meet the Black Country's needs. This represents a significant departure from the approach of the adopted BCCS.

2.5 To date the BCCS has failed to meet the Black Country's needs since 2006. As at 31 March 2016 there is a shortfall of 3,039 dwellings against the stepped housing delivery trajectory.

2.6 Therefore a full review of the BCCS is essential to ensure:
* The plan is up to date and is prepared in the current planning context, and reflects the area's current needs (as opposed to those identified in the now revoked WMRSS).
* All policies and objectives of the emerging BCCS Review are consistent with national planning policy.
* It comprises a strategy which will deliver against the Black Country's identified needs, and one that is effective, and measurably so, when compared to the shortcoming of the adopted BCCS.
2.7 We discuss the need for a full review further in response to Q7, Q9 and Q21.

Q2. Do you think that the key evidence set out at Table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy review? If not, what further evidence is required and, if there are any particular issues that should be taken into account in considering development on any particular sites or in any particular areas?

2.8 The evidence base currently comprises employment studies that assess strategic sites, high quality employment land and regional logistics sites. Additional employment evidence is necessary to assess the entire supply of employment land across the Black Country, including the value, demand and characteristics of the existing supply. This will be crucial to informing whether it is feasible to release employment land to deliver approx. 10,400 new homes (Strategic Option 1B which is discussed further at Q11a).

2.9 If any existing sites are to be proposed for allocation as residential development the evidence base should demonstrate the suitability of the land. This includes consideration of contamination issues, whether the land is a suitably attractive location for residential development, and whether existing neighbouring uses would provide an issue for future residents.

2.10 A number of infrastructure studies (including flood risk / water, waste, and viability) are to be undertaken to inform the BCCS Review Preferred Options Paper. Infrastructure viability will be a key factor in determining the deliverability of sites to meet the area's housing needs. To provide a robust assessment of infrastructure public consultation should be undertaken. This will ensure that a full picture regarding infrastructure viability is provided, as residents / landowners will have information which the Black Country authorities' assessment work may not be aware of.

2.11 These studies should also not just assess infrastructure within the Black Country exclusively, but also the infrastructure required outside of the area which may be required to meet its needs. For instance, some residents from within the Black Country attend schools in other authority areas, such as Birmingham and South Staffordshire. Cross boundary working with other authorities will be crucial in this respect.

2.12 It is also considered that the Black Country authorities include a robust landscape character assessment in the scoping of the evidence base document Strategic Mapping of the Black Country's Natural Environment.

Q3. Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014-36 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance?

2.13 The consultation on a standardised approach to the calculation of OAN is scheduled for September 2017 and, according to correspondence from DCLG (dated 31st July 2017), any Plans which have not been submitted by March 2018 (as will be the case for the BCCS Review) will be required to apply the new standardised methodology.

2.14 In terms of the SHMA, the Objectively Assessed Housing Need ('OAHN') is derived from the 2014 Sub National Household Projections which PPG confirms represents the starting point for calculating need.

2.15 We reserve the right to comment further on the OAHN once the standardised methodology has been published, and used to calculate the Black Country's needs.

Q5. Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt Review? If not, what additional work do you think is necessary?

2.16 We discuss the strategy to meeting housing needs in the Green Belt in response to Q12a and Q13a.

2.17 The Green Belt Review should be a robust assessment, undertaken in accordance with national planning practice guidance and the NPPF, specifically taking account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and not including land which it is unnecessary to be kept permanently open.

2.18 As part of this the methodology for the Green Belt Review should be published for consultation prior to work commencing. This will be important to ensure the Review is robust and has the support of the development industry.
2.19 The I&O Report indicates the GBHMA Strategic Growth Study (renamed the 'Strategic Locations Study') will "inform and provide the basis" for the Black Country Green Belt Review.

2.20 The methodology for the Strategic Locations Study, made available in July 2017, is very broad; referring to the Green Belt will be assessed in 'five sections'. If the study is too broad, and the strategic areas identified too general, it will not form a sound basis for the Black Country Green Belt Review to conclude which land is suitable for Green Belt release. There may be opportunities within discounted areas for smaller parcels of land to be released as sustainable extensions to existing settlements.

Q6. Do you agree that the key issues set out in Part 3 are the key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy Review? If not, what other key issues should be taken into account?

2.21 The nine key issues identified at Part 3 of the I&O Report represent the matters which will be integral to the BCCS Review achieving its ambitious plans for growth.
2.22 Mindful of the ambitious levels of growth proposed for the Black Country, the three key issues relating to housing needs, and reviewing the Green Belt, are the most important to take account through the BCCS Review.
2.23 The need to review the role and extent of the Green Belt in order to meet the housing needs of the area should be seen as a golden thread throughout the BCCS Review, reflecting issues specific to the Black Country. The key to unlocking this significant level of growth will be providing sufficient infrastructure (including highways, education and recreation).
Q7. Do you think that the Core Strategy vision and sustainability principles remain appropriate? If not, what alternatives would you suggest?
2.24 In Q1 we make the case for a full review of the BCCS. This would also necessitate a review of the vision and sustainability principles underpinning the Plan. This is particularly relevant as to date the current vision has not delivered the necessary housing growth required by the BCCS.
5
2.25 The adopted BCCS vision and sustainability principles reflect the area's need at that time (i.e. February 2011). Since then the NPPF has been published and the WMRSS revoked. A new vision is therefore necessary to reflect the area's needs now, which are much higher than at the time the BCCS was adopted, which is demonstrated by the admission that Green Belt land will be necessary. In contrast, no Green Belt was released by the adopted BCCS (indeed the boundaries have not been altered for over 30 years).
2.26 Furthermore, the adopted BCCS' vision is underpinned by three 'major directions of change', none of which specifically refer to meeting the Black Country's housing needs. The BCCS Review vision would be more robust if it was underpinned by the nine key issues set out at Part 3 of the I&O Report and made direct reference to the supply of new homes.
Q8. Do you think that the Core Strategy spatial objectives remain appropriate? If not, what alternatives would you suggest and how might these changes impact on individual Core Strategy policies?
2.27 Similarly to the BCCS' vision and sustainability principles, the spatial objectives must be reviewed to ensure they are up to date. The BCCS Review will be produced in a completely different national, regional and local planning context to that of the adopted BCCS. In particular the existing objectives will not form a sound basis to deliver the anticipated levels of growth of the Black Country, let alone the current levels proposed by the BCCS.
2.28 Meeting the emerging housing needs will underpin the BCCS Review. It is therefore imperative they these needs are reflected in the objectives, which will be used to measure the success of the Plan. The objectives must also be more robust than those of the current BCCS if they are to be meaningful.

Q9. Do you agree that Policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the Growth Network? If not, what changes do you think should be made to Policies CSP1 and CSP2 in response to new challenges and opportunities?

2.29 We set out in response to Q1 that a full review of the BCCS is necessary given the change in the planning policy, namely the publication of the NPPF and the revocation of the WMRSS. Policies CSP1 and CSP2 therefore need to be reviewed and updated. This is particularly relevant given neither policy reflects that a proportion of the Black Country's growth needs cannot be met within the urban area (which is explicitly acknowledged at paragraph 3.17 of the I&O Report), necessitating the release of land from the Green Belt.

Q11a. Do you support Strategic Option 1A? Yes / No; If yes, please explain why. If no, do you support Option 1B? Yes / No; If yes, please explain why. If you support the release of further employment land for housing, what should the characteristics of these employment areas be?

2.30 At the current time there is an established need for the Black Country Authorities to accommodate 81,190 new homes and up to 300 ha of new employment land between 2014 and 2036. It is clear that both are pressing needs which will require significant land.

2.31 There is currently a deficit of 57 ha of gross employment space across the Black Country. The monitoring data at Appendix C of the I&O Report identifies that there is a surplus in local quality employment land (146 ha), but a deficit of 218 ha in high quality employment land. This does not distinguish between different types of employment, including different use classes and size.

2.32 The Black Country's employment land is characterised by its supply of smaller industrial units which are typically adjacent to residential areas. Whilst some of the businesses may not be 'friendly' to neighbouring uses, these types of units form the back bone of the Black Country economy and their loss would negatively impact business in the area. The loss would also remove local, sustainable job opportunities.

2.33 As set out in our response to Q2 further employment land supply evidence is required. Through this there may be opportunities to replace derelict employment land with housing, however new employment sites tend to be of higher quality, reflecting more modern industries (such as large logistic sites). They are unlikely to replace the smaller industrial unit stock, which have numerous benefits including lower rents, being suited for 'start up' and smaller businesses which reflect of the Black Country's employment profile. New large, greenfield strategic employment sites are unlikely to be affordable for the types of businesses which currently occupy the smaller industrial unit stock. With the Black Country facing an overall employment land deficit of 300 ha, the authorities should be seeking to protect the smaller industrial stock where possible and not maximising it for residential uses.

2.34 As illustrated in the Vision Framework submitted with these representations (Appendix 3), land off Birmingham Road at Great Barr presents an opportunity to deliver a significant employment hub alongside new homes. The site is situated in an accessible location, strategically positioned in close proximity to Junction 7 of the M6.

2.35 Given the sites flexibility, there is potential for employment development to be delivered in different formats and across a range of use classes, ultimately enabling a development to complement:
* The ambitions of the Sandwell MBC Economic Prospectus;
* The success of the Black Country LEP in establishing a strong business hub at the heart of major markets; and
* The emergence of the WMCA as a driver of economic growth and skills training and as a facilitator of strategic regional planning.

2.36 Given the deficit of 218 ha in high quality employment land, the potential for employment development at the site could help to deliver a high quality employment that is compatible with and respectful of existing and potential new residential communities.

2.37 The Councils should also be mindful of the viability of regenerating employment land for residential use, and whether the market could sustain development on these sites. This is demonstrated by the number of previously developed sites in the Black Country allocated for housing but is yet to be delivered, and show no sign of doing so in the near future.

Q12a. Do you support Spatial Option H1? Yes / No; What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. ability to create a defensible new Green Belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services.
2.38 Please refer to our response to Q13a.

Q13a. Do you support Spatial Option H2? What should the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) be? e.g. minimum / maximum size, mix of uses, mix of housing types, accessibility to other areas. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs, potential to support existing settlements/ services, proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban regeneration.

2.39 HIMOR support the broad Housing Spatial Option H2 - Sustainable Urban Extensions.

2.40 Whilst there is no definition to the housing numbers associated with 'rounding off', this has been taken as any development site consisting less than 500 dwellings (the minimum threshold defined for SUEs).

2.41 The NPPF and PPG do not refer to 'rounding off' the Green Belt. The NPPF states at paragraph 85 that the boundaries of the Green Belt should be defined clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent. These boundaries should be long term and enduring, and will not require adjustment at the end of the plan period.

2.42 Subject to meeting the NPPF and PPG, rounding off of the edges of the urban area within the Green Belt could assist in meeting some of the Black Country's identified housing needs, however the I&O Report acknowledges that Option H1 would not meet all of the Black Country's outstanding housing growth.

2.43 Larger SUE sites will provide significant contributions towards delivering improved infrastructure given their critical mass. Relying too heavily on smaller sites through rounding off, would compromise the Black Country's ability to deliver new infrastructure to meet its growth aspirations.

2.44 Furthermore, a number of SUEs will be required if the Black Country's housing shortfall, which cannot be accommodated within the existing urban area (between 14,270 and 24,670 dwellings), is to be met.

2.45 Turley is a member of the Home Builders Federation and regularly advises national and local housebuilders. It is unlikely there will be significant market interest in sites of less than 50-100 dwellings. Housebuilders require certainty in their own supply. A site of less than 50-100 dwellings would provide one or two years supply maximum, whereas an SUE site would offer between three and five years supply, depending on the size of the site.

2.46 Furthermore the costs associated with installing infrastructure for a site, including constructing the site access, connecting to the appropriate utility grids, establishing a compound, are broadly similar for small and larger scale development. As such smaller sites are less cost effective for housebuilders. This could significantly compromise the potential delivery of the Black Country's housing needs.

2.47 In contrast SUEs are likely to have greater market interest. Large scale planned development, which is allocated within a Local Plan, provides certainty and developer confidence, as recognised by paragraph 52 of the NPPF. Therefore the sites are more likely to deliver, and can accommodate multiple housebuilders and outlets, increasing the rate of delivery once the required infrastructure has been installed.

2.48 Spatial Option H2 is therefore the most appropriate strategy for accommodating the area's housing shortfall, however Spatial Option H1 can make a small contribution in the right locations.

2.49 Any site selection criteria should reflect the NPPF, recognising that planning should actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable. Whilst a potential SUE may not be immediately adjacent to local services or a rail station (which will be the case for the majority of the SUEs given their location on the edge of the urban area), there is the potential to make it more sustainable through new transport links (such as bus services) and on site provision.

2.50 Given the critical mass of SUEs, they have the potential to sustain significant on site services.

2.51 The BCCS Review should also not make assumptions that SUEs will have major impacts on Green Belt purposes and environmental assets (as suggested in the 'challenges' section for Spatial Option H2). Firstly, any site's performance against the Green Belt purposes is separate to any site selection process. The Green Belt Review is a separate exercise to determining the sustainability of a site. Secondly, SUEs in the Green Belt can have many environmental benefits, including delivering significant public open space (it is widely recognised the Black Country Green Belt is largely inaccessible), as well as biodiversity enhancements.

Q13b. What infrastructure do you think would be needed for different sizes of SUEs?

2.52 For the reasons provided in response to Q12a and Q13a, further evidence will be necessary to inform infrastructure requirements for each SUE, including school and healthcare provision. The I&O Report indicates a number of infrastructure assessments are to be undertaken before the Preferred Options version of the BCCS Review is published.

2.53 Furthermore, the Councils should be mindful of site specific evidence bases prepared by developers. HIMOR are exploring infrastructure requirements for land off Birmingham Road, Great Barr and intends to submit this assessment work during the plan-making process.

2.54 The Black County authorities should also liaise with the relevant statutory undertakers (such as Severn Trent and Western Power Distribution) to ensure the BCCS Review includes a robust Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

Q13c. Are there any potential locations that should be considered for SUEs (please submit through the 'call for sites' form) and what infrastructure would be required to support these?

2.55 Land off Birmingham Road at Great Barr provides the foundation for high quality development that can combine key attributes of great location, distinctive environment and high design quality.

2.56 At approximately 27ha in area, this is a highly flexible site that could deliver mixed use development with both residential and employment potential, performing roles that meet a variety of needs. Development here has the potential to enhance the sustainability and accessibility of existing communities and facilities, delivering greater diversity, greater choice and greater sense of place. Ultimately, this can create a healthy and interactive development that enhances quality of life for new and existing residents.

2.57 In particular, the location and scale of the site can support development that:

* Makes a significant contribution to strategic planning and economic growth ambitions of Sandwell, the Black Country and the wider West Midlands region;
* Meets evidenced housing and/or employment needs;
* Allows balance between built form, open landscape and green space assets;
* Enhances access to the Rushall Canal corridor through to Sandwell Valley Country Park;
* Creates new accessible green space;
* Facilitates enhancements to local wildlife value;
* Creates and improves links between existing community assets including the Q3 Academy; and
* Makes use of natural topographic characteristics to shape and enhance local views.

2.58 We explore the infrastructure requirements of the site further in the Call for Sites form (Appendix 2) and Vision Document (Appendix 3) enclosed with these representations.

2.59 Given the site's location within the Green Belt we provide an assessment against the five purposes for including land within the Green belt below.

Purpose 1 - To check the unrestricted sprawl of the large built-up areas

2.60 The site is bound by residential development to the north and east; Q3 Academy is located to the south; the west of the site comprises West Bromwich Albion FC Training Ground and Aston University Sports Pitches.

2.61 As such, the release of the site would not result in any unrestricted sprawl of the built up area and it will in fact be enclosed by existing urban form and land uses.

Purpose 2 - To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another

2.62 An important requirement of the Green Belt is to prevent neighbouring towns from merging however paragraph 85 of the NPPF sets out that there may be opportunities for land to be released from the Green Belt that would assist in creating longer term permanent defensible boundaries.

2.63 The site currently presents a gap in the urban form of Great Barr and to release this site from the Green Belt would not result in any neighbouring towns merging into one another.

Purpose 3 - To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

2.64 Paragraph 84 of the NPPF states that when drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries local planning authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. As such, development should be focussed towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages.

2.65 The site is enclosed on all four boundaries, with residential development, Q3 Academy, Aston Sports Pitches and the West Bromwich Albion FC Training Ground. As such, in accordance with the guidance set out in the NPPF, the site is located towards the urban area of Great Barr and the release of this site from the Green Belt would not result in a detrimental encroachment into the countryside, as illustrated within the illustrative plans enclosed in the Vision Document (Appendix 3).

Purpose 4 - To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns

2.66 The site is not located within the setting to a historic town and as such this purpose is not considered to apply in this circumstance.

Purpose 5 - To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

2.67 The BCCS Issues and Options Report sets out that there is a requirement for the Black Country Authorities to accommodate approximately 22-25,000 new homes. It has been established that the Black Country has severely limited opportunities to accommodate this anticipated growth within the present urban boundaries and it is therefore necessary to consider Green Belt release.

Q13d. Do you think that the Core Strategy should set out detailed guidance for the development of SUEs (e.g. type and tenure of housing, specific infrastructure required), rather than details being determined at a local level in light of local policies?

2.68 Any guidance for SUEs should not be considered until later in the preparation of the Plan, and should be informed by the relevant evidence base (including site specific evidence, the SHMA, and infrastructure assessments). Any guidance should be flexible to ensure the Plan is able to respond to the most up to date evidence and be in line with paragraph 173 of the NPPF.

Q15a. If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the 'export' of housing growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA? What factors should be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities in neighbouring authorities e.g. proximity to the edge of the urban area, proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs?

2.69 The NPPF is clear that local planning authorities should have fully explored all available options for delivering their housing needs within their own administrative boundaries before considering exporting growth to neighbouring authorities or the wider HMA. Equally, neighbouring authorities will not accept accommodating any of the Black Country's needs if this exercise has not been thoroughly undertaken. Telford and Wrekin has so far declined to assist in meeting any of the Black Country's shortfall given this exercise had not been undertaken. As such this option should only be considered as a last resort.

2.70 On this basis the Black Country should be seeking to accommodate all of its proposed growth within its own boundaries.

Q21. Do you think that changes are required to policy DEL1 to ensure it covers both development within the existing urban area and any within the Green Belt?

2.71 As set out in our response to Q1 a full review of the BCCS is necessary. This applies to Policy DEL1 also, particularly as the policy currently only reflects development within the urban area.

2.72 Given the characteristics and viability matters which differ between brownfield and greenfield sites, the BCCS Review should have separate policies for each.

Q25. Will there be any new social infrastructure requirements necessary to serve large new housing developments? If yes, please explain the type and scale of any new social infrastructure required.

2.73 Please refer to our response to Q28.

Q28. Do you think physical infrastructure is necessary to serve large new housing developments? If yes, what type and scale of physical infrastructure is necessary?

2.74 Paragraph 5.7 of the I&O Report sets out that as options for the location of major new housing allocations develop through the review process, so will decisions about the need for any such facilities and their locations.

2.75 This approach will be necessary to understanding the full infrastructure requirements for new sites. As set out in response to Q2, the infrastructure assessments to be undertaken will be crucial in understanding these requirements further. This should also be informed by any site specific evidence base work undertaken by developers, as well as liaison with infrastructure providers (including statutory undertakers).

Q29. Do you think there are any other tools or interventions that could be used to ensure enough infrastructure is provided by developments?

2.76 As set out in response to Q2, the infrastructure assessment work to be undertaken by the authorities will be critical to informing what infrastructure will be necessary to unlock new development.

2.77 Since the BCCS was adopted it is apparent that it is unviable for some brownfield sites to deliver the necessary infrastructure to assist their delivery (as much is acknowledged at Section 2 of the I&O Report). The four authorities should therefore satisfy themselves that it is viable for new development to contribute towards providing infrastructure to meet their needs, including through Section 106 contributions or the Community Infrastructure Levy, and that any onerous policy requirements in relation to matters such as housing mix or sustainable design features does not comprise viability.

2.78 Other tools and interventions should not be relied upon if they have not been confirmed as available to improve infrastructure before the BCCS Review is adopted.

Q31. Do you think that the right scale and form of funding is available to support the delivery of the Core Strategy Review? If no, what alternative sources of funding or delivery mechanisms should be investigated?

2.79 The recently published WMCA Land Delivery Action Plan identifies sources of funding and immediate priorities. Of the £200m Land Remediation Fund, £53m is already allocated to the Black Country and a further strategic package of £97m is available to be drawn down by the LEP. However, the plan states on page 44 that "to fund the current pipeline of brownfield sites in the Black Country, a total of £700m of further LRF funding is required". This, it states, will be a key requirement of the Housing Deal the WMCA is hoping to negotiate with CLG.

2.80 Whilst the funding to date is a good start, it is clear that it is a fraction of the total needed to deliver a substantial step change in brownfield delivery. As set out in our response to Q29, it is crucial the four authorities are satisfied of the scale and pace of delivery and that it is viable for new development on brownfield sites to contribute towards providing infrastructure to meet their needs. The role of greenfield locations to deliver market housing and contribute fully to meeting infrastructure costs should therefore be a key component to derisk the BCCS housing strategy.

Q32. Do you think that the proposed approach to incorporate health and wellbeing issues in the Core Strategy review is appropriate? If no, please provide details

2.81 Please refer to our response to Q34b.


Q33. Is there more that the Core Strategy can do to address health and wellbeing issues in the Black Country? If yes, is a new policy needed to address such issues for example?

2.82 Please refer to our response to Q34b.

Q34a. Do you agree that the health and wellbeing impacts of large development proposals should be considered at the Preferred Spatial Option stage of the Core Strategy review through a Health Impact Assessment approach?

2.83 Please refer to our response to Q34b.

Q34b. What design features do you think are key to ensuring new development encourages healthy living, which could be assessed through the HIA process?

2.84 We support the strategy to incorporate health and wellbeing issues in the BCCS Review. Health and wellbeing underpin sustainable planning and creating places where people want to live.

2.85 The Health and Wellbeing Technical Paper (June 2017) emphasises the importance of integrating health and wellbeing into all policies, including those of the emerging BCCS Review. In particular, the technical note encourages the creation of communities which are:
* Well-connected and walkable;
* Have a wide choice of homes;
* Accessible to services; and
* Where people can belong to a cohesive community which fosters diversity, social interaction and social capital.

2.86 As such, health and wellbeing should not be standalone policies in the plan, but rather should be a 'golden thread' running through the review and all policies. Any sites promoted through the Local Plan process should demonstrate their health and wellbeing benefits if they are to be proposed for allocation.

2.87 As demonstrated in the Vision Framework for Land off Birmingham Road (Appendix 3) submitted with these representations, health and wellbeing are key principles at the heart of the proposals for the site in Great Barr.

Q35. Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? If no, please explain why.

2.88 The BCCS Review proposes at paragraph 6.30 to 'update' Policy HOU1. As set out in our response to Q1 a full review of the Plan is necessary given there are now greater housing needs, the NPPF has been published and the WMRSS has been revoked, and the adopted BCCS has not been delivering the required level of growth. As such the approach to housing land supply should be reviewed in full also.

2.89 Given there is a shortfall of 3,039 dwellings against the targets set in the adopted BCCS (a shortfall of 1,396 in Wolverhampton), largely as a result of brownfield sites not being developed due to viability issues, the Review should include a 10% lapse rate should be applied to the requirement to ensure flexibility in deliverability should sites in the supply not come forward.

Q36. Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 should be changed? Yes/ No; If yes, what standards should be applied instead, for example should the minimum net density of 35 dwellings per hectare be increased to maximise brownfield housing delivery?
2.90 Please refer to our response to Q42.

Q40. Do you agree that the 2017 SHMA findings should be used to set general house type targets for the Plan period? Yes/ No; If no, please explain why.

2.91 Please refer to our response to Q42.

Q42. Do you agree that the annual affordable homes target should be increased to reflect the 2017 Black Country Strategic Housing Market Assessment? If no, please explain why.

2.92 The NPPG states that wherever possible, local needs assessments should be informed by the latest available information and the government's official population and household projections are generally updated every two years.

2.93 The affordable housing requirement; preferred housing mix; housing types; and density standards for the Black Country therefore need to remain fluid in order to respond to the most up to date evidence and market conditions. The BCCS Review should not comprise policies that set standards for the whole Plan Period. The standards set out in Policy HOU2 should be reviewed in full to ensure they comply with the NPPF, PPG and the most up to date guidance.

Q50. Do you think that the Core Strategy should continue to set a target for the total employment land stock in Policy EMP1? Yes/No; Please explain why. Do you think that distinguishing between Strategic High Quality Employment Areas and Local Quality Employment Areas is still appropriate? Yes/ No; Please explain why.
2.94 The NPPG sets out that Local Planning Authorities are required to publish information at least annually that shows progress with Local Plan preparation. The Core Strategy should therefore continue to set a target for the total employment land stock to ensure the Annual Monitoring Report can be measured against a specified target.

2.95 Considering there is a surplus in local quality employment land (146ha) and a deficit of 218ha in high quality employment land, the Core Strategy should continue to distinguish between strategic high quality employment areas and local quality employment areas. This distinguished employment land stock should be informed by the evidence base supporting the BCCS Review and as has been undertaken to a certain extent to inform the I&O Report.

Q54. Do you agree that the current approach in Policy EMP4 is no longer fit for purpose and should be amended to reflect a portfolio based approach? Yes/ No. If no, what alternative approaches would you recommend?

2.96 As per our response to Q1, a full review of the BCCS is essential to ensure the plan is prepared in the current planning context, all policies are consistent with national planning policy and it comprises a strategy that will deliver against identified needs.

Q1. Do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies? If not, what do you think should be the scope of the review?

2.1 Paragraph 151 of the National Planning Policy Framework ('NPPF') establishes that Local Plans should be consistent with the principles and policies set out in the NPPF. The adopted BCCS was published in 2011, prior to the publication of the NPPF in March
2012. It is based on the housing needs identified by the now revoked West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy ('WMRSS') and the subsequent WMRSS Phase II Review Panel Report. The Solihull MBC v Gallagher Homes Limited and Lioncourt Homes
Limited Judgment [2014] EWHC 1283 (Admin) was clear that the NPPF affected radical change.

2.2 The Housing White Paper (published in February 2017) establishes a national need for a minimum of between 225,000 to 275,000 new homes per year to keep up with population growth and to start addressing decades of under-supply in housing delivery.
2.3 The West Midlands Combined Authority Strategic Economic Plan ('WMCA SEP') (June 2016) recognises the importance of planning to meet these ambitious levels of growth. Indeed housing is one of the Plan's eight priority actions. Clearly the BCCS Review
needs to provide a robust strategy to meet the significant growth across the Black Country, reflecting the priority actions set out in the WMCA SEP.

2.4 The adopted BCCS did not release any Green Belt land for development. In stark contrast, the emerging BCCS proposes the release of Green Belt land to deliver a minimum of 14,270 dwellings in order to meet the Black Country's needs. This
represents a significant departure from the approach of the adopted BCCS.

2.5 To date the BCCS has failed to meet the Black Country's needs since 2006. As at 31 March 2016 there is a shortfall of 3039 dwellings against the stepped housing delivery trajectory. There is a shortfall of 57 ha of employment land. There is a shortfall of
191,756 sqm of office floor space in strategic locations.

2.6 Therefore a full review of the BCCS is essential to ensure:
* The plan is up to date and is prepared in the current planning context, and reflects the area's current needs (as opposed to those identified in the now revoked WMRSS).
* All policies and objectives of the emerging BCCS Review are consistent with national planning policy.
* It comprises a strategy which will deliver against the Black Country's identified needs, and one that is effective, and measurably so, when compared to the shortcoming of the adopted BCCS.

2.7 We discuss the need for a full review further in response to Q7, Q9 and Q21.

Q2. Do you think that the key evidence set out at Table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy review? If not, what further evidence is required and, if there are any particular issues that should be taken into account in considering development on any particular sites or in any particular areas?

2.8 The evidence base currently comprises employment studies that assess strategic sites, high quality employment land and regional logistics sites. Additional employment evidence is necessary to assess the entire supply of employment land across the Black
Country, including the value, demand and characteristics of the existing supply. This will be crucial to informing whether it is feasible to release employment land to deliver approx. 10,400 new homes (Strategic Option 1B which is discussed further at Q11a).

2.9 If any existing sites are to be proposed for allocation as residential development the evidence base should demonstrate the suitability of the land. This includes consideration of contamination issues, whether the land is a suitably attractive location
for residential development, and whether existing neighbouring uses would provide an issue for future residents.

2.10 A number of infrastructure studies (including flood risk / water, waste, and viability) are to be undertaken to inform the BCCS Review Preferred Options Paper. Infrastructure viability will be a key factor in determining the deliverability of sites to meet the area's
housing and employment needs. To provide a robust assessment of infrastructure public consultation should be undertaken. This will ensure that a full picture regarding infrastructure viability is provided, as residents / landowners will have information which
the Black Country authorities' assessment work may not be aware of.

2.11 These studies should also not just assess infrastructure within the Black Country exclusively, but also the infrastructure required outside of the area which may be required to meet its needs. For instance, some residents from within the Black Country
attend schools in other authority areas, such as Birmingham and the South Staffordshire. Cross boundary working with other authorities will be crucial in this respect.

Q3. Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014-36 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance?

2.12 The consultation on a standardised approach to the calculation of OAN is scheduled for September 2017 and, according to correspondence from DCLG (dated 31st July 2017), any Plans which have not been submitted by March 2018 (as will be the case for the
BCCS Review) will be required to apply the new standardised methodology.

2.13 In terms of the SHMA, the Objectively Assessed Housing Need ('OAHN') is derived from the 2014 Sub National Household Projections which PPG confirms represents the starting point for calculating need.

2.14 We reserve the right to comment further on the OAHN once the standardised methodology has been published, and used to calculate the Black Country's needs.

Q5. Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt Review? If not, what additional work do you think is necessary?

2.15 We discuss the strategy to meeting housing and employment needs in the Green Belt in response to Q12a and Q13a.

2.16 The Green Belt Review should be a robust assessment, undertaken in accordance with national planning practice guidance and the NPPF, specifically taking account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and not including land which it is
unnecessary to be kept permanently open.

2.17 As part of this the methodology for the Review should be published for consultation prior to work commencing. This will be important to ensure the Review is robust and has the support of the development industry.

2.18 The I&O Report indicates the GBHMA Strategic Growth Study (renamed the 'Strategic Locations Study') will "inform and provide the basis" for the Black Country Green Belt Review.

2.19 The methodology for the Strategic Locations Study, made available in July 2017, is very broad; referring to the Green Belt will be assessed in 'five sections'. If the study is too broad, and the strategic areas identified too general, it will not form a sound basis for the
Black Country Green Belt Review to conclude which land is suitable for Green Belt release. There may be opportunities within discounted areas for smaller parcels of land to be released as sustainable extensions to existing settlements.

Q6. Do you agree that the key issues set out in Part 3 are the key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy Review? If not, what other key issues should be taken into account?

2.20 The nine key issues identified at Part 3 of the I&O Report represent the matters which will be integral to the BCCS Review achieving its ambitious plans for growth.

2.21 Mindful of the ambitious levels of growth proposed for the Black Country, the three key issues relating to housing and employment needs, and reviewing the Green Belt, are the most important to take account through the BCCS Review.

2.22 The need to review the role and extent of the Green Belt in order to meet the housing and employment needs of the area should be seen as a golden thread throughout the BCCS Review, reflecting issues specific to the Black Country. The key to unlocking this
significant level of growth will be providing sufficient infrastructure (including highways, education etc).

Q7. Do you think that the Core Strategy vision and sustainability principles remain appropriate? If not, what alternatives would you
suggest?

2.23 In Q1 we make the case for a full review of the BCCS. This would also necessitate a review of the vision and sustainability principles underpinning the Plan. This is particularly relevant as to date the current vision has not delivered the necessary
housing and employment growth required by the BCCS.

2.24 The adopted BCCS vision and sustainability principles reflect the area's need at that time (i.e. February 2011). Since then the NPPF has been published and the WMRSS revoked. A new vision is therefore necessary to reflect the area's needs now, which are
much higher than at the time the BCCS was adopted, which is demonstrated by the admission that Green Belt land will be necessary. In contrast no Green Belt was released by the adopted BCCS (indeed the boundaries have not been altered for over
30 years).

2.25 Furthermore, the adopted BCCS' vision is underpinned by three 'major directions of change', none of which specifically refer to meeting the Black Country's housing needs. The BCCS Review vision would be more robust if it was underpinned by the nine key
issues set out at Part 3 of the I&O Report.

Q8. Do you think that the Core Strategy spatial objectives remain appropriate? If not, what alternatives would you suggest and how might these changes impact on individual Core Strategy policies?

2.26 Similarly to the BCCS' vision and sustainability principles, the spatial objectives must be reviewed to ensure they are up to date. The BCCS Review will be produced in a completely different planning context to that of the adopted BCCS. In particular the
existing objectives will not form a sound basis to deliver the anticipated levels of growth of the Black Country, let alone the current levels proposed by the BCCS.

2.27 Meeting the emerging housing and employment needs will underpin the BCCS Review. It is therefore imperative they these needs are reflected in the objectives, which will be used to measure the success of the Plan. The objectives must also be more robust than
those of the current BCCS if they are to be meaningful.

Q9. Do you agree that Policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the Growth Network? If not, what changes do you think should be made to Policies CSP1 and CSP2 in response to new challenges and opportunities?

2.28 We set out in response to Q1 that a full review of the BCCS is necessary given the change in the planning policy, namely the publication of the NPPF and the revocation of the WMRSS. Policies CSP1 and CSP2 therefore need to be reviewed and updated as
appropriate. This is particularly relevant given neither policy reflects that a proportion of the Black Country's growth needs cannot be met within the urban area (which is explicitly acknowledged at paragraph 3.17 of the I&O Report), necessitating the release
of land from the Green Belt.

Q11a. Do you support Strategic Option 1A? If yes, please explain why. If no, do you support Option 1B?

2.29 Please refer to response to Question 11b.

Q11b. Do you support the release of further employment land for housing? If yes, what should the characteristics of these areas be?

2.30 At the current time there is an established requirement for the Black Country Authorities to accommodate 81,190 new homes and up to 300 ha of new employment land between 2014 and 2036. It is clear that both are pressing needs which will require significant
land.

2.31 There is currently a deficit of 57 ha of gross employment space across the Black Country. The monitoring data at Appendix C of the I&O Report identifies that there is a surplus in local quality employment land (146 ha), but a deficit of 218 ha in high quality
employment land. This does not distinguish between different types of employment, including different use classes, size etc.
2.32 The Black Country's employment land is characterised by its supply of smaller industrial units which are typically adjacent to residential areas. Whilst some of the businesses may not be 'friendly' to neighbouring uses, these types of units form the back bone of
the Black Country economy and their loss would negatively impact business in the area. The loss would also remove local, sustainable job opportunities.

2.33 As set out in our response to Q2 further employment land supply evidence is required. Through this there may be opportunities to replace derelict employment land with housing, however new employment sites tend to be of higher quality, reflecting more
modern industries (such as large logistic sites). They are unlikely to replace the smaller industrial unit stock, which have numerous benefits including lower rents, being suited for 'start up' and smaller businesses which reflect of the Black Country's employment
profile. New large, greenfield strategic employment sites are unlikely to be affordable for the types of businesses which currently occupy the smaller industrial unit stock.

2.34 With the Black Country facing an overall employment land deficit of 300 ha, the authorities should be seeking to protect the smaller industrial stock where possible and not maximising it for residential uses. 2.35 The Councils should also be mindful of the viability of regenerating employment land for residential use, and whether the market could sustain development on these sites. This is demonstrated by the number of previously developed sites in the Black Country allocated for housing but are yet to be delivered, and show no sign of doing so in the near future.

Q12a. Do you support Spatial Option H1? What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? E.g. ability to create a defensible new Green Belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services.

2.36 Please refer to response to Question 13a.

Q13a. Do you support Spatial Option H2? What should the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) be? E.g. minimum/ maximum size, mix of uses, mix of housing types, accessibility to other areas. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? E.g. proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs, potential to support existing settlements/ services, proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban regeneration.

2.37 Whilst there is no definition to the housing numbers associated with 'rounding off', this has been taken as any development site consisting less than 500 dwellings (the minimum threshold defined for SUEs).

2.38 The NPPF and PPG do not refer to 'rounding off' the Green Belt. The NPPF states at paragraph 85 that the boundaries of the Green Belt should be defined clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent. These boundaries should be long term and enduring, and will not require adjustment at the end of the plan period.

2.39 Subject to meeting the NPPF and PPG, rounding off of the edges of the urban area within the Green Belt could assist in meeting some of the Black Country's identified housing needs, however the I&O Report acknowledges that Option H1 would not meet
all the area's outstanding housing growth.

2.40 Larger SUE sites will provide significant contributions towards delivering improved infrastructure given their critical mass. Relying too heavily on smaller sites through rounding off, would compromise the Black Country's ability to deliver new infrastructure
to meet its growth aspirations.

2.41 Furthermore, a number of SUEs will be required if the Black Country's housing shortfall, which cannot be accommodated within the existing urban area (between 14,270 and 24,670 dwellings), is to be met.

2.42 Turley is a member of the Home Builders Federation and regularly advises national and local house builders. It is unlikely there will be significant market interest in sites of less than 50-100 dwellings. House builders require certainty in their own supply. A site of
less than 50-100 dwellings would provide one or two years supply maximum, where as an SUE site would between three and five years supply, depending on the size of the site.

2.43 Furthermore the costs associated with installing infrastructure for a site, including constructing the site access, connecting to the appropriate utility grids, establishing a compound, are broadly similar for small and larger scale development. As such smaller
sites are less cost effective for house builders. This could significantly compromise the potential delivery of the Black Country's housing needs.

2.44 In contrast SUEs are likely to have greater market interest. Large scale planned development, which is allocated within a Local Plan, provides certainty and developer confidence, as recognised by paragraph 52 of the NPPF. Therefore the sites are more likely to deliver, and can accommodate multiple housebuilders and outlets, increasing the rate of delivery once the required infrastructure has been installed.

2.45 Spatial Option H2 is therefore the most appropriate strategy for accommodating the area's housing shortfall, however Spatial Option H1 can make a small contribution in the right locations.

2.46 Any site selection criteria should reflect the NPPF, recognising that planning should actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable. Whilst a potential SUE may not be immediately adjacent to local services or a rail station (which will be the case for the majority of the SUEs given their location on the edge of the urban area), there is the potential to make it more sustainable through new transport links (such as bus services) and on site provision.

2.47 Given the critical mass of SUEs, they have the potential to sustain significant on site services. An example is IM's proposals for 1,000 new homes at Gaydon Lighthorne in Stratford on Avon, which benefits from a resolution to grant. This will be capable of
sustaining on site leisure and retail facilities and all associated infrastructure.

2.48 The BCCS Review should also not make assumptions that SUEs will have major impacts on Green Belt purposes and environmental assets (as suggested in the 'challenges' section for Spatial Option H2). Firstly, any site's performance against the Green Belt purposes is separate to any site selection process. The Green Belt Review is a separate exercise to determining the sustainability of a site. Secondly, SUEs in the Green Belt can have many environmental benefits, including delivering significant public open space (it is widely recognised the Black Country Green Belt is largely inaccessible), as well as biodiversity enhancements.

Q13b. What infrastructure do you think would be needed for different sizes of SUEs?

2.49 For the reasons provided in response to Q12a and Q13a, further evidence will be necessary to inform infrastructure requirements for each SUE, including school and healthcare provision. The I&O Report indicates a number of infrastructure assessments are to be undertaken before the Preferred Options version of the BCCS Review is published.

2.50 Furthermore, the Councils should be mindful of site specific evidence bases prepared by developers. Indeed IM is exploring infrastructure requirements for Columba Park and intends to submit this assessment work in due course.

2.51 The Black County authorities should also liaise with the relevant statutory undertakers (such as Severn Trent, Western Power Distribution etc) to ensure the BCCS Review includes a robust Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

Q13c. Are there any potential locations that should be considered for SUEs (please submit through the 'call for sites' form) and what
infrastructure would be required to support these?

2.52 Columba Park represents a unique opportunity to create a new community, which could provide approximately 1,500 new homes. IM's aspirations are to create a new neighbourhood which delivers real health and wellbeing, and economic benefits for both
existing and new residents. This includes significant high quality open space, parkland and green infrastructure, well designed homes, and new community facilities.

2.53 IM is a market leader in the delivery of strategic housing and employment sites. Working in partnership with Bath and North East Somerset Council, IM is delivering a new community at MoD Ensleigh which includes a new 210-place primary school. IM is also
working successfully alongside Solihull Council to deliver the mixed use business and residential campus at Blythe Valley, is delivering 750 dwellings, 250 bed extra care and 1m sq ft of commercial space. This represents the largest allocation in Solihull's Local Plan. As set out previously IM is also promoting land at Gaydon Heath for 1,000 dwellings and new retail and leisure facilities, which benefits from a resolution to grant.

2.54 We explore the infrastructure requirements of the site further in the Call for Sites form (Appendix 2) and Vision Document (Appendix 3) enclosed with these representations.

2.55 Given the site's location within the Green Belt we provide an assessment against the five purposes for including land within the Green belt below.

Purpose 1 - To check the unrestricted sprawl of the large built-up areas

2.56 The site is bound by residential development to the east, south and west. As such the site is enclosed by existing built form along three boundaries. At present the Green Belt boundary projects into the urban form of Walsall, utilising Aldridge Road, Queslett Road
and Doe Bank Lane as the defensible boundaries.

2.57 The release of the site would not result in any unrestricted sprawl of the built up area and on the contrary it would actually contain development within an existing urban form.

2.58 Consequently, the enclosed nature of the site results in the land making a low contribution to the Green Belt in relation to checking the unrestricted sprawl of Walsall. It is anticipated that once the site is released from the Green Belt, the newly formed boundary will better correspond with the urban form of the surrounding area and present a logical Green Belt boundary to protect against any unrestricted sprawl of the future built-up area.

Purpose 2 - To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another

2.59 An important requirement of the Green Belt is to prevent neighbouring towns from merging however paragraph 85 of the NPPF sets out that there may be opportunities for land to be released from the Green Belt that would assist in creating longer term
permanent defensible boundaries.

2.60 The site currently presents a gap in the urban form of Walsall and residential development is located in the immediate vicinity to the east, south and west of the site. As illustrated on Walsall's policies map, the existing Green Belt bounda ry protrudes to the south east (to include the site) utilising Queslett Road East as a defensible boundary (the A4041). To release this site from the Green Belt would not result in any neighbouring towns merging into one another and the new defensible boundary would be formed by the northern edge of development, adjacent to the proposed parkland.

Purpose 3 - To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

2.61 Paragraph 84 of the NPPF states that when drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries local planning authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. As such, development should be focussed towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages.

2.62 The site adjoins the urban area of Walsall and a masterplan is currently being prepared for the site that respects the surrounding countryside to the north west of the site. The early stage of masterplanning demonstrates how a landscaped view corridor can be
included within the proposals and in particular how the existing landscape, including woodland, and ecological assets such as hedgerows and wildlife, can play a key role in the design of the community.

2.63 In accordance with the guidance set out in the NPPF, the site is located towards the urban area of Walsall and the release of this site from the Green Belt would not result in a detrimental encroachment into the countryside, as illustrated within the early stages of
masterplanning for the site.

Purpose 4 - To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns

2.64 The site is not located within close proximity to any historical town. In historic landscape character terms, the site is located within the Barr Beacon/ Eldridge Fields area (reference WL09) which comprises a large geographical area and simply characterises
this area as dispersed farms and recreation, enclosed field systems, with historic heath at Barr Beacon.

2.65 As discussed in response to Purpose 3, the early stages of masterplanning have demonstrated how important landscaping is for the proposed development site and in particular the proposals will comprise a large landscape buffer, protecting the setting for Barr Beacon. Furthermore, the site is not located within the setting to a historic town and as such this purpose is not considered to apply in this circumstance.

Purpose 5 - To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

2.66 The BCCS Issues and Options Report sets out that there is a requirement for the Black Country Authorities to accommodate approximately 22-25,000 new homes and up to 300 ha of new employment land. It has been established that the Black Country has
severely limited opportunities to accommodate this anticipated growth within the present urban boundaries and it is therefore necessary to consider Green Belt release.

Q13d. Do you think that the Core Strategy should set out detailed guidance for the development of SUEs (e.g. type and tenure of housing, specific infrastructure required), rather than details being determined at a local level in light of local policies?
2.67 Any guidance for SUEs should not be considered until later in the preparation of the Plan, and should be informed by the relevant evidence base (including site specific evidence, the SHMA, and infrastructure assessments). Any guidance should be flexible
to ensure the Plan is able to respond to the most up to date evidence.

Q15a. If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the 'export' of housing growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA? What factors should be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities in neighbouring authorities e.g. proximity to the edge of the urban area, proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs?
2.68 The NPPG is clear that local planning authorities should have fully explored all available options for delivering their housing and employment needs within their own boundaries before considering exporting growth to neighbouring authorities or the wider HMA.
Equally, neighbouring authorities will not accept accommodating any of the Black Country's needs if this exercise has not been thoroughly undertaken. Telford and Wrekin has so far declined to assist in meeting any of the Black Country's shortfall given
this exercise had not been undertaken. As such this option should only be considered as a last resort.

2.69 On this basis the Black Country should be seeking to accommodate all of its proposed growth within its own boundaries.

Q21. Do you think that changes are required to policy DEL1 to ensure it covers both development within the existing urban area and any within the Green Belt?

2.70 As set out in our response to Q1 a full review of the BCCS is necessary. This applies to Policy DEL1 also, particularly as the policy currently only reflects development within the urban area.

2.71 Given the characteristics and viability matters which differ between brownfield and greenfield sites, the BCCS Review should have separate policies for each.

Q25. Will there be any new social infrastructure requirements necessary to serve large new housing developments? If yes, please explain the type and scale of any new social infrastructure required.

2.72 Please refer to response to Question 28.

Q28. Do you think physical infrastructure is necessary to serve large new housing developments? If yes, what type and scale of physical
infrastructure is necessary?

2.73 Paragraph 5.7 of the I&O Report sets out that as options for the location of major new housing allocations develop through the review process, so will decisions about the need for any such facilities and their locations.

2.74 This approach will be necessary to understanding the full infrastructure requirements for new sites. As set out in response to Q2, the infrastructure assessments to be undertaken will be crucial in understanding these requirements further. This should also be informed by any site specific evidence base work undertaken by developers, as well as liaison with infrastructure providers (including statutory undertakers).

Q29. Do you think there are any other tools or interventions that could be used to ensure enough infrastructure is provided by developments?

2.75 As set out in response to Q2, the infrastructure assessment work to be undertaken by the authorities will be critical to informing what infrastructure will be necessary to unlock new development.

2.76 Since the BCCS was adopted it is apparent that it is unviable for some brownfield sites to deliver the necessary infrastructure to assist their delivery (as much is acknowledged at Section 2 of the I&O Report). The four authorities should therefore satisfy themselves
that it is viable for new development to contribute towards providing infrastructure to meet their needs, including through Section 106 contributions or the Community Infrastructure Levy, and that any onerous policy requirements in relation to matters such as housing mix, sustainable design features etc, does not comprise viability.

2.77 Other tools and interventions should not be relied upon if they have not been confirmed as available to improve infrastructure before the BCCS Review is adopted.

Q31. Do you think that the right scale and form of funding is available to support the delivery of the Core Strategy Review? If no, what alternative sources of funding or delivery mechanisms should be investigated?

2.78 The recently published WMCA Land Delivery Action Plan identifies sources of funding
and immediate priorities. Of the £200m Land Remediation Fund, £53m is already
14
allocated to the Black Country and a further strategic package of £97m is available to be
drawn down by the LEP. However, the plan states on page 44 that "to fund the current
pipeline of brownfield sites in the Black Country, a total of £700m of further LRF funding
is required". This, it states, will be a key requirement of the Housing Deal the WMCA is
hoping to negotiate with CLG.
2.79 Whilst the funding to date is a good start, it is clear that it is a fraction of the total needed
to deliver a substantial step change in brownfield delivery. As set out in our response to
Q29, it is crucial the four authorities are satisfied of the scale and pace of delivery and
that it is viable for new development on brownfield sites to contribute towards providing
infrastructure to meet their needs. The role of greenfield locations to deliver market
housing and contribute fully to meeting infrastructure costs should therefore be a key
component to derisk the BCCS housing strategy.
Q32. Do you think that the proposed approach to incorporate health and
wellbeing issues in the Core Strategy review is appropriate? If no, please
provide details
2.80 Please refer to response to Question 34b.
Q33. Is there more that the Core Strategy can do to address health and
wellbeing issues in the Black Country? If yes, is a new policy needed to
address such issues for example?
2.81 Please refer to response to Question 34b.
Q34a. Do you agree that the health and wellbeing impacts of large
development proposals should be considered at the Preferred Spatial
Option stage of the Core Strategy review through a Health Impact
Assessment approach?
2.82 Please refer to response to Question 34b.
Q34b. What design features do you think are key to ensuring new
development encourages healthy living, which could be assessed through
the HIA process?
2.83 We support the strategy to incorporate health and wellbeing issues in the BCCS
Review. Health and wellbeing underpin sustainable planning and creating places where
people want to live.
2.84 The Health and Wellbeing Technical Paper (June 2017) emphasises the importance of
integrating health and wellbeing into all policies, including those of the emerging BCCS
Review. In particular, the technical note encourages the creation of communities which
are:
* Well-connected and walkable;
* Have a wide choice of homes;
* Accessible to services; and
* Where people can belong to a cohesive community which fosters diversity, social
interaction and social capital.
15
2.85 As such, health and wellbeing should not be standalone policies in the plan, but rather
should be a 'golden thread' running through the review and all policies. Any sites
promoted through the Local Plan process should demonstrate their health and wellbeing
benefits if they are to be proposed for allocation.
2.86 As demonstrated by the Vision Document (Appendix 3) submitted with these
representations, health and wellbeing are key principles at the heart of the proposals for
Columba Park. It will include significant new green infrastructure accessible to the
public, such as new parkland. New community facilities will also be delivered. New
pedestrian and cycle links will form a key component of the proposals, linking the site to
Barr Beacon and Sutton Park.
Q35. Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? If
no, please explain why.
2.87 The BCCS Review proposes at paragraph 6.30 to 'update' Policy HOU1. As set out in
our response to Q1 a full review of the Plan is necessary given there are now greater
housing and employment needs, the NPPF has been published and the WMRSS has
been revoked, and the adopted BCCS has not been delivering the required level of
growth. As such the approach to housing land supply should be reviewed in full also.
2.88 Given there is a shortfall of 3,039 dwellings against the targets set in the adopted
BCCS, largely as a result of brownfield sites not being developed due to viability issues,
the Review should include a 10% lapse rate should be applied to the requirement to
ensure flexibility in deliverability should sites in the supply not come forward.
Q36. Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards set
out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 should be changed? If yes, what standards
should be applied instead, for example should the minimum net density of
35 dwellings per hectare be increased to maximise brownfield housing
delivery?
2.89 Please refer to response to Question 42.
Q40. Do you agree that the 2017 SHMA findings should be used to set
general house type targets for the Plan period? If no, please explain why.
2.90 Please refer to response to Question 42.
Q42. Do you agree that the annual affordable homes target should be
increased to reflect the 2017 Black Country Strategic Housing Market
Assessment? If no, please explain why.
2.91 The NPPG states that wherever possible, local needs assessments should be informed
by the latest available information and the government's official population and
household projections are generally updated every two years.
2.92 The affordable housing requirement, preferred housing mix and types for the Black
Country therefore need to remain fluid in order to respond to the most up to date
evidence and market conditions. The BCCS Review should not comprise policies that
set standards for the whole Plan Period. The standards set out in Policy HOU2 should
be reviewed in full to ensure they comply with the NPPF, PPG and the most up to date
guidance.
16
2.93 Columba Park will be capable of delivering a range of house types, including high
quality larger 'professional / executive' type housing which is currently in short supply in
Walsall and results in residents moving out the borough to find suitable housing.

Black Country Core strategy issues and options representations from CCDC

Please see attached the representations of Cannock Chase Council to the Black Country Core Strategy issues and options consultation.

I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt

Kind regards

Black Country Core Strategy
Issues and Options consultation July - September 2017
Response of Cannock Chase Council
Thank you for consulting Cannock Chase Council with regard to the first stage (Issues and Options) of the Black Country Core Strategy Review. Responses in relation to those questions of particular relevance to this District are set out below.
Question 1: do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies?
This is difficult to conclude at this stage as much will depend on the emerging evidence as is acknowledged in paragraph 1.18. It is possible that some policies may be able to be 'stretched' or even stay the same, but in some cases significant changes may need to be made which could have cumulative impacts including cross-boundary implications, particularly in the light on ongoing work through the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (GBHMA) and the LEPS / WMCA.
It is noted that paragraph 1.27 (and 4.34) allows for sites to be put forward (via the Call for sites process) which lie within other authorities but adjoining the Black Country to enable cross boundary discussions to take place. As stated in paragraph 1.27, those sites would need to also be submitted to the relevant authority within whose boundaries the site lies (either all or in part) as these would also need to be considered thorough the Local Plan process for the authority in question. In these instances discussions would need to be had through the Duty to Co-operate in in the context of the emerging evidence base, ongoing strategic work as referenced above, and through any appropriate local plan reviews.
Question 2: Do you think that the key evidence set out in Table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy review? If not, what further evidence is required and, if there are any particular issues that should be taken into account in considering development on any particular sites or in any particular areas, please provide details.
The impression is given on page 19 that the GBHMA study primarily relates to Green Belt but its scope is wider than that and the table should reflect the full scope of the study.
The above mentioned study includes landscape assessment which complements, but is a separate assessment to the Green Belt work. However, given the cross boundary implications, account should be taken of Landscape Character Assessment at the more localised level where such evidence exists. Cannock Chase Council has published (and updated) its Landscape Character Assessment so this will need to be given due consideration as work on the plan moves forward, as will consideration of other evidence of relevance such as that relating to the historic environment / landscape and setting. Further discussions on these matters would be welcomed as the detail of the plan starts to emerge.
Further discussion will be needed on transport to ensure that the full evidence base and most up to date situation is considered in relation to the appropriate stage of the plan.
It should also be noted that the evidence base on Cannock Chase SAC is in the process of being updated and so the Black Country authorities will need to continue to engage (as they currently are doing) in this process via the Cannock Chase SAC partnership. This is covered under key issue 5 and also in paragraph 3.61 but needs to be cross referenced to the evidence table.
Discussions are also ongoing in relation to the Cannock Extension Canal SAC and also the restoration of the line of the Lichfield and Hatherton canal and it is possible that further evidence may be required in relation to this and the advice and guidance of Natural England will be essential as the plan progresses, particularly if there are cross boundary implications from the emerging plan so dialogue under the Duty to Co-operate will need to be ongoing (again as already is the case).
Question 3: do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014-36 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply are appropriate and in line with national guidance?
Paragraph 3.18 references the agreement to test the accommodation of an extra 3000 homes up to 2031 beyond local need to help address the shortfall in the wider HMA, however this will need to be considered in the light of the emerging evidence base in the GBHMA so the situation needs to be kept under review.
Question 5: Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt review?
Yes, as this picks up the higher tier work which is ongoing at the GBHMA level, however discussions will need to be ongoing under the Duty to Co-operate in relation to more localised work to ensure alignment and consistency where there are cross boundary implications: Cannock Chase Council published its own Green Belt assessment in 2016. Comments submitted under Question 1 are reiterated here in relation to the Call for Sites process.
Green Belt options should not only be considered in terms of their suitability (or not) for development but also whether they can play a role in being utilised more effectively in terms of a Green Infrastructure network which can serve a wide range of purposes (enhanced biodiversity, sport and recreation uses for example) which can enhance quality of life and potentially mitigate for the impacts of development on both a local and strategic scale. This should be explored further, in conjunction with partners across the HMA as work on the plan progresses.
Question 7: Do you think that the Core strategy vision and sustainability principles remain appropriate?
In principle, yes, however as set out in the response to Question 1 this will need to be kept under review in the light of the emerging evidence base. Whilst already covered via policy CSP3 of the 2011 strategy, the role of Green Infrastructure could be strengthened through the new plan, particularly (but not exclusively) in relation to the Green Belt as it can serve a wide range of purposes (enhanced biodiversity, sport and recreation uses for example) to enhance quality of life and potentially mitigate for the impacts of development on both a local and strategic scale.
Question 8: do you think that the Core Strategy spatial objectives remain appropriate?
In principle, yes, however as set out in the response to Question 1 this will need to be kept under review in the light of the emerging evidence base. Whilst already covered via policy CSP3 of the 2011 strategy, the role of Green Infrastructure could be strengthened through the new plan, particularly (but not exclusively) in relation to the Green Belt as it can serve a wide range of purposes (enhanced biodiversity, sport and recreation uses for example) to enhance quality of life and potentially mitigate for the impacts of development on both a local and strategic scale (potentially including that which may impact on the Cannock Chase SAC).
Question 9: Do you agree that policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the growth Network?
In broad terms, yes although this will depend upon the detail of the emerging evidence (and see response to Question 1). Green Belt policy will need to be reconsidered however as new defensible and permanent boundaries may need to be set through this process.
Question 15a: if all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the 'export' of housing growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA? What factors should be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities in neighbouring authorities eg proximity to the edge of the urban area, proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs?
Firstly, there would need to be clear and justified evidence that the Black Country has explored every reasonable opportunity to deliver as much development as possible within its own boundaries so this will depend upon the evidence which is still underway. Secondly, any shortfall relating to the Black Country should be considered 'in the round' ie not just in terms of those areas which have a direct boundary with the Black Country but as a whole as per the evidence base which is currently being prepared across the GBHMA (which will also avoid the risk of any double counting).
Earlier questions have raised the matter of the Call for Sites potentially covering cross boundary options including sites in neighbouring districts and our response to questions 1 and 5 should therefore also be noted here.
Should export of growth be required, close working will be required to ensure sustainable development and alignment between the BCCS and neighbouring plans.
Question 19a / b - do you support Spatial Option E4? Should any factors be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities?
Please see answer to question 15a.
Questions 26 / 27 and 28: Infrastructure
As the plan progresses, further discussions will be required on infrastructure issues depending on which sites / options are to be looked at further, as there may well be cross boundary implications which need to be addressed.
Questions 32 / 33: Health and Wellbeing
The role of sport and recreation could be strengthened (figure 10) as could the role of Green Infrastructure in providing for a range of needs.
Question 38: do you think that the current accessibility and density standards are appropriate for Green Belt release locations? If no, what standards should be applied in these locations and why?
As the adopted strategy does not allow for Green Belt release, presumably this means those standards set out in policy HOU2? Not all Green Belt sites will be the same as their context will vary on a case by case basis, and while the current policy allows for this to some extend further discussions will be needed in areas where there are cross boundary implications to ensure consistency between local plan approaches.
Question 49a: is there still a need for existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing?
Employment policy needs to be brought up to date to reflect the NPPF. Given the pressures on the need to find enough sites for housing poorer quality employment sites which are no longer fit for purpose should be considered for housing needs where appropriate and sustainable to reduce pressures elsewhere.
Question 50: Do you think that the Core Strategy should continue to set a target for the total employment land stock in policy EMP1? Do you think that distinguishing between Strategic high quality Employment Areas and Local Quality employment Areas is still appropriate?
The Core Strategy needs to reflect current national policy and guidance. As the plan (and evidence base) moves forward, delivering any net uplift (as per paragraph 6.58) will need to be explored further. As with housing, growth may well have strategic and cross boundary implications and further dialogue will be needed as the plan is developed.
Question 55: do you agree with the proposal to retain Policy EMP5?
Yes, it is important that the developers / owners of major new job-creating developments contribute to the recruitment and training of local people, which could also have cross boundary implications and benefits.
Question 56: Do you agree with the proposal to update Policy EMP6 in line with current priorities?
Yes. By promoting and enhancing the range of facilities within the Black Country it will provide visitors and residents with a range of activities which may reduce the pressures upon other, sensitive environments which are a draw for tourism, including the Cannock Chase SAC.
Question 74: In the context of the 'centres first' strategy, should the threshold approach be reviewed to consider the appropriateness, scale and impact of development in and on the edge of strategic, town and local centres?
Yes - this approach is appropriate and consistent with the NPPF where supported by evidence and is designed to protect the vitality and viability of town centres which also has cross boundary implications.
Question 81: do you agree that the approach of strong control over out of centre development is still appropriate in the context of the strategy to ensure the vitality and viability of the Black Country Centres?
Yes - see answer to Question 74. This does not just relate to the vitality and viability of Black Country centres but also has implications beyond the Black Country.
Question 88: do you agree that the overall transport strategy supports all of the Core strategy spatial objectives? Together with questions 89 (proposed changes to the priorities for the transport network), 90 (changes relating to managing transport impacts of new developments), 91 (the efficient movement of freight), 92 (network for walking and cycling) and 93 (changes to Policy TRAN5 - travel and travel choices)
The transport implications of the plan will have far reaching consequences beyond the boundaries of the Black Country. Cannock Chase Council continues to engage proactively with a range of partnerships dealing with transport issues and will continue to do so as the detail of the plan progresses.
Re: Policy TRAN1 - Priorities for the Development of the Transport Network
Question 89 - Do you support the proposed changes to the priorities for the development of the transport network? Yes/No; Please explain why.
Reference should be made to completion of the £100m, Walsall-Rugeley, Chase Line electrification/linespeed upgrade, which will lead to faster and more frequent services north of Walsall to the west Coast Main Line at Rugeley Trent Valley. The route will also provide an alternative diversionary route between Birmingham and Stafford for long distance passenger and freight services, when the Birmingham-Wolverhampton-Stafford, Stour Valley route, is closed for maintenance.
Reference should be made to the future ownership of the M6T and also the future role of the parallel A5T, which has a dual carriageway section through the Walsall MBC area at Brownhills.
Reference should be made to the Chase Line Station Alliance
* Network Rail and WMR is developing an innovative 'Stations Alliance', which, together with Abellio, the new West Midlands franchise operator, is hoped to bring about substantial improvements to West Midlands rail stations.
* The Alliance has created a WMR Stations Vision so that they are instantly recognisable in the areas which they serve and also integrate properly into the community.
* Stations should act as 'Gateways,' with quality infrastructure and more facilities such as shops.
* Network Rail are only funded to maintain stations to CP3 standards and 7-9 year franchises, do little to incentivize operators to invest in stations.
* Funded by Black Country and Stoke and Staffordshire LEPs and West Midlands Rail work is already underway to develop some indicative Master Plans for two trial routes - the Stour Valley Line from Birmingham to Wolverhampton (exclusive) and Chase Line stations north of Walsall.
* Options for funding the works will also be considered as part of a commission, which is due to be completed by Autumn 2017.
* GHD consultants have been appointed and site inspections of all stations carried out on with the consultant and local authorities, was in June.
* The study is in two stages:- Stage 1 is to confirm the projects for outline development. It is anticipated that this stage will result in a shortlist of projects for further development.
* Stage 2 will develop outline a master plan for each of the prioritised stations from Stage
WMCA Transport Delivery Committee endorsed this approach on 3 April 2017.
Re: Policy TRAN3 - The Efficient Movement of Freight
Question 91 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to the efficient movement of freight? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
R: Reference should be made to the proposed Mid Cannock road/rail interchange proposal by Pentalver. The facility would have the potential to be served by between 4 - 6 freight trains a day and serve the Black Country area.
Question 94: do you support the proposed changes relating to environmental infrastructure and place making?
Whilst already covered via policy CSP3 of the 2011 strategy, the role of Green Infrastructure could be strengthened through the new plan, particularly (but not exclusively) in relation to the Green Belt as it can serve a wide range of purposes (enhanced biodiversity, sport and recreation uses for example) to enhance quality of life and potentially mitigate for the impacts of development on both a local and strategic scale (potentially including that which may impact on the Cannock Chase SAC).
Question 96: Do you support the proposed changes relating to nature conservation?
The plan will need to ensure it takes into account any cross boundary implications as set out in the response to Question 2: the evidence base on Cannock Chase SAC is in the process of being updated and so the Black Country authorities will need to continue to engage (as they currently are doing) in this process via the Cannock Chase SAC partnership. This is covered under key issue 5 and also in paragraph 3.61 and potentially a policy may be needed to address SAC issues to align with the approach of other SAC Partnership authorities. The advice of Natural England will also be key to this issue.

Full text is 54 pages. See scanned rep for more detail

Question 1:
Natural England's considers the environmental policies of the existing Core Strategy relatively robust. We, therefore, agree that the partial review should retain much of what is currently in place with regard to environmental policy with improvements, where necessary, to some policies to update these in accordance with new legislation and emerging environmental evidence. Where appropriate, the appropriate environmental policies should also be further strengthened in order to ensure the successful environmental transformation of the Black Country the Plan desires.

Natural England also considers that there should be a greater reference to the importance of the natural environment and landscape-scale green infrastructure (GI) benefits throughout the Plan. The necessary 'Environmental transformation' of the sub-region is indeed one of the core directions contained within the Plan's Vision; this direction and need is only further supported with the emergence of the Black Country Garden City aspirations. The benefits of GI to an urban area are well documented and are crucial to the delivery of high quality sustainable development. It can provide multiple benefits for people and wildlife, for health and well-being, for eco-system services, for the economy. As a result, we would recommend the Plan ensures the GI needs of the sub-region are front loaded as part of development decisions and referenced in development policy, where appropriate.

Question 2:
Natural England is unsure what the 'Strategic Mapping of the Black Country's Natural Environment' is. However, this may refer to Natural England's Black Country Garden City Part A GI Evidence Base & Pinch Point Analysis. This is an interactive Geographic Information Systems (GIS) tool which contains comprehensive and strategic Green Infrastructure (GI) evidence for the Black Country. It comprises detailed and layered social, environmental and economic information overlain with key housing sites data to identify the GI 'Pinch Points' (i.e. where GI intervention in the Sub Region should be prioritised). The GI evidence base considers the location of, and need for, 26 different GI functions across the Black Country relating to the needs of people and wildlife. It can inform both strategically and on a site specific basis as regards the areas greatest GI needs and opportunities.

This evidence, in a large part, meets the requirements of the Plan as detailed at paragraph 3.4. Natural England welcomes the planned preparation of a Habitat Regulations Assessment Screening Report at Preferred Spatial Option stage. (para 3.8).

Question 5:

Natural England generally supports the proposed evidence based approach to the Green Belt Review. In order to meet the housing demands of an area we recognise that it is sometimes necessary to release the most appropriate green belt land in order to best accommodate the needs of both the future and existing populations. The Sub-Region , in most parts, comprises tightly constrained built form, however, there are important pockets of valuable green space / infrastructure contained within which perform a variety of important functions for people and wildlife. It is, therefore, important that we ensure future development is planned such that the populations, new and existing, are able to receive the multi-functional benefits of GI which enhance quality of life.

We note the comments of the Black Country Local Nature Partnership (LNP) in response to this question recommending the evidence review is extended across the Black Country and not just the greenbelt. We believe that Natural England's 'Black Country Garden City: GI Evidence Base and Pinch Point Analysis' will be able to support you in this endeavour. We would advise you contact the LNP for further discussion on this issue as they suggest.

Question 6:
Key Issue 1 - Recommend inclusion of Natural England's 'Black Country Garden City: GI Evidence Base and Pinch Point Analysis'
For Key Issue 5 - Recommend inclusion of Natural England's 'Black Country Garden City: GI Evidence Base and Pinch Point Analysis'
Natural England welcomes the commitment to make provision for environmental infrastructure (Paragraph 3.35) and looks forward to working with you to help ensure this aim is fully realised.

We also welcome the recognition of the need to abide by the Habitat Regulations (Paragraph 3.38) but note that nationally and locally designated sites are excluded from this section. In consideration of their importance to the Sub region we would recommend reference to their respective value.

We welcome the inclusion of the reference to the Cannock Chase SAC and SAC Partnership and the Council's commitment to the undertaking of a fresh HRA screening exercise for the purposes of informing the Plan.

Question 7:
Natural England disagrees with the principle that brownfield sites will always be prioritised for development and it is our opinion that all sites must be assessed on the same merits regardless of location. Whilst the re-use of brownfield sites is encouraged in the NPPF, Paragraph 111 states that this is only when brownfield sites do not have high environmental value. There is a growing body of evidence that urban greenspace and brownfield sites can be of equal or greater importance for wildlife and people as some areas of greenbelt. (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response).

Question 8:
Given that paragraph 1.1 of this document states that one of the three main purposes of the strategy is to direct environmental activity to the right places it is surprising that there is no spatial objective that explicitly allows for the provision of green infrastructure. Environmental Infrastructure is one of the five strategic policies subsequently set out in the document but this would be greatly strengthened if it were backed up by an explicit spatial objective such as "safeguard existing environmental assets and take opportunities to improve environmental infrastructure to support wildlife populations and provide other ecosystem services". (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response)

Question 11a, 12a, 13a and 13b:
From an environmental perspective it would be preferable if the selection of sites were undertaken using an evidence based approach that weighs up the pros/cons of each individual site. The impact on and potential benefits for the provision of green and environmental infrastructure should be one of the characteristics used in the assessment of sites. This is not currently referred to in the opportunities and challenges tables for the different approaches.

Assessing each proposed development on its merits rather than using a broad-brush approach provides a genuine spatial choice that enables better sustainable development. (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response)

Questions 16 - 20
As with the spatial options proposed for housing, we would prefer the selection of sites for employment to be undertaken through evidence based approach that weighs up the pros/cons of each individual site. The impact on and potential benefits for the provision of green and environmental infrastructure should be one of the characteristics used in the assessment of sites. This is not currently fully explored in the opportunities and challenges tables for the different approaches.
Assessing each proposed development on its merits rather than using a broad-brush approach provides a genuine spatial choice that enables better sustainable development. (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response)

Question 21:
The definition of infrastructure in Policy DEL 1 is broad, including public open space and sustainable drainage but the provision of environmental infrastructure is not mentioned specifically in DEL1 nor Paragraphs 5.1 to 5.6 of this report except to say that environmental impacts should be mitigated. We would like to see the provision of additional environmental and green infrastructure explicitly covered in this policy and the LNP can provide advice and support for this. It is also our opinion that this policy should be no different in greenbelt or urban areas(Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response).

Questions 32 &33:
We would support the continuation of health and well being related criterion being interwoven throughout the various policies of the Plan provided the Council can satisfy itself that this is sufficient in order to secure to positive benefits from such aspirations. We particualrly weclcome the inclusion of Theme 2 - Planning for active lifestyles although it is important to recognise that simply provision of open spaces does not always provide the health benefits we desire. The quality of the open space, the sensory experiences, perceived safety, etc are also critical to encouraging utilisation and hence attaining the community benefits. Much of this comes down to management and manitenance of sites, however, it is also important to consider locational aspects of open space / GI as some existing areas may encourage use whereas others detract.

Question 36:
We disagree with both the assumption that housing densities should be different in greenbelt and urban areas and that there should be a minimum net housing density on brownfield sites. The ecological importance of brownfield sites can equal or greater than in the greenbelt and the need for green infrastructure is often higher in urban areas. The density of a development should depend on the needs of the residents and strategic goals and should therefore be assessed on a site by site basis. (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response)

Question 38:
Whilst we understand the need for creating space-efficient developments we would like to see each housing application assessed on its own merits to a universal standard. (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response)

Question 47:
The definition of healthcare facilities covered by Policy HOU5 should be extended to explicitly include the provision of multifunctional greenspace to allow healthy lifestyle choices as identified in section 6.11 of this report. (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response)

Question 49ab:
Given that the NPPF requires the planning system to contribute to and enhance the natural environment in the pursuit of sustainable development, consideration could be given to releasing land for green infrastructure and nature conservation. This is essential as current evidence indicates that our existing network of designated sites is not sufficient to protect wildlife, that areas of publicly accessible greenspace are essential for our health and wellbeing and provide other ecosystem services often lacking in very urban areas. (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response)

Question 65, 67, 69 and 72:
Strategic centres also have a role to play in providing access to green open space and providing ecosystem services. Each development should be assessed on its merits , and whilst intensive development may be appropriate in some situations in strategic centres, the need and opportunities for multifunctional green infrastructure should be considered in all locations. This is especially relevant to health and wellbeing if strategic centres are developed such that people both live and work in these centres. (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response)

Question 94:
We welcome updates of environmental infrastructure requirements based on up to date evidence and recommend reference to Natural England's Black Country Garden City Part A GI Evidence Base & Pinch Point Analysis. This is an interactive Geographic Information Systems (GIS) tool which contains comprehensive and strategic Green Infrastructure (GI) evidence for the Black Country. It comprises detailed and layered social, environmental and economic information overlain with key housing sites data to identify the GI 'Pinch Points' (i.e. where GI intervention in the Sub Region should be prioritised). The GI evidence base considers the location of, and need for, 26 different GI functions across the Black Country relating to the needs of people and wildlife. It can inform both strategically and on a site specific basis as regards the areas greatest GI needs and opportunities.
Natural England and the LNP can also provide existing data, advice and support in developing new proposals.

Question 95a:
We refer your authority to Natural England's Black Country Garden City Part A GI Evidence Base & Pinch Point Analysis. This is an interactive Geographic Information Systems (GIS) tool which contains comprehensive and strategic Green Infrastructure (GI) evidence for the Black Country. It comprises detailed and layered social, environmental and economic information overlain with key housing sites data to identify the GI 'Pinch Points' (i.e. where GI intervention in the Sub Region should be prioritised). The GI evidence base considers the location of, and need for, 26 different GI functions across the Black Country relating to the needs of people and wildlife. It can inform both strategically and on a site specific basis as regards the areas greatest GI needs and opportunities. We consider this can align with the emerging Black Country Garden City principles and therefore help usefully inform development decisions towards the Garden City vision. NE is working alongside the Local Enterprise Partnership and is part of the Black Country Garden City Working Group to seek to realise these aims.
We also welcome the Para 6.148 reference to potential inclusion of agreed GCPs into Policy CSP3: Environmental Infrastructure.

Natural England understands the reasons for the proposed removal of the specific criterion relating to renewable energy generation as part of CSP3. However, the importance of such facilities should not be diluted in the Plan and we would recommend other policy support where appropriate.

Question 95b:
The application of the principals will vary on a site by site basis, as the environmental and social needs will vary between developments. The location of the site on brownfield or greenfield land is likely to influence the site specific requirements, but different standards should not be applied on the basis of a greenfield/brownfield categorisation. (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response)

Question 96:
We welcome the proposed changes that provide additional protection to irreplaceable habitats and to bring the definition of mitigation in line with NPPF to require compensation for residual negative impacts. We further recommend that the proposed additional protection for ancient woodlands is extended to include other irreplaceable features such as ancient and veteran trees. The LNP can provide advice on the most accurate data sets available to identify such features. (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response)
Natural England also welcomes the proposed inclusion of a requirement for appropriate biodiversity features as part of new development - such as natural green space, use of native planting and nest boxes.
We welcome also the inclusion of a reference to the Black Country Geopark.
Natural England would recommend your authority liaise with the LNP who are able to provide advice towards making this Policy and its application as robust as possible.

Question 97:
We feel that there could be a greater recognition that nature and natural features are an important constituent of place making and local distinctiveness and often have a strong relationship with historic character. (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response)

Question 100:
Natural England recognises the difficulties that have emerged as a result of the inclusion of local projects ( such as the Hatherton Branch Canal Restoration Project) and whilst generally supports the principle of such initiatives, recognises that difficulties can arisen relating to the viability of such policies on grounds of technical challenges.
Recent discussions between NE and Walsall MBC (WMBC Policy EN4 Hatherton Branch Canal) have concluded that the viability of such projects are best considered at project level. For this reason, NE would support the removal of such initiatives from Core Strategy Policy and supporting paragraphs which, without the evidence to confirm technical viability, the deliverability of which remains in question.
We would add that reference to the supported principle of such initiatives would also be supported, provided the related paragraph made it clear that Council and Policy support would only be forthcoming where the evidence for its viability and deliverability was provided.

Question 101a:
We strongly agree with the principal of prioritising natural SUDs as this provides greater opportunity for SUDs to provide multiple functions and provide biodiversity features. (Comment replicated and aligned with LNP response). Natural England's BCGC Part A GI Evidence Base can assist in this.

Question 102a:
We support this policy but suggest additional clarification and strengthening as discussed in our responses to Questions 102b and c.

Question 102b:
Would recommend specific reference to Natural England's BCGC Part A GI Evidence Base in accompanying paragraphs

Question 102c:
We suggest further clarification on what constitutes open space as the policy does not specify publically accessible open space. We would welcome a definition that extends all sites that have developed nature conservation interest, are used informally for recreation or provide other ecosystem services. Reference again to Natural England's BCGC Part A GI Evidence Base

Black Country Core Strategy Issues and Options Consultation Response

Dear Sir / Madam,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the black Country Core Strategy Review Issues and Options. It should be noted that the comments below are officer comments which have been endorsed by the Portfolio holders at Wychavon and Malvern Hills District Councils and the Chair and Vice Chair of the Place and Economic Development Committee at Worcester City Council. This response is made in the context of the on-going Duty to Co-operate.

As background, Malvern Hills District Council, together with Worcester City Council and Wychavon District Council adopted the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) in February 2016.

Development Strategy
The South Worcestershire Councils are concerned that the issue of the considerable unmet housing need arising within Birmingham is not sufficiently resolved. Whilst the Black Country authorities recognise that this is a significant issue and have agreed to test capacity for an additional 3,000 dwellings, there is a significant shortfall remaining and therefore, should the on-going evidence base find that there is capacity over and above that currently being tested, consideration should be given to whether or not there is any potential to meet a greater element of the shortfall within the Black Country given its close proximity to Birmingham.

The south Worcestershire councils agree that the review should be a partial review which retains and stretches the existing spatial strategy and reviews the relevant policies.

The south Worcestershire councils agree that the evidence base listed is sufficient and is pleased to see consideration being given to the on-going work being undertaken to address the Birmingham shortfall. It is pleasing to see that the Green Belt review for the Black Country will sit within the context of the Strategic Growth Study and will be carried out in conjunction with South Staffordshire.
The key issues identified are considered to be appropriate issues for the plan to consider.

The first preference is for the Black Country to accommodate all of its need within its own administrative area. However, should exporting growth be necessary consideration should be given to the outcomes of the Strategic Growth Strategy and the growth should be accommodated within the Housing Market Area or within those authorities that have a strong connection with the Housing Market Area. Additionally, access by public transport and the potential to enhance existing links as well as create new ones should be prioritised to encourage sustainable commuting patterns. Employment and housing should be located within easy access of each other.

Careful consideration should be given to the specific types of housing needed and where the evidence base justifies it a target for particular housing types should be included in order to ensure that all needs are being met. With regard to affordable housing, it is important to ensure that viability isn't undermined by increasing the target, to the extent that overall delivery falls, however, the use of a higher target supported by site by site viability appraisals at the development management would ensure that delivery of affordable housing is maximised. Where the viability evidence supports doing so, higher targets should be imposed on particular types of sites for example greenfield or green belt sites, however, where these sites are significant in scale the infrastructure demands may render this unviable.

Brierley Hill Retail Pre-Conditions
With reference to paragraph 6.83 and question 68, the south Worcestershire councils would have concerns about the relaxation of the pre conditions for retail growth at Merry Hill. The introduction of parking charges would make the Merry Hill Centre comparable to other strategic centres within the Black Country and beyond, all of which have parking charges in place. Without this pre condition being met, the south Worcestershire councils would be concerned about the impact of retail growth at Merry Hill on the centres within south Worcestershire, particularly Droitwich and Worcester City.

In conclusion, notwithstanding the concerns relating to the unmet need arising from the conurbation, the south Worcestershire councils raise no objections to the plan at this stage and welcome the opportunity for further discussions with the Black Country authorities as the Core Strategy Review progresses in order to comply with on-going requirements associated with the Duty to Cooperate. Consequently the SWCs wish to continue to be consulted on subsequent stages of the Black Country Core Strategy review.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any clarification with regard to this matter

Dear Sir,

REF BLACK COUNTRY CORE STRATEGY



The Friends of Sheepwash Local Nature Reserve would like to respond to this consultation set out below.The friends group is one of the longest established in Sandwell going back to 1997.
Sheepwash Local Nature Reserve,the only designated local nature reserve in Tipton has recorded around 190 bird species as well as having SSSI status sites and areas of locally rare important wildlife habitat such as wet meadow areas and wetland/reed habitat.Our primary objectives as per our constitution are the protection of the nature reserve and its surrounding wildlife corridors and also trying to combat the anti- social behaviour/vandalism that has plagued the site for many years. The Black Country Core strategy raises issues which are highly relevant to these two objectives and it also must be said that it directly threatens the future of this site.


THE CONSULTATION PROCESS AND THE FLAWED STRATEGY

Firstly we would like to state that we do not believe this consultation has been conducted in a very appropriate manner. The core strategy itself is far too broad and the oppressive 100 page document, and 13o+ questions is unlikely to have been communicated in such a way that the majority of people will even have read or understood what it is about.The shortened online
version is little more than a loaded confirmation bias tick box exercise whereby the BCCS can write

off a "democratic" consultation exercise to get what the constructors want- which is to build more houses on open space.

Quite simply we distrust the entire basis on whichit is constructed,and its authors appear to be minded towards the ever unsustainable expansion of urban environments by usurping any land available no matter how contaminated it is or how it will adversely affect those who are already finding it difficult to live with the overpopulated density that planners believe is acceptable.
A reasonable question which we would like to ask the BCCS is,if people reject your plans for housing more unsustainable housing in their areas,given you are refusing to even ask "IF" they want more housing instead of "where" it should be,are you just goingtoignore all the objections despite having no democratic basis to justify pressing ahead with it? To what extent are people already living in densely overpopulated areas like the Black Country compared with the rest of the UK even offered a choice in the BCCS vision?
Our open spaces are beingsystematically destroyed by the avarice of the "offshore" tax avoidance construction lobby and the political/business class who faithfully serve them and who themselves choose to remain and live in splendid ruralisolation,yet dictate that we should have to live with more overspill from Cities like Birmingham to line their pockets still further- most notably by supplementingthe private landlord and so called "affordable housing" industry.
Put simply, "the need" for housing in the Black Country is one which is founded on an odious lie about rising population.The population "rise" is down to manipulated Lego land building by
politicians,simply to raise the council tax bands to accrue more money in order to cover their perennial mismanagement .It can also be used to plead "poverty" to national Government, and unfortunately the unwanted West Midlands Combined Authority-(again with no valid mandate),is a means of achieving this.
Taking Sandwell as an example, one can see that from official figures on its creation in 1974 that this area according to the official guide from that year:
"With an estimated popu lation of 324,000 and a total area of 21,150 acres, the borough is urban in character and highly industrialised and includes the districts of Oldbury, Rowley Regis, Smethwick, Tipton, Wednesbury and West Bromwich."


A freedom of information request however revealed in 2014 that this figure had actually fallen to

316, 700.
https://www.whatdotheyknow . com/request/306 299/response/777 408/ attach/html /3/FOl %20Re sponse%201%20727066864 . doc.html


Having looked into the official statistics for the other black country boroughs,they also show this statistic of population falls with the 1980/90's, yet only increasing with the disastrous managed Eastern European free movement in 2004- itself a politically managed and motivated cheap labour exercise. With Brexit hopefully now alleviating this influx, to what extent has the BCCS taken this into account,and why shouldit want to create what could become unoccupied new house ghost towns that no one lives in?

Every mention of this theme of "need" running throughout the document and "the strategy" is challengeab le, yet the authors of this paper do not appear to want it to be. Below are the latest figures from the estimations of The office of national statistics.


Choose an area Walsall
278,715 people in 2016 All ages

Choose an area Sandwell
322,712 people i n 2016 All ages

136.919 males 141,796 females

49.1% i-----

159,904 males
162,808 females

49.6% -----i.





Choose an area Dudley
317,634 peop le i n 2016

Choose an area Wolverhampton
256,621 people i n 2016

All ages
155.945 males
161.689 females




49.1%
50.9%-----

All ages
127.25 males 129,596 females



49.5%
50






As seen by these statistics,Sandwell's population is the largest, yet as a borough it has 86 square kilometres {33 sq mi) according to the 2011census. Wolverhampton by comparison has 26.8 square miles.





"QJ' "' c


oil

"' E c
'ijj "' ::i

"O "O 2

'" QJ

.!: 0
ti; u

Statistical Unit of

i"ii'i i"ii'i

t: "'

'U "cO > -u"

Unit Measure c c ;::

';":: ::i "'

C;::i "'

Old Code

UJ UJ 0 Ill iii

ONSCode K04000001 E92000001 El2000005 EOS000030 EOS000027 EOS000028 EOS000031 n/a
Usually Resident Population 2011 Persons Nvmber 56075912 53012456 5601847 269323 312925 308063 249470 1139781
c Usually Resident Population 2001 Persons Nvmber 52041916 49138831 5267308 253499 305155 282904 236582 107814(
.!? Popn Change 2001-2011 Persons Proportion 0.071938 0.07307 0.059719 0.058755 0.02483 0.081668 0.051662 0.054081
;;;

-s Males Persons Nvmber 27573376 26069148 2763187 132319 153819 151592
Q.

123441 561171

0 Females
Q.

Persons Number 28502536 26943308 2838660 137004 159106 156471 126029 57861(

Area Heerores Number 15101354 13027843 1299832 10395.49 9795.66 8556.73 6943.95 35691.8:
Density Persons per ha Nvmber 3.713304 4.069166 4.309671 25.90768 31.94527 36.00242 35.92624 31.9339




One can see that this population density in Sandwell is grossly disproportionate to England and Wales- as are the other Black country boroughs,yet how is it that we are expected to take more, or that there should even be "a call for sites"? Just what madness is the BCCS trying to create?
THERE IS QUITE SIMPLY NO ROOM LEFT! At what point are planners going to accept this because currently it does not appear that they have set any maximum levels, except coming back every

few years and wanting more and more land for unsustainable housing supply when the "demand" has been artificially created.


Sheepwash and increasing population density

We have witnessed how increasing population density around the site has contributed to an increase in anti-social behaviour as well as the disjointed disintegration of community by influx of non- English speakers. Essentially foreign ghettos have been created where large social housing developments for rent have destroyed the character of towns.With a fall of police,no school
places,full doctors surgeries,over- subscribed school places,where is the "sustainability"?

The nature reserveitself is directly threatened as a concept by an increase in human population around its centre. In particular reference to this was the ludicrous decision to centre a regeneration corridor for housing RC9,to which we continue to fundamentally object.


THE secs QUESTIONS
We do not wish to answer all of the SCCS questions but the ones that are most relevant to protectingsheepwash from further threat of housing.



No we do not.

"There have been a number of changes to national policy and a housing shortfall has been identified in Birmingham which neighbouring authorities have a duty to consider accommodati ng."
For reasons stated above concerning population density,it is a disgrace that the BCCS tries to sneak this through without a full review. Why should neighbouring authorities have "a duty" to accommodate Birmingham's overspill? By "stretching" the existing special strategy you mean more land grabbing for housing so why hide behind such concealed scheming?
We are sick and tired of having to be "developed" in the urban area.

"Given the levels of growth to be planned for, care is needed to safeguard environmental and historic assets and to ensure enough services,such as open space,shops,schools and healthcare, are provided."


This statement in relation to Sandwell,and specifically corridor RC9 cannot be delivered.

Question 2 - Do you think that the key evidence set out in Table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No
If not,what further evidence is required and, if there are any particular issues that should be taken into account in considering development on any particular sites or in any particular areas, please provide deta i l s .






No. Each individual site should be looked at for constraints. Land contamination issues for specific sites in the 2011 core strategy were not looked at seriously. In particular the recently published Sandwell council Dudley Port supplementary planning document dealing with housing allocation sites in the RC9 corridor show that none of the proposed sites have been developed and still have considerable contamination issues associated with them. Five years on, and some of the sites have remained in exactly the same condition- ie non-deliverable. For how long should these sites
remain as paper target figure exercises before being realised that they are never going to be
deliverable? In particular the former Duport's tip site in Tividale was supposedly "reclaimed" but was not in terms of housing suitability in the 1990's under the auspices of the black country development corporation,but retains considerable development constraints. No local residents that we have spoken to want the area developed for housing at all,yet it remains on the plan against all local opposition- why?
We would also like to add that a large petition was handed into Sandwell council against this housing allocation site in the consultation for the DPSPD.We want to see this site removed from the allocation process as not deliverable and also not wanted.
We also note at this stage from the Health and Wellbeing Technical Paper



"Local communities through local and neighbourhood plans should be able to identify special protection for green areas of particular importance to them. By designating land as Local Green Space, local communities will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances. Identifying land as Local Green Space should therefore be consistent with the local planning of sustainable development and complement investment in sufficient homes,jobs and other essential services. Local Green Spaces should only be designated when a plan is prepared or reviewed, and be capable of enduring beyond the end of the plan period (para.76.)"





No we do not. We could not care less about "national guidance" as these theories do not live in our area, and neither do planning inspectors from Bristol.You frame these questions in such a way as to supply what you are going to do then ask people to challenge it based on "national guidance". Whereis there any evidence of compiling a strategy based on what local people want, instead of what national guidance demands? The housing allocations are not appropriate because they are unsustainable.
Our futures under increasing density appear in your context to be linked to the housing business market, supplying money to greedy developers. The strategy should not be based on HMA's and certainly not accommodati ng Birmingham overspill.Is this core strategy called "the Birmingham core strategy''?
With question four we simply ask,if more employment land is also sort in this exercise after you basically did not correctly apply it in 2011,why do you not just accommodate this into the existing brownfield sites instead of trying to clean up contaminated sites of past industrial use for housing and then grabbing land for employment from the greenbelt. The BCCS appears to want to increase

the population to unsustainable levels and then try to fit in employment as an afterthought.You cannot do this, the area is full and there are few jobs already.



Who are The Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (HMA) authorities and to whom are they accountable or answerable? Who elected them? We do not support building on green belt land to accommodate former Industrial land house buildingto line the pockets of the house building industry.Existing vacant Industrial land should be used to house new industry and support existing population job growth.
Question 6 - Do you agree that the key issues set out in Part 3 are the key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy Review? Yes/No
If not,what other key issues should be taken into account?

Officers compiling this plan and particularly councillors approving it need to look at the social breakdown of communities and the threat to mental health that population density and also lack of jobs is creating.The more you increase the population the less chance of a job. All of strategy appears to be centred around "the economy'' and not about local peoples' needs or aspirations. There is a string sense that decisions are being promoted by people who do not live in the black country, by choice,and a blank cheque is being given to promote these schemes all based on theoretical numbers. There are few practical or realistic measures in this review just more theory, more acronyms,more figures.
You should look first at existing school places, existing doctors surgeries etc BEFORE adding more people and then as an afterthought deciding that more of these are then needed.




uestion 8 - Do you think that the Core Strategy spatial objectives remain appropriate? Yes/ No
not, what alternatives would you suggest and how might these changes impact on individual re Strateft'LllOlicies?


As previously stated, area RC9is not deliverable. It has not been deliverable for over 30 years before the 2011BCCS. It is proposed to build new houses on contaminated land putting existing residents at risk who do not want their quality of life ruined for the purposes of meeting targets. Their view should be a valid vision.
More open space/wildl fe areas are needed in the brownfield area.These are being lost and so called "mitigation" isn't being met where wildlife is concerned.






If you support the release of further employment land for housing, what should the characteristics of these employment areas be?

Question llb - Are there any current employment areas that might be considered suitable for redevelopment to housing? Yes/No
Please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form.

We totally reject all your proposals. We do not support building houses on employment land. We do not support building houses in regeneration corridor nine as it is unsustainable to live there with little employment land there already for those who are out of work living there. You appea r here to be suggesting putting small existing businesses out of business on the say so of any
individ ual who wants to build houses there instead. This whole process is open to wide scale fraud with multiple agents of the house building industry submitting "call for sites" in areas where they can make a killing. What democratic mandate does the BCCS have for doing this? It is deplorable.





Question 14 - Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Housing Spatial Options? Yes/No
[If yes, please provide details.
No we do not support either. When you talk of "rounding off" the green belt this means grabbi ng land and putting a spin on it. Look at the black country borough density we have given evidence on and compare this with the green belt in areas like Warwickshire/Worcestershire/Shropshire and Staffordshire. These areas should give up their green belt land first. The green belt area , or

what you can even call such in the Black country cannot be given over to satisfying Birmingham's "poverty" pitch.To question 15 we would refer to this "export" as you termit. The black country is full.











El,E2,E3 NO STRONGLY OPPOSED. E4 yes. It has long been established that people can commute FROM areas such as Kinver or Malvern into the black country, yet never in the opposite direction. Why?
Q20 The Vaughn trading estate in Tipton is one such site, and we are keen to see The Autobase industrial estate on the border of Sheepwash retained for industrial use. NB WE OPPOSE ANY THREAT OF THIS SITE EVER BECOMING CONSIDERED FOR HOUSING.
















We do not support creating more housing capacity, as already stated in our area because it has reached an unsustainable level already. We have had many dealings with West Midlands police and also Sandwell council's anti-social behaviour teams. Pressure from new developments in the Tividale area and Great Bridge has resulted in more anti-social behaviour issues- particularly riding of off road bikes and illegal fishing on the nature reserve. This leads to the value of the site as "a nature reserve" and also a SSSI site being devalued.
We are aware of school places in the area being challenged, and in the Temple Way area (part of RC9 corridor), there are no shops,poor parking and a lack of any community centre.Another 250 houses in this area on the site of the former Duport's Tip will do nothing but over tip this unsustainable situation even further.
We are afraid that there is a major disconnect in reality from people who do not live in our area, and who are producing the BCCS and our personal and practical every day experiences. There is
little engagement other than this oppressive generalised strategy for allowing people to express their opinions.There is a lack of planning involving local people, and the impression that they do not have any control or say in how their areas will develop or remain.







"Poor ground conditions, a legacy of the Black Country's mining and industrial past,affect much of the area. As ground conditions are a major constraint on delivery,land remediation is a priority for delivery intervention.Itis recognised that in dealing with individual development proposals, exceptional circumstances may occasionally arise which result in genuine financial viability concerns,for example where remediation costs are above what could reasonably have been

foreseen. The Black Country has a good track record of working with developers to address viability issues and del ver sites."
Corridor RC9 is the epitome of this.The Black country development corporation failed. The Duport's tip site has onits doorstep the contaminated rattlechain lagoon,a chemical waste dump and threat with a still current waste management licence.It is unthinkable to build more housing
in such a location- hereis a direct quote from social media about someone who was conned, and we use that word because it is true when they bought a house built on the former sewage works next to this lagoon,which by stupidity of a Bristol planning inspector gained approval.
1 Ibought a house on the banks of this chemical dump. It took me 18 months to sell it (at a massive loss which I'm still paying for now).So glad I'm away from this now.Many nights sleep lost wonying about the health
of my kids growing up with this in our back garden.We had meetings with the Environmental Health and Rhodia and were even interviewed by the press. Nothing ever came ofit. Strangest of all, none of this showed up on any searches when we purchased the property from Barratts and the hazardous waste signs disappeared from the gates while the properties were being sold.
like Reply Message O 2 2 I 1
NOW THAT'S GREAT STRATEGIC THEORETICAL PLANNING FOR YOU ISN'T IT. It is also a reminder
that planners need to live in the real world and realise that people have to live in these areas for many,many years and building in such locations can have significant health consequences.
Question 31 - Do you think that the right scale and form of funding is available to support the delivery of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No
If no, what alternative sources of funding or delivery mechanisms should be investigated?

No,you are not living in the real world.Many sites like the ones mentioned already are not deliverable,have not been deliverable in the last five years,have not had anything done to them
in the last five years and are not economically viable.Why then are such sites retained when the prospect of them ever becoming a reality (which local people do not want anyway)?

Question 32 - Do you think that the proposed approach to incorporate health and wellbeing issues in the Core Strategy review is appropriate? Yes/No
If no, please provide details




Question 33 - Is there more that the Core Strategy can do to address health and wellbeing issues in the Black Country? Yes/No
If yes, is a new policy needed to address such issues for example?




Question 34a - Do you agree that the health and wellbeing impacts of large development proposals should be considered at the Preferred Spatial Option stage of the Core Strategy review through a Health Impact Assessment approach? Yes/No

Question 34b - What design features do you think are key to ensuring new development encourages healthy living, which could be assessed through the HIA process?


This is fundamental,but you don't appear to realise that putting pressure on people,reducing
their areas of open space,nature reserves and access to nature are a direct threat to their existing health and wellbeing.

* YOU MUST LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF HOUSING DENSITY AND HOW THIS PROMOTES MENTAL ILL HEALTH AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
* YOU MUST LOOK AT HOW CREATING FOREIGN GHETTOS,(OF LARGELY NON FIRST LANGUAGE ENGLISH SPEAKING IMMIGRANTS), IS DESTROYING A SENSE OF EXISTING COMMUNITY
* YOU MUST LOOK AT HOW HOUSING YOUNG AND OLD TOGETHER, AND MIDDLE CLASS WITH LOWER CLASS ECONOMIC UNDERCLASSES IS DESTROYING COMMUNITY.
* SOCIAL PRIVATE RENT HOUSING BOLTED ONTO NEW DEVELOPMENTS IS DESTROYING COMMUNITY.
* THE TIME OF SOCIAL AND MULTICULTURAL EXPERIMENTS,WHICH HAVE NEVER WORKED ANYWHERE IN THE URBAN REALM MUST CEASE.
More housing=fewer opportunities, jobs, school places, doctor's appointments,queues in shops. It also promotes car fumes, social inequality, power cuts etc
Worse stillis the health and wellbeing aspect of building sites on contaminated land. There are few studies at present which show the long term impact of 50 years of living on such a site. The new build on brownfieldland first approach is a potential cancer keg which will hit the NHS if it still exists. Illconceived developments such as The Stonegate housing estate in Walsall is a good example of such a mistake in that people who live in this area are unsure as well as the local authority as to how this direct health threat will be dealt with. The core strategy does not address this issue and neither does the unfit for purpose NPPF. Indeed the NPPF is a Nostradamus like nonsense with directly conflicting statements like the quatrains of the great "prophet" ,which can be used by anyone who wants to cherry pick to suit their particular argument.It is also written by civil servants who do not live in areas like the black country, and will never do so by choice- for the purposes of their own "health and wellbeing".
Question 35 - Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No If no, please explain why.


No for the reasons stated above.







We are totally opposed to so called "garden city" principles as these are a spin on land grabbing and building on areas of nature conservation and open space and reducing it. We submitted an objection to Sandwell councilregarding the Dudley Port supplementary planning document citing that though the document spoke of "Dudley port" the area affected by the largely economically non- viable housing areas (RC9) is located in Tividale. A petition signed by over 400 local residents

and users of Sheepwash nature reserve was also submitted at the same time.If this is white washed it makes a mockery of this whole exercise, asit is not what local people want, but people who believe they are somehow better than those people and who do not live in their area who are making life changing decisions for their areas."The garden city" is a direct threat to nature.



We do not believe the NPPF cares about this issue, but policy envl does address the concerns we have about development around sheepwash and how corridor RC9 is in conflict with this.
Question 102a - Do you support the proposed changes relating to open space, sport and recreation? Yes/No
If no, please explain
Question 102b - Do you think that Policy ENV6, taken together with national and local policies, provides sufficient protection from development for open space? Yes/No
If no, please explain
Question 102c - Do you think that any other criteria need to be added to Policy ENV6, or any other changes shou ld be made. Yes/No
If yes,please provide details.

You have not set out what these "proposed changes" are to policy ENV6 !This needs immediate clarification. We do not believe the caveat of the current policy ENV6 "making creative use of land exchanges and disposing of surplus assets to generate resources for investment" protects open space but just leaves it open to being targeted.We also do not believe that this policy should be used to undervalue nature conservation sites like sheepwash- eg by inserting a play area into the site which is not wanted. This policy has potential to undermine any existing nature reserve sites, and so we would like clarification on what the changes are.

We believe that nature reserve sites should have special mention in this policy so that they are not targeted for land swap use- i.e a football pitch is built on for housing,so a new football pitch is created on part of the nature reserve. The net loss is to the nature "reserve" but this policy does not adequately clarify if there is a hierarchy of sites. We are of course of the opinion that nature reserves should come before sports provision.
Question 115a - Do you have evidence of any realistic possibility of tracking in the Black Country? Yes/No
If yes, please provide details.
Question 115b - Do you think there are particular issues for the Black Country that would justify approaches different from those in national policy? Yes/No
If yes, please provide details.

We do not support tracking under any circumstances. The legacy of past industrial use and soil contamination make this concept a non- starter in terms of water/river contamination.





No we do not. These plans will always be opposed locally in terms of corridor RC9 and the development next to rattlechain lagoon and the former Duport's tip.There is very weak detail

provided in local plans like the Dudley port supplementary planning document about this area. Take for example the swot analysis, which Sandwell council did not even publish with the document,but was obtained through an FOi request.




We have added these to illustrate the point of locating additional housing next to a hazardous waste site. We can see here that the detailis poor from the DPSPD about land remediation costs and the "inappropriate development''.

Why would you possibly want to limit information for potential house buyers/investors? As far as we are concerned this sets the BCCS for what it is- a con job manufactured by the political class and their business chums and taking local people for every penny and leaving them with nothing except fractured communities built on contaminated land.In achieving this cruel vision it will no doubt supplement the income of people who register companies for tax avoidance purposes in places like the channel islands and who will profit from such land sales.
As stated previously we totally reject all your proposals in table 2. We do not support building houses on employment land. We do not support building houses in regeneration corridor nine as it is unsustainable to live there with little employment land there already for those who are out of work living there. You appear here to be suggesting putting small existing businesses out of business on the say so of any individual who wants to build houses there instead.This whole process is open to wide scale fraud with multiple agents of the house building industry submitting "call for sites" in areas where they can make a killing.What democratic mandate does the BCCS have for doingthis? It is deplorable.
We reject "garden city" principles for the academia con job that they are.

The first and only test for those producing this plan, supporting it and passingit is thus- would you live in regeneration corridor nine next to a toxic waste lagoon containing many tonnes of white phosphorus that poisoned birds that landed onit?
The leader of Sandwell council does not even live in Sandwell,the black country, or the West Midlands, but Derbyshire.
How many of the black country local enterprise partnership live in the black country? The same question for Andy Street?
Ibought a house on the banks of this chemical dump. IItook me 18 months to sell it (at a massive loss which I'm still paying for now).So
glad I'm away from this now. Many nights sleep lost worrying about the health of my kids growing up with this in our back garden. We had meetings with the Environmental Health and Rhodia and were even interviewed by the press.
Nothing ever came of it. Strangest of all, none of this showed up on any searches when we purchased the property from Barratts and the hazardous waste signs disappeared from the gates while the properties were being sold.
Like Reply Message 0 2 2. Jul) at 22 52
This is the reality, not the flowery padded out garbage in this document which is just theoretical academic metropolitan elites telling the plebs how they should all live.The document is underhand and has been devised and serves underhand corrupt people and business interests.





Yes- Retaining employment land for employment use and not promoting existing land for housing, and then grabbing areas of green belt/open space to compensate.
A strategy where the views of local people are engaged in the decision making process and not chaired by political front groups who do not involve the local community. One such example in our

area is the so called ''Tipton Development group" - chaired (who knows by what mandate}, by a former disgraced labour councillor.
No one appears to know anythingabout this group orits "plan" .There is no public record of who they are.
Quite unbelievably, there is no mention of Brexit in the entire core strategy document and how this will impact the whole "vision" of needing more housingor if it will even be needed at all.As this will hopefully reduce migration from Eastern Europe,(and there is current evidence of many returning there}, the population projections are likely to be entirely inaccurate,and so what does the BCCS intend to do if there is a population decrease yet still plough on with building homes that will be empty?
Business is also of course another issue, and surely we need to retain land in existing areas rather than trying to build more elsewhere. Money to remediate areas of contamination may not appear from the EU, so what are your contingencies at that point up to 2036?
Virtually all of the policies in this document may be flawed or superseded by new legislation beyond 2019 and our thankful EU exit.
We would wish to be consulted on all aspects of this core strategy in the future, so please keep us informed.

We are instructed by Bloor Homes to submit a response to the Black Country Core Strategy Review - Issues and Options consultation. We welcome the opportunity to comment and to input into the preparation of the Core Strategy at the outset. We have responded to the questions as per the consultation document and have submitted the comments via the online consultation website. We trust you take our comments into consideration and look forward to being notified of future stages of consultation on the Core Strategy.


Question 1 - Do you agree that the Core Strategy Review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies? Yes/No. If not, what do you think should be the scope of the review?

No, we consider that the review needs to go further than a partial review. Whilst the overall strategy of supporting further housing and employment growth with an emphas is on regeneration should be supported, it is clear that the desire to achieve major regeneration of identified areas has failed, for a var iety of reasons relating to ownership, viability, market perceptions, site suitability etc.

The approach of the BCCS is based upon the revoked West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy and it was produced prior to the adoption of the Framework. Furthermore, there was a significant shift in the amount of housing and employment land that is required that the Black Country Core Strategy needs to respond to. The emerging Core Strategy is also being prepared in a significantly different econom ic climate to the adopted document. These factors clearly indicate that a new approach should be taken to the development through the Core Strategy review.







LONDON STOKE-ON-TRENT
0207 317 4550 01782 272555 t INVESTORS (

" 'RTPI

NOTIINGHAM WORCESTER

-t! IN PEOPLE



..,...j >'*Ot!Ol>$W(' ""'. "901¢.<*

0115 947 6236 01905 22666 RICS

A full list of Directors available on request Registration No. 4301250 Regulated by RIGS
Harris Lamb Limited, Grosvenor House, 75-76 Francis Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham 816 8SP w w w.harrislamb.com




To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017




The adopted Core Strategy seeks to deliver development by focusing the majority of new housing employment land requirements through a Growth Network and a series of Regeneration Corridors. It is, however, advised in the "delivery" section of the emerging Core Strategy (paragraphs 2.5 to 2.11) that the level of concentration in the growth corridors is "less than participated". One of the reasons for this is that more windfall sites will come forward than expected outside of the Growth Network. These windfall sites have assisted in housing delivery. Appendix C - Black Country Monitoring Summary, of the emerging plan advises that there is currently a shortfall of 3,039 dwellings in the Black Country to meet the housing requirement set by the adopted Core Strategy for the plan period to date. The windfall developme nts have effectively bolstered housing delivery whilst the housing allocations within the Regeneration Corridors and Growth Network generally have under delivered.

The Growth Network and Regeneration Corridor approach in the adopted Core Strategy is based upon the delivery of a significant quantum of housing on surplus employment land. The emerging plan advises in paragraph 2.5 that it is transpired that there is "not as much surplus employment land suitable for housing as anticipated". This is partly because the economy has strengthened and local firms are more robust than expected and partly because the sites are more affected by constra ints than expected.

It is, therefore, our view that the approach of the adopted Core Strategy seeking to focus new residential development on poor quality employment land will not deliver the housing numbers required. In addition, as referred to in response to Question 4, new evidence identifies a significant requirement for additional employment land. As a consequence, the emerging Core Strategy should prepare an approach that places less reliance on the delivery of housing on employment land.

This means that the trajectory of the current plan is unlikely to be met since it now relies heavily on windfall sites, some of which are not suited to market requirements or are also subject to contribution and viability problems.

A new strategy is required which will provide a range of sites on both brownfield and greenfield (Green Belt) opportunities which are capable of being delivered in the new plan period and which will be attract ive to the market.

We consider that a portfolio of new strategic sites would be identified in the emerging plan with capacities of 150 to 500 units plus. Such sites are more likely to be deliverable in the plan period although we do see the opportunity for a major mixed use urban extension to the south west of Junction 3 of the MS.

The identification of a range of sites will ensure that there is adequacy of supply and will avoid reliance on major urban extensions which can experience diff iculties in terms of funding and timing.

We also consider that a realistic approach needs to be taken to sites coming forward and that a non implementation rate needs to be identified in respect of the windfall element of the housing requirement. This is particularly important given the considerable reliance given to windfall sites in the current supply figure and the acknowledgement with Review department that there have been problems experienced in bring forward brownfield sites.

We also believe that the strategy needs to encompass wider discuss ions with the adjoining Authorities to the Black Country, including South Staffordshire , Wyre Forest and Bromsgrove

To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017




whose administrative boundaries adjoin or are close to the Black Country and where there are functional and geographical linkages.

We believe it is important that the Green Belt releases are phased for the early part of the plan period so that a mix of sites can be made available to meet the needs of the market. This will also help with early delivery and will help Local Authorities to maintain a five year housing land supply and also to boost significantly the supply of housing in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 47 of the Framework .

This approach is entirely consistent with the requirement of the Framework. The Framework requires Local Authorities to "be significantly " for supply of housing land. In accordance with the requirements of footnotes 11 and 12 of the Framework, housing sites would be "deliverable and available" in order to be allocated. The employment led regeneration approach of the emerging Core Strategy has failed this test at least to some degree.

Indeed, it is specifically advised that the higher than anticipated levels of windfall development do "conceal a delivery challenge". There is a large number of major housing sites concentrating the Growth Network. However, many of these sites have multiple constraints and financial assistance is required for them to come forward (paragraph 2.10). This includes 300 hectares of occupied employment land which has been allocated for housing. This approach brings issues of viability due to the cost of land assembly, business relocation and land remediation. Significant amounts of external funding are required to deliver this. Whilst some funding is available, it is not sufficient to cover the costs of compulsory purchase, which may be necessary on many sites. The sites are clearly not "deliverable" or "developable" in the context of the allocations test put in place by paragraph 47 of the Framework . To be considered deliverable, sites should be available for development now and be achievable for a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site. To be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged. This is not the case with a significant number of the employment allocations within the adopted development plan, by the emerging Core Strategies own omission.

Finally, we consider that a more robust SHMA should be undertaken focusing on the Black Country and the adjoining Authorities. The housing market areas should not be confined to the administrative boundaries of the Black Country Authorities. ( HL to review)

Question 2 - Do you think that the key evidence set out in table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy Review? Yes/No.

If not, what further evidence is required and, if there are any partic.ular issues that should be taken into account in considering development on any particular sites or any particular areas, please provide details.

We consider that a more in depth analysis needs to be undertaken of the brownfield windfall sites which make up the housing supply and, in particular, their ability to be brought forward. It is not clear to the development industry, given the current rates of completions and the need for a significant step up in delivery rates, that the windfall sites will come forward at the rate required.

A study needs to be undertaken regarding the true capacity likely to be obtained from brownfield windfalls. This will help to identify an appropriate non completion allowance.




To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h Septembe r 2017




As noted in the response to Question 1, we also believe that the SHMA needs to be reviewed so that it follows the housing market area and not simply Local Autho rity boundaries.

We further support the intention identified at paragraph 3.11 that the Council intends to explore new means of providing housing beyond the housing market area used for the BCCS review where there are clear migration or commuting links with Local Author ities. This strengthens our view that the SHLLA may have to be reviewed because of the linkages with surrounding authorities.

We also note that there appears to be no acknowledgement that the current shortfall provision, identified at some 3,000 units, has been taken into account in the housing requirement figure.

We are also of a view that the Black Country Green Belt review should prioritised. It is noted that it is suggested that the Green Belt review will not be completed until mid 2018. It is, however, anticipated that the preferred options consultation will be undertaken in September 2018. There is going to be a clear reliance on Green Belt sites in delivering the emerging housing requirement. We are concerned that there is insufficient time for the Author ities to properly digest the findings of the Green Belt review and identify strategy for new development based upon Green Belt land release in and around the Authority area in the time allowed between the completion of a Green Belt study and the publication of a consultation document.

Finally, we believe that further research should be undertaken regarding the effect of Government grant regimes in bringing sites forward. Our experience to date has been that the programmes have been time consuming, costly and unwieldly and have had limited benefit in helping to increase the supply of housing land.

Question 3 - Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014 to 2036 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No .

If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.

National guidance requires Local Authorities to meet the full, objectively assessed needs in the market and affordable housing in their housing market area, as far is consistent with policies set out in the Framework. The objective is to boost significantly the supply of housing.

We have already commented in respect of our responses to Questions 1 and 2 that the SHMA needs to be reviewed and this could lead to an increase in the overall requirement for the Black Country Authorities.

As a starting point, we are concerned with the approach the SHMA has undertaken towards the HMA. It is advised that the SHMA does not seek to visit the HMA but build upon the work undertaken in establishing the Greater Birmingham HMA part of the preparation of the Birmingham Development Plan. HMAs overlap. The HMA for Birmingham will not be exactly the same as that for the Black Country. The emerging SHMA should have at least tested whet her the HMA boundary remains valid for the purposes of its assessment. This approach is, however, entirely missing.

It should also be noted that the SHMA does not fully address affordable housing requirements . It is confirmed in paragraphs 7.26 to 7.29 of the SHMA that the National Planning Practice Guide requires a "policy on" calculation of the housing needs for certain groups of people. Affordable housing need is not a direct component of the demographic part of the objectively assessed








To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017



needs assessment. As such, an updated calculation of this nature is not included in the SHMA. It is for the client Authorities to consider whether more new homes over and above the objectively assessed housing needs figure identified in the SHMA should be provided in the plan area to address more affordable housing need through policy adjustments .

The Framework advises that paragraph 159 that Local Authorities should develop SHMAs to inform their local plans. The SHMA should, amongst other things, "address the need for all types of housing, including affordable housing and the need for different groups in the community". This process has not been completed by the SHMA. It does not, therefore, provide a complete picture of housing need within the subject Authority areas.

The SHMA is not, therefore, in accordance with national guidance in this regard. The SHMA needs to be supplemented with additional information that factor in affordable housing requirements to establish a true objectively assessed housing needs figure.

Furthermore , there is a difference between the objectively assessed housing needs figure and the quantum of housing which should be allocated for development by the plan. Not all housing sites deliver as expected. This is clearly evidenced by the existing Core Strategy where there has been significant under delivery in the Growth Network. As referred to in our response to Question 1, there is clear uncertainty regarding for delivery of a significant number of the housing sites identified on the existing employment land by the current development plan documents. It is necessary for the emerging Core Strategy to identify housing requirement notably above the objectively assessed housing needs figure take account of non-delivery of proposed housing allocations. At the present time the Black Country Core Strategy has undelivered its housing requirement by approximately 11.6% (Appendix C - Black Country Monitoring Summary). It is, therefore, our view that the finalised objectively assessed housing needs figure should be increased by a minimum of 11.6% of flexibility to supply and to take account of the delivery in delivering the urban regeneration sites.

The current completion rates are significantly below what is required for even the current local plan figure and are significantly below the figure of 3,690 units per annum identified above. Even at 78,190 units over the plan period, this produces an annual requirement of 3,554 units per annum which is also far in excess of what has ever been achieved annually in the SCCS. We consider that this is a challenging figure in terms of the current supply , over half of which is dependent upon existing housing supply in the urban area and is largely made up of brownfield windfalls.

In this context we believe that it is going to be important to significantly change the balance of the current supply with a far greater reliance on greenfield/Green Belt sites than the 25,000 units identified.

We note that the overall supply from the urban area depends upon some 42 ,507 units from existing sites in the urban area and a further 8,335 units from the urban area, much of which appears to come from former employment sites.

Given the problems in releasing employment sites in the current strategy (see paragraph 3.16 and paragraph 2.5, the latter identifying the problems in releasing employment sites), we consider that the local plan strategy wh ich relies on some 65% of provision on urban brownfield/windfall sites (using the draft figure of 78,190) is wholly unrealistic given that, to date, the current local plan has failed to meet existing requirements.













To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017



The components of the supply in the urban area (completions plus existing housing supply plus estimated further housing supply) total some 56,520 units which equates to a requirement of 2,569 units per annum over the new plan period. However, that required completion figure is in excess of what has been achieved to date through the current local plan, which relies entirely upon brownfield windfalls in the urban area, that figure being 2,325 units per annum.

It is apparent , therefore, that the current supply of brownfield/windfall sites is unlikely to produce sufficient units to meet its share of the housing requirement and, therefo re, the contribution which this makes to the overall requirement should be reduced (this will be consistent with our argument about adopting a non completion rate) and the contribution from greenfield/Green Belt sites outside the existing urban boundary should be increased. This will require contributions to be made from greenfield/Green Belt sites within the BCCS administrative area and also from sites in sustainable locat ions which are well related to the Black Country in neighbouring authorities.

Although we reserve our position on this point, we would expect that the contribution from the existing brownfield windfalls to be reduced by some 25%, to reflect the problems of market attractiveness, viability , delivery etc and with a consequent increase in the greenfield/Green Belt allocations.

In summary, the SHMA does not properly identify the housing requirement for the HMA. In addition, the reliance upon brownfield urban sites is not supported by evidence. There is, therefore, a requirement for a fundamental shift in the plan strategy with greater reliance placed upon Green Belt/greenfield land release in and around the wider HMA area of sustainable locations in order to ensure delivery.

Question 4 - Do you consider the employment land requirement identified to the Black Country up to 2036 in the EDNA is appropr iate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No . If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.

It is not clear if the land requirement fully encompasses land to be lost to residential development and other uses. The current supply of housing identified in the emerg ing plan requires a significant contribution to be made from former employment sites. It has been noted, however, in the Issues and Options document that employment sites have failed to come forward at the rate expected, partly owing to problems in site delivery but also partly because of recovery in the demand for the stock of existing employment sites.

We expect that demand to continue for local and sub regional requirements on appropriate sites.

In addition, we believe there will be a demand for large, greenfield sites to encourage inward investment and we consider that sites should be identified to the north and south of the Black Country which are well connected to the existing motorway network.

We consider that the employment requirement should be based on a net addition in order to take account of any losses to alternative land uses.

We agree that a range of sites will need to be allocated including, as noted above, high quality sites to attract inward investment.

To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017




We also question whether the figure of 394 hectares of employment land can be regarded as being realistically deliverable and we believe that further assessment about the delivery of this land should be undertaken.

Question 5 - Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt Review? Yes/No. If not, what additional work do you think is necessary?

We agree that a review of the Green Belt is an imperative element of the new strategy. This needs to be completed in time to inform the Core Strategy Review to be published in September 2018.

We consider the review will need to assess the implications of land release 1n adjoining Authorities including South Staffordshire, Wyre Forest and Bromsgrove.

Green Belt sites in both the Black Country Authority area and in these other authorities will have a vital role to play in providing the necessary housing supply to meet the housing requirement over the plan period. They will need to make an early contribution to housing supply and should not be phased for delivery in the latter part of the plan period.

We also think it is important that the Green Belt Review extends beyond the current plan period in order to provide a lasting Green Belt boundary in accordance with the advice set out in paragraphs 83 and 85 of the Framework. That advice suggests that the boundaries should be set so that they are capable of enduring beyond the plan period. If necessary, safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt should be identified in order to meet long term development needs "stretching well beyond the plan period' .

We would suggest that the Green Belt Review should be conducted in order to provide for development needs up to 2051.

Question 6 - Do you agree that the key issues set out in part 3 are key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy Review? Yes/No. If not, what other key issues should be taken into account.

We believe that an extensive review needs to be undertaken in order to ensure that an appropriate strategy is arrived at. Clearly, reliance upon the existing strategy will fail to meet the housing requirement and employment land requirement identified.

We believe that elements of the evidence base require furthe r exam ination including the SHMA and also the likely delivery of housing and employment from existing brownfield windfalls and existing sites.

There appears to be some confusion in the plan as to the extent of the gap identif ied. The policy talks about 22,000 homes but then also identifies a further 3,000 units as a shortfall in the housing area. It is unclear if the current shortfall of 3,000 units has been addressed.

In this context there may be a need to identify a further 28,000 homes over and above the existing, alleged, capacity in the urban area.

There is a need to continue to plan for a growing population. However, the SHMA underestimates delivery, this is not taken into account affordable housing needs. Furthermore, the emerg ing plan housing requirement will need to take into account the fact that not all housing allocations deliver. As a consequence the housing requirement will need to be significantly











To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017




above the objectively assessed housing needs figure within the SHMA. The suggested "gap" between supply and need of 22,000 dwellings is, therefore , less than that actually required.

This figure may increase further when proper account is taken of the true delivery capabilities of the land in the existing urban area. So far, the current local plan has failed to deliver development rates which would meet with the housing requirement for the new plan period and indeed do not even meet the requirement which will be needed from the current supply identified. This suggests that the contribution from greenfield/Green Belt sites from within the SCCS area and from Authorities adjoining it will need to be increased significantly.

The Green Belt release should not be seen as a matter of a last resort but needs to be part of an overall strategy with early releases needed to ensure supply of housing sites in the early part of the plan period.


Question 7 - Do you think that the Core Strategy Vision and Sustainability principles remain appropriate? Yes/No. If not, what alternative would you suggest?

We are content with four of the five Core Strategy Vision and Sustainability principles but the fourth bullet point, 'Brownfield first' is no longer relevant. As we have explained in our responses to previous questions, the reliance on Brownfield development needs to be significantly reduced. It is already acknowledged that a significant number of homes, 22,000 - 25 ,000 may have to be allocated on Greenfield I Green Belt sites (these could be still higher if the current shortfall is to be rectified) and if an update to the SHMA reveals the need to release new land to meet affordable housing needs. We have already explained that we are concerned that there is an over reliance on Brownfield sites and that this could, overall, increase the requirement for new development on Green Field I Green Belt sites to some 40,000 units which will be approximately half of the overall housing requirement, once account is taken of the shortfall from the early part of the current local plan period.

For these reasons, Greenfield I Green Belt sites will have to be released at the same time as the Brownfield supply in order to ensure an adequate supply in the early part of the planning period. This is entirely consistent with paragraph 17 of the Framework which, whilst encouraging the reuse of brownfield sites, does not seek to prioritise their use over greenfield sites.

We would also question whether or not the reference to 'comprehensive approach to development' has any real meaning in terms of delivery of individual sites. We consider that if 'comprehensive ' development is required this can still take place on a phased basis so long as new development achieves a comprehensive approach in due course.

Question 8 - Do you think that the Core Strategy Spatial objectives remain appropriate? Yes/No. If not, what alternative would you suggest and how might these changes impact on the individual Core Strategy policies?

We consider that spatial objectives two and three need to be reviewed. Whilst we would continue to support the delivery of high quality employment and with in the regeneration corridors, which will also be helpful to local business, it should be recognised that inward investme nt may require high quality Greenfield sites on the edge of the Black Country. The availability of land 6a54 was a considerable benefit in bringing JLR to the Black Country and the opportunity for similar scale developments should be seized through the local plan review process. In particular, we consider that further strategic employment development on the north side of the Black Country and also to the south east, adjoining Junction 3 of the M5, should be identified.











To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017





We also have concerns that the regeneration corridors have failed to deliver wide spread change throughout the Black Country and that they may not provide a basis for sustainable communities in the new plan. In this context, we believe that this particular objective should be replaced with the following:

'Identification of a series of deliverable housing sites on Brownfield and Greenfield within, adjoining and well connected to the Black Country which will meet the BCCS requirement over the plan period. These sites will be of differing scales and will provide different market opportunities to delivering housing over the planning period. '

Question 9 - Do you agree that Policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the growth network? Yes/No. If not, what changes do you think should be made to Policies CSP1 and CSP2 in response to new challenges and opportunities?

We agree that the policies should be changed. The growth network strategy will not provide for the new housing and employment requirements for the Emerging Local Plan and need to be amended to reflect the fact that a significant proportion of both housing and strategic employment sites will have to take place on Greenfield I Green Belt sites outside of the current urban boundary and indeed on sites outsides of the BCCS administrative area.

The presumption in favour of using Brownfield sites first also needs to be altered so that an appropriate portfolio of residential and employment sites can be developed over the planning period.

Question 10 - In continuing to promote growth within the growth network, is there a need to amend the boundaries of any of the regeneration corridors in the existing Core Strategy? Yes/No.

If so which boundaries and why?

We do not comment upon specific regeneration corridors but we believe that they will all need to be reviewed to see if they are fit for purpose. In particular, they should be examined to see if the employment elements are still likely to be required by the existing and new local businesses. Where it is clear that significant change in the regeneration corridor are unlikely to happen during the new planning period, alternative provision should be made.

Question 11A - Do you support Strategic Option 1A? Yes/No.

We consider that Option 1A is to be preferred to Strategic Option 1B. That said, we believe there continues to be an overre liance upon Brownfield I windfall sites in the existing supply and there is also an over reliance on Brownfield windfalls in the estimated further housing supply.

We consider, therefore, that overall the Greenfield requirement should provide some 40 ,000 units of the overall requirement which itself should be increased to 81,290 units.

Question 11A - Do you support Option 1B? Yes/No.

We do not support Option 1B. We believe that there is a considerable overreliance on Brownfield
I windfall sites and that there is no real certainty that further employment land can be released








To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: gth September 2017




over the plan period to provide housing opportunities. Indeed some of the existing housing allocations need to be reviewed as they will remain in employment use.

In this context , we consider that the Option 1B would not meet the objectives of the housing policies of the Framework particularly those which require the planning system to deliver significantly increased supply of housing land.

Paragraph 47 of the Framework requires housing opportunities to be deliverable and to meet the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area.

A review of the current local plan strategy has demonstrated that there is considerable uncertainty about reliance on a portfolio of Brownfield windfall sites we consider that strategic Option 1B, which is largely reliant upon such a source of housing opportunities, will not provide any certainty to the development industry regarding the provision of housing throug h the plan period.

Question 12A - Do you support spatial Option H1? Yes/No. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? Eg. Ability to create a defensible new Green Belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services.


We believe that spatial Option H1 - Rounding off is to be preferred to spatial Option H2 - sustainable urban extensions. We believe that the 'rounding off' approach is more likely to deliver a series of well-planned and well located developments throughout the plan period thereby maintaining a deliverable supply of housing land for the house building industry. This could include sites of approximately 150 - 750 units.

Question 13A - Do you support Spatial Option H2? Yes/No.

What should the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) B? E.g. a minimum/maximum size, mix of uses, mix of housing types, accessibility to other areas. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? E.g. proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs, potential to support existing settlement/services, proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban regeneration.

In general terms we do not support Spatial Option H2 in that we believe a range of smaller strategic sites should be provided in the Green Belt in order to ensure a deliverable supply of housing land in the plan period.

We consider that some modest size sustainable urban extensions could be provided. These should have the capacity to support a primary school and local facilities.

We would not favour sustainable urban area extensions of greater size than this as we do not consider that they would be deliverable in the plan period. In this context we believe that modest scale SUEs could be provided as part of a blended Spatial Option H1.

















To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017




Question 15A - If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the "export" of housing growth to neighbouring Authorities within the HMA? Yes/No.

What factors should be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities in neighbouring Authorities e.g. proximity to the edge of the urban area, proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs?

We believe that it will be necessary for sites to be released outside of the Black Country administrative area in order to meet the housing requirements of the BCCS.

In particular, we believe that sites should be identified in South Staffordshire , Wyre Forest and Bromsgrove districts which could accommodate some of the overspill.

We consider that locations should be selected which could fulfil the following criteria.

A. Be situated immediately adjoining the Black Country administrative boundary and with the ability to achieve easy access to the existing urban area: or

B. Be located in settlements in close proximity to the Black Country.

By these means people from the Black Country will be able to find suitable housing in locations which still afford them the opportunity to support the economic growth of the Black Country and will remain in employment in the Black Country area.

Question 158 - Do you think that there are any potential locations that should be
considered? Yes/No

We believe that Hagley will provide an appropriate location for sites to be released which meet the needs of the Black Country . Hagley is very well related to the Black Country, lying just to the south of the edge of Stourbr idge. It is a sustainable settlement, being the second most sustainable settlement in Bromsgrove District with both primary and secondary schools, a railway station, local facilities and can access the Black Country through the primary road network.

We have ident ified two opportunities for sites to be released at Hagley through the "Call for Sites" process on behalf of Hagley Hall Estate.

The site addresses are as follows:

1. Western Road I Stourbridge Road
2. Stoney Lane I Stakenbridge Lane I Kidderminster Road

The Call for Sites response provides more information regarding the suitability of these two sites for development.

We can confirm that, subject to the release of the sites from the Green Belt through the Bromsgrove District Plan, both sites can be made available in the early part of the plan period and will provide high quality, sustainable developments which will fulf il the housing requirements of residents of the Black Country.




To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017




Question 15C - Do you think there are ways to ensure that exporting housing will meet the needs of people who would otherwise live in the Black Country? (E.g. transport improvements, provision of affordable housing, creation of employment opportunities). Yes/No.

Yes, we believe that the best way to ensure that housing provided outside of the Black Country will meet the needs of people, who would otherwise live in the Black Country is to ensure that the location of new development has good functional and geographic links with the Black Country. As noted in our response to Question 15b, sites can be released which immediately adjoin the Black Country and administrative area or are in settlements with strong functional and physical/geographic links with the Black Country. Clearly, there is nothing to stop people migrating from the Black Country into the surrounding Shire Authorities, regardless of housing provision, and, therefore, the provision of additional housing outside of the BCCS, but which will meet the needs of people living in the Black Country, will ensure that the needs of Black Country residents can be met either within the Black Country itself or in settlements which are suitable to serve it.

Question 21 - Do you think that changes are required to Policy DEL1 to ensure it covers both development within the existing urban area and any within the Green Belt? Yes/No.

Policy DEL1 may need to be reviewed to ensure it is compliant with the policies of the Framework and the PPG. Otherwise, it will be important for the SCCS Authorities to work with neighbouring Authorities to ensure that sites which are released to meet the Black Country's needs outside of the SCCS area are also supported by appropriate infrastructure. Some of this may also have to be outside of the BCCS area, particularly for the larger urban expansion sites which may provide local facilities, green space, primary schools etc.

The important point here is to ensure that statutory undertakers are involved with the local plan process at an early stage in order to ensure that necessary infrastructure including highways, drainage and power are available for the development envisaged.

Question 25 - Will there be any new social infrastructure requirements necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No. If yes, please explain the type and scale of any new social infrastructure required.

We suspect that, generally speaking, there will need to be incremental improvements in social infrastructure provision to meet the requirements for the occupants of new development over the plan period. This will need to be assessed in detail with social infrastructure providers and it will be necessary for the BCCS Author ities to work with landowners and developers in this regard together with the relevant strategy consultees.

We should state from the outset that the provision of doctor's surgeries should be regarded as a "private sector" matter. Doctor's surgeries are generally self-funding and do not need to be the subject of Section 106/CI L contributions.

We believe it is likely that some new infrastructure will have to be provided for individual schemes in terms of local highway improvements but this will have to be assessed on a case by case basis. This will probably be best assessed at the local level.




To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017




Question 29 - Do you think there are any other tools or interventions that could be used to ensure enough infrastructure is provided by developments? Yes/No.

At this stage we have no comment to make other than to confirm that viability is an important issue which needs to be addressed when dealing with sites. We would say at this stage that the Authorities should adopt realistic expectations as to what social and environmental infrastructure can be borne by individual developments .

Question 30 - Do you have any suggestions around how the strategy can be developed in order to maintain the urban regeneration focus of the Black Country while at the same time bringing forward sites in the Green Belt? Yes/No.

We have commented previously that the new plan will need to shift the emphasis away from urban regeneration to a more balanced provision of brownfield and greenfield sites. Part of a problem with the delivery of brownfield sites in the urban area are that they are returning to an active employment use. The adopted Core Strategy sought to direct new residential development to what was, at the time of its preparation, redundant employment land. These employment sites are now developing a new lease of life. As such, the capacity for residential development on brownfield land is highly limited and these areas are self regenerating into active employment sites.

Furthermore, given the problems in bringing forward any brownfield sites for a variety of reasons, it will be necessary to ensure that greenfield opportunities can be brought forward in the early part of the plan period in order to ensure an appropriate supply of land.

We should add that our experience of working in the Black Country is that Local Authorit ies do need to understand the constraints of developing in the Black Country, particularly in respect of highway and urban design standards. Many of the sites are difficult to develop and the Council's will need to apply development management considerations flexibly in order to ensure that sites can come forwa rd. Many brownfield sites present physical and topographic challenges which can influence the formation of layout and design solutions. All of these factors need to be taken into account when individual planning applications are assessed and Council's should apply flexibility when discussing design solutions, including transportation solutions, with applicants.

Question 31 - Do you think that the right scale in the form of funding is available to support the delivery of the Core Strategy Review? Yes/No. If no, what alternative source of the funding or delivery mechanisms should be investigated?

Our concern is that it takes a considerable amount of time to make funding available for new development and this is holding back sites from being released.

Furthermore, it cannot be guaranteed that the funding which is provided now will continue to be available during the plan period.

In this context it is important to ensure that there is a balance portfolio of housing provided, some of which will be less dependent upon intervention funding. It is for this reason that we endorse a higher proportion of development on greenfield/Green Belt sites that is currently in the plan (see response to Question 3).


To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017




Question 34A - Do you agree that the Health and Wellbeing impacts of large development proposals should be considered at the preferred Spatial Option stage of the Core Strategy Review through a Health Impact Assessment approach? Yes/No .

Our response is that such matters will be better addressed at the development management stage when it will be possible to assess the specific impacts on individual schemes . The locational criteria to be applied to the inspection of sites should suffice for development plan purposes. Some of this will reflect matters such as proximity to local services.

Question 348 - What design features do you think are key to ensuring new development encourages healthy living, which could be assessed through the HIA process? Yes/No.

We make no formal comment at this stage but we participate in the next stage of the plan when more details of this approach are given. We would stress, however, that given the likely constraints which will exist on many of the Black Country sites, care should be taken to ensure that overly restrictive policies are not introduced which could further reduce the attractiveness of sites for development.

Question 35 - Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No.

We agree that HOU1 of the adopted Core Strategy needs to be reviewed. We agree that the proportion of housing to be built on previously developed land will need to be significant ly changed and we have indicated elsewhere that the plan should provide approximately 50% provision of the overall requirement on greenfield/Green Belt sites.

We do not favour the prioritisation of brownfield land over greenfield land. Given the considerable amount of housing required across the SCCS, it will be necessary for both greenfield and brownfield sites to be released at the same time. Indeed, the greenfield/Green Belt sites are likely to serve different areas of the housing market and so it is important that a range of sites are made available for all sectors of the housing market at the same time. Furthermore, the current strategy has failed to deliver the required level of housing from former employment sites.

In terms of a discount rate we note that there have been problems in meeting the housing requirement in the plan period. This is of particular concern given that the housing trajecto ry for the adopted Core Strategy starts at a relatively low rate. The extent of the shortfall is already 3,000 units. Given the problems of bringing forward brownfield sites, acknowledged elsewhere in the Issues and Options document and including matters such as viability , ground conditions, failure to release employment sites, we believe that a discount rate of 25% should be applied. We consider that the proportion of a greenfield land as an element of the overall supply should be increased to provide more certainty about provision across the plan period and to ensure that the housing strategy accords with paragraph 47 of the Framework. It should be noted that the requirement to boost significantly the supply of housing land became national policy after the adoption of the SCCS.

We make no comment at this stage about proposals for high density allocations within strategic centres, particularly in Walsall, until more market research has been carried out to ensure that there is both demand and an appetite from the house building industry to provide this type of product.














To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017



Question 36 - If you think that the current accessibility and density standards set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 should be changed, what standards should be applied instead, for example, should the minimum net density of 35 dph be increased to maximise brownfield housing delivery? Yes/No.

The calculation of density standards is a difficult subject. It is always important to start first with an understanding of what the net developable area of a site may be irrespective of whether it is brownfield or greenfield. It will be necessary to have regard to site constraints, parking requirements , offset distances, green infrastructure requirements, drainage requirements etc. All these factors can significantly limit the net developable area on a site. It is importa nt not to overestimate densities which could be achieved when identifying sites to be released for development. Once schemes provide more than 40 dwellings per net developable acre the dens ity will usually require some element of flatted development.

The insistence on 35 dph as a minimum could well be problematic on greenfield sites, particularly if these are expected to accommodate significant areas of green infrastructure .

We would suggest that the policy should be targeted to provide densities of 30 to 40 dph depending upon site specific circumstances. High densities could be achieved in more centralised locations adjoining transport hubs, again subject to achieving acceptable design standards. We have explained elsewhere the importance of ensuring that development management expectations need to be married to strategic housing requirement delivery objectives.

Question 37A - Do you think that the existing Policy HOU2 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No.

We would keep the threshold at 15 homes or more. This will help to assist smaller house builders to provide schemes on smaller sites which tend to have more exacting development management issues such as overlooking, relationship with existing uses etc and which can limit the ability to increase densities.

Question 38 - Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards are appropriate for Green Belt release locations? Yes/No.

In our response to Question 36, we identify the fact that greenfield sites may have more exacting requirements in terms of green infrastructure and that density standards may well have to be reduced. We suggest that density standards of 35 dph net developable should be considered.

Question 39 - Do you think separate accessibility standards are needed for particular types of housing, e.g. housing for the elderly or affordable housing (as occupiers may be less mobile and more dependent on public transport)? Yes/No.

Generally speaking we believe that provision for the housing for the elderly will be demand driven. Occupiers will understand their markets and we would not welcome a restrictive policy regarding the location of either accommodation for the elderly or affordable housing.

Question 40 - Do you agree that the 2017 SHMA findings should be used to set general house type targets for the plan period? Yes/No.

No. The SHLAA does not fully assesses affordable housing requirements as referred to above; as such it should not dictate an overall mix. House builders will provide housing to meet their










To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017




assessment of the localised market. Setting general standards across such a large area can be difficult and can cause problems with housing delivery. Furthermore, it is important to understand the likelihood that new housing will also generate movements from existing stock to new stock thereby freeing up smaller properties for first time buyers and younger families.

Question 41A - Do you support the introduction of a policy approach towards self and custom built housing in the Core Strategy? Yes/No.

No, we do not support this approach . This is not a significant sector of the housing market. Given the need to encourage housing on a variety of sites, many of which will have problems in terms of delivery, we would not favour a policy which could create problems for delivery and viability which would arise if self and custom built housing were introduced into any housing requirement.

Question 42 - Do you agree that the annual affordable homes target should be increased to reflect the 2017 Black Country Strategic Housing Market Assessment? Yes/No.

We believe it would be prudent to keep the affordable homes target as originally set. Otherwise this will cause problems for delivery of brownfield sites.

Question 43A - Do you think that the existing Policy HOU3 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No .

Yes, we believe that the site size threshold should be retained at 15 homes. Again this will assist in the delivery of smaller sites by smaller house builders . It will also be more attractive to the registered providers who do wait to manage a few plots on smaller schemes.

Question 44A - Do you think that the affordable housing requirement for eligible sites in Question 43 should be kept at 25% of the total number of homes on site? Yes/No.

Yes, we agree that the figure should be retained at 25%, subject to viability.

Question 45 - Should an increase in affordable housing requirement beset for Green Belt release sites, to reflect the likely financial viability of these sites? Yes/No.

The release of greenfield/Green Belt land also has significant costs associated with it. It is more likely to require new below ground infrastructure to be provided such as drains, power supply etc. Other physical and social infrastructure contributions will also be required such as educat ion, transport etc. Therefore, greenfield sites are not necessarily more able to contribute more significantly to affordable housing than brownfield sites. We believe, therefore , that a flat rate of 25% across the BCCS area should be adopted.

Question 47 - Do you think that Policy HOU5 should be expanded to cover other types of built social infrastructure and set out standards of built social infrastructure to serve major housing developments? Yes/No.

We should first comment that the provision of medical facilities relating to new developments should be funded through the clinical commissioning groups. In most cases this will involve new or extended doctor's surgeries. Doctor's surgeries can be provided through the private sector since the surgeries generate a rental income so that there is a development/investm ent market












To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017




ready to provide the product. It does not need to be funded from contributions from residential development.

Education provision will need to be carefully researched so that a capacity in schools is identified in order to avoid unnecessary contributions being sought. The funding implications of the Education Funding Agency also need to be taken into account when assessing education requirements.

In terms of new community facilities, we agree that these need to be carefully assessed in order to ensure that they will in fact be used and also maintained by the local community. In some circumstances it may be better for contributions to be made to upgrade and expand existing facilities rather than create new ones which will simply put a drain on revenue resources.

Question 49A - Is there a need for the existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing? Yes/No.

We believe that the policy does need to be refined in order to ensure that land which is not necessary to be retained can be released quickly and easily without the need for extensive marketing. Also we see no reason for the policy to be applied where land has been allocated in an action area plan or similar alternative plan for alternative use.

Question 50 - Do you think that the Core Strategy should continue to set a target for the total employment land stock in Policy EMP1? Yes/No.

We believe that this should be included and that a net target should be set in order to allow for losses to alternative uses.

Question 55 - Do you agree with the proposed proposal to obtain Policy EMP5? Yes/No.

Generally we do not favour contributions which seek to restrict jobs to existing residents. This can cause problems for companies who have their own training and apprenticeship programmes. Whilst it is clearly desirable for Local Authorities to work alongside employers in trying to get local residents into work opportunities, this should be on a voluntary basis and there should not be a requirement to impose what is, in effect, a restrictive trade practice.

Question 94 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to environmental infrastructure and place making? Yes/No.

We appreciate that it will be necessary to review environmental infrastructure in the light of changing circumstances and updated guidance and standards. We will comment further on this issue at the next stage of the plan.

Question 95A - Do you think Garden City principles should be applied at the Black Country? Yes/No.

We would not encourage this as a design approach in the Black Country. Garden City proposals were developed expressly for new settlements. The Black Country has a different history and heritage as do the settlements which are geographically and functionally close to the Black Country. We do not consider that the vernacular of the existing urban area and adjoining settlements is appropriate for Garden City principles.










To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: Sth September 2017




Question 96 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to nature conversation? Yes/No.

It should be noted that the inclusion of new natural green space and new development will have implications for net developable areas and consequently, the amount of land which will need to be identified for development. It will also impact upon the viability of schemes and these factors need to be taken into account when assessing overall development requirements.

Question 98 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to design quality? Yes/No.

The introduction of National Space standa rd does have implications for viability since it introduces a significant additional cost to new house building without any necessary uplift in values. It can, therefore, have a significant impact upon the delivery of schemes.

Question 99C - Do you think that National Space standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country. Yes/No .

In the context of our response to Question 98, we do not agree that National Space standards should be introduced.

Question 99D - Do you think that the standards should be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No.

Given that greenfield sites have their own viability concerns, we would not agree that the standards should vary between brownfield and greenfield sites. In any event we do not support the introduction of National Space standards.

Question 101A - Do you support the proposed changes relating to flood risk, sustainable drainage and urban heat island effects? Yes/No.

Whilst we appreciate the need to have regard to new standards regarding SuDS provision, the implications upon site layout and viability do need to be considered. A f lexible approach will be required from the Local Authorities when assessing individual schemes. In particular, a j oined up approach is needed by strategy undertakers to ensure that SuDS areas will be adopted if they are part of wider open space areas.

Question 103A - Do you think that Policy ENV7 should be changed to allow increased energy efficiency standards to be accepted in lieu of renewable energy provision for non­ domestic buildings? Yes/No .

We consider that the benefits of higher energy efficiency, as opposed to renewable energy should be considered in the planning balance, particularly when this has an implication for viability. Although this may not be capable of being a policy requirement there is no reason why it should not be capable of being taken into account. The residential sector has spent a considerable amount of money investing in improved materials which improve the energy efficiency of buildings and these factors need to be taken into account of both domestic and non­ domestic schemes .

We are instructed by Barberry Developments Ltd. to submit a response to the Black Country Core Strategy Review - Issues and Options consultation. We welcome the opportun ity to comment and to input into the preparation of the Core Strategy at the outset. We have responded to the questions as per the consultation document and have submitted the comments via the online consultation webs ite. We trust you take our comments into considerat ion and look forward to being notified of future stages of consultation on the Core Strategy.

Question 1 - Do you agree that the Core Strategy Review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies? Yes/No . If not, what do you think should be the scope of the review?

No, we consider that the review needs to go furthe r than a partial review. Whilst the overall strategy of supporting further housing and employment growth with an emphasis on regeneration should be supported, it is clear that the desire to achieve major regeneration of identified areas has failed, for a variety of reasons relating to ownership, viability , market perceptions, site suitability etc.

The approach of the SCCS is based upon the revoked West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy and it was produced prior to the adoption of the Framework. Furthermore, there was a significant shift in the amount of housing and employment land that is required that the Black Country Core Strategy needs to respond to. The emerging Core Strategy is also being prepared in a significantly different economic climate to the adopted docume nt. These factors clearly indicate that a new approach should be taken to the development through the Core Strategy review.

The adopted Core Strategy seeks to deliver development by focusing the majority of new housing employment land requirements through a Growth Network and a series of Regeneration Corridors . It is, however, advised in the "delivery" section of the emerging Core Strategy (paragraphs 2. 5 to 2.11) that the level of concentration in the growth corridors is "less than participated". One of the reasons for this is that more windfall sites will come forward than
LONDpected OLg-R_j R Gr ti.. tw
AG<NCY AWARDS

0207 317 4550 01782 272555 ,.2013 - 2016

r '\ INVESTORS

NOTIINGHAM
0115 947 6236

WORCESTER
01905 22666

-"IN PEOPLE


RICS


A full list of Directors available on request Registration No. 4301250 Regulated by RICS
Harris amb imited,Grosvenor House. 75-76 Francis Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham 816 8SP w w w.harrislamb.com





Appendix C - Black Country Monitoring Summary, of the emerging plan advises that there is currently a shortfall of 3,039 dwellings in the Black Country to meet the housing requirement set by the adopted Core Strategy for the plan period to date. The windfall developments have effectively bolstered housing delivery whilst the housing allocations within the Regeneration Corridors and Growth Network generally have under delivered.

The Growth Network and Regeneration Corridor approach in the adopted Core Strategy is based upon the delivery of a significant quantum of housing on surplus employment land. The emerging plan advises in paragraph 2.5 that it is transpired that there is "not as much surplus employment land suitable for housing as anticipated ". This is partly because the economy has strengthened and local firms are more robust than expected and partly because the sites are more affected by constraints than expected.

It is, therefore, our view that the approach of the adopted Core Strategy seeking to focus new residential development on poor quality employment land will not deliver the housing numbers required. In addition, as referred to in response to Question 4 , new evidence identifies a significant requirement for additional employment land. As a consequence , the emerging Core Strategy should prepare an approach that places less reliance on the delivery of housing on employment land.

This means that the trajectory of the current plan is unlikely to be met since it now relies heavily on windfall sites, some of which are not suited to market requirements or are also subject to contribution and viability problems.

A new strategy is required which will provide a range of sites on both brownfield and greenfield (Green Belt) opportunities which are capable of being delivered in the new plan period and which will be attractive to the market.

We consider that a portfolio of new strategic sites would be identified in the emerging plan with capacities of 150 to 500 units plus. Such sites are more likely to be deliverable in the plan period although we do see the opportunity for a major mixed use urban extension to the south west of Junction 3 of the M5.

The identification of a range of sites will ensure that there is adequacy of supply and will avoid reliance on major urban extensions which can experience difficulties in terms of funding and timing.

We also consider that a realistic approach needs to be taken to sites coming forward and that a non implementatio n rate needs to be identified in respect of the windfall element of the housing requirement. This is particularly important given the considerable reliance given to windfall sites in the current supply figure and the acknowledgement with Review department that there have been problems experienced in bring forward brownfield sites.

We also believe that the strategy needs to encompass wider discussions with the adjoining Authorit ies to the Black Country, including South Staffordshire, Wyre Forest and Bromsgrove whose administrative boundaries adjoin or are close to the Black Country and where there are functional and geographica l linkages.

We believe it is important that the Green Belt releases are phased for the early part of the plan period so that a mix of sites can be made available to meet the needs of the market. This will also help with early delivery and will help Local Authorities to maintain a five year housing land













supply and also to boost significant ly the supply of housing in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 47 of the Framework.

This approach is entirely consistent with the requirement of the Framework. The Framework requires Local Authorities to "be significantly " for supply of housing land. In accordance with the requirements of footnotes 11 and 12 of the Framework, housing sites would be "deliverable and available" in order to be allocated. The employment led regeneration approach of the emerging Core Strategy has failed this test at least to some degree.

Indeed, it is specifically advised that the higher than anticipated levels of windfall development do "conceal a delivery challenge". There is a large number of major housing sites concentrating the Growth Network. However, many of these sites have multiple constraints and financial assistance is required for them to come forward (paragraph 2. 10). This includes 300 hectares of occupied employment land which has been allocated for housing. This approach brings issues of viability due to the cost of land assembly , business relocation and land remediation. Significant amounts of external funding are required to deliver this. Whilst some funding is available , it is not sufficient to cover the costs of compulsory purchase, which may be necessary on many sites. The sites are clearly not "deliverable" or "developable" in the context of the allocations test put in place by paragraph 47 of the Framework. To be considered deliverable, sites should be available for development now and be achievable for a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site. To be considered developable , sites should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged. This is not the case with a significant number of the employment allocations within the adopted development plan, by the emerging Core Strategies own omission.

Finally, we consider that a more robust SHMA should be undertaken focusing on the Black Country and the adjoining Author ities. The housing market areas should not be confined to the administrative boundaries of the Black Country Author ities. ( HL to review)

Question 2 - Do you think that the key evidence set out in table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy Review? Yes/No.

If not, what further evidence is required and, if there are any particular issues that should be taken into account in considering development on any particular sites or any particular areas, please provide details.

We consider that a more in depth analys is needs to be undertaken of the brownfield windfall sites which make up the housing supply and, in particular, their ability to be brought forward. It is not clear to the development industry, given the current rates of completions and the need for a significant step up in delivery rates, that the windfall sites will come forward at the rate required.

A study needs to be undertaken regarding the true capacity likely to be obtained from brownfield windfalls. This will help to identify an appropriate non completion allowance.

As noted in the response to Question 1, we also believe that the SHMA needs to be reviewed so that it follows the housing market area and not simply Local Authority boundaries.

We further support the intention identified at paragraph 3.11 that the Council intends to explore new means of providing housing beyond the housing market area used for the BCCS review where there are clear migration or commuting links with Local Authorities. This strengthens our












view that the SHLLA may have to be reviewed because of the linkages with surrounding authorities.

We also note that there appears to be no acknowledgement that the current shortfall provision, identified at some 3,000 units, has been taken into account in the housing requirement figure.

We are also of a view that the Black Country Green Belt review should prioritised. It is noted that it is suggested that the Green Belt review will not be completed until mid 2018. It is, however, anticipated that the preferred options consultation will be undertaken in September 2018. There is going to be a clear reliance on Green Belt sites in delivering the emerging housing requirement. We are concerned that there is insufficient time for the Author ities to properly digest the findings of the Green Belt review and identify strategy for new development based upon Green Belt land release in and around the Authority area in the time allowed between the completion of a Green Belt study and the publication of a consultation document.

Finally, we believe that further research should be undertaken regarding the effect of Government grant regimes in bringing sites forward. Our experience to date has been that the programmes have been time consuming, costly and unwieldly and have had limited benefit in helping to increase the supply of housing land.

Question 3 - Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014 to 2036 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No .

If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.

National guidance requires Local Authorities to meet the full, objectively assessed needs in the market and affordable housing in their housing market area, as far is consistent with policies set out in the Framework. The objective is to boost significantly the supply of housing.

We have already commented in respect of our responses to Questions 1 and 2 that the SHMA needs to be reviewed and this could lead to an increase in the overall requirement for the Black Country Authorities.

As a starting point, we are concerned with the approach the SHMA has undertaken towards the HMA. It is advised that the SHMA does not seek to visit the HMA but build upon the work undertaken in establishing the Greater Birmingham HMA part of the preparation of the Birmingham Development Plan. HMAs over lap. The HMA for Birmingham will not be exactly the same as that for the Black Country. The emerging SHMA should have at least tested whether the HMA boundary remains valid for the purposes of its assessment. This approach is, however, entirely missing.

It should also be noted that the SHMA does not fully address affordable housing requirements. It is confirmed in paragraphs 7.26 to 7.29 of the SHMA that the National Planning Practice Guide requires a "policy on" calculation of the housing needs for certain groups of people. Affordab le housing need is not a direct component of the demographic part of the objectively assessed needs assessment. As such, an updated calculation of this nature is not included in the SHMA. It is for the client Authorities to consider whether more new homes over and above the objective ly assessed housing needs figure identified in the SHMA should be provided in the plan area to address more affordable housing need through policy adjustments.














The Framework advises that paragraph 159 that Local Authorities should develop SHMAs to inform their local plans. The SHMA should, amongst other things , "address the need for all types of housing, including affordable housing and the need for different groups in the community". This process has not been completed by the SHMA. It does not, therefore , provide a complete picture of housing need within the subject Authority areas.

The SHMA is not, therefore, in accordance with national guidance in this regard. The SHMA needs to be supplemented with additional information that factor in affordable housing requirements to establish a true objectively assessed housing needs figure.

Furthermore, there is a difference between the objectively assessed housing needs figure and the quantum of housing which should be allocated for development by the plan. Not all housing sites deliver as expected. This is clearly evidenced by the existing Core Strategy where there has been significant under delivery in the Growth Netwo rk. As referred to in our response to Question 1, there is clear uncertainty regarding for delivery of a significant number of the housing sites identified on the existing employment land by the current development plan documents. It is necessary for the emerging Core Strategy to identify housing requirement notably above the objectively assessed housing needs figure take account of non-delivery of proposed housing allocations. At the present time the Black Country Core Strategy has undelivered its housing requirement by approximately 11.6% (Appendix C - Black Country Monitoring Summary). It is, therefore , our view that the finalised objectively assessed housing needs figure should be increased by a minimum of 11.6% of flexibility to supply and to take account of the delivery in delivering the urban regeneration sites.

The current completion rates are significantly below what is required for even the current local plan figure and are significantly below the figure of 3,690 units per annum identified above. Even at 78,190 units over the plan period, this produces an annual requirement of 3,554 units per annum which is also far in excess of what has ever been achieved annually in the BCCS. We consider that this is a challenging figure in terms of the current supply, over half of which is dependent upon existing housing supply in the urban area and is largely made up of brownfield windfalls.

In this context we believe that it is going to be important to significantly change the balance of the current supply with a far greater reliance on greenfield/Green Belt sites than the 25,000 units identified.

We note that the overall supply from the urban area depends upon some 42,507 units from existing sites in the urban area and a further 8,335 units from the urban area, much of which appears to come from former employment sites.

Given the problems in releasing employment sites in the current strategy (see paragraph 3.16 and paragraph 2.5 , the latter identifying the problems in releasing employment sites), we consider that the local plan strategy which relies on some 65% of provision on urban brownfield/windfall sites (using the draft figure of 78,190) is wholly unrealistic given that, to date, the current local plan has failed to meet existing requirements.

The components of the supply in the urban area (completions plus existing housing supply plus estimated further housing supply) total some 56,520 units which equates to a requirement of 2,569 units per annum over the new plan period. However, that required completion figure is in excess of what has been achieved to date through the current local plan, which relies entirely upon brownfield windfalls in the urban area, that figure being 2,325 units per annum.












It is apparent, therefore, that the current supply of brownfield/windfall sites is unlikely to produce sufficient units to meet its share of the housing requirement and, therefore, the contribution which this makes to the overall requirement should be reduced (this will be consistent with our argument about adopting a non completion rate) and the contribution from greenfie ld/Green Belt sites outside the existing urban boundary should be increased. This will require contributions to be made from greenfield/Green Belt sites within the BCCS administrative area and also from sites in sustainable locations which are well related to the Black Country in neighbouring authorities.

Although we reserve our position on this point, we would expect that the contribution from the existing brownfield windfalls to be reduced by some 25%, to reflect the problems of market attractiveness , viability, delivery etc and with a consequent increase in the greenfield/Green Belt allocations.

In summary, the SHMA does not properly identify the housing requirement for the HMA. In addition, the reliance upon brownfield urban sites is not supported by evidence. There is, therefore, a requirement for a fundamental shift in the plan strategy with greater reliance placed upon Green Belt/greenfield land release in and around the wider HMA area of sustainable locations in order to ensure delivery.

Question 4 - Do you consider the employment land requirement identified to the Black Country up to 2036 in the EDNA is appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No . If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.

It is not clear if the land requirement fully encompasses land to be lost to residential development and other uses. The current supply of housing identified in the emerging plan requires a significant contribution to be made from former employment sites. It has been noted, however, in the Issues and Options document that employment sites have failed to come forward at the rate
expected, partly owing to problems in site delivery but also partly because of recovery in the demand for the stock of existing employment sites.

We expect that demand to continue for local and sub regional requirements on appropriate sites.

In addition, we believe there will be a demand for large, greenfield sites to encourage inward investment and we consider that sites should be identified to the north and south of the Black Country which are well connected to the existing motorway network.

We consider that the employment requirement should be based on a net addition in order to take account of any losses to alternative land uses.

We agree that a range of sites will need to be allocated including, as noted above, high quality sites to attract inward investment.

We also question whether the figure of 394 hectares of employment land can be regarded as being realistically deliverable and we believe that further assessment about the delivery of this land should be undertaken.

Question 5 - Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt Review? Yes/No. If not, what additional work do you think is necessary?














We agree that a review of the Green Belt is an imperative element of the new strategy. This needs to be completed in time to inform the Core Strategy Review to be published in September 2018.

We consider the review will need to assess the implications of land release in adjoining Authorities including South Staffordshire, Wyre Forest and Bromsgrove.

Green Belt sites in both the Black Country Authority area and in these other authorities will have a vita l role to play in providing the necessary housing supply to meet the housing requirement over the plan period. They will need to make an early contribution to housing supply and should not be phased for delivery in the latter part of the plan period.

We also think it is important that the Green Belt Review extends beyond the current plan period in order to provide a lasting Green Belt boundary in accordance with the advice set out in paragraphs 83 and 85 of the Framework. That advice suggests that the boundaries should be set so that they are capable of enduring beyond the plan period. If necessary, safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt should be identified in order to meet long term development needs "stretching well beyond the plan period' .

We would suggest that the Green Belt Review should be conducted in order to provide for development needs up to 2051.

Question 6 - Do you agree that the key issues set out in part 3 are key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy Review? Yes/ No. If not, what other key issues should be taken into account.

We believe that an extensive review needs to be undertaken in order to ensure that an appropriate strategy is arrived at. Clearly , reliance upon the existing strategy will fail to meet the housing requirement and employment land requirement identified.

We believe that elements of the evidence base require further examinat ion including the SHMA and also the likely delivery of housing and employment from existing brownfield windfalls and existing sites.

There appears to be some confusion in the plan as to the extent of the gap identified . The policy talks about 22,000 homes but then also identifies a further 3,000 units as a shortfall in the housing area. It is unclear if the current shortfall of 3,000 units has been addressed.

In this context there may be a need to identify a further 28,000 homes over and above the existing, alleged, capacity in the urban area.

There is a need to continue to plan for a growing population. However, the SHMA underestimates delivery , this is not taken into account affordable housing needs. Furthermore, the emerging plan housing requirement will need to take into account the fact that not all housing allocations deliver. As a consequence the housing requirement will need to be significantly above the objectively assessed housing needs figure within the SHMA. The suggested "gap" between supply and need of 22,000 dwellings is, therefore, less than that actually required.

This figure may increase further when proper account is taken of the true delivery capabilities of the land in the existing urban area. So far, the current local plan has failed to deliver development rates which would meet with the housing requirement for the new plan period and indeed do not even meet the requirement which will be needed from the current supply identified .











This suggests that the contribution from greenfield/Green Belt sites from within the BCCS area and from Authorities adjoining it will need to be increased significantly.

The Green Belt release should not be seen as a matter of a last resort but needs to be part of an overall strategy with early releases needed to ensure supply of housing sites in the early part of the plan period.


Question 7 - Do you think that the Core Strategy Vision and Sustainability principles remain appropriate? Yes/No. If not, what alternative would you suggest?

We are content with four of the five Core Strategy Vision and Sustainability principles but the fourth bullet point, 'Brownfield first' is no longer relevant. As we have explained in our responses to previous questions, the reliance on Brownfield development needs to be significantly reduced. It is already acknowledged that a significant number of homes, 22,000 - 25,000 may have to be allocated on Greenfield I Green Belt sites (these could be still higher if the current shortfall is to be rectified) and if an update to the SHMA reveals the need to release new land to meet affordable housing needs. We have already explained that we are concerned that there is an over reliance on Brownfield sites and that this could, overall, increase the requirement for new development on Green Field I Green Belt sites to some 40,000 units which will be approximately half of the overall housing requirement, once account is taken of the shortfall from the early part of the current local plan period.

For these reasons, Greenfield I Green Belt sites will have to be released at the same time as the Brownfield supply in order to ensure an adequate supply in the early part of the planning period. This is entirely consistent with paragraph 17 of the Framework which, whilst encouraging the reuse of brownfield sites, does not seek to prioritise their use over greenfield sites.

We would also question whether or not the reference to ' comprehensive approach to development' has any real meaning in terms of delivery of individual sites. We consider that if 'comprehensive' development is required this can still take place on a phased basis so long as new development achieves a comprehensive approach in due course.

Question 8 - Do you think that the Core Strategy Spatial objectives remain appropriate? Yes/No. If not, what alternative would you suggest and how might these changes impact on the individual Core Strategy policies?

We consider that spatial objectives two and three need to be reviewed. Whilst we would continue to support the delivery of high quality employme nt and within the regeneration corridors, which will also be helpful to local business, it should be recognised that inward investment may require high quality Greenfield sites on the edge of the Black Country. The availability of land 6a54 was a considerable benefit in bringing JLR to the Black Country and the opportunity for similar scale developments should be seized through the local plan review process. In particular, we consider that further strategic employment development on the north side of the Black Country and also to the south east, adjoining Junction 3 of the MS, should be identified.

We also have concerns that the regeneration corridors have failed to deliver wide spread change throughout the Black Country and that they may not provide a basis for sustainable communities in the new plan. In this context, we believe that this particular objective should be replaced with the following:





'Identification of a series of deliverable housing sites on Brownfield and Greenfield within, adjoining and well connected to the Black Country which will meet the BCCS requirement over the plan period. These sites will be of differing scales and will provide different market opportunities to delivering housing over the planning period.'

Question 9 - Do you agree that Policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the growth network? Yes/No. If not, what changes do you think should be made to Policies CSP1 and CSP2 in response to new challenges and opportunities?

We agree that the policies should be changed. The growth network strategy will not provide for the new housing and employment requirements for the Emerging Local Plan and need to be amended to reflect the fact that a significant proportion of both housing and strategic employment sites will have to take place on Greenfield I Green Belt sites outside of the current urban boundary and indeed on sites outsides of the SCCS administrative area.

The presumption in favour of using Brownfield sites first also needs to be altered so that an appropriate portfolio of residential and employment sites can be developed over the planning period.

Question 10 - In continuing to promote growth within the growth network, is there a need to amend the boundaries of any of the regeneration corridors in the existing Core Strategy? Yes/No.

If so which boundaries and why?

We do not comment upon specific regeneration corridors but we believe that they will all need to be reviewed to see if they are fit for purpose. In particular, they should be examined to see if the employment elements are still likely to be required by the existing and new local businesses. Where it is clear that significant change in the regeneration corridor are unlikely to happen during the new planning period, alternative provision should be made.

Question 11A - Do you support Strategic Option 1A? Yes/No.

We consider that Option 1A is to be preferred to Strategic Option 1B. That said, we believe there continues to be an overreliance upon Brownfield I windfall sites in the existing supply and there is also an over reliance on Brownfield windfalls in the estimated further housing supply.

We consider, therefore , that overall the Greenfield requirement should provide some 40,000 units of the overall requirement which itself should be increased to 81,290 units.

Question 11A - Do you support Option 1B? Yes/No .

We do not support Option 1B. We believe that there is a considerable overreliance on Brownfield I windfall sites and that there is no real certainty that further employment land can be released over the plan period to provide housing opportunit ies. Indeed some of the existing housing allocations need to be reviewed as they will remain in employment use.

In this context, we consider that the Option 1B would not meet the objectives of the housing policies of the Framework particularly those which require the planning system to deliver significantly increased supply of housing land.





Paragraph 47 of the Framework requires housing opportunit ies to be deliverable and to meet the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area.

A review of the current local plan strategy has demonstrated that there is considerable uncertainty about reliance on a portfolio of Brownfield windfall sites we consider that strategic Option 1B, which is largely reliant upon such a source of housing opportunities, will not provide any certainty to the development industry regarding the provision of housing through the plan period.

Question 12A - Do you support spatial Option H1? Yes/No. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? Eg. Ability to create a defensible new Green Belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services.


We believe that spatial Option H1 - Rounding off is to be preferred to spatial Option H2 - sustainable urban extensions. We believe that the 'rounding off' approach is more likely to deliver a series of well-planned and well located developments throughout the plan period thereby maintaining a deliverable supply of housing land for the house building industry. This could include sites of approximately 150 - 750 units.

Question 128 - Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No.

Yes, we specifically consider that land at Kingswinford bordered by the 84178, the A449 Kidderminster Road and the A4 101 should be released for development. The site extends to 26 hectares and could provide a mix of market and affordable housing and supporting open space and landscaping. Further details have been submitted through the "Call for Sites".

Question 13A - Do you support Spatial Option H2? Yes/No.

What should the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) B? E.g. a minimum/maximum size, mix of uses, mix of housing types, accessibi lity to other areas. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? E.g. proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs, potential to support existing settlement/services , proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban regeneration.

In general terms we do not support Spatial Option H2 in that we believe a range of smaller strategic sites should be provided in the Green Belt in order to ensure a deliverable supply of housing land in the plan period.

We consider that some modest size sustainable urban extensions could be provided. These should have the capacity to support a primary school and local facilities.

We would not favour sustainable urban area extensions of greater size than this as we do not consider that they would be deliverable in the plan period. In this context we believe that modest scale SUEs could be provided as part of a blended Spatial Option H1.















Question 15A - If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the "export" of housing growth to neighbouring Authorities within the HMA? Yes/No.

What factors should be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities in neighbouring Authorities e.g. proximity to the edge of the urban area, proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs?

We believe that it will be necessary for sites to be released outside of the Black Country administrative area in order to meet the housing requirements of the BCCS.

In particular, we believe that sites should be identified in South Staffordshire, Wyre Forest and Bromsgrove districts which could accommodate some of the overspill.

We consider that locations should be selected which could fulfil the following criteria.

A. Be situated immediately adjoining the Black Country administrative boundary and with the ability to achieve easy access to the existing urban area: or

B. Be located in settlements in close proximity to the Black Country.

By these means people from the Black Country will be able to find suitable housing in locations which still afford them the opportunity to support the economic growth of the Black Country and will remain in employment in the Black Country area.

Question 21 - Do you think that changes are required to Policy DEL1 to ensure it covers both development within the existing urban area and any within the Green Belt? Yes/No.

Policy DEL1 may need to be reviewed to ensure it is compliant with the policies of the Framework and the PPG. Otherwise , it will be important for the BCCS Authorities to work with neighbouring Authorities to ensure that sites which are released to meet the Black Country's needs outside of the BCCS area are also supported by appropriate infrastructure. Some of this may also have to be outside of the BCCS area, particularly for the larger urban expansion sites which may provide local facilities, green space, primary schools etc.

The important point here is to ensure that statutory undertakers are involved with the local plan process at an early stage in order to ensure that necessary infrastructure including highways, drainage and power are available for the development envisaged .

Question 25 - Will there be any new social infrastructure requirements necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No. If yes, please explain the type and scale of any new social infrastructure required.

We suspect that, generally speaking, there will need to be incremental improvements in social infrastructure provision to meet the requirements for the occupants of new development over the plan period. This will need to be assessed in detail with social infrastructure providers and it will be necessary for the BCCS Authorities to work with landowners and developers in this regard together with the relevant strategy consultees .

We should state from the outset that the provision of doctor's surgeries should be regarded as a "private sector" matter. Doctor's surgeries are generally self-funding and do not need to be the subject of Section 106/CIL contributions .










We believe it is likely that some new infrastructure will have to be provided for individual schemes in terms of local highway improvements but this will have to be assessed on a case by case basis. This will probably be best assessed at the local level.

Question 29 - Do you think there are any other tools or interventions that could be used to ensure enough infrastructure is provided by developments? Yes/No .

At this stage we have no comment to make other than to confirm that viability is an important issue which needs to be addressed when dealing with sites. We would say at this stage that the Authorities should adopt realistic expectations as to what social and environmental infrastructure can be borne by individual developments .

Question 30 - Do you have any suggestions around how the strategy can be developed in order to maintain the urban regeneration focus of the Black Country while at the same time bringing forward sites in the Green Belt? Yes/No.

We have commented previously that the new plan will need to shift the emphasis away from urban regeneration to a more balanced provision of brownfield and greenfield sites. Part of a problem with the delivery of brownfield sites in the urban area are that they are returning to an active employment use. The adopted Core Strategy sought to direct new residential development to what was, at the time of its preparation, redundant employment land. These employment sites are now developing a new lease of life. As such, the capacity for residential development on brownfield land is highly limited and these areas are self regenerating into active employment sites.

Furthermore, given the problems in bringing forward any brownfield sites for a variety of reasons, it will be necessary to ensure that greenfield opportunities can be brought forward in the early part of the plan period in order to ensure an appropriate supply of land.

We should add that our experience of working in the Black Country is that Local Authorities do need to understand the constraints of developing in the Black Country, particularly in respect of highway and urban design standards . Many of the sites are difficult to develop and the Council's will need to apply development management considerations flexibly in order to ensure that sites can come forward. Many brownfield sites present physical and topographic challenges which can influence the formation of layout and design solutions. All of these factors need to be taken into account when individual planning applications are assessed and Council's should apply flexibility when discussing design solutions , including transportation solutions, with applicants.

Question 31 - Do you think that the right scale in the form of funding is available to support the delivery of the Core Strategy Review? Yes/No. If no, what alternative source of the funding or delivery mechanisms should be investigated?

Our concern is that it takes a considerable amount of time to make funding available for new development and this is holding back sites from being released.

Furthermore, it cannot be guaranteed that the funding which is provided now will continue to be available during the plan period.

In this context it is important to ensure that there is a balance portfolio of housing provided, some of which will be less dependent upon intervention funding . It is for this reason that we endorse a











higher proportion of development on greenfield/Green Belt sites that is currently in the plan (see response to Question 3).

Question 34A - Do you agree that the Health and Wellbeing impacts of large development proposals should be considered at the preferred Spatial Option stage of the Core Strategy Review through a Health Impact Assessment approach? Yes/No.

Our response is that such matters will be better addressed at the development management stage when it will be possible to assess the specific impacts on individual schemes. The locational criteria to be applied to the inspection of sites should suffice for development plan purposes. Some of this will reflect matters such as proximity to local services.

Question 348 - What design features do you think are key to ensuring new development encourages healthy living, which could be assessed through the HIA process? Yes/No.

We make no formal comment at this stage but we participate in the next stage of the plan when more details of this approach are given. We would stress, however, that given the likely constraints which will exist on many of the Black Country sites, care should be taken to ensure that overly restrictive policies are not introduced which could further reduce the attractiveness of sites for development.

Question 35 - Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No.

We agree that HOU1 of the adopted Core Strategy needs to be reviewed. We agree that the proportion of housing to be built on previously developed land will need to be significantly changed and we have indicated elsewhere that the plan should provide approximately 50% provision of the overall requirement on greenfield/Green Belt sites.

We do not favour the prioritisation of brownfield land over greenfield land. Given the considerable amount of housing required across the BCCS, it will be necessary for both greenfield and brownfield sites to be released at the same time. Indeed, the greenfield/Gree n Belt sites are likely to serve different areas of the housing market and so it is important that a range of sites are made available for all sectors of the housing market at the same time. Furthermore, the current strategy has failed to deliver the required level of housing from former employment sites.

In terms of a discount rate we note that there have been problems in meeting the housing requirement in the plan period. This is of particular concern given that the housing trajectory for the adopted Core Strategy starts at a relatively low rate. The extent of the shortfall is already 3,000 units. Given the problems of bringing forward brownfield sites, acknowledged elsewhere in the Issues and Options document and including matters such as viability, ground conditions, failure to release employment sites, we believe that a discount rate of 25% should be applied. We consider that the proportion of a greenfield land as an element of the overall supply should be increased to provide more certainty about provision across the plan period and to ensure that the housing strategy accords with paragraph 47 of the Framework. It should be noted that the requirement to boost significantly the supply of housing land became national policy after the adoption of the BCCS.

We make no comment at this stage about proposals for high density allocations within strategic centres, particularly in Walsall, until more market research has been carried out to ensure that there is both demand and an appetite from the house building industry to provide this type of product.




Question 36 - If you think that the current accessibility and density standards set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 should be changed, what standards should be applied instead, for example, should the minimum net density of 35 dph be increased to maximise brownfield housing delivery? Yes/No.

The calculation of density standards is a difficult subject. It is always important to start first with an understanding of what the net developable area of a site may be irrespective of whether it is brownfield or greenfield. It will be necessary to have regard to site constraints, parking requirements, offset distances, green infrastructure requirements, drainage requirements etc. All these factors can significantly limit the net developable area on a site. It is important not to overestimate densities which could be achieved when identifying sites to be released for development. Once schemes provide more than 40 dwellings per net developable acre the density will usually require some element of flatted development.

The insistence on 35 dph as a minimum could well be problematic on greenfield sites , particularly if these are expected to accommodate significant areas of green infrastructure .

We would suggest that the policy should be targeted to provide densities of 30 to 40 dph depending upon site specific circumstances . High densities could be achieved in more centralised locations adjoining transport hubs, again subject to achieving acceptable design standards. We have explained elsewhere the importance of ensuring that development management expectations need to be married to strategic housing requirement delivery objectives.

Question 37A - Do you think that the existing Policy HOU2 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No.

We would keep the threshold at 15 homes or more. This will help to assist smaller house builders to provide schemes on smaller sites which tend to have more exacting development management issues such as overlooking , relationship with existing uses etc and which can limit the ability to increase densities.

Question 38 - Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards are appropriate for Green Belt release locations? Yes/No.

In our response to Question 36, we identify the fact that greenfield sites may have more exacting requirements in terms of green infrastructure and that density standards may well have to be reduced. We suggest that density standards of 35 dph net developab le should be considered.

Question 39 - Do you think separate accessibility standards are needed for particular types of housing, e.g. housing for the elderly or affordable housing (as occupiers may be less mobile and more dependent on public transport)? Yes/No .

Generally speaking we believe that provision for the housing for the elderly will be demand driven. Occupiers will understand their markets and we would not welcome a restrictive policy regarding the location of either accommodation for the elderly or affordable housing.

Question 40 - Do you agree that the 2017 SHMA findings should be used to set general house type targets for the plan period? Yes/No.



No. The SHLAA does not fully assesses affordable housing requirements as referred to above; as such it should not dictate an overall mix. House builders will provide housing to meet their assessment of the localised market. Setting general standards across such a large area can be difficult and can cause problems with housing delivery. Furthermore, it is important to understand the likelihood that new housing will also generate movements from existing stock to new stock thereby freeing up smaller properties for first time buyers and younger families.

Question 41A - Do you support the introduction of a policy approach towards self and custom built housing in the Core Strategy? Yes/No.

No, we do not support this approach. This is not a significant sector of the housing market. Given the need to encourage housing on a variety of sites, many of which will have problems in terms of delivery, we would not favour a policy which could create problems for delivery and viability which would arise if self and custom built housing were introduced into any housing requirement.

Question 42 - Do you agree that the annual affordable homes target should be increased to reflect the 2017 Black Country Strategic Housing Market Assessment? Yes/No .

We believe it would be prudent to keep the affordable homes target as origina lly set. Otherwise this will cause problems for delivery of brownfield sites.

Question 43A - Do you think that the existing Policy HOU3 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No .

Yes, we believe that the site size threshold should be retained at 15 homes. Again this will assist in the delivery of smaller sites by smaller house builders. It will also be more attractive to the registered providers who do wait to manage a few plots on smaller schemes.

Question 44A - Do you think that the affordable housing requirement for eligible sites in Question 43 should be kept at 25% of the total number of homes on site? Yes/No .

Yes, we agree that the figure should be retained at 25%, subject to viability.

Question 45 - Should an increase in affordable housing requirement beset for Green Belt release sites, to reflect the likely financial viability of these sites? Yes/No.

The release of greenfield/Green Belt land also has significant costs associated with it. It is more likely to require new below ground infrastructure to be provided such as drains, power supply etc. Other physical and social infrastructure contributions will also be required such as education, transport etc. Therefore , greenfield sites are not necessarily more able to contribute more significantly to affordable housing than brownfield sites. We believe, therefore, that a flat rate of 25% across the BCCS area should be adopted.

Question 47 - Do you think that Policy HOUS should be expanded to cover other types of built social infrastructure and set out standards of built social infrastructure to serve major housing developments? Yes/No.

We should first comment that the provision of medical facilities relating to new developments should be funded through the clinical commissioning groups. In most cases this will involve new or extended doctor's surgeries. Doctor's surgeries can be provided through the private sector




since the surgeries generate a rental income so that there is a development/ investment market ready to provide the product. It does not need to be funded from contributions from residentia l development.

Education provision will need to be carefully researched so that a capacity in schools is ident ified in order to avoid unnecessary contributions being sought. The funding implications of the Education Funding Agency also need to be taken into account when assessing education requirements.

In terms of new community facilities, we agree that these need to be carefully assessed in order to ensure that they will in fact be used and also maintained by the local community. In some circumstances it may be better for contributions to be made to upgrade and expand existing facilities rather than create new ones which will simply put a drain on revenue resources.

Question 49A - Is there a need for the existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing? Yes/No .

We believe that the policy does need to be refined in order to ensure that land which is not necessa ry to be retained can be released quickly and easily without the need for extensive marketing. Also we see no reason for the policy to be applied where land has been allocated in an action area plan or similar alternative plan for alternative use.

Question 50 - Do you think that the Core Strategy should continue to set a target for the total employment land stock in Policy EMP1? Yes/No.

We believe that this should be included and that a net target should be set in order to allow for losses to alternative uses.

Question 55 - Do you agree with the proposed proposal to obtain Policy EMP5? Yes/No.

Generally we do not favour contributions which seek to restrict jobs to existing residents. This can cause problems for companies who have their own training and apprentices hip programmes. Whilst it is clearly desirable for Local Authorities to work alongside employers in trying to get local residents into work opportunities, this should be on a voluntary basis and there should not be a requirement to impose what is, in effect, a restrictive trade practice.

Question 94 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to environmental infrastructure and place making? Yes/No.

We appreciate that it will be necessary to review environmental infrastructure in the light of changing circumstances and updated guidance and standards . We will comment further on this issue at the next stage of the plan.

Question 95A - Do you think Garden City principles should be applied at the Black Country? Yes/No.

We would not encourage this as a design approach in the Black Country. Garden City proposals were developed expressly for new settlements. The Black Country has a different history and heritage as do the settlements which are geographically and functionally close to the Black Country. We do not consider that the vernacular of the existing urban area and adjoining settlements is appropriate for Garden City principles.













Question 96 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to nature conversation? Yes/No.

It should be noted that the inclusion of new natural green space and new development will have implications for net developable areas and consequently, the amount of land which will need to be identified for development. It will also impact upon the viability of schemes and these factors need to be taken into account when assessing overall development requirements.

Question 98 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to design quality? Yes/No .

The introduction of National Space standard does have implications for viability since it introduces a signif icant additional cost to new house building without any necessary uplift in values. It can, therefore , have a significant impact upon the delivery of schemes.

Question 99C - Do you think that National Space standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country . Yes/No.

In the context of our response to Question 98, we do not agree that National Space standards should be introduced.

Question 99D - Do you think that the standards should be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No .

Given that greenfield sites have their own viability concerns, we would not agree that the standards should vary between brownfield and greenfield sites. In any event we do not support the introduction of Nationa l Space standards.

Question 101A - Do you support the proposed changes relating to f lood risk, sustainable drainage and urban heat island effects? Yes/No.

Whilst we appreciate the need to have regard to new standards regarding SuDS provision, the implications upon site layout and viability do need to be considered. A flexible approach will be required from the Local Authorities when assessing individual schemes. In particular, a joined up approach is needed by strategy undertakers to ensure that SuDS areas will be adopted if they are part of wider open space areas.

Question 103A - Do you think that Policy ENV7 should be changed to allow increased energy efficiency standards to be accepted in lieu of renewable energy provision for non­ domestic buildings? Yes/No.

We consider that the benefits of higher energy efficiency, as opposed to renewable energy should be considered in the planning balance, particularly when this has an implication for viability. Although this may not be capable of being a policy requirement there is no reason why it should not be capable of being taken into account. The residential sector has spent a considerable amount of money investing in improved materials which improve the energy efficiency of buildings and these factors need to be taken into account of both domestic and non­ domestic schemes.

BLACK COUNTRY CORE STRATEGY REVIEW - ISSUES AND OPTIONS RESPONSE BY CLOWES DEVELOPMENTS

We are instructed by Clowes Developments to submit a response to the Black Country Core Strategy Review - Issues and Options consultation. We welcome the opportunity to comment and to input into the preparation of the Core Strategy at the outset. We have responded to the questions as per the consultation document and have submitted the comments via the online consultation website. We trust you take our comments into consideration and look forward to being notified of future stages of consultat ion on the Core Strategy.


Question 1 - Do you agree that the Core Strategy Review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies? Yes/No. If not, what do you think should be the scope of the review?

No, we consider that the review needs to go further than a partial review. Whilst the overall strategy of supporting further housing and employment growth with an emphasis on regeneration should be supported, it is clear that the desire to achieve major regeneration of identified areas has failed, for a variety of reasons relating to ownership, viability , market perceptions, site suitability etc.

The approach of the BCCS is based upon the revoked West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy and it was produced prior to the adoption of the Framework . Furthermore, there was a significant shift in the amount of housing and employment land that is required that the Black Country Core Strategy needs to respond to. The emerging Core Strategy is also being prepared in a significantly different economic climate to the adopted document. These factors clearly indicate that a new approach should be taken to the development through the Core Strategy review.

The adopted Core Strategy seeks to deliver development by focusing the majority of new housing employment land requirements through a Growth Network and a series of Regeneration Corridors. It is, however, advised in the "delivery" section of the emerg ing Core Strategy (paragraphs 2.5 to 2.11) that the level of concentration in the growth corridors is "less than LONosifrticipated' ToKf?dmmffiT the I\ SQXtl R this is that more windfall sites will come forward than
I : vii6 ( - !!. _.,...
0115 947 6236 01905 22666 )4111. :: RICS RF.G ISTERED FIRM
A full list of Directors available on request Registration No. 4301250 Regulated by RICS
Harris Lamb Limited, Grosvenor House, 75-76 Francis Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham 816 8SP ww w.harrislamb.com




To: Black Country Core Strategy - Dudley MBC Date: 81h September 2017




expected outside of the Growth Network . These windfall sites have assisted in housing delivery. Append ix C - Black Country Monitoring Summary, of the emerg ing plan advises that there is currently a shortfall of 3,039 dwellings in the Black Country to meet the housing requirement set by the adopted Core Strategy for the plan period to date. The windfall developments have effectively bolstered housing delivery whilst the housing allocations within the Regeneration Corridors and Growth Network generally have under delivered.

The Growth Network and Regeneration Corridor approach in the adopted Core Strategy is based upon the delivery of a significant quantum of housing on surplus employment land. The emerging plan advises in paragraph 2.5 that it is transpired that there is "not as much surplus employment land suitable for housing as anticipated". This is partly because the economy has strengthened and local firms are more robust than expected and partly because the sites are more affected by constraints than expected.

It is, therefore, our view that the approach of the adopted Core Strategy , seeking to focus new residential development on poor quality employment land, will not deliver the housing numbers required. In addition, as referred to in response to Question 4, new evidence identifies a significant requirement for additional employme nt land. As a consequence, the emerging Core Strategy should prepare an approach that places less reliance on the delivery of housing on employment land.

This means that the trajectory of the current plan is unlikely to be met since it now relies heavily on windfall sites, some of which are not suited to market requirements or are also subject to contribution and viability problems.

A new strategy is required which will provide a range of sites on both brownfield and greenfield (Green Belt) opportunities which are capable of being delivered in the new plan period and which will be attractive to the market. These would include sites capable of providing high quality housing, attractive to existing residents ion the Black Country who are seeking to move within the area, as well as an occupier seeking accommodation and which are moving to the Black Country for economic reasons i.e. the move is associated with inward investment.

We consider that a portfolio of new strategic sites would be identified in the emerging plan with capacities of 150 to 500 units plus. Such sites are more likely to be deliverable in the plan period although we do see the opportunity for a major mixed use urban extension to the south west of Junction 3 of the M5.

The identification of a range of sites will ensure that there is adequacy of supply and will avoid reliance on major urban extensions which can experience difficulties in terms of funding and timing.

We also consider that a realistic approach needs to be taken to sites coming forward and that a non implementation rate needs to be identified in respect of the windfa ll element of the housing requirement. This is particularly important given the considerable reliance given to windfall sites in the current supply figure and the acknowledgeme nt with Review department that there have been problems experienced in bring forward brownfield sites.

We also believe that the strategy needs to encompass wider discussions with the adjoining Authorities to the Black Country, including South Staffordshire, Wyre Forest and Bromsgrove whose administrative boundaries adjoin or are close to the Black Country and where there are functional and geographical linkages.





We believe it is important that the Green Belt releases are phased for the early part of the plan period so that a mix of sites, including high quality , can be made available to meet the needs of the market. The exercise should take a long-term view of development needs, providing a boundary which can endure beyond the plan period. This will also help with early delivery and will help Local Authorities to maintain a five year housing land supply and also to boost significantly the supply of housing in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 47 of the Framework.

This approach is entirely consistent with the requirement of the Framework. The Framework requires Local Authorities to "boost significantly" the supply of housing land. In accordance with the requirements of footnotes 11 and 12 of the Framework , housing sites would be "deliverable and available" in order to be allocated. The employment led regeneration approach of the emerging Core Strategy has failed this test at least to some degree.

Indeed, it is specifically advised that the higher than anticipated levels of windfall development do "conceal a delivery challenge". There is a large number of major housing sites concentrating the Growth Network. However, many of these sites have multiple constraints and financial assistance is required for them to come forward (paragraph 2.10). This includes 300 hectares of occupied employment land which has been allocated for housing. This approach brings issues of viability due to the cost of land assembly, business relocation and land remediation. Significant amounts of external funding are required to deliver this. Whilst some funding is available, it is not sufficient to cover the costs of compulsory purchase, which may be necessary on many sites. The sites are clearly not "deliverable" or "developable" in the context of the allocations test put in place by paragraph 47 of the Framework. To be considered deliverable, sites should be available for development now and be achievable for a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site. To be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged. This is not the case with a significant number of the employment allocations within the adopted development plan, by the emerging Core Strategies own omission .

Finally, we consider that a more robust SHMA should be undertaken focusing on the Black Country and the adjoining Authorities. The housing market areas should not be confined to the administrative boundaries of the Black Country Authorities. ( HL to review)

Question 2 - Do you think that the key evidence set out in table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy Review? Yes/No.

If not, what further evidence is required and, if there are any particular issues that should be taken into account in considering development on any particular sites or any particular areas, please provide details.

We consider that a more in depth analysis needs to be undertaken of the brownfield windfall sites which make up the housing supply and, in particular, their ability to be brought forward. It is not clear to the development industry, given the current rates of completions and the need for a significant step up in delivery rates, that the windfall sites will come forward at the rate required.

A study needs to be undertaken regarding the true capacity likely to be obtained from brownfield windfalls. This will help to identify an appropriate non completion allowance.

As noted in the response to Question 1, we also believe that the SHMA needs to be reviewed so that it follows the housing market area and not simply Local Authority boundaries.












We further support the intention identified at paragraph 3.11 that the Council intends to explore new means of providing housing beyond the housing market area used for the BCCS review where there are clear migration or commuting links with Local Authorities . This strengthens our view that the SHLLA may have to be reviewed because of the linkages with surrounding authorities.

We also note that there appears to be no acknowledgement that the current shortfall provision, identified at some 3,000 units, has been taken into account in the housing requirement figure . In so doing, the objective should be to ensure that the needs of all are met, including those currently residing in the Black Country and who are seeking higher quality housing and those who are moving into the Black Country for economic reasons. The provision of such housing can also achieve a 'churn' in the current stock .

We are also of a view that the Black Country Green Belt review should prioritised. It is noted that it is suggested that the Green Belt review will not be completed until mid 2018. It is, however, anticipated that the preferred options consultation will be undertaken in September 2018. There is going to be a clear reliance on Green Belt sites in delivering the emerging housing requirement. We are concerned that there is insufficient time for the Authorities to properly digest the findings of the Green Belt review and identify strategy for new development based upon Green Belt land release in and around the Authority area in the time allowed between the completion of a Green Belt study and the publication of a consultation document.

Finally, we believe that further research should be undertaken regarding the effect of Government grant regimes in bringing sites forward . Our experience to date has been that the programmes have been time consum ing, costly and unwieldly and have had limited benefit in helping to increase the supply of housing land.

Question 3 - Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014 to 2036 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No.

If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.

National guidance requires Local Authorities to meet the full, objectively assessed needs in the market and affordable housing in their housing market area, as far is consistent with policies set out in the Framework. The objective is to boost significantly the supply of housing.

We have already commented in respect of our responses to Questions 1 and 2 that the SHMA needs to be reviewed and this could lead to an increase in the overall requirement for the Black Country Authorities.

The current completion rates are significantly below what is required for even the current local plan figure and are significantly below the figure of 3,690 units per annum identified above. Even at 78, 190 units over the plan period, this produces an annual requirement of 3, 554 units per annum which is also far in excess of what has ever been achieved annually in the BCCS. We consider that this is a challenging figure in terms of the current supply, over half of which is dependent upon existing housing supply in the urban area and is largely made up of brownfield windfalls.

In this context we believe that it is going to be important to significantly change the balance of the current supply with a far greater reliance on greenfield/Green Belt sites than the 25 ,000 units identified.












We note that the overall supply from the urban area depends upon some 42 ,507 units from existing sites in the urban area and a further 8,335 units from the urban area, much of which appears to come from former employment sites.

Given the problems in releasing employment sites in the current strategy (see paragraph 3.16 and paragraph 2.5, the latter identifying the problems in releasing employment sites), we consider that the local plan strategy which relies on some 65% of provision on urban brownfield/windfall sites (using the draft figure of 78,190) is wholly unrealistic given that, to date, the current local plan has failed to meet existing requirements.

The components of the supply in the urban area (completions plus existing housing supply plus estimated further housing supply) total some 56,520 units which equates to a requirement of 2,569 units per annum over the new plan period. However, that required completion figure is in excess of what has been achieved to date through the current local plan, which relies entirely upon brownfield windfalls in the urban area, that figure being 2,325 units per annum.

It is apparent , therefore , that the current supply of brownfield/windfall sites is unlikely to produce sufficient units to meet its share of the housing requirement and, therefore , the contribution which this makes to the overall requirement should be reduced (this will be consistent with our argument about adopting a non completion rate) and the contribution from greenfield/Green Belt sites outside the existing urban boundary should be increased. This will require contributions to be made from greenfield/Green Belt sites within the BCCS administrative area and also from sites in sustainable locations which are well related to the Black Country in neighbouring authorities.

Although we reserve our position on this point, we would expect that the contribution from the existing brownfield windfalls to be reduced by some 25%, to reflect the problems of market attractiveness , viability, delivery etc and with a consequent increase in the greenfield/Green Belt allocations.

In summary, the SHMA does not properly identify the housing requirement for the HMA. In addition, the reliance upon brownfield urban sites is not supported by evidence. There is, therefore, a requirement for a fundamental shift in the plan strategy with greater reliance placed upon Green Belt/greenfield land release in and around the wider HMA area of sustainable locations in order to ensure delivery.

Question 4 - Do you consider the employment land requirement identified to the Black Country up to 2036 in the EDNA is appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No. If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.

It is not clear if the land requirement fully encompasses land to be lost to residential development and other uses. The current supply of housing identified in the emerging plan requires a significant contribution to be made from former employment sites. It has been noted, however, in the Issues and Options document that employment sites have failed to come forward at the rate expected, partly owing to problems in site delivery but also partly because of recovery in the demand for the stock of existing employment sites.

We expect that demand to continue for local and sub regional requirements on appropriate sites.












In addition, we believe there will be a demand for large, greenfield sites to encourage inward investment and we consider that sites should be identified to the north and south of the Black Country which are well connected to the existing motorway network .

We consider that the employment requirement should be based on a net addition in order to take account of any losses to alternative land uses.

We agree that a range of sites will need to be allocated including, as noted above, high quality sites to attract inward investment.

We also question whether the figure of 394 hectares of employment land can be regarded as being realistically deliverable and we believe that further assessment about the delivery of this land should be undertaken.

Question 5 - Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt Review? Yes/No. If not, what additional work do you think is necessary?

We agree that a review of the Green Belt is an imperative element of the new strategy. This needs to be completed in time to inform the Core Strategy Review to be published in September 2018.

We consider the review will need to assess the implications of land release in adjoining Authorities including South Staffordshire, Wyre Forest and Bromsgrove.

Green Belt sites in both the Black Country Authority area and in these other authorities will have a vital role to play in providing the necessary housing supply to meet the housing requirement over the plan period. They will need to make an early contribution to housing supply and should not be phased for delivery in the latter part of the plan period.

We also think it is important that the Green Belt Review extends beyond the current plan period in order to provide a lasting Green Belt boundary in accordance with the advice set out in paragraphs 83 and 85 of the Framework . That advice suggests that the boundaries should be set so that they are capable of enduring beyond the plan period. If necessary, safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt should be identified in order to meet long term development needs "stretching well beyond the plan period' .

We would suggest that the Green Belt Review should be conducted in order to provide for development needs up to 2051.

Question 6 - Do you agree that the key issues set out in part 3 are key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy Review? Yes/No. If not, what other key issues should be taken into account.

We believe that an extensive review needs to be undertaken in order to ensure that an appropriate strategy is arrived at. Clearly , reliance upon the existing strategy will fail to meet the housing requirement and employment land requirement identified .

We believe that elements of the evidence base require further examination including the SHMA and also the likely delivery of housing and employment from existing brownfield windfalls and existing sites.












There appears to be some confusion in the plan as to the extent of the gap identified. The policy talks about 22,000 homes but then also identifies a further 3,000 units as a shortfall in the housing area. It is unclear if the current shortfall of 3,000 units has been addressed.

In this context there may be a need to identify a further 28,000 homes over and above the existing, alleged, capacity in the urban area.

There is a need to continue to plan for a growing population. However, the SHMA underestimates delivery, this is not taken into account affordable housing needs. Furthermore, the emerging plan housing requirement will need to take into account the fact that not all housing allocations deliver. As a consequence the housing requirement will need to be significantly above the objectively assessed housing needs figure within the SHMA. The suggested "gap" between supply and need of 22,000 dwellings is, therefore, less than that actually required.

This figure may increase further when proper account is taken of the true delivery capabilities of the land in the existing urban area. So far, the current local plan has failed to deliver development rates which would meet with the housing requirement for the new plan period and indeed do not even meet the requirement which will be needed from the current supply identified . This suggests that the contribution from greenfield/Green Belt sites from within the BCCS area and from Authorities adjoining it will need to be increased significantly .

The Green Belt release should not be seen as a matter of a last resort but needs to be part of an overall strategy with early releases needed to ensure supply of housing sites in the early part of the plan period.


Question 7 - Do you think that the Core Strategy Vision and Sustainability principles remain appropriate? Yes/No. If not, what alternative would you suggest?

We are content with four of the five Core Strategy Vision and Sustainability principles but the fourth bullet point, 'Brownfield first ' is no longer relevant. As we have explained in our responses to previous questions, the reliance on Brownfield development needs to be significantly reduced. It is already acknowledged that a significant number of homes, 22,000 - 25,000 may have to be allocated on Greenfield I Green Belt sites (these could be still higher if the current shortfall is to be rectified) and if an update to the SHMA reveals the need to release new land to meet affordable housing needs. We have already explained that we are concerned that there is an over reliance on Brownfield sites and that this could, overall, increase the requirement for new development on Green Field I Green Belt sites to some 40 ,000 units which will be approximately half of the overall housing requirement, once account is taken of the shortfa ll from the early part of the current local plan period.

For these reasons, Greenfield I Gren Belt sites will have to be released at the same time as the Brownfield supply in order to ensure an adequate supply in the early part of the planning period. This is entirely consistent with paragraph 17 of the Framework which, whilst encouraging the reuse of brownfield sites, does not seek to prioritise their use over greenfield sites.

We would also question whether or not the reference to 'comprehensive approach to development' has any real meaning in terms of delivery of individual sites. We consider that if 'comprehensive' development is required this can still take place on a phased basis so long as new development achieves a comprehensive approach in due course.













Question 8 - Do you think that the Core Strategy Spatial objectives remain appropriate? Yes/No . If not, what alternative would you suggest and how might these changes impact on the individual Core Strategy policies?

We consider that spatial objectives two and three need to be reviewed. Whilst we would continue to support the delivery of high quality employment and within the regeneration corridors, which will also be helpful to local business, it should be recognised that inward investment may require high quality Greenfield sites on the edge of the Black Country. The availability of land 6a54 was a considerable benefit in bringing JLR to the Black Country and the opportunity for similar scale developments should be seized through the local plan review process. In particular, we consider that further strategic employment development on the north side of the Black Country and also to the south east, adjoining Junction 3 of the M5, should be identified.

We also have concerns that the regeneratio n corridors have failed to deliver wide spread change throughout the Black Country and that they may not provide a basis for sustainable communities in the new plan. In this context, we believe that this particular objective should be replaced with the following:

'Identification of a series of deliverable housing sites on Brownfield and Greenfield within, adjoining and well connected to the Black Country which will meet the BCCS requirement over the plan period. These sites will be of differing scales and will provide different market opportunities to delivering housing over the planning period. '

Question 9 - Do you agree that Policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the growth network? Yes/No . If not, what changes do you think should be made to Policies CSP1 and CSP2 in response to new challenges and opportunities?

We agree that the policies should be changed. The growth network strategy will not provide for the new housing and employment requirements for the Emerging Local Plan and need to be amended to reflect the fact that a significant proportion of both housing and strategic employment sites will have to take place on Greenfield I Green Belt sites outside of the current urban boundary and indeed on sites outsides of the BCCS administrative area.

The presumption in favour of using Brownfield sites first also needs to be altered so that an appropriate portfolio of residential and employment sites can be developed over the planning period.

Question 10 - In continuing to promote growth within the growth network, is there a need to amend the boundaries of any of the regeneration corridors in the existing Core Strategy? Yes/No.

If so which boundaries and why?

We do not comment upon specific regeneration corridors but we believe that they will all need to be reviewed to see if they are fit for purpose. In particular, they should be examined to see if the employment elements are still likely to be required by the existing and new local businesses. Where it is clear that significant change in the regeneration corridor are unlikely to happen during the new planning period, alternative provision should be made.

Question 11A - Do you support Strategic Option 1A? Yes/No .












We consider that Option 1A is to be preferred to Strategic Option 1B. That said, we believe there continues to be an overreliance upon Brownfield I windfall sites in the existing supply and there is also an over reliance on Brownfield windfalls in the estimated further housing supply.

We consider, therefore , that overall the Greenfield requirement should provide some 40,000 units of the overall requirement which itself should be increased to 81,290 units.

Question 11A - Do you support Option 1B? Yes/No.

We do not support Option 1B. We believe that there is a considerable overreliance on Brownfie ld I windfall sites and that there is no real certainty that further employment land can be released over the plan period to provide housing opportunities. Indeed some of the existing housing allocations need to be reviewed as they will remain in employment use.

In this context, we consider that the Option 1B would not meet the objectives of the housing policies of the Framework particularly those which require the planning system to deliver significantly increased supply of housing land.

Paragraph 47 of the Framework requires housing opportunities to be deliverable and to meet the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area.

A review of the current local plan strategy has demonstrated that there is considerable uncertainty about reliance on a portfolio of Brownfield windfall sites we consider that strategic Option 1B, which is largely reliant upon such a source of housing opportunit ies, will not provide any certainty to the development industry regarding the provision of housing through the plan period.

Question 12A - Do you support spatial Option H1? Yes/No. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? Eg. Abil ity to create a defensible new Green Belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services.


We believe that spatial Option H1 - Rounding off is to be preferred to spatial Option H2 - sustainable urban extensions. We believe that the 'rounding off' approach is more likely to deliver a series of well-planned and well located developments throughout the plan period thereby maintaining a deliverable supply of housing land for the house building industry. This could include sites of approximate ly 150 - 750 units.

Question 13A - Do you support Spatial Option H2? Yes/No.

What should the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) B? E.g. a minimum/maximum size, mix of uses, mix of housing types, accessibility to other areas. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? E.g. proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs, potential to support existing settlement/services, proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban regeneration.

In general terms we do not support Spatial Option H2 in that we believe a range of smaller strategic sites should be provided in the Green Belt in order to ensure a deliverable supply of housing land in the plan period.



We consider that some modest size sustainable urban extensions could be provided. These should have the capacity to support a primary school and local facilities.

We would not favour sustainable urban area extensions of greater size than this as we do not consider that they would be deliverable in the plan period. In this context we believe that modest scale SUEs could be provided as part of a blended Spatial Option H1.

Question 15A - If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the "export" of housing growth to neighbouring Authorities within the HMA? Yes/No.

What factors should be taken into account in an assessment of the opportun ities in neighbouring Authorities e.g. proximity to the edge of the urban area, proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure , easy access to jobs?

We believe that it will be necessary for sites to be released outside of the Black Country administrative area in order to meet the housing requirements of the BCCS.

In particular, we believe that sites should be identified in South Staffordshire, Wyre Forest and Bromsgrove districts which could accommodate some of the overspill.

We consider that locations should be selected which could fulfil the following crite ria.

A. Be situated immediately adjoining the Black Country administrative boundary and with the ability to achieve easy access to the existing urban area: or

B. Be located in settlements in close proximity to the Black Country.

By these means people from the Black Country will be able to find suitable housing in locations which still afford them the opportunity to support the economic growth of the Black Country and will remain in employment in the Black Country area. These sites should contribute to a portfolio of high quality sites.

Question 15B - Do you think that there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No.

We consider that land immediately adjoining the administrative boundary of Dudley in the Kingswinford area should be released from the Green Belt to provide an urban extension. This would provide housing which would use facilities in the Kingswinford area. We have identified land on the attached plan at Lawnswood. The site would be able to provide high quality housing, as part of the overall provision of housing needs for the Black Country, in a location in which we would be able to take advantage of nearby education, sport and High Street facilities. Being situated close to the A449 also means that occupants would be able to reach other parts of the Black Country for employment and leisure purposes.

We have completed a "Call for Sites" form which explains the development potential of this area in more detail.

Question 15C - Do you think there are ways to ensure that exporting housing will meet the needs of people who would otherwise live in the Black Country? (E.g. transport improvements, provision of affordable housing, creation of employment opportunities). Yes/No.












Yes, we believe that the best way to ensure that housing provided outside of the Black Country will meet the needs of people, who would otherwise live in the Black Country is to ensure that the location of new development has good functional and geographic links with the Black Country. As noted in our response to Question 15b, sites can be released which immediately adjoin the Black Country and administrative area or are in settlements with strong functional and physical/geographic links with the Black Country. Clearly, there is nothing to stop people migrating from the Black Country into the surrounding Shire Aut horities, regardless of housing provision, and, therefore , the provision of additional housing outside of the BCCS, but which will meet the needs of people living in the Black Country, will ensure that the needs of Black Country residents can be met either within the Black Country itself or in settlements which are suitable to serve it.

We consider that the provision of high quality sites is an important part of the approach, since there will encourage existing residents to stay in or close by in the Black County . Furthermore, such sites will help to support the economic objectives of the BCCS by providing housing for inward investment related house moves.
Question 21 - Do you think that changes are required to Policy DEL1 to ensure it covers both development within the existing urban area and any within the Green Belt? Yes/No.

Policy DEL1 may need to be reviewed to ensure it is compliant with the policies of the Framework and the PPG. Otherwise , it will be important for the BCCS Authorities to work with neighbouring Authorities to ensure that sites which are released to meet the Black Country's needs outside of the BCCS area are also supported by appropriate infrastructure. Some of this may also have to be outside of the BCCS area, particularly for the larger urban expansion sites which may provide local facilities, green space, primary schools etc.

The important point here is to ensure that statutory undertakers are involved with the local plan process at an early stage in order to ensure that necessary infrastructure including highways, drainage and power are available for the development envisaged.

Question 25 - Will there be any new social infrastructure requirements necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No . If yes, please explain the type and scale of any new social infrastructure required.

We suspect that , generally speaking , there will need to be incremental improvements in social infrastructure provision to meet the requirements for the occupants of new development over the plan period. This will need to be assessed in detail with social infrastructure providers and it will be necessary for the BCCS Authorities to work with landowners and developers in this regard together with the relevant strategy consultees.

We should state from the outset that the provision of doctor's surgeries should be regarded as a "private sector" matter. Doctor's surgeries are generally self-funding and do not need to be the subject of Section 106/CIL contributions.

We believe it is likely that some new infrastructure will have to be provided for individual schemes in terms of local highway improvements but this will have to be assessed on a case by case basis. This will probably be best assessed at the local level.

Question 29 - Do you think there are any other tools or interventions that could be used to ensure enough infrastructure is provided by developments? Yes/No .













At this stage we have no comment to make other than to confirm that viability is an important issue which needs to be addressed when dealing with sites. We would say at this stage that the Author ities should adopt realistic expectat ions as to what social and environmental infrastructure can be borne by individual developments .

Question 30 - Do you have any suggestions around how the strategy can be developed in order to maintain the urban regeneration focus of the Black Country while at the same time bringing forward sites in the Green Belt? Yes/No.

We have commented previously that the new plan will need to shift the emphasis away from urban regeneration to a more balanced provision of brownfield and greenfie ld sites. Part of a problem with the delivery of brownfield sites in the urban area are that they are returning to an active employment use. The adopted Core Strategy sought to direct new residential development to what was, at the time of its preparation, redundant employment land. These employment sites are now developing a new lease of life. As such, the capacity for residential development on brownfield land is highly limited and these areas are self regenerating into active employment sites.

Furthermore, given the problems in bringing forward any brownfield sites for a variety of reasons, it will be necessary to ensure that greenfield opportunities can be brought forward in the early part of the plan period in order to ensure an appropriate supply of land.

We should add that our experience of working in the Black Country is that Local Authorities do need to understand the constraints of developing in the Black Country, particularly in respect of highway and urban design standards. Many of the sites are difficult to develop and the Council's will need to apply development management considerations flexibly in order to ensure that sites can come forward. Many brownfield sites present physical and topographic challenges which can influence the formation of layout and design solutions. Furthermore, some of these sites will not be in locations which are attractive to those seeking new housing. All of these factors need to be taken into account when individual planning applications are assessed and Council's should apply flexibility when discussing design solutions, including transportation solutions, with applicants.

Question 31 - Do you think that the right scale in the form of funding is available to support the delivery of the Core Strategy Review? Yes/No . If no, what alternative source of the funding or delivery mechanisms should be investigated?

Our concern is that it takes a considerable amount of time to make funding available for new development and this is holding back sites from being released.

Furthermore, it cannot be guaranteed that the funding which is provided now will continue to be available during the plan period.

In this context it is important to ensure that there is a balance portfolio of housing provided, some of which will be less dependent upon intervention funding. It is for this reason that we endorse a higher proportion of development on greenfield/Green Belt sites that is currently in the plan (see response to Question 3).

Question 34A - Do you agree that the Health and Wellbeing impacts of large development proposals should be considered at the preferred Spatial Option stage of the Core Strategy Review through a Health Impact Assessment approach? Yes/No.





Our response is that such matters will be better addressed at the development management stage when it will be possible to assess the specific impacts on individual schemes. The locationa l criteria to be applied to the inspection of sites should suffice for development plan purposes. Some of this will reflect matters such as proximity to local services.

Question 348 - What design features do you think are key to ensuring new development encourages healthy living,which could be assessed through the HIA process? Yes/No.

We make no formal comment at this stage but we participate in the next stage of the plan when more details of this approach are given. We would stress, however, that given the likely constraints which will exist on many of the Black Country sites, care should be taken to ensure that overly restrictive policies are not introduced which could further reduce the attractiveness of sites for development.

Question 35 - Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No.

We agree that HOU1 of the adopted Core Strategy needs to be reviewed. We agree that the proportion of housing to be built on previously developed land will need to be significant ly changed and we have indicated elsewhere that the plan should provide approximately 50% provision of the overall requirement on greenfield/Green Belt sites.

We do not favour the prioritisation of brownfield land over greenfield land. Given the considerable amount of housing required across the BCCS, it will be necessary for both greenfield and brownfield sites to be released at the same time. Indeed, the greenfield/Green Belt sites are likely to serve different areas of the housing market and so it is important that a range of sites are made available for all sectors of the housing market at the same time. Furthermore, the current strategy has failed to deliver the required level of housing from former employme nt sites.


In terms of a discount rate we note that there have been problems in meeting the housing requirement in the plan period. This is of particular concern given that the housing trajectory for the adopted Core Strategy starts at a relatively low rate. The extent of the shortfall is already 3,000 units. Given the problems of bringing forward brownfield sites, acknowledged elsewhere in the Issues and Options document and including matters such as viability, ground conditions, failure to release employment sites , we believe that a discount rate of 25% should be applied. We consider that the proportion of a greenfield land as an element of the overall supply should be increased to provide more certainty about provision across the plan period and to ensure that the housing strategy accords with paragraph 47 of the Framework. It should be noted that the requirement to boost significantly the supply of housing land became national policy after the adoption of the BCCS.

We make no comment at this stage about proposals for high density allocations within strategic centres, particularly in Walsall, until more market research has been carried out to ensure that there is both demand and an appetite from the house building industry to provide this type of product.

Question 36 - If you think that the current access ibility and density standards set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 should be changed, what standards should be applied instead, for example, should the minimum net density of 35 dph be increased to max imise brownfield housing delivery? Yes/No.




The calculation of density standards is a difficult subject. It is always important to start first with an understanding of what the net developable area of a site may be irrespective of whether it is brownfield or greenfield . It will be necessary to have regard to site constraints, parking requirements, offset distances , green infrastructure requirements, drainage requirements etc. All these factors can significantly limit the net developable area on a site. It is important not to overestimate densities which could be achieved when identifying sites to be released for development. Once schemes provide more than 40 dwellings per net developable acre the density will usually require some element of flatted development.

The insistence on 35 dph as a minimum could well be problematic on greenfie ld sites, particularly if these are expected to accommodate significant areas of green infrastructure.

We would suggest that the policy should be targeted to provide densities of 30 to 40 dph depending upon site specific circumstances. High densities could be achieved in more centralised locations adjoining transport hubs, again subject to achieving acceptable design standards. We have explained elsewhere the importance of ensuring that development management expectations need to be married to strategic housing requirement delivery objectives.

Question 37A - Do you think that the existing Policy HOU2 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No.

We would keep the threshold at 15 homes or more. This will help to assist smaller house builders to provide schemes on smaller sites which tend to have more exacting development management issues such as overlooking, relationship with existing uses etc and which can limit the ability to increase densities.

Question 38 - Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards are appropriate for Green Belt release locations? Yes/No.

In our response to Question 36, we identify the fact that greenfield sites may have more exacting requirements in terms of green infrastructure and that density standards may well have to be reduced. We suggest that density standards of 35 dph net developable should be considered.

Question 39 - Do you think separate accessibility standards are needed for particular types of housing, e.g. housing for the elderly or affordable housing (as occupiers may be less mobile and more dependent on public transport)? Yes/No .

Generally speaking we believe that provision for the housing for the elderly will be demand driven. Occupiers will understand their markets and we would not welcome a restrictive policy regarding the location of either accommodation for the elderly or affordab le housing.

Question 40 - Do you agree that the 2017 SHMA findings should be used to set general house type targets for the plan period? Yes/No.

No. The SHLAA does not fully assesses affordable housing requirements as referred to above; as such it should not dictate an overall mix. House builders will provide housing to meet their assessment of the localised market. Setting general standards across such a large area can be difficult and can cause problems with housing delivery. Furthermore, it is important to understand the likelihood that new housing will also generate movements from existing stock to new stock thereby freeing up smaller properties for first time buyers and younger fam ilies.












Question 41A - Do you support the introduction of a policy approach towards self and custom built housing in the Core Strategy? Yes/No.

No, we do not support this approach. This is not a significant sector of the housing market. Given the need to encourage housing on a variety of sites, many of which will have problems in terms of delivery, we would not favour a policy which could create problems for delivery and viability which would arise if self and custom built housing were introduced into any housing requirement.

Question 42 - Do you agree that the annual affordable homes target should be increased to reflect the 2017 Black Country Strategic Housing Market Assessment? Yes/No.

We believe it would be prudent to keep the affordable homes target as originally set. Otherwise this will cause problems for delivery of brownfield sites.

Question 43A - Do you think that the existing Policy HOU3 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No.

Yes, we believe that the site size threshold should be retained at 15 homes. Again this will assist in the delivery of smaller sites by smaller house builders. It will also be more attractive to the registered providers who do wait to manage a few plots on smaller schemes.

Question 44A - Do you think that the affordable housing requirement for eligible sites in Question 43 should be kept at 25% of the total number of homes on site? Yes/No.

Yes, we agree that the figure should be retained at 25%, subject to viability.

Question 45 - Should an increase in affordable housing requirement beset for Green Belt release sites, to reflect the likely financial viability of these sites? Yes/No .

The release of greenfield/Green Belt land also has significant costs associated with it. It is more likely to require new below ground infrastructure to be provided such as drains, power supply etc. Other physical and social infrastructure contributions will also be required such as education, transport etc. Therefore, greenfield sites are not necessarily more able to contribute more significantly to affordable housing than brownfield sites . We believe, therefore, that a flat rate of 25% across the BCCS area should be adopted.

Question 47 - Do you think that Policy HOU5 should be expanded to cover other types of built social infrastructure and set out standards of built social infrastructure to serve major housing developments? Yes/No.

We should first comment that the provision of medical facilities relating to new developments should be funded through the clinical commissioning groups. In most cases this will involve new or extended doctor's surgeries. Doctor's surgeries can be provided through the private sector since the surgeries generate a rental income so that there is a developme nt/investmen t market ready to provide the product. It does not need to be funded from contributions from residential development.

Education provision will need to be carefully researched so that a capacity in schools is identified in order to avoid unnecessary contributions being sought. The funding implications of the













Education Funding Agency also need to be taken into account when assessing education requirements .

In terms of new community facilities, we agree that these need to be carefully assessed in order to ensure that they will in fact be used and also maintained by the local community. In some circumstances it may be better for contributions to be made to upgrade and expand existing facilities rather than create new ones which will simply put a drain on revenue resources.

Question 49A - Is there a need for the existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing? Yes/No .

We believe that the policy does need to be refined in order to ensure that land which is not necessary to be retained can be released quickly and easily without the need for extensive marketing. Also we see no reason for the policy to be applied where land has been allocated in an action area plan or similar alternative plan for alternative use.

Question 50 - Do you think that the Core Strategy should continue to set a target for the total employment land stock in Policy EMP1? Yes/No.

We believe that this should be included and that a net target should be set in order to allow for losses to alternative uses.

Question 55 - Do you agree with the proposed proposal to obtain Policy EMP5? Yes/No.

Generally we do not favour contributions which seek to restrict jobs to existing residents. This can cause problems for companies who have their own training and apprenticeship programmes. Whilst it is clearly desirable for Local Author ities to work alongside employers in trying to get local residents into work opportunities, this should be on a voluntary basis and there should not be a requirement to impose what is, in effect, a restrictive trade practice.

Question 94 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to environmental infrastructure and place making? Yes/No.

We appreciate that it will be necessary to review environmental infrastructure in the light of changing circumstances and updated guidance and standards. We will comment further on this issue at the next stage of the plan.

Question 95A - Do you think Garden City principles should be applied at the Black Country? Yes/No .

We would not encourage this as a design approach in the Black Country. Garden City proposals were developed expressly for new settlements . The Black Country has a different history and heritage as do the settlements which are geographically and functionally close to the Black Country. We do not consider that the vernacular of the existing urban area and adjoining settlements is appropriate for Garden City principles.

Question 96 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to nature conversation? Yes/No .

It should be noted that the inclusion of new natural green space and new development will have implications for net developable areas and consequently , the amount of land which will need to




be identified for development. It will also impact upon the viability of schemes and these factors need to be taken into account when assessing overall development requirements.

Question 98 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to design quality? Yes/No.

The introduction of National Space standard does have implications for viability since it introduces a significant additional cost to new house building without any necessary uplift in values. It can, therefore, have a significant impact upon the delivery of schemes.

Question 99C - Do you think that National Space standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country. Yes/No.

In the context of our response to Question 98, we do not agree that National Space standards should be introduced.

Question 99D - Do you think that the standards should be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No .

Given that greenfield sites have their own viability concerns, we would not agree that the standards should vary between brownfield and greenfield sites. In any event we do not support the introduction of National Space standards .

Question 101A - Do you support the proposed changes relating to flood risk, sustainable drainage and urban heat island effects? Yes/No.

Whilst we appreciate the need to have regard to new standards regarding SuDS provision, the implications upon site layout and viability do need to be considered. A flexible approac h will be required from the Local Authorities when assessing individual schemes. In particular, a joined up approach is needed by strategy undertakers to ensure that SuDS areas will be adopted if they are part of wider open space areas.

Question 103A - Do you think that Policy ENV7 should be changed to allow increased energy efficiency standards to be accepted in lieu of renewable energy provision for non­ domestic buildings? Yes/No.

We consider that the benefits of higher energy efficiency , as opposed to renewable energy should be considered in the planning balance, particularly when this has an implication for viability. Although this may not be capable of being a policy requirement there is no reason why it should not be capable of being taken into account. The residential sector has spent a considerable amount of money invest ing in improved materials which improve the energy efficiency of buildings and these factors need to be taken into account of both domestic and non­ domestic schemes .

Dear Sirs,
This is a covering letter for CPRE's response to the Black Country Core Strategy. This consists of two documents:
* A response to the various questions ('Options response).
* A detailed report on demographic issues ('Housing and Employment Options').
CPRE is a campaigning charity, which is a coalition of a national charity and branches in most counties, which are mostly independent charities. CPRE West Midlands is a regional group of the national charity, whose scope is the West Midlands region.
Our regional chairmanship is technically vacant. As an interim measure, we have agreed a rotating chairmanship, which I currently hold. You may however like also to note the e-mail address of our regional secretary,
Yours Faithfully,
From the Acting Chairman

Black Country Core Strategy Issues and Options
Response for WM CPRE
Sept 2017

Introduction
1. The West Midlands Regional Group of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) welcomes this opportunity to respond to the consultation on the Black Country Core Strategy Review and commend the professional nature of the work done by Officers so far.
2. As a charity with about 60,000 members, a branch in every county, over 200 district groups and more than 2,000 parish council members we work locally and nationally to protect, shape and enhance a beautiful, thriving countryside for everyone to value and enjoy.
3. This response was developed with the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Branches of CPRE, who are responsible for monitoring planning in the Black Country.
4. In developing our response we commissioned an independent consultant to
review the economic and housing evidence base and his report is attached.
5. We note that he has concluded that more clarity is needed on the benefits or otherwise of releasing employment land for housing to reach a firm conclusion and we suggest this is work the authorities may want to progress as they move towards a preferred option.
6. We do have some concerns about the wording of the on-line questionnaire, particularly the first two questions. In effect they ask respondents where extra housing and employment land should go as if the quantity of land required was fixed. This is not the case and, to avoid bias, respondents should have been asked whether they agreed with the assumptions about housing and employment need. We hope that this will be addressed in future consultations.

Overarching Comments
7. CPRE is in favour of a continuation of the centres and corridors approach and the ongoing stress on urban regeneration. This, however, has been put under threat by the assumed housing and employment land need.
8. As set out in the attached report we believe there is additional capacity which reduces (or removes) the need for Green Belt housing. We also believe that the level of employment land needed is not as high. There may be some need for larger employment sites, but this needs to take account of land available in adjacent authorities, including (as it stands) all of Four Ashes.
9. In principle we support industrial land which is no longer suitable being used for housing, but this is a complex issue which requires further analysis.
10. We believe it will be as important what type of housing is provided and there needs to be adequate affordable and social housing. In particular there is a need to address directly both accommodation for the elderly, whose numbers will dramatically increase, and housing for young people who are struggling to enter the market.
11. We are concerned that a review of Green Belt appears to be being driven solely by numbers, rather than by policy considerations and that allocations in the Green Belt could undermine urban regeneration.
12. We are in favour of strong policies to support centres, but these need to be framed within a changing environment where some centres may need to shrink or diversify to meet future needs.
13. We want to see a dramatic improvement in public transport provision which supports the regeneration of the Black Country.
14. We also believe more consideration should be given to air pollution, both from
transport and other sources. The issue with diesel cars has increased the awareness of this and yet it is appears to be only obliquely addressed in the strategy.
15. Lastly, the strategy needs to continue the strong emphasis on environmental improvement, including developing the Garden City idea, and it needs to acknowledge the value of the countryside within the Black Country's boundaries.

Responses to Individual Questions

Question 1 - Do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies? Yes/No; If not, what do you think should be the scope of the review?

Yes, we agree that a partial review is appropriate. However, we are concerned that some elements are being dealt with out of context with the wider conurbation. In particular, while accepting there may be a need for some larger high quality employment sites across the Combined Authority Area, the basis for this would be wider than the Black Country. Sites such as Peddimore are already going ahead, and we do not believe it would be helpful to over-allocate competing large sites, which would lead to loss of Green Belt and might not be fully occupied.

Question 2 - Do you think that the key evidence set out in Table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If not, what further evidence is required and, if there are any particular issues that should be taken into account in considering development on any particular sites or in any particular areas, please provide details.

Yes, the evidence does provide a basis for the review. However, we do not fully agree with the conclusions drawn on housing and employment land as set out in the attached report. This impacts on our response to later questions. We cannot comment on the Green Belt review as it stands since we do not have details as yet.

Question 3 - Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014-36 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.

No, we do not, as is set out in the attached report. In particular we are concerned in supply terms about the double counting of homes resulting from the market uplift identified in South Staffordshire, the questionable need to provide for under-provision from 2011 to 2014, especially as there was over provision in 2015 and no adverse market signals in those years except in South Staffordshire where there was over-provision. Furthermore the Oxford Economic Analysis which, unlike SNPP, allows population migration based on relative economic success, suggests that, even under the most fortuitous circumstances, that is to say delivery of the SuperSEP, some 6,000 households will migrate out of the conurbation beyond those accounted for in the SNPP figures. Since Oxford's Economic Analysis is being widely relied on, this hypothesis should be further tested.

There is a further problem with the trend analysis because it relies on Unattributed Population Growth which SNPP does not. Further analysis should be done discounting UPC, which results from a variety of causes but may not be indicative of the future to reach a reasonable view on likely housing need.

This is particularly important because, while the majority of household growth comes from aging households, about a third comes from migration. We cannot be sure international migration rates will stay as high in a post-Brexit world while out migration to other parts of the UK may continue unabated.

In terms of the supply we cannot identify reasons to disagree with the position taken except in relation to large windfalls and current industrial land. It is clear that many current industrial sites, if they became vacant, would not be considered suitable for industrial use and become housing sites. In other words there is a large pool of potential windfall sites. The assessment of existing industrial land potentially suitable for housing seems to vary across the four boroughs but is clearly very substantial. In other words, even if the policy to release industrial land to housing is not taken forwards, sites will come forward. That being the case the local authorities should, in our view, be less cautious in their approach to large windfalls and assume a continuation at current rates.

Without including additional industrial land these factors could still add up to some 12,500 more homes available than is being suggested and substantially reduce the supposed deficit.

It also is important to understand these factors, because put together all these elements could mean the proportion of elderly people in the population was higher than currently envisaged making the type of housing created even more important.

Question 4 - Do you consider the employment land requirement identified for the Black Country up to 2036 in the EDNA is appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.

No, we don't. There is a broad range of figures for future employment need. Much of what is needed for smaller sites can be found based on the available employment land, even assuming the current trend continues. In terms of larger sites the EDNA identifies a need for larger sites, with none currently available over 20 hectares, (although the extension to i54 in South Staffordshire would fulfil that requirement.) To meet SuperSEP requirements it suggests there is a need for roughly 300 hectares of land not currently identified, the majority for logistics. It then discounts 170 hectares of land out of 270 has total at the Four Ashes site for no obvious reasons since it is clearly within the area and would serve the Black Country. This might leave 130 hectares but even that has to be seen in the light of the SuperSEP as a wider strategy, which includes large sites such as Peddimore in Birmingham.

In our view there may be a need for a very limited release of sites over 20 hectares across the SuperSEP area and these are unlikely to be found in the conurbation but, the result of releasing very large amounts of Green Belt land in the Black Country and competing with Four Ashes, Peddimore and other existing business parks and logistics sites, (both in the West and East Midlands,) is likely to be both oversupply and underused sites, which would severely harm the countryside and encourage unsustainable patterns of travel.

Question 5 - Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt Review? Yes/No; If not, what additional work do you think is necessary?

No. The approach to the Green Belt review is consistently wrong. It is identified as being solely to identify enough land to meet the housing and employment figures in the SHMA and EDNA. But this does not justify exceptional circumstances.

The NPPG guidance is clear:

However, assessing need is just the first stage in developing a Local Plan. Once need has been assessed, the local planning authority should prepare a strategic housing land availability assessment to establish realistic assumptions about the availability, suitability and the likely economic viability of land to meet the identified need for housing over the plan period, and in so doing take account of any constraints such as green belt, which indicate that development should be restricted and which may restrain the ability of an authority to meet its need.

In other words, even if both the OAN is correct and the housing supply figure is correct, which we question (see answer to Question 2), the Green Belt review should not simply identify land to meet that need, it should seek to establish whether the level of land provision should be lower that the OAN because of the constraint of Green Belt.

In other words, Exceptional Circumstances should only be established if there are strategic justifications for the releases.

Question 6 - Do you agree that the key issues set out in Part 3 are the key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy Review? Yes/No; If not, what other key issues should be taken into account?

We agree with most of them. We do not agree with the assumed figure for housing or that it is 'inevitable' that Green Belt will have to be released. That is a policy choice which needs to be assessed taking account of the high level of proof for 'exceptional' Green Belt release.

The key issues do not address the social impacts of the Core Strategy adequately and in particular fail to place sufficient emphasis on the housing needs of an aging population, which is clearly evident in the demographic evidence.

Question 7 - Do you think that the Core Strategy vision and sustainability principles remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest?

Yes, we supported the principles of the Black Country Core Strategy. In particular we supported the emphasis on urban regeneration and the importance of environmental improvement and enhanced public transport provision to deliver an area people wanted to live in. We also supported the principle of Corridors and Centres. There is a serious risk in our view that the approach to housing and employment land, driven by theoretical numbers rather than strategy, will undermine this approach and rather than lead to improved delivery will export housing and employment into the Green Belt, encouraging unsustainable patterns of development.

Question 9 - Do you agree that Policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the Growth Network? Yes/No; If not, what changes do you think should be made to Policies CSP1 and CSP2 in response to new challenges and opportunities?

Yes, they should be retained and updated. Their aspirations need to guide the approach to current needs. They should not be diluted.

Question 10 - In continuing to promote growth within the Growth Network, is there a need to amend the boundaries of any of the Regeneration Corridors in the existing Core Strategy? Yes/No; If so, which boundaries and why?

We do not have any examples to give.

Question 11a - Do you support Strategic Option 1A? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If no, do you support Option 1B? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why.
If you support the release of further employment land for housing, what should the characteristics of these employment areas be?

Even if we accepted the figures we do not believe the evidence is good enough yet to make a fully informed choice. Further work needs to be done in the development of the Preferred Option to identify consistently how much employment land might be available across the boroughs and how likely it would be to remain in employment use. This work needs to come to conclusions as to the relative benefit of either use, so that a realistic figure of land that would be better in housing use can be produced. One important element in achieving this will be to ensure there are up to date registers of brownfield land for all the authorities.

Prior to that we favour an approach somewhere in the middle, albeit we do not believe the need for Green Belt release is likely to be as high as is being claimed.

Question 11b - Are there any current employment areas that might be considered suitable for redevelopment to housing? Yes/No; Please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form.

We have no sites we can comment on.

Question 12a - Do you support Spatial Option H1? Yes/No; What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. ability to create a defensible new green belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services.

We do not have a categorical view on either option, although it is important that both are considered on their merits and it may be the choice varies from location to location. While some small sites at the edge of the conurbation may have less impact on the aims of Green Belt, they can represent important community assets, they may have wildlife value and they may act as important Green wedges into the city. On the other hand SUEs can be highly intrusive and may not be close to existing transport networks. We would, therefore, suggest both are considered as options, should such land be needed, and that the criteria for sites should have strong ecological and transport elements as well as addressing the purposes of Green Belt.

Question 12b - Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).

We have no sites to offer.

Question 13a - Do you support Spatial Option H2? Yes/No; What should the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) be? e.g. minimum/ maximum size, mix of uses, mix of housing types, accessibility to other areas.

What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs, potential to support existing settlements / services, proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban regeneration.

See answer to Question 12a.

Question 13b - What infrastructure do you think would be needed for different sizes of SUEs?

Clearly it depends on size but access to services would be critical, as well as access to transport. Larger SUEs may be more at risk of poor connectivity so that would need to be addressed both in location and in terms of ensuring the internal design supported sustainable transport.

Question 13c - Are there any potential locations that should be considered for SUEs (please submit through the 'call for sites' form) and what infrastructure would be required to support these?

We have no sites to offer.

Question 13d - Do you think that the Core Strategy should set out detailed guidance for the development of SUEs (e.g. type and tenure of housing, specific infrastructure required), rather than details being determined at a local level in light of local policies? Yes/No; Any further comments?

Yes, if SUEs are developed there should be policy guidance in terms of tenure and infrastructure. In particular there should be identified provision for older households and their needs should be considered in the overall master-planning as well as affordable housing for young people. Furthermore, such master plans should be given force as planning documents by being adopted as Area Action Plans. This is particularly important where a SUE is involves multiple owners.

Question 14 - Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Housing Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

We have none to offer at this stage.

Question 15a - If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the 'export' of housing growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA? Yes/No; What factors should be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities in neighbouring authorities e.g. proximity to the edge of the urban area, proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs?

In most cases exporting homes is likely to exacerbate problems in other Local Authorities. However, where OANs in neighbouring authorities have been increased on the basis of migration trends, and those trends rely on migration from the Black Country, it may be that some of those OAN figures should actually be deemed to reduce need in the Black Country, thus avoiding double-counting.

Question 15b - Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

We have none to offers at this stage.

Question 15c - Do you think there are ways to ensure that exporting housing will meet the needs of people who would otherwise live in the Black Country? (e.g. transport improvements, provision of affordable housing, creation of employment opportunities) Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

It depends how far out the export is.

Question 16 - Do you support Spatial Option E1? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access)

If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).

Assuming land is needed, we do not support any one of these options in particular. The approach should be varied according to the landscape and transport impacts, as well as Green Belt aims. It will be important that any sites which are released are not just justified by numbers but serve a strategic need for the sub-region. This may mean restricting such releases to sites over 20 has.

Question 17 - Do you support Spatial Option E2? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites e.g. quick motorway access, good sustainable transport links?

See Question 16. Rail Access should be important in this case and access to public transport for employees.

If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).

We do not offer any sites.

Question 18 - Do you support Spatial Option E3? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access)

See Question 17.

If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).

See Question 17.

Question 19a - Do you support Spatial Option E4? Yes/No; Any further comments?

See Question 17.

Question 19b - Should any factors be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities? Yes/No; If yes, what should they be? (e.g. quick motorway access, strong transport links with the Black Country, good sustainable transport links with the Black Country)

See Question 17.

If you think there are any potential locations that should be considered, please provide details.

See Question 17.

Question 20 - Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Employment Land Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

See Question 17.

Question 21 - Do you think that changes are required to Policy DEL1 to ensure it covers both development within the existing urban area and any within the Green Belt?

Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

We do not have any suggestions to offer at this stage.

Question 22 - Do you have evidence of a requirement for new social infrastructure to serve existing needs?

Yes/No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.

Not at this stage. But note our concern about the aging population who will have specific needs.

Question 23 - Do you have evidence of social infrastructure that is no longer needed and where the site could be reallocated for alternative uses? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

Not at this stage. But note our concern about the aging population who will have specific needs.

Question 24 - Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current social infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new housing? Yes/No;

If yes, please provide details.

Not at this stage. But note our concern about the aging population who will have specific needs.

Question 25 - Will there be any new social infrastructure requirements necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, please explain the type and scale of any new social infrastructure required.

Not at this stage. But note our concern about the aging population who will have specific needs.

Question 26 - Do you have any evidence of a requirement for new physical infrastructure to serve existing needs? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.

See our later comments on transport infrastructure.

Question 27 - Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current physical infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

The rail network is under considerable pressure with lines such as the Chase Line carrying large increases in passengers. New development outside the conurbation could exacerbate this. There are issues of parking, for example at Stourbridge Junction, where it has reached capacity restricting passenger growth on that line. A balanced approach to the provision of car parking and public transport access is needed to ensure rail growth is maximised.

Question 28 - Do you think physical infrastructure is necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, what type and scale of physical infrastructure is necessary?

Yes, all types.

Question 29 - Do you think there are any other tools or interventions that could be used to ensure enough infrastructure is provided by developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

No comments at this stage.

Question 30 - Do you have any suggestions around how the strategy can be developed in order to maintain the urban regeneration focus of the Black Country while at the same time bringing forward sites in the green belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

Green Belt sites inevitably compete with brown field sites. One of the purposes of Green Belt is to support urban regeneration. We do not believe the need for Green Belt sites is as great as anticipated, but (if they are designated) phasing should be used to control how much land comes forward at once, thus supporting urban regeneration.

Question 31 - Do you think that the right scale and form of funding is available to support the delivery of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If no, what alternative sources of funding or delivery mechanisms should be investigated?

No comment at this stage.

Question 32 - Do you think that the proposed approach to incorporate health and wellbeing issues in the Core Strategy review is appropriate? Yes/No; If no, please provide details

We welcome the use of health impact assessments of the strategy. We would like to see a strategy to increase the health of the population from cradle to grave, which would include encouraging access to open space and the countryside for all members of the community and improving walking and cycling provision and take up.

We are less convinced of the reliance on sustainability appraisals for new sites, particularly large scale Green Belt incursions. SAs are likely to assume some sort of development will go ahead at the site and then seek the best option. SAs are useful in terms of how individual sites are developed but are not designed to answer the question: is releasing the site at all necessary or desirable?

Question 33 - Is there more that the Core Strategy can do to address health and wellbeing issues in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, is a new policy needed to address such issues for example?

There are a whole range of interventions which are needed to improve health and well being. The Garden City approach, with its emphasis on environmental improvement and enhancement, is one element. Providing improvements to sustainable transport modes is another key element. Addressing the quality of existing housing stock is also needed. Providing local facilities, for health, education and leisure is also key and ensuring these are accessible to all.

There is also a need to specifically address the needs of the increasing number of older people. This includes policies to ensure there is adequate supply of housing which is suitable for older people in locations where they have access to facilities. This will also reduce the prevalence of loneliness and other health issues among the elderly.

Question 34a - Do you agree that the health and wellbeing impacts of large development proposals should be considered at the Preferred Spatial Option stage of the Core Strategy review through a Health Impact Assessment approach? Yes/No; Any further comments?

Yes, provided there is a proper assessment of alternative approaches rather than just how to deliver the site.

Question 34b - What design features do you think are key to ensuring new development encourages healthy living, which could be accessed through the HIA process?

In terms of detailed design, environment, permeability and access to public transport are key. There is also a need to ensure enough housing is with design features for those less able.

Question 35 - Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

We support the reduction in the discount figure. We support a windfall allowance, although, as set out above, we believe the level of larger windfalls should assume a continuation of current trends. Consideration of how to achieve more mixed used development in centres and a reduction in vacancy rates should also be considered.

Question 36 - Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 should be changed? Yes/No; If yes, what standards should be applied instead, for example should the minimum net density of 35 dwellings per hectare be increased to maximise brownfield housing delivery?

Table 8 is useful but, given the issue of an aging population, the table should also include a provision for housing which is designed to meet that specific need.

We would support an increase to 40 dph, provided there was flexibility for sites where environmental or local character meant that was not appropriate.

Question 37a - Do you think that the existing Policy HOU2 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why

We are content with 15 homes but the policy needs to require all developers to establish that they have sought to use land in an efficient way, even under 15 homes.

Question 37b - If no, should it be reduced to 11 homes or more? Yes/No; If no what other threshold should be used and why?

While we are content with 15 homes the policy needs to require all developers to establish that they have sought to use land in an efficient way. If that is not deemed practical it may be worth reducing it to 11 homes.

Question 38 - Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards are appropriate for green belt release locations? Yes/No; If no, what standards should be applied in these locations and why?

We do not believe that Green Belt sites should have lower access standards. It is important that the inevitable impacts on sprawl and sustainability are mitigated by the provision of local facilities and by the use of good urban design. In particular, Green Belt developments have typically been poorly designed for public transport accessibility and walking and cycling. However, whatever standards are implemented, local character and environmental considerations must also be considered.

Question 39 - Do you think separate accessibility standards are needed for particular types of housing e.g. housing for the elderly or affordable housing (as occupiers may be less mobile and more dependent on public transport)? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

There is a need to ensure housing for the elderly and the disabled is fully accessible and takes account of the deterioration in mobility that may lead to people being unable to stay in their own home. However, this might be better resolved with a separate policy which sets out the requirement for housing for the elderly, along with the criteria for ensuring that meets their needs.

Question 40 - Do you agree that the 2017 SHMA findings should be used to set general house type targets for the Plan period? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

They can assist but the need is not only to identify how many houses with a particular number of bedrooms but to ensure new housing is provided to meet specific needs, such as the increase in older residents and the need for affordable homes for young people.

Question 41a - Do you support the introduction of a policy approach towards self and custom build housing in the Core Strategy? Yes/No; If yes, would you support:

Yes, a policy is required. This could help in a modest way to ensure small windfall sites come forward for development.

Question 41b - A target for each authority? Yes/No; Any further comments

We do not have a view.

Question 41c - A requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots? Yes/No; Any further comments?

We do not have a view.

Question 41d - Another approach altogether? Yes/No; If yes, please specify.

We do not have a view.

Question 41e - Do you support the use of a variety of local approaches to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) across the Black Country? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

This is an issue in some areas of the Black Country, which can undermine an area if there is not the infrastructure to support HMOs. Not only can it lead to traffic congestion, it can overwhelm local health and education provision. Some HMOs appear to be of poor quality and not necessarily managed in a way which benefits the local community. As we understand it Local Authorities have powers to require planning permission where there is a problem with HMOs. While, it is probably not for the Core Strategy to be prescriptive it could refer to those powers.

Question 42 - Do you agree that the annual affordable homes target should be increased to reflect the 2017 Black Country Strategic Housing Market Assessment? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

Yes, we agree there is a need for sufficient affordable homes.

Question 43a - Do you think that the existing Policy HOU3 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

We are concerned about the way in which thresholds work. If the threshold is 15, it encourages developers to bring forward schemes for 14 houses, so that they do not have to comply with the more onerous requirements above the threshold. Where there is an affordable housing requirement of 35% (and some councils are managing 40%) affordable, and the threshold is 15, the developer of a 15-house site will have to provide 5.25 affordable houses, but the developer of 14-house site will provide zero. Since affordable houses are less profitable, the threshold provides a perverse incentive not to build affordable houses. Given the need a lower threshold might be desirable, (always taking account of local character.) and this would be in line with NPPG but we would like to see consideration of how to ensure affordable homes on smaller sites.

Question 43b - If no, should it be reduced to 11 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, what threshold should be used?

Given the need a lower threshold would be desirable, taking account of local character. This seems to be in line with NPPG. We share the concerns expressed in the Preferred Option that an increase in the provision of starter homes which are not genuinely affordable may impact on other affordable tenures and would welcome work to try and address this issue within the current regulations.

Question 44a - Do you think that the affordable housing requirement for eligible sites in Question 43 should be kept at 25% of the total number of homes on the site?

Yes /No; Any further comments?

Consideration needs to be given to the location of the sites. See answer to Question 45.

Question 44b If no, should the percentage be increased to allow for the provision of affordable home ownership? Yes/No; If yes, what should the percentage be and why?

Consideration needs to be given to the location of the sites. See answer to Question 45.

Question 45 - Should an increased affordable housing requirement be set for green belt release sites, to reflect the likely financial viability of these sites? Yes/No; If yes, what should this be.

Yes, we would support this provided those Green Belt sites were also designed to be in sustainable locations with good access to local facilities as affordable housing is likely to be needed disproportionately by people with mobility issues or without access to a car.

Question 46 - Do you agree with the proposed new gypsy, traveller and travelling showpeople accommodation targets? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

Gypsies and other travelers are as entitled to a home as much as the settled community, but the location of their sites should be subject to the same criteria as for the settled community. The frequency of recent incursions on to public and other open space suggests there is a significant unmet need, which ought to be met. We are not able to comment on the specific figures but agree that sufficient sites need to be supplied to avoid illegal encampments. No Green Belt sites should be released unless exceptional circumstances can be proved.

Question 47 - Do you think that Policy HOU5 should be expanded to cover other types of built social infrastructure and to set out standards for built social infrastructure to serve major housing developments? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

Yes, there is a need to address the availability and funding of all relevant facilities. There is a need to identify in this policy the impact of provision of housing for the elderly so that locational decisions on facilities are taken in the light of where the less able may be living.

Question 48 - Do you agree that the requirement in HOU5, to demonstrate there is adequate alternative provision to meet the needs of the community served by a facility which is to be lost, should be reviewed? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why.

We support the current policy.

Question 49a - Is there still a need for existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

Yes. Since employment land may become vacant that is not allocated and there is a need to examine its potential for release for housing and balance the benefits of alternative uses. In some cases these may not be housing. It may even be the land would be better used for open space or nature conservation. Perhaps the policy should allow for that.

Question 49b - If yes, should this policy be used to assess the release of employment land to alternative uses, other than housing? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why.

See answer to 49a

Question 50 - Do you think that the Core Strategy should continue to set a target for the total employment land stock in Policy EMP1? Yes/No; Please explain why.

The overall provision of employment land may not be as relevant as the changing nature of jobs today means they are less dependent on land allocations. If land goes out of employment use because a factory closes, for example, it may not be as important to replace that land as to provide the kind of sites needed for new jobs.

Do you think that distinguishing between Strategic High Quality Employment Areas and Local Quality Employment Areas is still appropriate? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Yes, provided the Black Country is seeking to improve the quality of existing sites and not simply relying on new allocations.

Question 51 - Do you think that the criteria used to define Strategic High Quality Employment Areas are appropriate and reflect actual market requirements? Yes/No; If not, how do you think the criteria and/or terminology should be amended?

We do not have a view at this stage.

Question 52 - Do you think that the criteria used to define Local Quality Employment Areas are appropriate and reflect actual market requirements? Yes/No; If not, how do you think the criteria and/or terminology should be amended?

We do not have a view at this stage.

Question 53 - Do you think that Strategic High Quality Employment Areas should continue to be protected for manufacturing and logistics uses, with the other uses set out in Policy EMP3 discouraged? Yes/no; If not, what alternative approach do you recommend?

Yes, we support this approach. High Quality land should not be squandered, both because it is needed to high quality jobs and because it can lead to environmental and countryside impacts if it has to be replaced

Question 54 - Do you agree that the current approach in Policy EMP4 is no longer fit for purpose and should be amended to reflect a portfolio based approach? Yes/No; If no, what alternative approaches would you recommend?

We agree that a balanced portfolio is likely to be a better approach.

Question 55 - Do you agree with the proposal to retain Policy EMP5? Yes/No; If no please explain why.

Yes.

Question 56 - Do you agree with the proposal to update Policy EMP6 in line with current priorities? Yes/No; If no, please explain why

Yes.

Question 57 - Do you support the proposal to merge Policy CEN1 and Policy CEN2, given that both policies focus on the overall strategy in the Black Country, including the hierarchy of centres? Yes/No; If you have any comments on Policies CEN1 and CEN2 please provide details.

Yes, provided the emphasis is retained and not diluted.

Question 58 - Do you think there is any evidence to suggest that the hierarchy of centres is not appropriate going forward in the context of the regeneration strategy? Yes/No; If so, please provide details.

No. Depending on where new housing goes there may be a need for additional local provision but the main four centres should remain the backbone of the spatial strategy.

Question 59 - Have all the appropriate centres within the Black Country been identified? Yes/No; If not, please specify additional centres.

Yes.

Question 60 - Is there evidence to suggest that identified centres are no longer performing as a centre or at their identified level in the hierarchy? Yes/No; If yes, do you agree that they should be moved / removed within or out of the hierarchy?

No.

Please explain why.

Question 61 - In addition to para 4.33 of the current Core Strategy should the revised Core Strategy include criteria for the creation of new centres that might be needed as a result of any additional housing identified through the plan? Yes/No; Any further comments

No. Depending on where new housing goes there may be a need for additional local provision but the main four centres should remain the backbone of the spatial strategy.

Question 62 - Do you agree that the Strategic Centres should remain the focus for large scale comparison retail (clothes, white goods etc), office and major commercial leisure development in the Black Country? Yes/No; Any further comments?

Yes, as well as seeking to increase housing provision within and close to those centres.

Question 63 - Do you agree that the targets for comparison retail floorspace and office floorspace should be revisited as part of this review to take into account current and future trends? Yes/No; Any further comments?

We are not able to give a detailed response but in general we consider that the policy should encourage a balance of development in the centres so they are attractive places to visit which serve a variety of needs. This may even mean a reduction in retail and an increase in leisure. It is probably as important to consider the quality of the retail offer and ensure anchor stores remain or are introduced.

A key element in the future of the main centres (and smaller ones) will be masterplanning to ensure there is a balance of provision. The introduction of a variety of uses will help centres to thrive. It is probably not for the Core Strategy to be too prescriptive but it should also not assume the pattern of retail will remain the same.

Question 64 - Is there a need to set targets for convenience retail floorspace in the Core Strategy? Yes/No; Any further comments?

We are not able to give a detailled response. A balanced approach is required and in some cases it may be better to reduce retail floorspace on the edge of centres to encourage a balance of uses. In particular the role of larger supermarkets may change in the future and require less land allowing for more mixed use on those existing sites and the introduction of smaller convenience stores.

Question 65 - Should the Core Strategy set any targets or policy requirements for leisure development in the Strategic Centres? Yes/No; Any further comments?

The strategy should encourage leisure facilities to be located in centres where they are accessible to all. This should include night time facilities as long as there is suitable planning to avoid and manage any anti-social behaviour.

Question 66 - Should the Core Strategy set new housing targets for the Strategic Centres through the review? Yes/No; Any further comments?

The strategy should encourage housing in centres. It should not only consider how much is needed but what kind of housing will best support those centres and, more widely, the overall strategy. For example, encouraging young entrepreneurs or professional workers to move into the centres may be key to developing the future economy more widely. In general we would like to see more use of upper stories over shops for housing.

Question 67 - Do you think there are any other uses and/or developments that should be planned for in the Strategic Centres? Yes/No; Please provide details.

There is a need to encourage the greening of centres, including provision of trees and other green features which have been lost in many. Their links to local green space, (for example Walsall Arboretum,) should also be promoted.

There is also a need to ensure centres are walkable with access to centres by sustainable modes from surrounding areas encouraged.

Question 68 - Do you agree with the proposal to re-examine the detail and appropriateness of the existing conditions for retail growth at Merry Hill through the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; Do you have any further comment to make on this issue?

We support the current conditions.

Question 69 - Should more types of uses be encouraged and more flexibility be allowed to ensure the regeneration and vitality of the Black Country Town Centres? Yes / No; Please explain why.

Some flexibility is desirable provided it leads to a balance of uses and especially improves the quality of the centres.

Question 70 - Do you think there are any specific developments or uses that should be supported in any particular Town Centre? Yes/No; Please provide details.

We have no examples.

Question 71 - Should the Core Strategy set housing targets for the Town Centres? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Yes, the core strategy should seek housing within town centres but these might exceed any targets.

Question 72 - Should more types of uses be encouraged and more flexibility be allowed to ensure the regeneration and vitality of the Black Country District and Local Centres? Yes/No; Please explain why.

This will vary from centre to centre and some flexibility is required. In particular the contraction of the retail area may in some cases create a more viable centre, both by allowing for housing in the centre and other uses which may attract people to the centre, but it must still be able to accommodate sufficient retail needed to perform its function.

Question 73 - Are there are any specific developments or uses that should be supported in any particular District or Local Centre? Yes/No; Please provide details

We have no examples.

Question 74 - In the context of the 'centres first' strategy, should the threshold approach be reviewed to consider the appropriateness, scale and impact of development in and on the edge of Strategic, Town, District and Local Centres? Yes/No; Please explain why.

We support the threshold approach but have no comment on individual levels.

Question 75 - Should thresholds apply to all main town centre uses (Yes) or just retail uses (No)? Please explain why.

There is a case for considering thresholds for some leisure uses where these impact on other centres.

Question 76 - Is the approach set out in Policy CEN6 appropriate in the context of supporting local community needs? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Yes, it remains important to provide local facilities.

Question 77 - Does the wording of the criteria clearly achieve the objectives of the centres strategy? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Yes.

Question 78 - Should the policy clarify that this policy applies both to applications in edge-of-centre and out-of-centre locations, and should this also be referred to in the relevant centres policies? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Yes.

Question 79 - Should the policy set what types of uses this policy applies to and set out any further types of material considerations that could be relevant for the determination of certain proposals, for example, the location or concentration of hot food takeaways, premises selling alcohol or gambling operations? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Yes, this is important as the aim is to provide day to day facilities which support the community.

Question 80 - Should the policy clarify that those schemes of multiple units, where individual units are below the set figure, but the cumulative figure is above, also need to meet the relevant requirements of other centres policies? Yes/No; Please explain why

Yes.

Question 81 - Do you agree that the approach of strong control over out-of-centre development is still appropriate in the context of the strategy to ensure the vitality and viability of the Black Country Centres? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Yes, large out of centre retail is not likely to be sustainable and will not provide access for all parts of the community.

Question 82 - Is 200sqm (gross) an appropriate scale of development above which the impact tests should apply? Yes/No; Please explain why.

We do not have a view on the exact level.

Question 83 - Should Policy CEN7 provide more guidance on accessibility? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why .

Yes, that would be helpful, provided that guidance is to ensure a development is as sustainable as it can be and the guidance is not considered a justification for development in principle.

Question 84 - Do you think that Policy CEN8 is still appropriate for managing car parking in centres and will ensure the network of Black Country Centres are maintained and enhanced over the plan period? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Yes, in general. There is a need to ensure parking serves the whole of centres and to avoid restrictions, for example, of parking to individual supermarkets or leisure facilities which then harms a centre or adds to traffic movements in the centre. We raised concerns when the plan was originally devised that lower parking standards where public transport is poor could encourage developments which were very car dependent in those locations. We remain concerned about this and the review needs to consider the evidence in relations to this and whether parking standards at out of centre locations are tight enough to ensure there is an incentive to encourage use of alternative modes.

Question 85 - Should Policy CEN8, with regards to pricing of car parks, continue to be applied to Strategic Centres to ensure that pricing of parking is not used as a tool of competition? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Yes. And also to ensure car parks serve the whole of the centre and not a single retailer which reduces footfall across the centre and can lead to additional congestion if people park twice. The control of Long Stay car parking, in particular, remains critical to supporting public transport. Short stay car parking should not be so expensive it puts people off visiting a centre.

Question 86 - Do you think that there are other centre uses or centres issues that need to be addressed in the centres policies? Yes/No; Please provide details.

None come to mind.

Question 87 - As shopping, leisure and other commercial trends continue to change, should the revised Core Strategy have a policy to reallocate out-of-centre attractions that are no longer viable for town centre uses for alternative uses such as for employment uses or housing? Yes/No; If no, please explain.

Yes. The Core Strategy needs to consider this as well as anticipating a reduction in store size from major supermarkets and other stores as they refurbish or replenish their estate. In particular where new facilities in a centre reduce the need for out of centre uses alternative uses of those sites may be desirable.

Question 88 - Do you agree that the overall transport strategy supports all of the Core Strategy spatial objectives? Yes/No; Please explain why.

Yes, in general we support the strategic aims. However, we do not believe the ambition is adequate in terms of public transport improvements and support for walking and cycling.

As well as on-road provision for sustainable modes we would support extensions to the network of Green Routes offering links into the countryside (including across into Worcestershire and Staffordshire).

We also believe there is still a case to consider demand management options which will support modal change and also fund public transport improvements. However, without ongoing work on this it is hard to be more prescriptive.

Question 89 - Do you support the proposed changes to the priorities for the development of the transport network? Yes/No; Please explain why.

We generally support the proposals to improve public transport in the sub-region. However, we consider they lack the necessary ambition. In particular we would like to see a rail network developed systematically across the region, including the links centered round Walsall including to Wolverhampton, Sutton Coldfield, Brownhills as well as the through route from Lichfield to Stourbridge. This would require consideration of additional heavy rail lines on the Wednesbury to Brierley Hill section or alternatively Metro extensions along the whole route. We support improvements to the bus network but these need to be integrated with rail. We agree that rail freight should be encouraged but this needs to be at an appropriate level. We are not in favour of the massive Four Ashes Proposal in South Staffordshire.

We are concerned that hard shoulder running is being progressed simply to deal with congestion on motorways with little consideration of the impact of the additional traffic. While this is in many cases preferable to motorway widening we would like to see analysis of the comparative benefits of investing that money in public transport options.

Question 90 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to managing transport impacts of new developments? Yes/No; If no, please explain why

The provision of charging points is welcome. However, this does not address congestion issues so it is important that policies to change behaviour are pursued as well.

Question 91 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to the efficient movement of freight? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.

We support the use of Bescot for a rail freight interchange, taking full account of the impacts on local people. We are not in favour of Four Ashes which we consider is too big. We regret the fact that the proposal is being taken through the NIC process rather than being subject to local scrutiny that would examine how well it fits in with the needs of the Black Country and whether its impact on Green Belt, the environment and local roads is acceptable.

Question 93 - Do you support the proposed changes to Policy TRAN5? Yes/No; Please explain why.
In general terms we support the development of a Key Route Network. The development of new technology is also welcome but should be seen alongside encouraging modal shift.

Question 94 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to environmental infrastructure and place-making? Yes/No; If you think that any other changes should be made to Policies CSP3 or CSP4, please provide details.

We support the emphasis placed on environmental enhancement and place making. However, CSP3 and CSP4 do not sufficiently emphasise the rural character of parts of the Black Country. Even if there is some development in the Green Belt the environmental policies should emphasise the value of this remaining countryside in terms of landscape, amenity, farming, environmental and biodiversity .

Question 95a - Do you think Garden City principles should be applied in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, how should they be applied?

We support the Garden City approach in general provided a balance is properly applied between landscape, biodiversity and other aspect of the environment.
Question 95b - Should the application of Garden City principles be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why.

In general we would like to see the application of similar approaches to density, character and environmental enhancement. However, this needs to be sensitive to local character and landscape which this may influence how specific sites are developed.

Question 96 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to nature conservation? Yes/No; If no, do you think that any other changes should be made to Policy ENV1?

We welcome the inclusion of ancient woodland.

Question 97 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to Historic Character and Local Distinctiveness? Yes/No; If no, please provide details of any other changes that should be made to Policy ENV2.

We support the need to protect historic assets, including those which are not designated. The review should include an assessment of the effectiveness of the current policy in relation to non-designated assets, for example, the integrity of areas of Victorian terracing. This should be used to review these policies and how they can be enhanced.

Question 98 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to Design Quality?

Yes/No; If you think that any other changes should be made to Policy ENV3 please provide details.

We support high quality design but are not able to comment on the details.

Question 99a - Do you think that national standards for housing development on water consumption should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.

We support the need to reduce water consumption but are not able to comment on the details.

Question 99b - Do you think that national access standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.

Yes, there is a need to ensure homes are fully accessible, taking account of local character. This will become more important with an aging population.

Question 99c - Do you think that national space standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.

Yes, there is a need to ensure homes have adequate space standards, taking account of local character. This will become more important with an aging population.

Question 99d - Do you think that the standards should be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No; If yes, please explain how and why.

Not in general, but may depend on local circumstances.

Question 100 - Do you support the removal of the reference made to canal projects? Yes/No; Do you think that any other changes should be made to Policy ENV4?
Please provide details.

No, we do not understand the removal of reference to canal projects. We agree they need to be determined at a local level, but the reference in the core strategy is important because the network is a strategic as well as a local asset. The policy could be up-dated to acknowledge the fine grained nature of such projects and allow flexibility within a broad approach.

The policy should also add that canals act as an important link between town and countryside in the sub-region.

Question 101a - Do you support the proposed changes relating to Flood Risk, Sustainable Drainage and Urban Heat Island effects? Yes/No; Further comments?

Question 101b - Do you think that any other changes should be made to Policy ENV5? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

We are not in a position to comment.

Question 102a - Do you support the proposed changes relating to open space, sport and recreation? Yes/No; If no, please explain

See 102c.

Question 102b - Do you think that Policy ENV6, taken together with national and local policies, provides sufficient protection from development for open space?

Yes/No; If no, please explain

See 102c

Question 102c - Do you think that any other criteria need to be added to Policy ENV6, or any other changes should be made. Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

We support the need for policies to protect and enhance open space across the sub-region. We believe it should be central to the policy for regeneration.

It needs to also be acknowledged that many open space areas on the edge of the conurbation act as links to the surrounding countryside and are often integral with it. Improvements to open space which have countryside benefits (such as the large scale tree planting creating a country park at the Grange in Walsall) should be encouraged as well as promoting planting in gardens and institutional grounds.

It is also important to stress the need to ensure these areas continue to be managed and not allowed to decay.

Question 103a - Do you think that Policy ENV7 should be changed to allow increased energy efficiency standards to be accepted in lieu of renewable energy provision for non-domestic buildings? Yes/No; If not, please explain

We are not in a position to comment.

Question 103b - Do you think that the 10% requirement should be changed?

Yes/No; If yes, please specify what percentage would be more appropriate and to what type of site it should apply.

We are not in a position to comment.

Question 104 - Do you support the proposed changes relating to Air Quality?

Yes/No; If you think that any other changes should be made to Policy ENV8 please provide details.

Improving air quality is critical to the health and well-being of the sub-region. We have no comments on the detail.

Question 105 - Do you think that Policy WM1 identifies all of the key waste issues that need to be addressed in the Core Strategy, in accordance with national policy?

Yes/No; If not, please specify what changes should be made to the Policy.

If you have any evidence that can be referred to in the Waste Study, please provide details.

We support the approach of aiming to reduce waste and deal with waste within the subregion as close to where it arises as is practical. New or extended waste sites should be assessed on their impact on the landscape and countryside.

Question 106a - Do you support the approach set out in Policy WM2? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
See 105

Question 106b - Are there any strategic waste management sites that no longer need to be protected? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details

Question 106c - Are there any new sites that do need to be protected? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

See 105

Question 107 - Do you think that there are any strategic waste management proposals that should either be removed from or added to the list in Policy WM3?

Yes/No; If so, please provide details.

See 105

Question 108 - Do you agree that Policy WM4 provides an appropriate level of control over the location and design of new waste management facilities? Yes/No;

If no, what changes do you think should be made to the Policy?

See 105

Question 109 - Do you agree that Policy WM5 provides an appropriate level of control over resource management for new developments? Yes/No; If no, what changes do you think should be made to the Policy?

We support the approach of aiming to reduce waste and deal with waste within the subregion as close to where it arises as is practical. New or extended waste sites should be assessed on their impact on the landscape and countryside.

Question 110 - Do you think that Policy MIN1 identifies all of the key minerals issues that need to be addressed in the Core Strategy, in accordance with national policy? Yes/no; If no, what changes should be made to the policy?

We do not have a comment at this stage.

Question 111 - Do you agree with the proposed change to 'prior extraction' requirements, to maintain a size threshold in urban areas and increase the threshold for green belt sites to 3 ha? Yes/No; If no, what evidence do you have to justify an alternative approach?

We have concerns about raising the threshold in Green Belt. Where development occurs in Green Belt it needs to take account of minerals. The policy does not imply mineral extraction will occur only be considered. The policy could be strengthened to take greater account of both the impact on the landscape/environment of extraction and any benefits to be gained.

Question 112a - Are there any key mineral related infrastructure sites that no longer need to be protected? Yes/No; Please provide details

We are not able to comment.

Question 112b - Are there any other sites that do need to be protected? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

We are not able to comment.

Question 114 - Do you have evidence of workable, viable deposits of brick clays outside the areas of search, which could justify defining new areas of search?

Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

We are not able to comment.

Question 115a - Do you have evidence of any realistic possibility of fracking in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

It seems unlikely that fracking sites would be realistic in the Black Country. Should they exist they would inevitably be in areas of countryside and policies to address them should take account of the impact on landscape and biodiversity as well as the safety and suitability of the access to the site (as defined in NPPF), especially given the reliance on OGVs (the heaviest form of HGVs) to carry equipment and waste water to and from the site. Any policy would need to clearly apply to testing and monitoring as well as production.

Question 115b - Do you think there are particular issues for the Black Country that would justify approaches different from those in national policy?

Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

See 115a

Question 116 - Do you think that Policy MIN5 identifies all of the key issues that need to be addressed in relation to new mineral developments in the Core Strategy, in accordance with national policy? Yes/No; If not, what changes should be made to the policy?

We do not have a comment.

Question 117 - Do you agree with the proposed approach to updating and amending Appendix 2 and Tables 2 and 3 of the existing Core Strategy? Yes/No; If not, what alternative approach would you suggest

We do not have a comment.

1.1 RPS Planning & Development (RPS) is instructed by Barratt Developments Plc (Barratt) to formally respond to the Black Country Core Strategy (BCCS) Review "Issues and Options Report" (July 2017) (IOR).

1.2 Barratt supports the decision of the four authorities to commence a review of the BCCS. As acknowledged in the IOR, the BCCS is now six years old and there is an urgent need for review to provide an up-to-date strategic development plan to identify and deliver growth requirements across the Black Country in the period to 2036. Barratt intend to take an active role in the BCCS Review process.

1.3 The representations are made in the context of Barratt's interest in land at Stencils Farm, Walsall. This land is promoted as a sustainable and deliverable site for residential development through the "Call for Sites" process, which has ran concurrently with the IOR consultation. Barratt's Call for Sites response has been submitted separately and comprises a covering letter, completed Questionnaire and a suite of supporting technical reports which includes a "Development Framework Plan" providing an indication of the site's development capacity; c.570 dwellings set within 18ha of green infrastructure.

1.4 Following the Council's consideration of these representations, Barratt would welcome the opportunity to meet with Officers of Walsall Council to present and discuss the emerging proposals for the land at Stencils Farm.

Statement Structure
1.5 This Statement is structured to provide a specific response to relevant Questions posed within the Council's IOR. Sections 2 to 15 respond to Questions 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11a, 12a, 12b, 13a, 13c, 13d and 15a.

Contact Details
1.6 Should any further information be required please contact:
Matthew Fox
Associate Director
T: 0121 213 5549
E: matt.fox@rpsgroup.com
 
2 QUESTION 1 - PARTIAL REVIEW
Q1 - Do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies?

2.1 Barratt supports the decision of the four authorities to commence a review of the BCCS. The BCCS is now six years old, pre-dating both the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), and sought to deliver growth targets based upon historic and outdated evidence, in particular the revoked West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (WMRSS) Phase Two Revision Panel Report. As acknowledged in the IOR, it is necessary to review the BCCS to provide an up-to-date strategic development plan to identify and deliver growth requirements across the Black Country in the period to 2036. Barratt intend to take an active role in the BCCS Review process.

2.2 Para. 1.6 of the IOR states that the BCCS "...will generally remain fit for purpose" and that it is "...proposed to carry out a partial review of the existing Core Strategy ... rather than carry out a wholescale review". Para. 3.61 states that a "selective" review is needed.

2.3 We recognise that many of the detailed "development management" type policies may be appropriate to carry forward as part of the BCCS Review. However, everything else in the adopted BCCS will need to be reviewed, particularly as strategic matters need to be revisited, namely; housing and employment need/requirements, spatial distribution strategy and land supply, with the latter inevitably requiring Green Belt releases based upon the scale of housing and employment need (IOR para. 3.17). The scale of the housing need is such that Green Belt releases will need to be delivered through strategic allocations within the BCCS Review rather than deferred to lower order development plan documents.

2.4 We highlight that the Inspectors appointed to review the BCCS were supportive of the "commitment to a full review" of the BCCS, rather than a partial review (emphasis added) (para. 236 of their Report, October 2010).

2.5 The scale of housing and employment growth identified in the IOR over the proposed plan period is significantly greater than that planned for in the BCCS and represents a step change on past rates of completion. The IOR acknowledges that the urban areas will not be capable of accommodating all of this growth. The spatial strategy in the BCCS review will therefore have to be fundamentally different to that within the adopted BCCS, so we consider it misleading to state that the existing spatial strategy will be "stretched". The growth requirements amount to an exceptional circumstance to justify the release of Green Belt land so this will have to form part of the new spatial strategy. Such releases were not necessary in the adopted BCCS, so it is important that the review acknowledges that the spatial strategy will be fundamentally different, rather than simply "stretched".

2.6 One could infer from the references to retaining and stretching the spatial strategy (para. 1.6), and "urban regeneration" (para. 1.19) remaining the focus, that the authorities have already agreed upon the spatial strategy. However, the spatial strategy forms part of the review and Questions 10 and 11 of the IOR seek views on strategic distribution options. It is therefore critical that the authorities do not commence the review process with a closed mind and predetermined spatial strategy. Rather, we urge the authorities to consider and assess all potential spatial options before settling upon a preferred option.

2.7 In summary, we consider references to a "partial" and "selective" review, and "stretching" the existing spatial strategy, to be wholly misleading. It should be acknowledged that an extensive review is required which will have to revisit the fundamental and strategic objectives/policies of the adopted BCCS.

2.8 The IOR does not include a question on the proposed plan period but we wish to record support for the 2014-36 timeframe (para. 1.17). 2014 aligns with the base date of the most up-to-date Household Projections and the end date provides a 15 year period from the envisaged date of adoption of the BCCS Review (2021).

2.9 We recognise that the preparation and examination of a joint development plan takes a considerable amount of work and agreement but we would urge the authorities to advance the review process as swiftly as possible. The authorities have acknowledged that the need for a review is urgent (para. 1.4 of the IOR) although adoption is not anticipated until Autumn 2021, with a five year review process when considering that it commenced in 2016. This would mean that the BCCS review will not be adopted until a decade after the BCCS, and will result in delays to the delivery of strategic allocations.

2.10 It is important that the identified development needs of the Black Country and wider Housing Market Area (HMA) are met as quickly as possible so we urge the authorities to progress the review as swiftly as possible, and to ensure that strategic allocations are delivered through the BCCS review rather than lower order development plan documents.

3 QUESTION 2 - EVIDENCE BASE

Q2 - Do you think that the key evidence set out in Table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy review?

3.1 Paragraph 159 of the NPPF advises that plan makers should have a clear understanding of housing needs in their area through the preparation of a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). It requires a SHMA to identify the scale, mix and tenures of housing that the population is likely to need over the plan period. The Black Country and South Staffordshire SHMA (March 2017) has been prepared to address this national policy requirement, and provides a critical piece of evidence for the BCCS review.

3.2 RPS has considerable experience when considering objectively assessed housing need (OAN) having participated in numerous local plan examinations on this matter. We provide detailed comments on the SHMA in response to Question 3 but wish to highlight here that it is critical that the SHMA is refreshed at appropriate points during the review process (potentially to 2021) to ensure it remains valid. In particular, we wish to highlight that:
* New 2016-based Household Projections are programmed for release in summer 2018, and further releases are likely if the review programme extends to 2020/21; and
* The DCLG has pledged to revise the way in which housing need is calculated, as noted in the Housing White Paper (February 2017). Its standard methodology for calculating OAN is expected to be published for consultation during September 2017 and it is likely that the review will need to reflect this.

3.3 The 2017 SHMA must not therefore be viewed as a settled document but, rather, will need to be refreshed at appropriate points to reflect new and up-to-date policy, guidance and evidence.

3.4 As stated in our response to Question 5, we support the need for a Green Belt Review to be commissioned and completed during 2018. The scale of housing need and existing supply position provides an exceptional circumstance to justify Green Belt land release.

4 QUESTION 3 - HOUSING NEED AND SUPPLY

Q3 - Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014-36 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance?
Housing Need

4.1 The IOR states that the Objectively Assessed Need for Housing (OAN) for the Black Country Housing Market Assessment (HMA) is 78,190 dwellings across the period 2014-2036. To inform this calculation, the authorities have undertaken an updated Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) (March 2017). In addition to the four Black Country authorities, the SHMA also covers the future housing need for South Staffordshire.

4.2 RPS has reviewed the SHMA in detail and questions whether a fair or proportionate approach has been adopted in deriving this figure. We consider that further adjustments are necessary in order to present a sound OAN that is capable of withstanding scrutiny through the Examination.

4.3 It is also recognised that the Government is intent on reforming the current approach for calculating housing need and, as a consequence, a consultation methodology is likely to be published in September 2017. These representations are made without the benefit of viewing the consultation methodology although they do reflect on what may be included.

4.4 In summary, RPS considers that the OAN for the Black Country is insufficient and needs to be increased. RPS has taken into account more robust assumptions than relied upon in the 2017 SHMA, arriving at an OAN of 85,930, or 3,906dpa which is considered a more appropriate figure. This is 9.9% higher than the Councils' calculation and should be accounted for to ensure that the Councils are planning for the correct level of growth.

4.5 In addition to the Councils' own OAN, RPS considers that more needs to be done in order to establish the housing requirement for the plan period. Whilst the OAN informs what is necessary to meet the forecast housing need, the requirement can be higher to take account of policy factors such as economic growth aspirations and unmet need from across the wider HMA. A testing provision of an additional 3,000 dwellings is proposed within the IOR, as a contribution towards the unmet needs Birmingham.

4.6 The evidence supporting RPS' approach to OAN including a wider critique of the Councils approach is detailed under the various headings below.
Demographic Starting Point

4.7 Although the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) recognises that there is no single approach to calculating OAN, it is recognised that the starting point should be the projections published by ONS which, presently, are updated biennially. The latest forecast published comprise the 2014-based Sub-national Population Projections (2014 SNPP) and the 2014-based Sub-national Household Projections (2014 SNHP). These projections will remain up-to-date until summer 2018, when ONS will publish the 2016-based projections.

4.8 The 2017 SHMA has utilised the 2014-based projections to establish the demographic starting point, which is the correct approach to take. Framed against the proposed plan period 2014-2036, the 2014 SNPP indicate that there will be a growth of 73,572 dwellings across the HMA. These are the unadjusted figures which the Councils rely upon by the 2017 SHMA.

4.9 In order to convert these from households into dwellings, it is necessary to apply a conversion factor, which accounts for second homes and vacant homes that exist in the dwelling stock. This information is not clearly presented in the 2017 SHMA. However, RPS has calculated the conversion factor taken from the latest data available . As illustrated in Table 4.1, applying this factor presents a total dwelling growth of 80,066 dwellings for the five authorities.

Table 4.1: SNHP 2014 Baseline Growth Projections
Growth 2014-2036 Vacancy Rate Second Home Rate Conversion Factor Dwellings
Dudley 11,727 2.5% 0.2% 2.7% 12,044
Sandwell 29,088 2.5% 0.0% 2.5% 29,815
Walsall 17,544 2.2% 0.2% 2.4% 17,962
Wolverhampton 15,213 2.9% 0.3% 3.2% 15,695
South Staffordshire 4,437 2.3% 0.3% 2.6% 4,550
Total 78,009 80,066

4.10 The 2017 SHMA includes a baseline dwelling increase of 80,055 across the five planning authorities. This is only 11 dwellings different from the figures in Table 4.1, so provides a good sense check against the baseline projections.

4.11 Although not currently modelled by RPS, it is recommended that the demographic forecasts are updated to reflect subsequent Mid-Year Population Estimates (MYEs) provided by ONS, which may differ from the baseline projections. In terms of the current data available, the 2015 and 2016 MYEs have been published and should be factored into the assessment of OAN as part of future iterations of the SHMA.
 
Demographic Adjustments

4.12 The PPG recognises that the population and household projections prepared by ONS are trend based, resulting from past changes in local demography. The PPG advises that the household projections may need to be adjusted to reflect factors not captured in past trends. This can be explored through the consideration of the components of the population projections, in relation to longer term trends and an assessment of household formation rates, which may have been constrained by a shortage of housing supply. The 2017 SHMA's approach to both of these issues is set out below.
Household Formation Rates

4.13 The 2017 SHMA takes a cursory view of Household Formation Rates (HFRs), presenting the latest 2014-based projections in relation to how these are expected to change over the plan period. The 2017 SHMA indicates (paragraph 4.33/4.34 refers) that the evidence does not suggest rates have been suppressed by a lack of supply, pointing instead to a lack of viability in the market to build new homes which young adults can access. RPS questions whether this is a robust assumption, and the assertion in the 2017 SHMA (paragraph 4.49) that HFRs in younger age cohorts are performing well. No evidence has been provided to consider past formation rates as part of the assessment, which is not consistent with the aims of the PPG.

4.14 Turning to the previous treatment of HFRs, RPS has considered these against the younger age cohorts in particular, to consider whether there has been any departures from trend. Figure 4.2 considers the formation rates for the 25-34 age cohort across the HMA. This indicates that across the board for this age group, the formation rates have significantly decreased from around the year 2000, and the projections have embedded this reduction into the forecasting years ahead.
Figure 4.2: 2014-based Household Formation Rates for Black Country and South Staffordshire

4.15 RPS considers that adjustments to HFRs for this age cohort are necessary and have been overlooked by the 2017 SHMA. In response to this, we propose that the 2017 SHMA should be amended to uplift the HFRs in the 25-34 age cohort to robustly capture any shortcomings of the household projections.

4.16 This departure from trend is consistent with the research of McDonald and Williams, who noted this in their 2014 report on behalf of the RTPI when they drew on evidence indicating that a major change to formation rates since 2001 has been the trend for young adults living in either the parental home or in shared accommodation, led in part to issues linked to housing shortage and affordability during the economic downturn.

4.17 We consider that there is compelling evidence to uplift the HFRs. Although this has not been modelled by RPS, this adjustment should be made as part of a future SHMA and for the purposes of this assessment, the OAN is presented as a minimum figure as it is expected that the actual OAN will be higher once this factor is accounted for.
Accounting for Past Delivery

4.18 The 2017 SHMA recognises the need for consistency throughout the wider HMA, recognising that the BCCS review sits in the context of the wider Greater Birmingham HMA.

4.19 The 2017 SHMA draws on the Strategic Housing Needs Study (SHNS) which identified the housing need in the wider HMA from 2011 onwards. The 2017 SHMA has taken the view that completions from 2011 up to the start of the Plan period (2014) should be considered against the projections in the SHNS to consider whether there have been any shortfalls in delivery. In total, a gap of 2,689 dwellings is identified (table 4.6 of the 2017 SHMA refers) across this three year period. This is added to the Councils' demographic starting point. This is considered a reasonable action to take, which is presented in Table 4.3:
Table 4.3: Accounting for Shortfalls in Delivery 2011-2014
Demographic Starting Point SHNS Shortfall Total
Dudley 12,044 125 12,169
Sandwell 29,815 2,047 31,862
Walsall 17,962 516 18,478
Wolverhampton 15,695 -85 15,610
South Staffordshire 4,550 86 4,636
Total 80,066 2,689 82,755

Market Signals

4.20 Section 5 of the 2017 SHMA reviews information associated with market signals in the Black Country, taking the view that the housing market in the HMA is relatively stable and other than South Staffordshire, there is no need for further adjustment to the OAN (paragraph 5.69 refers). RPS questions this conclusion and considers that the relationship of affordability pressures in the District warrant the need for further uplifts.

4.21 One approach to consider market signals across the HMA would be to apply the methodology recommended by the Local Plans Expert Group (LPEG) report to Government. The LPEG recommendations propose a methodology for the consideration of market signals, based on two indicators; median quartile housing affordability and lower quartile rental affordability. The LPEG recommendations indicates four brackets of potential market signals uplift ranging from 0% to 25% depending on the severity of affordability issues, which are replicated below:
* House Price Ratio less than 5.3 and Rental Affordability less than 25% = No uplift
* House Price Ratio at 5.3 - 6.9 and/or Rental Affordability between 25% - 29% = 10% uplift
* House Price Ratio at 7.0 - 8.6 and/or Rental Affordability between 30% - 34% = 20% uplift
* House Price Ratio at 8.7+ and/or Rental Affordability is +35%= 25% uplift

4.22 In terms of the median quartile House Price Ratio (HPR), the latest data published for 2016 has been published by ONS. ONS has provided two data sets for median affordability, based on "workplace" and "residence" based earnings. The residence based dataset is considered a more appropriate dataset to use, which aligns with the historical projections provided by DCLG. In terms of rental prices, this can be calculated using lower quartile wages taken from ONS data, aligned with monthly rental data from the Valuation Office Agency (VOA), which provides a Rental Affordability Ratio (RAR). This information for the Black Country Authorities is captured below:

Table 4.4: Market Signals Uplifts in Black Country and South Staffordshire
HPR RAR Uplift
South Staffordshire 7.67 31% 20%
Dudley 5.35 24% 10%
Sandwell 7.56 26% 10%
Walsall 5.39 25% 10%
Wolverhampton 5.31 24% 10%

4.23 Using the LPEG methodology, this suggests that 10% increases to the demographic baseline are necessary (and an uplift of 20% should be attributed to South Staffordshire where the market signal pressures are more acute). The figures suggest that Sandwell could also be qualified as a 20% market signals authority, though a conservative approach has been adopted at this stage of assessment.

4.24 Relating this data to the LPEG methodology, it is clear that market signals cannot simply be discounted for the Black Country and there is a need to ensure that there are appropriate increases to the OAN to reflect the balance between the supply and demand for housing. It is therefore proposed to apply the LPEG methodology to capture affordability related market signals in the Black Country area.

Table 4.5: Market Signals Uplift
Demographic OAN + Shortfall Uplift Market Signals Adjusted OAN
Dudley 12,169 10% 13,385
Sandwell 31,862 10% 35,048
Walsall 18,478 10% 20,325
Wolverhampton 15,610 10% 17,171
South Staffordshire 4,636 20% 5,563
Total 82,755 91,494

Accounting for Employment Growth

4.25 The SHMA has only taken a cursory review of employment data, relying on a single post-brexit forecast as part of the assessment to whether the future population balances the forecast growth in jobs. Additionally, we consider that the SHMA needs to give greater consideration to what can realistically be expected in terms of future economic activity rates, as this will impact on the translation of workplace job forecasts when considering the future availability of working age population. RPS would expect that this matter is more fully developed as part of a subsequent update.

Summary of OAN for Black Country and South Staffordshire

4.26 Taking into account the above steps, RPS' initial review of the OAN in the Black Country is presented in Table 4.6:
 
Table 4.6: Summary of Necessary Steps to Identify OAN for Black Country and South Staffordshire
Household Change 2014-2036 Dwelling Change 2014-2036 Unmet Need from SHNS Household Formation Rate Adjustment Market Signals Uplift
Dudley 11,727 12,044 12,169 TBC 13,385
Sandwell 29,088 29,815 31,862 TBC 35,048
Walsall 17,544 17,962 18,478 TBC 20,325
Wolverhampton 15,213 15,695 15,610 TBC 17,171
South Staffordshire 4,437 4,550 4,636 TBC 5,563
Total 78,009 80,066 82,755 TBC 91,494

4.27 Not accounting for growth in South Staffordshire, the above table indicates that the minimum OAN for the Black Country is 85,930 dwellings. This figure is 7,740 dwellings higher than the Council's proposed figure of 78,190, and has yet to account for the necessary uplifts to account for HFR suppression.

4.28 The RPS figure of "policy off" OAN is significantly higher than that presented in the 2017 SHMA. The adjustments made to reach the figure of 85,930 are not unreasonable and grounded in a robust set of assumptions. RPS therefore recommends that Black Country authorities consider the implications of these findings from an early stage, to ensure that the strategy for identifying sites is clear from the outset and delivers the level of growth that is required.

Housing Requirement

"Policy on" Employment Growth

4.29 The NPPF requires that authorities plan to meet their OAN in full, accounting for both market and affordable housing. In addition, the NPPF requires authorities to work together to work collaboratively to deliver sustainable economic growth, delivered through Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).

4.30 Beyond the OAN, the Black Country authorities should give consideration to how the BCCS Review can be used to support economic growth and the aims of the Black Country LEP (BCLEP) and West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) Strategic Economic Plan (SEP).

4.31 As part of Appendix B to the 2017 SHMA, a "Policy On" approach has been tested which seeks to translate the aspirations of the LEP to increase the number of jobs in the WMCA by 600,000 by 2030. The 2017 SHMA has translated this into the Black Country through the consideration of 80,000 jobs across the plan period.

4.32 RPS highlights that the Draft Black Country Strategic Economic Plan (SEP), which was published in May 2017, identifies a job growth of 103,000 additional jobs in the Black Country up to 2030. In terms of testing a "Policy On" scenario, future iterations of the SHMA should consider the implications of this more recently published figure which is specific to the Black Country.
Unmet Need from Outside the HMA

4.33 The Duty to Cooperate (DtC) places a legal mandate on local authorities to work together to address strategic cross-boundary issues through the local plan process. There is a clear and significant unmet need arising from the Birmingham Development Plan, which against a target of 89,000 dwellings, has a shortfall of 38,000 dwellings.

4.34 The GBSLEP has coordinated a number of Joint Strategic Housing Needs Studies (JSHNS) to consider where shortfalls arising from Birmingham could be met, taking into account the functional relationship to the City and the ability to accommodate further housing need. Presently three studies have been prepared, the latest dated August 2015 and a further "Stage 4" study has been commissioned (entitled "Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA Strategic Growth/Locations Study") which is expected to be published during autumn 2017.

4.35 As a response to the shortfalls arising from Birmingham, the IOR indicates that it will test whether 3,000 dwellings can be accommodated within the Black Country up to 2031 (following the Birmingham Local Plan timeframes) to contribute towards the shortfall in the wider HMA. RPS welcomes the authorities proactive stance towards accommodating cross-boundary needs particularly given that the Black Country shares clear functional relationships with Birmingham in terms of migration and commuting. It is, however, unclear how the 3,000 contribution has been arrived at and we request that the rationale behind this level of provision be explained.

Housing Supply

4.36 The Housing Supply Background Report (HSBP) (July 2017) summarises potential sources of housing supply across the Black Country. Completions since 2014 amount to 5,678 dwellings (2,839 per annum). Potential supply for the period 2016-36 from commitments and windfall sites included within the adopted/emerging development plan documents and four SHLAAs amounts to 45,416 dwellings. Finally, potential additional supply from both small and large windfall sites and from increased densities amounts to 5,426 dwellings. The total potential supply is therefore stated as 56,520 dwellings.

4.37 It is apparent that windfalls make up a significant portion of the identified supply; it is not possible to confirm the figure using the HSBP although the IOR states that the figure is 8,335 (Figure 6) equating to 15% of the identified supply. Relying on such a large windfall allowance attracts significant risks in relation to housing delivery because it relies upon a considerable number of unidentified sites coming forward, despite the fact that the SHLAAs will have already investigated the potential for large windfall sites. It is considered that the SHLAAs will have to be refreshed as part of the BCCS Review to provide a more definitive position on potential housing supply within the urban areas. Updates to the HSBP should also provide a clear breakdown of the supply categories for each authority for transparency; this will be critical in assessing the deliverable/developable housing supply.

4.38 Even when allowing for such a huge windfall allowance, the overall supply position is stark in the context of the emerging housing need; there is a shortfall of almost 22,000 dwellings against the 2017 SHMA OAN, which means that 28% of the Black Country's housing need to 2036 is currently unaccounted for. This shortfall would be even more pronounced against the OAN figure presented by RPS; 29,410 dwellings (34% of the need). Furthermore, this shortfall disregards the 3,000 dwellings which the authorities have committed to test as a contribution to Birmingham's unmet needs.

4.39 To put these shortfall figures into context, they equate to a need for 629 - 840ha of net developable housing land over and above all of the currently identified supply (assuming a net density of 35 dwellings per hectare as applied in the HSBP). Obviously, the gross land requirement would be even greater. It is therefore clear that significant Green Belt releases will be required.

Employment Land Release

4.40 Para. 3.16 of the IOR alludes to the potential release of additional surplus employment land for housing during the final decade of the proposed plan period (2026-36). A "maximum" figure of 10,400 dwellings is stated from this potential source, and whilst this has not been included within Figure 6 of the IOR as a potential source of supply, we urge caution in making assumptions around such additional employment land releases for the following reasons:
* The figure of 10,400 is crudely calculated on the basis of projecting forward the 300ha of employment land planned to be released between 2016 and 2026 and then applying a residential density of 35dph. This is a simplistic method of calculation which is not founded upon a robust evidence base on the need for employment land and the potential quantum of surplus employment land which is potentially suitable for residential development;
* The Economic Development Needs Assessment (May 2017) (EDNA) recommends that the review plans for the provision of up to 800ha of additional employment land to meet needs, with a "gap" of upto 300ha (IOR para. 3.27). This is obviously a huge requirement and appears to be in direct conflict with the suggestion that up to 600ha of existing surplus employment land will be released over the plan period; and
* The potential supply figures in Figure 6 of the IOR already provide a considerable windfall allowance which will inevitably include redevelopment of surplus employment sites, so seeking to add in a further employment land supply runs the risk of double-counting.

4.41 In summary, any potential for further release of surplus employment land beyond 2026 must be quantified based upon a robust evidence base which has regard to the need for employment land over the plan period. Such evidence must be aligned to the SHLAAs to ensure that each provides a thorough assessment of the supply from potentially surplus employment sites identified through the EDNA. The EDNA suggests that there will be a significant need for additional employment land to be allocated which flies in the face of the suggestion at para 3.16 of the IOR that further employment land could help to "close the gap" in the housing supply.
Conclusions on Overall Housing Supply

4.42 To conclude, the authorities are facing a considerable challenge in meeting their own housing needs, let alone any contribution towards the unmet needs of Birmingham. The authorities have identified potential supply within the urban areas which demonstrates a significant shortfall. The scale of the shortfall is huge - equating to approximately a third of the need - even when allowing for a large unidentified and speculative supply in the form of windfall sites. The authorities must therefore acknowledge that a fundamentally different spatial strategy is required compared to that enshrined in the BCCS.

4.43 With respect to para. 1.39 of the Housing White Paper (February 2017), it is evident that the authorities have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements and, as such, the shortfall must be acknowledged as an "exceptional circumstance" (NPPF para. 83). This justifies the alteration of the Black Country's Green Belt boundaries to allow land to be released (through a Green Belt Review) to accommodate sustainable housing development beyond the urban areas. Such releases and allocations must be delivered through the strategic plan rather than deferred to lower order development plan documents. We explore these issues in greater detail in response to Questions 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13.

4.44 Once the housing supply has been identified, the authorities ought to consider a contingency allowance (circa 20% uplift) to provide sufficient flexibility in responding to changing circumstances and in recognition that the housing requirement is a minimum, rather than maximum, figure.
Position relative to individual authority areas

4.45 The HSBP indicates that only Dudley has a supply which is capable of meeting its own needs (an excess of c.3,400 dwellings). This overprovision could therefore help to address shortfalls across the three other authorities, or Birmingham.

4.46 The most pronounced shortfall is within Sandwell; 13,500 dwellings. This Borough is almost entirely built-up with minimal opportunities to accommodate the shortfall through Green Belt releases. It is therefore likely that its unmet needs will need to be delivered in adjoining authority areas.

4.47 Wolverhampton is projected to have a current shortfall of c.3,300 dwellings. There are areas of Green Belt land around the peripheries of the City which could potentially accommodate this shortfall.

4.48 Finally, Walsall has an OAN of c.18,500 but an identified supply of only c.10,200 dwellings, resulting in a shortfall of c.8,200. This represents the second highest shortfall of the four authorities (if RPS' OAN figure (above) were to be applied this shortfall would increase to 10,000 dwellings). Walsall is unique in the Black Country context insofar as it encompasses an extensive area of Green Belt which lies in-between Walsall, Birmingham, Aldridge and Brownhills. It is understood that this amounts to c.70% of the Green Belt within the Black Country as a whole. Whilst not all of this will be suitable for release and development it should be recognised that Walsall has a significant area of undeveloped Green Belt land which provides an opportunity to accommodate its own shortfall (and potentially others) through selected Green Belt releases to permit sustainable urban extensions within the heart of the West Midlands conurbation, and in close proximity to Birmingham (which has the largest shortfall of all the authorities).

5 QUESTION 5 - GREEN BELT REVIEW

Q5 - Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt Review?

5.1 As explained in our response to Question 3, there can be no question of the need for a Green Belt Review across the Black Country given the identified scale of growth and current shortfalls in land supply within the urban areas (for both housing and employment). The housing shortfall from Birmingham only reinforces this need. Similar Green Belt reviews are/have taken place across the West Midlands including Bromsgrove, Solihull and Lichfield (releases are currently proposed in the latter two).

5.2 The scale of the potential shortfall is a matter of regional significance and the Green Belt Review must be addressed through the BCCS review, in order to formulate an appropriate spatial strategy to accommodate sustainable growth and identify the most appropriate sites for release from the Green Belt. We therefore welcome the recognition in the IOR at para. 3.42 of the need to identify sites on land outside of the urban area and that "nearly all such land is currently Green Belt". However, the IOR does not explicitly acknowledge that "exceptional circumstances" exist. We urge the authorities to accept this position and move forward proactively with a Green Belt Review as swiftly as possible and in a manner which provides a comprehensive and consistent assessment of the potential for sustainable land releases across the Black Country (and beyond), and which allows appropriate releases to be delivered through the BCCS review (as opposed to lower order development plan documents).

5.3 We recognise that the Greater Birmingham Strategic Growth/Locations ("Stage 4") Study includes a strategic Green Belt Review and this will inform the BCCS Green Belt Review. We understand that this will be strategic in scope and will not be subject to consultation, nor formally endorsed by each of the councils within the HMA. As such, we request that the Black Country Green Belt Review be subjected to consultation, prior to its finalisation/adoption and prior to the Preferred Option stage.

5.4 As stated in response to Question 3, Walsall is unique in the Black Country context insofar as it encompasses an extensive area of Green Belt which lies in-between Walsall, Birmingham, Aldridge and Brownhills. It is understood that this amounts to c.70% of the Green Belt within the Black Country as a whole. Whilst not all of this will be suitable for release the Green Belt Review must recognise that Walsall has a significant area of undeveloped Green Belt land which provides an opportunity to accommodate the authority's own shortfall and, potentially, that of others through selected releases to permit sustainable urban extensions within the heart of the West Midlands conurbation, and in close proximity to Birmingham (which has the largest shortfall of all the authorities). Walsall should therefore be a key focus of the Green Belt Review.

5.5 We attach as Appendix 1 an assessment of the strategic Green Belt sites in Walsall which have been promoted through previous rounds of development plan consultation for residential development. This has been completed by FPCR on behalf of Barratt and provides an evidence base which should be taken into account as part of the Green Belt Review.

6 QUESTION 7 - VISION AND SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLES

Q7 - Do you think that the Core Strategy vision and sustainability principles remain appropriate?

6.1 The Vision reflects the three dimensions of sustainable development within the NPPF and is therefore considered to be broadly appropriate. However, we would suggest that the first "major direction of change" - Sustainable Communities - should include reference to the delivery of sustainable urban extensions in the Green Belt, as it is currently focused upon "regeneration" (which we recognise will continue to be important).

6.2 Turning to the Sustainability Principles, these need to be amended to:
* Reflect the need for sustainable Green Belt releases. Number 4 includes a "brownfield first" principle which is inconsistent with national planning policy. It is recognised that national policy requires Councils to re-use previously developed land (PDL) but the BCCS Review should not be prioritising brownfield first. Furthermore, there needs to be recognition that significant Green Belt releases are necessary to meet the growth requirements. The scale of housing need is such that greenfield land will have to be delivered alongside brownfield land;
* Principle 5 proposes a comprehensive approach which remains appropriate but the references to Site Allocation Documents and AAPs documents as the "preferred mechanism" for "areas of large-scale change" needs to be updated to reflect the need for strategic Green Belt releases and allocations to be delivered through the BCCS Review, rather than deferred and delayed to other development plan documents; and
* Update the text at para. 2.4 as growth is unlikely to be concentrated within Strategic Centres and approximately a third of the housing requirement will need to be delivered on greenfield sites within the Green Belt.

7 QUESTION 8 - SPATIAL OBJECTIVES

Q8 - Do you think that the Core Strategy spatial objectives remain appropriate?

7.1 We agree with IOR para. 4.7; the Spatial Objectives provide a "sound basis" for the BCCS Review but some will inevitably need to be amended to reflect the new evidence base. In particular, the housing shortfall amounts to an "exceptional circumstance" to justify the release of land from the Green Belt and, based upon the Councils' own data, approximately a third of the housing requirement may need to be delivered from such releases, so this must be reflected in the Spatial Objectives.

7.2 The IOR (para. 3.18) states that the authorities have committed to "test" the accommodation of 3,000 homes to help address the shortfall from across the wider HMA. Any such provision will need to be reflected in the Spatial Objectives.
 
8 QUESTION 9 - STRATEGIC POLICIES

Q9 - Do you agree that Policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the Growth Network?

8.1 Policies CSP1 and CSP2 will need to be comprehensively rewritten to reflect the significant change in circumstances, principally the major shortfall in housing and employment land in the urban areas and the resultant need to introduce a fundamentally different spatial strategy which provides for a significant portion of new development to be delivered through Green Belt releases.

8.2 As outlined in our response to Question 8, based upon the Councils' own data, approximately a third of the housing requirement may need to be delivered through Green Belt releases, so this will need to be reflected in the strategic policies. Indeed, it is likely that there will need to be a specific strategic policy addressing the release of Green Belt land.
 
9 QUESTION 11A - SPATIAL STRATEGY

Q11a - Do you support Strategic Option 1A or 1B?

9.1 Para. 4.14 of the IOR states that the main variable between Options 1A and 1B is the availability of employment land within the Growth Network. The authorities are proposing to retain the Growth Network as the focus in meeting the "majority" of the development needs (para. 4.11).

9.2 Our response to Question 3 explains that any potential for further release of surplus employment land beyond 2026 must be quantified based upon a robust evidence base which has regard to the need for employment land over the plan period. Such evidence must be aligned to the SHLAAs to ensure that each provides a thorough assessment of the supply from potentially surplus employment sites identified through the EDNA. Significantly, the EDNA suggests that there will be a significant need for additional employment land to be allocated which flies in the face of the suggestion at para 3.16 of the IOR that further employment land could help to "close the gap" in the housing supply. In relation to the figure of 10,400 dwellings being released from additional employment land releases between 2026 and 2036 (Figure 9), please refer to our response to
Question 3 which identifies significant concerns with the assumptions underpinning this figure.

9.3 Having regard to the above, we consider that Option 1A will need to form the basis of "Stage 1" unless a robust evidence base can be produced, which differs from the existing EDNA and SHLAAs, to demonstrate that there is additional surplus employment land within the urban areas which is deliverable/developable for housing.

9.4 Either way, it is inevitable that significant Green Belt land release will be required to meet the housing shortfall, rather than "some" as stated in IOR para. 4.14.

9.5 The IOR asserts that Option 1B "...may allow more housing need to be met within the Black Country" (para. 4.18 and reiterated in the table on page 40). No explanation is provided for this statement and it is unclear why releasing additional employment land will have the effect of increasing housing supply compared to Option 1A. As acknowledged in the IOR, further Green Belt releases would be needed to offset the loss of existing employment land (para. 4.19) but under 1A this could be developed for housing instead. Figure 9 is deceptive in this regard as it does not explain that Green Belt land would need to be released to reprovide employment land.

9.6 Finally, there are deliverability issues associated with 1B with the need to redevelop existing employment land. Such redevelopment attracts significant costs in relation to demolition, site clearance and land remediation, often requiring assistance from public subsidy (and often at the expense of affordable housing delivery). This approach is therefore likely to cause significant delays to the delivery of housing land which will be contrary to the need to "boost significantly" housing land supply (NPPF para. 47).
 
10 QUESTION 12A - SPATIAL OPTION H1

Q12a - Do you support Strategic Option H1? What criteria should be used to select suitable sites?

10.1 Barratt considers that the identification of housing allocations beyond the Growth Network should be informed by the SHLAAs, Sustainability Assessment and the Green Belt Review. These will enable the identification of sites having regard to sustainability/accessibility, deliverability/developability ("suitability", "availability" and "achievability" tests (NPPF and PPG)) and Green Belt criteria (assessment against the five purposes of Green Belt in NPF para. 80).

10.2 The two Spatial Options are presented as mutually exclusive in the IOR which is unclear and considered to be a flawed assumption. Given the scale of the shortfall, it is likely that both small-medium (H1) and strategic Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUE) (H2) will need to be identified in order to meet the housing shortfall and it is necessary to provide a diverse range of housing allocations to ensure that all sectors of the housebuilding market are engaged in delivering housing simultaneously to meet needs as swiftly as possible.

10.3 To put the housing shortfall into context, 22,000 dwellings is the figure stated throughout the IOR purely to meet the Black Country's needs and will equate to 629ha of net developable housing land (over and above all of the currently identified supply) when assuming a net density of 35 dwellings per hectare (as applied in the HSBP). This requirement would obviously increase if the Black Country agrees to meet the unmet needs of the wider HMA, and RPS has presented a higher OAN figure in response to Question 3 which would also increase the land requirement significantly. The shortfall will need to be met primarily through Green Belt release and the scale of requirement means that strategic releases in the form of SUEs will have to be delivered through the BCCS review process, in addition to small-medium Green Belt releases (the scale of which is not defined in the IOR).

10.4 Strategic residential allocations are generally defined in Local Plans as developments of at least 500 dwellings, although SUEs can be smaller in scale. We suggest a minimum size of 250 units and such larger sites should be allocated through the BCCS Review.

10.5 We concur with the statements in para. 4.28 of the IOR which acknowledges that SUEs are better placed to comprehensively deliver, or contribute towards, supporting physical and social infrastructure.

11 QUESTION 12B - POTENTIAL LOCATIONS

Q12b - Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered?

11.1 Barratt has submitted a Call for Sites submission for land at Stencils Farm, Walsall, comprising a covering letter, completed Questionnaire and a suite of supporting technical reports which includes a "Development Framework Plan" providing an indication of the site's development capacity; c.570 dwellings set within 18ha of green infrastructure.

11.2 The land at Stencils Farm provides a highly sustainable option to assist in delivering Walsall's emerging housing need through the BCCS Review. Of the eight strategic residential Green Belt sites in the Borough previously promoted for residential development, Stencils Farm provides a limited contribution to the five national purposes of Green Belt (second to only one other site) (refer to Appendix 1). It lies close to Walsall town centre with good public transport and walking/cycling links to local facilities, and is well contained providing a valuable opportunity to create a robust settlement edge and Green Belt boundary with a soft transition to the countryside. This transition would comprise a strategic area of green infrastructure adjoining the canal, providing a linkage between two "Wildlife Corridors".

11.3 The site is deliverable and we respectfully request that it be considered as an allocation through the BCCS Review.

11.4 The potential scale of development on the land at Stencils Farm means that it would qualify as a Sustainable Urban Extension but it is presented in response to this question given that the scale of SUEs has yet to be determined.

11.5 Barratt intend to fully engage with Walsall Council and the local community over forthcoming months to discuss the site and proposed development in greater detail.
 
12 QUESTION 13A - SPATIAL OPTION H2

Q13a - Do you support Spatial Option H2? What should the characteristics of SUEs be? What criteria should be used to select suitable sites?

12.1 Barratt considers that the identification of housing allocations beyond the Growth Network should be informed by the SHLAAs, Sustainability Assessment and the Green Belt Review. These will enable the identification of sites having regard to sustainability/accessibility, deliverability/developability (suitability, availability and achievability test (NPPF and PPG)) and Green Belt criteria (assessment against the five purposes of Green Belt in NPF para. 80).

12.2 Barratt supports the identification of Strategic Urban Extensions (SUEs) under Spatial Option H2. However, the two Spatial Options are presented as mutually exclusive in the IOR which is unclear and considered to be a flawed assumption. Given the scale of the shortfall both small-medium (H1) and SUE (H2) will need to be identified in order to meet the housing shortfall and it is necessary to provide a diverse range of housing allocations to ensure that all sectors of the housebuilding market are engaged in delivering housing simultaneously to meet needs as swiftly as possible.

12.3 To put the housing shortfall into context, 22,000 dwellings is the figure stated throughout the IOR purely to meet the Black Country's needs and will equate to 629ha of net developable housing land (over and above all of the currently identified supply) when assuming a net density of 35 dwellings per hectare (as applied in the HSBP). This requirement would obviously increase if the Black Country agrees to meet the unmet needs of the wider HMA, and RPS has presented a higher OAN figure in response to Question 3 which would also increase the land requirement significantly. The shortfall will need to be met primarily through Green Belt release and the scale of requirement means that strategic releases in the form of SUEs will have to be delivered through the BCCS review process, in addition to small-medium Green Belt releases (the scale of which is not defined in the IOR).

12.4 Strategic residential allocations are generally defined in Local Plans as developments of at least 500 dwellings, although SUEs can be smaller in scale. We suggest a minimum size of 250 units and such larger sites should be allocated through the BCCS Review.

12.5 We concur with the statements in para. 4.28 of the IOR which acknowledges that SUEs are better placed to comprehensively deliver, or contribute towards, supporting physical and social infrastructure.

13 QUESTION 13C - POTENTIAL LOCATIONS

Q13c - Are there any potential locations that should be considered for SUEs and what infrastructure would be required to support these?

13.1 Barratt has submitted a Call for Sites submission for land at Stencils Farm, Walsall, comprising a covering letter, completed Questionnaire and a suite of supporting technical reports which includes a "Development Framework Plan" providing an indication of the site's development capacity; c.570 dwellings set within 18ha of green infrastructure.

13.2 The land at Stencils Farm provides a highly sustainable option to assist in delivering Walsall's emerging housing need through the BCCS Review. Of the eight strategic residential Green Belt sites in the Borough previously promoted for residential development, Stencils Farm provides a limited contribution to the five national purposes of Green Belt (second to only one other site) (refer to Appendix 1). It lies close to Walsall town centre with good public transport and walking/cycling links to local facilities, and is well contained providing a valuable opportunity to create a robust settlement edge and Green Belt boundary with a soft transition to the countryside. This transition would comprise a strategic area of green infrastructure adjoining the canal, providing a linkage between two "Wildlife Corridors".

13.3 The site's location to the east of Walsall adjoining the Aldridge Road (A454) means that minimal new infrastructure would be required - the site already benefits from a roundabout which can provide a primary point of access from the Aldridge Road, and this road is served by regular bus services linking both Walsall and Aldridge.

13.4 The site is deliverable and we respectfully request that it be considered as an allocation through the BCCS Review.

13.5 Barratt intend to fully engage with Walsall Council and the local community over forthcoming months to discuss the site and proposed development in greater detail.

14 QUESTION 13D - DETAILED SUE GUIDANCE

Q13d - Do you think that the Core Strategy should set out detailed guidance for the development of SUEs, rather than details being determined at a local level in light of local policies?

14.1 It is important that the identified development needs of the Black Country and wider Housing Market Area (HMA) are met as quickly as possible so we urge the authorities to progress the review as swiftly as possible, and to ensure that strategic allocations and SUEs are delivered through the BCCS review, rather than lower order development plan documents. It is essential that the strategic sites/SUEs are allocated through the BCCS review process as this is the strategic development plan and sites will be identified through the Green Belt Review which will cover the whole of the Black Country. Indeed, some of these sites may be cross-boundary allocations i.e. meeting the needs of one authority in another, so it is critical that the strategic development plan provides a clear policy framework for them.

14.2 We draw reference to the South Worcestershire Development Plan and Gloucester, Tewkesbury and Cheltenham Joint Core Strategy, both of which allocate strategic sites.

14.3 Deferring such allocations and/or detailed development guidance will only serve to delay the delivery of the developments which will fail to ensure that development needs are met as they arise.

15 QUESTION 15A - EXPORTING HOUSING NEEDS

Q15a - If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the "export" of housing growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA?

15.1 The NPPF requires that authorities plan to meet their objectively assessed housing need (OAN) (para. 14, 17, 47 and 182). As such, there needs to be a rigorous approach to the identification of potential housing sites with a view to providing all of the Black Country's needs within the Black Country. To date, the SHLAAs have focused upon the urban area to accord with the adopted BCCS spatial strategy but the BCCS Review must now undertake an assessment of capacity within the Green Belt.

15.2 The results of the Greater Birmingham HMA Strategic Growth/Locations Study are yet to be published and the Black Country Green Belt Review will not be completed until mid-2018. However, it is essential that the authorities now undertake a proactive and thorough approach to the assessment of potential Green Belt release because the only potential capacity within adjoining authorities to assist in meeting any shortfalls in the Black Country would be through Green Belt releases in those authorities.

15.3 Walsall is unique in the Black Country context insofar as it encompasses an extensive area of Green Belt which lies in-between Walsall, Birmingham, Aldridge and Brownhills. It is understood that this amounts to c.70% of the Green Belt within the Black Country as a whole. Whilst not all of this will be suitable for release and development the Green Belt Review must recognise that Walsall has a significant area of undeveloped Green Belt land which provides an opportunity to accommodate its own shortfall (and potentially others) through selected Green Belt releases to permit sustainable urban extensions within the heart of the West Midlands conurbation, and in close proximity to Birmingham (which has the largest shortfall of all the authorities).

Re: Proposed mass construction of dwellings and industrial facilities beyond southerly perimeter of A456
Here is a case against this proposal.
General concerns
1. The scale of the proposal must now be questioned as it predates more recent demographics which show post-referendum changes that will inform adjustment to government requirements of certain local authorities.
2. The negative dynamics of urban sprawl are now well appreciated. In consequence regeneration is preferred to new generation because 'grow the edge - kill the middle'
- Excess urban sprawl creates economic disparity (relocation of the more affluent to the periphery reduces the desirability of the centre, has a detrimental effect on attraction of new investment and results in the opposite of the original intention)
- Excess urban sprawl detracts from environmental aesthetics, can create adverse economic metrics and reduce quality of life.
3. Use of green belt, especially heritage sites and productive agricultural land is contrary to the national strategy for sustainability

Specific concerns for the Black Country

4. Not consistent with government, regional and local directives
- the government and Black Country Local Enterprise Partnership has focussed priority on the regeneration of Dudley and Wolverhampton In key ways, notably local light rail development, educational and business expansion in Dudley, development of Wolverhampton City College, regeneration of Walsall Waterfront, deliver additional housing within Sandwell and Dudley,
- ignores the pressing need to regenerate the many vacant and eye-sore brown field sites, especially within the Sandwell and Wolverhampton areas.
5. Lack of infrastructure
- the A456 corridor is already beyond efficient capacity for access to/from central Birmingham and motorway complex (itself under strain)
- the proposal does not take account of growth and transport demands currently incurred by and planned for in locations beyond the western boundaries of the Birmingham and Black Country conurbation
6. Loss of heritage site
- Loss or partial loss of the grounds of Halesowen Abbey and associated medieval water control features of the sloping grounds which comprise a scheduled ancient monument and archaeological area
7. Unnecessary loss of green belt
- this contravenes national and local priorities: diversion of funds in this way may compromise support to the region for national priority developments which would deter commercial support

ISSUES AND OPTIONS RESPONSE

BLACK COUNTRY CORE STRATEGY
r REVIEW


PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GALLAGHER ESTATES








TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED) PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004















Pegasus Group
5 The Priory I Old London Road I Canwell I Sutton Coldfield I B75 SSH
T 0121 308 9570 I F 0121 323 2215 I W www.pegasuspg .co.uk
Birmingham I Bracknell I Bristol I Cambridge I Cirencester I East Midlands I Leeds I Liverpool I London I Manchester
PLANNING I I ENVIRONMENT I ECONOM ICS
©Copyright Pegasus Planning Group Limited 2011. The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of Pegasus Planning Group Limited






Gallagher Estates
Black Country Core Strategy ssues & Options



CONTENTS:

Pegasus
J
Page No:



1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. PURPOSE & SCOPE OF REVIEW 2
3. THE BLACK COUNTRY TODAY - THE EXISTING STRATEGY 4
4. THE STRATEGIC CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITI ES 6
5. REVIEWING THE STRATEGY TO MEET NEW CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES 15
6. DELIVERING GROWTH -INFRASTRUCTURE & VIABILITY 24
7. REVIEW OF EXISTING CORE STRATEGY POLICIES & PROPOSALS 27
8. CONCLUSION 37
(

APPEN DICES:

APPENDIX A: HOUSING EVIDENCE BAS E REVIEW PAPER APPENDIX B: CALL FOR SITES SUBM SSON
APPENDIX C : LAND AT HOME FARM, SANDHILLS : TECHNICAL COMPENDIUM


































SEPTEMBER 2017 I HS I BIR.4327

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 These representations are made on behalf of Gallagher Estates to the Black Country Core Strategy Issues and Options document (June 2017). This representation relates to land interests at Home Farm, Sandhills that lies within Walsal l District the Black Country. The site is able to deliver circa 1,200 homes new homes to meet needs arising withi n the Black Country.

1.2 This representation responds to theIssues and Options proposed, having regard to the national and local policy context. The representations also provide comment in respect of the evidence base that underpins the Black Country Core Strategy Review.

1.3 The representations are framed in the context of the requirements of the Black Country Core Strategy to be legally compliant and sound. The tests of soundness are set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 182. For a Plan to be sound it must be:

Positively Prepared - the plan should be prepared based on the strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainab le development;

Justified - the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence;

Effective - the plan should be deliverable over its plan period and based on effective joint working on cross boundary strategic priorities; and

Consistent with National Policy - the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.

1.5 The representations also have regard to the Government 's recently published White Paper1 which places emphasis on planning for the right number of homes in the right places, in particular making enough land available and assessing housing requirements.







1 DCLG (February 2017) Fixing Our Broken Housing Market

2. PURPOSE & SCOPE OF REVIEW

2.1 The Black Country Authorities are currently at the very early stages of a Local Plan Review to establish an up to date policy framework to guide development in across the Black Country to 2036. The Council's decision to review the current ly adopted Core Strategy is fully supported by Gallagher Estates to ensure:

* The housing requirement is aligned to the most up to date information, including household and economic projections;

* Planning policies and proposals are fully consistent with recent changes in legislation and the National Planning Policy Framework;

* The local plan is up to date, reflecting Government guidance that plans should be regularly reviewed and the evidence base renewed to respond to changing needs within the District.

2.2 It is recognised that the emerging Local Plan, once adopted, will replace the existing Black Country Core Strategy. The new Core Strategy is intended to cover the period 2014-2036 and will establish how much development is required and how development requirements will be distributed across the Black Country. Further comment in respect of the overall growth requirements and spatial distribution of this growth is set out within these representations.

Question 1: Do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies? Yes/ No; If not, what do you think should be the scope of the review?

2.3 In response to Question 1 and whether it should be a partial review or not, whilst the existing strategy identifies the most sustainable locations for growth in the context of delivering development requirements identified by the Regional Strategy (RS), there is now a new and much bigger challenge ahead in meeting the arising needs for homes identified by the latest evidence and there is concern that the existing spatial strategy may not facilitate the delivery of these needs. The Black Country authorities, therefore, need to be mindful of this and not attempt to put "a square peg in a round hole".

2.4 It is our view that urban regeneration can be achieved whilst pursuing development on the urban edge.Indeed, the scale of housing need is so large that both must be encouraged in order to meet current and arising housing needs within the Black Country.

2.5 It is extremely important that in reviewing the Core Strategy it fully ta kes account
of and facilitates the delivery of strategic economic plans, as recognised in paragraph 1.15. All too often these strategies are ignored and, accordingly, development plans could effectively frustrate economic growth from being realised.

2.6 In terms of the Plan period proposed in paragraph 1.17, whilst a 15 year time period from adoption is appropriate, there is concern that the preparation of plans is often delayed (due to reasons beyond the control of the LPAs) and it may be prudent to stretch the period further to prevent such an issue from occurring.

2.7 It is welcomed that theIssues and Options document recognises that it will not be possible to accommodate all future development needs within the urban area and that an examination of the potential for development land outside the existing urban area, which is effectively land within the Green Belt, will take place as part of the Core Strategy review process.

J
3. THE BLACK COUNTRY TODAY - THE EXISTING STRATEGY

3.1 As set out within this section, the delivery of both employment and housing land has not come forward as originally envisaged in part due to the after effects of the recession. Surplus employment land which might have been available for housing has not come forward due to a strengthening economy and local firms being more robust than anticipated.In addition, the range of locations available has not in all cases met with market expectations as to where people want to live.

3.2 In terms of the employment land, it is important that sufficient land is provided for new employment and that there is not an overreliance on land that is currently in use. It is impressive that despite generally poor economic performance local businesses have performed well. Should the economy significantly improve with in the Plan period in line with LEP aspirations (considered later in this response), there is concern that it may become difficult to transfer existing employment locations to housing allocations.It is appropriate, therefore, for the Council to ensure the evidence contained in the Strategic Housing and Employment Land Avai lability Assessment is reviewed and updated regularly. This will enable the land supply to be responsive to arising needs and not rigidly be wedded to delivering commitments that are unlikely to be realised.

3.3 What is further emphasised by the analysis in this section is that urban regeneration cannot be delivered quickly and that there are a number of factors beyond the control of the Black Country authorities that may have implications on the delivery of the strategy . This further emphasises the need for a mix of types of sites (brownfield, brownfield compulsory purchase, greenfield and Green Belt) of different forms of development (high density, mid and low density family homes) in a variety of locations, which will maximise the opportunities to deliver a successful Local Plan .

3.4 Finally, in respect of the proposal to maintain 300 hecta res of employment land that will become vacant by way of genera l churn over the Plan period. Whilst the principle is considered acceptable, there should be appropriate evidence to support the assumption.

3.5 Our experience is that there are employment sites that clients are looking to secure a residential allocation on that have not been identified thus far. In light of these changing circumstances, the Black Country authorities should ensure that the policy approach is flexible to allow sites in appropriate locations to be brought forward for housing throughout the Plan period and likewise, sites that have been

( J
allocated for housing but have not come forward should be removed from the
supply.

Black Country Core Strategy I ssues & Options Pegasus

4. THE STRATEGIC CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES

4.1 It is welcomed that the Black Country authorities are updating their evidence base. Indeed, the adopted Core Strategy took the development requirements from the adopted Regional Strategy (RS), which has since been revoked and is unquestionably out of date. Since the RS was published there has been a number
of population and household projections published showing increasing dwelling requirements in the Black Country, which were largely ignored and, therefore, it should come as no surprise that there is a significant increase in forming households.

4.2 In terms of the list of evidence either prepared or due to be completed, it appears to be sufficiently comprehensive.

4.3 A separate review of the housing evidence based, including the Strategic Housing Market Assessment for the Black Country and South Staffordshire, is contained at Appendix A. The key conclusions arising from the report as summarised as follows:

* The OAN identified by the SHMA for the Black Country and South Staffordshire is generally supported, however, there are concerns with regard to the methodology and it is suggested a further scenario should be tested to consider long term growth which includes balanced periods of economic prosperity and decline .

* There is concern that the economic growth scenarios do not use the latest economic forecast data and that the methodology translating the job growth into dwelling growth is not sufficiently robust to accurately determine the impact of forecasts based on existing circumstances and also more aspirational job growth targets, such as those arising from the SEP.

* In terms of providing uplilts for market signals, a 25% uplilt for South Staffs is appropriate. t is adv ised that dwelling requirements for the Black Country should not be reduced as a result of this and, accordingly, it should not count towards meeting any unmet needs outside of the HMA as the main function is to provide slack within the housing market and prevent house prices from increasing at an accelerated rate.

4.4 In addition, consideration of the Housing Background Report is also contained in the Housing Evidence Based Review Paper contained at Appendix A. The key findings from reviewing the evidence is set out below :

Black Country Core Strategy I ssues & Opt ions Pegasus


* Clearly a lot of work is yet to be done to determine what the housing land supply position is in the Black Country . Given that much of the existing evidence is based
on the adopted Core Strategy, it is recognised that the SHLAAs across the four authorities will need to be updated, both in terms of revising the methodology and range of sites assessed, to reflect a potentially different approach to locating development.

* It is commendable that the Housing Background Report has examined existing sources of supply in an attempt to provide additional homes from sites within the urban area. There is concern, however, that by changing policies, for example, to increase the minimum density on sites has wider policy implications to take into account than simply increasing the number of homes.

* The Housing Background Report suggests a continued allowance for larger w indfall sites . t is suggested that it is inappropriate to include an allowance for this source as there is no certainty that this land will come forwa rd for development.

* Other sources, such as converting employment sites to residential sites, based on the evidence presented and feedback from the development industry, it is known that there are employment sites functioning well as employment sites but are to be converted to residential and other employment sites that are unoccupied and undesirable that are to be retained as employment sites. Clearly, there is a mismatch between employment land need and employment land supply . It is advised that the qualitative assessment of employment informs future land supply recommendations and allocations are revised where necessary.

4.5 As a result of the dwelling requirements generated by the SHMA and the land supply identified from the Housing Background Report, it is concluded that there in insufficient urban land to provide for the development requirements and that a Green Belt Review should be conducted. It is noted that scoping is underway and that the work is to be completed in mid 2018 .It is hopeful that the development industry will be involved in defining the methodology of the work to ensure that it is conducted in a robust way .

4.6 Another very important piece of work to be taken into consideration will be the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA Strategic Growth Study.It is unclear at this stage what role the Black Country authorities w ill play in meeting the wider needs of Birmingham and, indeed, whether it can now contribute given that meeting the needs of the indigenous population will be a tall order. Further, there

Black Country Core Strategy ssues & Options Pegasus
J
is uncertainty with regard to how far the study will go in identifying locations for
growth and how this evidence w ill be taken forwa rd in emerging Development Plans, particularly given that it is premature to the Green Belt Review for the wider Black Country area. It is our view that there are sites w ithin the Green Belt that will provide sustainable locations for growth and that their remova l will not compromise the purposes of the Green Belt and, accordingly it will remain purposeful and functional.

Question 2: Do you think that the key evidence set out in Table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If not, what further evidence is required and, if there are any particular issues that should be taken into account in considering development on any particular sites or in any particular areas, please provide details

4.7 7It is considered that the evidence contained within Table 1 is comprehens ive, however, as suggested above and below, a number of concerns have been highlighted and it is therefore suggested that these are addressed in order to improve the soundness of the next iteration of the Core Strategy Review.

4.8 It is welcomed that an updated qualitat ive assessment of employment land has been undertaken in order to identify if the sites are fit for purpose, alongside the quantitative employment land study. It has been identified that a number of employment land sites that have been suggested for residentia l land allocations remain in occupation as functioning employment sites. These sites should be removed from the housing land supply. Conversely, there are vacant employment land sites that have been marketed over a period of time where no ma rket interest has been forthcoming and, therefore, it is recommended that these sites should be considered for housing delivery .

4.9 It is noted that Viabil ity Studies are identified as evidence base documents that are still to be prepared. Whilst not specifica lly identified, it is recommended that affordable housing viability is a key matter that needs to be addressed as part of this evidence base to ensure the level suggested by the SHMA Part 2 is deliverable . If this is not the case, the delivery of both market and affordable housing could be compromised and prevent the successful delivery of any new strategy.

Question 3: Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014-36 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply, are

appropriate and in fine with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in fine with national guidance.

4.10 In terms of the extent of the sub market, which includes the Black Country and South Staffordshire, this is considered to be appropriate. t is recognised and welcomed that the Black Country authorities and South Staffordshire have jointly undertaken a SHMA for the sub area, which facilitates the preparation of anIssues and Options Core Strategy Review. There is concern, however, that the remaining constituent authorities within the wider Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area have not taken part and there is a danger that housing need for the whole HMA may not entirely be comprehensively captured due to the different time periods covered by the separate studies. It is advised that a SHMA, consistent with the guidance in the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance, is prepared for the entire HMA over the same Plan period (as opposed to a housing needs study), which will properly consider all relevant factors in a consistent and comprehensive manner.

4.11 The OAN arrived at by the SHMA is generally appropriate in identifying the starting point for determining the dwelling requirement, however, it is suggested a further scenario should be tested to consider long term growth which includes balanced periods of economic prosperity and decline. There is concern that the economic growth scenarios contain potentially out of date employment forecasts and the methodology to determine appropriate dwelling requirements is not sufficiently robust to accurately determine the impact of forecasts based on existing circumstances.In addition, more aspirational job growth targets, such as those arising from the SEP, may not necessarily be appropriate for the Black Country (as discussed later in these representations).

4.12 In terms of providing an uplift for market signals, a 25% uplift for South Staffs is agreed to be appropriate. It is advised that dwelling requirements for the Black Country should not be reduced as a result of this and, accordingly, the application of such an uplift in South Staffordshire should not count towards meeting any unmet needs outside of the HMA as the main function is to provide slack or headroom within the housing market and prevent house prices from increasing at an accelerated rate, exacerbating issues of affordability.

4.13 Clearly, the evidence contained in the SHMA does not consider the potential to accommodate any of Birmingham City's housing needs and that this could result in increased dwelling requirements. We reserve our position in respect of this matter and await the publication of the HMA wide Strategic Housing Needs Study.

4.14 We shortly await a consultation publication from central Government in relation to
providing a standardised methodology for generating dwelling requirements. This is anticipated in Autumn 20 17. The Black Country authorities will need to take account of any proposed national policy changes identified through the consultation paper. We reserve our position on this matter, until the full details and implications for the Back Country are known. It is considered that, whilst a standard methodology will be helpful in identifying a baseline dwelling requirement, the considerat ion of long term trends and economic forecasts cannot be carried out in a mathematical calculation outside a demographic/ economic model.In light of this, the SHMA prepared for the sub-area could remain useful as evidence to inform the review of the Black Country Core Strategy.

4.15 In terms of meeting the dwelling requirements, it is understood that the 'Call for Sites' consultation will inform an updated SHLAA, which w ill assess sites both within and outside the urban area to determine the maximum number of dwellings that can be realistically delivered within the Black Country over the proposed Plan period. The Housing Background Report that has been published as part of the evidence base for theIssues and Options Core Strategy Review has considered assumptions contained within the SHLAA based on adopted policies and considers changes to the policies to boost the delivery of housing on existing sites. Whilst it is a commendable that the Black Country authorities are exploring all potential options to boost housing on urban land, there are wider implications of doing so and according ly, caution is expressed in response to a number of the identified approaches proposed.

4.16 As confirmed in paragraph 3.15, it is extremely important that the Black Country authorities 'firm up' the housing supply in order to ensure that there is sufficient provision to meet the dwelling requirements.It is also considered appropriate to provide an additional buffer of housing land supply to provide a contingency when sites are delayed. As explained earlier in theIssues and Options Report, sites providing a total of 3,000 homes have not come forwa rd as anticipated. It is considered that additional supply is required to provide flexibility and minimise any durations within the Plan period where the housing trajecto ry would otherwise dip.

4.17 7In terms of the extent of a buffer for housing land, the Loca l Plan Expert Group suggested that additional land, equivalent to delivering 20% of the overall dwelling requirement, is added to the supply, which will provide a contingency of land to be used as and when necessary during the Plan period. It is suggested that this additional land will help ensure the dwelling delivery targets and housing needs are

Black Country Core Stra tegy ssues & Options Pegasus

met in a timely manner, which will reduce the opportunity for households to become concealed or shared. Given the issues experienced in respect of delivery in the past, it could be argued that an increased buffer of circa 25% could be applied.

4.18 It is also appropriate to ensure that, as well as identifying the right amount of land, there is sufficient variety in the types of sites (brownfield, greenfield, Green Belt) are identified, reflecting different sizes, in a range of locations. This variety in provision will allow the best opportunity for multiple sites to come forward at the same time without market constraint and hence ensuring delivery targets are met.
In addition, this approach will also provide market choice to existing and arising households looking to move into a new home in the Black Country, which will have wider social benefits (i.e. allow families to live nearby one another and provide an opportunity to diversify existing communities through providing alternative homes to the existing housing stock) .

4.19 Indeed, as previously documented in the adopted Core Strategy, it is considered that the ambition to retain the young and professional population within the Black Country should be maintained and that suitable and attractive housing and complementa ry environments are encouraged.

4.20 Finally, it is welcomed that the Black Country authorities have agreed to test the dwelling requirement figures on an ongoing basis. It is hoped that the suggested changes/alternat ive scenarios suggested above are implemented in order to ensure the evidence base is robust and the resultant policies and proposals soundly based.

Question 4: Do you consider the employment land requirement identified for the Black Country up to 2036 in the EDNA is appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.

4.21 The Core Strategy review intends to utilise the Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) for the Black Country, published in May 2017, to inform future employment land requirements. The EDNA uses forecasts produced as part of the West Midlands Combined Authority Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) to calculate long-term growth, noting that the 'Super SEP Economy+ Scenario' is the preferred aspirational scenario. This scena rio assumes average annual growth in employment of 1.3% across the Combined Authority and presents an ambitious v iew of future growth in the area, with 500,000 jobs created between 2013 and 2030.

Gallagher Estates
Black Country Core Strat egy ssues & Opti ons

Pegasus



4.22 The SEP Technica l Appendix breaks down the job forecasts for the three Local Enterprise Partnerships that form the Combined Authority (Black Country; Coventry & Warwickshire; and Greater Birmingham & Solihull). Jobs growth in the Black Country LEP is forecast to be around 1.1% per annum, whilst it is forecast at 1.5% per annum in the other two LEP areas. This averages out at annual growth of approximately 1.3% . Using data from the Business Register & Employment Survey, published by the Office for National Statistics, it is possible to look at employment trends over the last five to six years (2009-15) and this analysis suggests that the growth rate used in the aspirational growth scenario may be too ambitious for the Back Country:

4.23 Between 2009 and 2015, total employment in the Black Country LEP increased from around 450,000 to approximately 453,000. This equates to average annual growth of 0.1%. Wa lsall ( 1.5% p.a .) and Sandwell (0.9% p.a.) experienced jobs growth, although Dudley (-1.1% p.a.) and Wolverhampton (-0 .8%) both suffered a fall in employme nt.

4.24 By contrast, both the Coventry & Warwickshi re and Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEPs saw total job numbers increase by 1.3% p.a . from 2009-13. A number of districts in these LEPs saw particularly strong growth over the period, notably Solihull and Lichfield in Greater Birmingham & Solihull, where employment grew by at least 3.0% on an annual basis. rn short, the 1.3% average across the West Midlands Combined Authority Area is substantially bolstered by Solihull and Lichfield and therefore it is very ambitious to suggest this wil l occur across the Black Country area.

4.25 That said, growth in the Black Country needs to be faster than in previous years and the new Core Strategy has a vital role to play in supporting this, however the analysis presented above suggests that the growth targets need to be lowered to better reflect the local economic climate . t is considered unlikely that an annual increase of 1.0% or more wi ll happen in the area in the long-term, especially with the Coventry & Warwickshire and Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEPs capturing new job opportunities at a faster rate in recent years. Lowering the employment growth rate means the amount of employment floorspace needed would be lower. This would not reduce the demographically based housing targets for the area but it would potentially free up previously allocated employment sites for other uses such as residential. This would help the Black Country meet its future housing targets and ensure that it has enough homes for its future workforce to live in.

4.26 As identified in the supporting report and above, it is known that employment sites that had previously been identified for housing are still operational with businesses continuing to use the land and, conversely, there are sites allocated for employment that have been vacant and subsequently market, however, remain unoccupied, which could be transferred to a residential use. It is therefore recommended that the Councils ensure that updated EDNA qualitative review conclusions are taken into account and correct uses applied where appropriate.

Question 5: Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt Review? Yes/No; If not, what additional work do you think is necessary?

4.27 n respect of the Green Belt Review, on the basis of the evidence published setting out housing need and supply, it is agreed that it will be necessary to find sites outside of the existing urban area, which will require removing land from the Green Belt where it is appropriate to do so. This will provide an opportunity to identify strategic sites that can provide a significant amount of homes to contribute to meeting identified housing needs. It is considered that there are a number of locations whereby housing sites can be identified, without the purposes of the Green Belt being compromised, ensuring the function and integrity of the Green Belt will remain.

4.28 In addition, areas on the urban fringe have the potential to ensure new homes can be delivered in an established, well landscaped environment, which could be attractive to those young families and professiona ls that the Black Country authorities have had difficulty in retaining, often through out-migrat ion to neighbouring Shire districts considered to represent more aspirational locations.

4.29 In terms of the process and methodology for underta king a Green Belt Review, it is understood that the awaited Strategic Housing Needs Study (SHNS) will be accompanied by Strategic Green Belt Review across Greater Birmingham and that the Black Country authorities have been engaged in presenting potential opportunities. It is reassuring that this engagement between consultants and local planning authorities is taking place as there is a danger that logical locations fail to be identified due to a lack of understanding of environmental conditions and/ or local circumstances that are applicable to sites .

4.30 It is agreed and makes sense for the local planning authorities to conduct a Stage 2 Green Belt Assessment following the completion of the higher level work. Any

J
input on reviewing the draft methodology for the Stage 3 Green Belt Review would
be welcomed.

Question 6: Do you agree that the key issues set out in Part 3 are the key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy Review? Yes/ No; If not, what other key issues should be taken into account?

4.31 The key issues presented are considered to be relevant, however, there are a number of inconsistencies relating to matters identified above against the previous questions raised.

J
5. REVIEWING THE STRATEGY TO MEET NEW CHALLENGES &
OPPORTUN TIES

Question 7: Do you think that the Core Strategy vision and sustainability principles remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest?

5.1 1In the main, the Core Strategy Vision and sustainability principles are considered to be appropriate, all except for the principle to 'put brownfield first'. It is understood that the NPPF, whilst it encourages an efficient use of land and for brown field land to be recycled, it does not suggest a sequential approach to development. The is no evidence to demonstrate that the development of greenfield land will compromise the development of brownfield land. Often the type of developers of the different land categories are different and, given the scale of the housing need, it is appropriate that the early delivery of housing is encouraged from all types of sites. In particular, the larger, potentially Green Belt, sites will have a longer lead in time due to the time it takes to plan for, determi ne and implement a comprehensive scheme .Indeed, a recent study entitled 'Start to Finish', prepared by NLP, supports this claim. When planning the housing trajectory for the Core Strategy, the larger sites should be planned in to come forward as soon as practically possible.

5.2 It is, therefore, suggested that the reference to 'putting brownfield first' is inappropriate and that it should be replaced by 'ensuring an efficient use of land to meet the identified housing needs', which encourages the recycling of land and recognises the contributions of greenfield/ Green Belt land to meeting housing delivery targets.

Question 8: Do you think that the Core Strategy spatial objectives remain appropriate ? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest and how might these changes impact on individual Core Strategy policies?

5.3 Whilst the objectives outlined generally remain sound, there is concern that one of the NPPF's main priorities is absent. This is in relation to significantly boosting the supply of housing.It is suggested that an additional objective is added in order to ensure that meeting housing needs remains a priority within the Black Country. Once a preferred option is arrived at, spatial references as to where the housing growth will be delivered could be included (for examp le, meeting housing needs on urban (brownfield and greenfield) land and at extensions to the urban area).



SEPTEMBER 2017 I HS I BIR.4327 Page I 15

Black Country Core Strategy ssues & Options Pegasus



5.4

Further, given the increased employment land requirements, the second objective relating to employment land being within the best locations within the Regeneration Corridors may no longer be appropriate. Indeed, as highlighted earlier, there is concern that there is a mismatch in land allocations, and it is appropriate for the Core Strategy review to ensure all employment sites are fit for purpose. This may conclude that employment opportunities should be identified on new land outside of the Regeneration Corridors. Should this be the case, the objective would be inappropriately worded.

Question 9: Do you agree that Policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the Growth Network? Yes/ No; If not, what changes do you think should be made to Policies CSP1 and CSP2 in response to new challenges and opportunities?


5.5 It is agreed that the policies could remain, if the development requirements and related changes are made to ensure the policies are consistent with the overall strategy . The changes relate to both the quantum of development (homes, employment and retail space), the location of development (within and beyond the existing Regeneration Corridors) and the type of development (brownfield, greenfield and on land removed from the Green Belt). It Is considered that references should be made to urban extensions (on land removed from the Green Belt) in Policy CSP2 specifical ly, to highlight the important contribution that such sites will make to meeting the development requirements of the Plan.

5.6 On a separate note, whilst a point mostly relating to the South Staffordshire Local Plan to which separate representations will be made, it is considered that the currently adopted approach to spatial distribution in South Staffordshire will need to be re-assessed. Given the huge housing requirements of the Black Country and the shared housing market between South Staffordshire and the Black Country, it is considered that suitable urban extension sites located within South Staffordshire District would be the logical and sensible locations to meet any remaining unmet housing need. n terms of the relevance of this point to the Black Country Review, it will be important for the Black Country authorities to collaborate with South Staffordshire on cross-boundary issues, and to identify suitable extension sites to the Black Country built area which fall within the planning jurisdiction of South Staffordshire District. It is welcomed that this approach is planned to be undertaken, by virtue of the forthcoming Green Belt Review which will be a joint exercise between the Black Country Authorities and South Staffordshire District.

J
Question 10: In continuing to promote growth within the Growth Network, is
there a need to amend the boundaries of any of the Regeneration Corridors in the existing Core Strategy? Yes/ No; If so, which boundaries and why?

Question 11a: Do you support Strategic Option 1A? Yes/ No; If yes, please explain why. If no, do you support Option 18? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If you support the release of further employment land for housing, what should the characteristics of these employment areas be?

Question 11b: Are there any current employment areas that might be considered suitable for redevelopment to housing? Yes/No; Please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form.

5.7 As highlighted previously, the key to understanding where the most appropriate employment/ housing locations are within the Growth Network and Corridors will be determined through a qualitative assessment of allocated employment sites. It is understood an updated assessment has been undertaken and such work, complete w ith responses to the Call for Sites consultation, w ill provide the Black Country authorities with evidence to determine the urban capacity for housing, which may include transferring some employment land to housing as well as housing land to employment. This work wi ll then outline the number of dwellings to be accommodated beyond the existing Growth Network within the Green Belt.

5.8 It is welcomed that theIssues and Options Draft recognises the need to release Green Belt in all scenarios proposed.

Question 12a: Do you support Spatial Option Hl ? Yes/ No; What criteria should be used to select suitable sites ? e.g. ability to create a defensible new green belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services.

Question 12b: Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/ No; If yes, please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).

Question 13a: Do you support Spatial Option H2? Yes/ No; What should the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) be? e.g. minimum/ maximum size, mix of uses, mix of housing types, accessibility to other areas. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs, potential to support existing

J
settlements / services, proximity to the existing growth network, potential to
support urban regeneration.

5.9 Given the scale of the housing need, there is concern that the developme nt requirements could not be met with just one of the suggested options presented and, therefore, a combination of both options will be necessary.

5.10 To be in the best possible position to significantly boost the amount of housing and meet the development requirements in the Black Country, in accordance with the NPPF, it is advised that opportunities to both round off edges of the Green Belt and Sustainable Urban Extensions are proposed in the Preferred Options Draft Core Strategy . As highlighted within theIssues and Options Draft, there are challenges and opportunities that come with both types of development, for example from a delivery perspective, smaller sites will come forward more quickly due to the nature of these being straight forward proposals (with limited infrastructure necessary and one or few land owners) and larger sites will ultimately take longer as they are more complex (with multiple land uses, infrastructure and land owners) . This fact has been evidenced by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (now known as Lichfields) within their report 'Start to Finish' who concluded that the average planning approval period of schemes of 2,000+ dwellings is 6.1 years and the annual average build out rate is 161 dwellings per annum. These figures demonstrate the need to have a number of sites of different sizes and in different locations removed from the Green Belt. The report also identifies, with regard to housing delivery, that 50% more homes per annum are delivered on average on large greenfield sites than large brownfield sites. This is a significant benefit of including greenfield sites within the Preferred Option and will assist to secure its delivery.

5.11 In terms of the locations for removing land from the Green Belt, this should be informed by the Strategic Growth Study and a Black Country Review of the Green Belt. The more detailed study will provide an assessment of land parcels against the purposes of the Green Belt and is likely to recommend that those that compromise the purposes the least will be shortlisted for further consideration to be removed from the Green Belt. It is advised that the next stage should be a consideration of the shortlisted sites based on their suitability (i.e. are the neighbouring uses compatible, would any previous land uses prevent the development of the site), sustainability (i.e. proximity to/ ability to provide local services/ public transport/ employment opportunities) and deliverabi lity (i.e. whether the site is available, being promoted for development, has no barriers to

J
coming forward etc.) credentials. Clearly each site will fair differently against such
criteria and the Call for Sites submission will assist the Council to come to a decision on the preferred sites. It is advised that the Black Country authorities should be mindful of the opportunities, through infrastructure and design, that development can bring that will enhance the diversity and character of a particular location.

5.12 In terms of the characteristics of a Sustainable Urban Extension, this is likely to vary depending on the location of each site. For example, some may be more urban and others suburban in their character and would, therefore, provide a different land use offer.It is important that each are considered on a site by site basis to ensure that any subsequent allocation delivers a successful development. It is important that the developer responsible for promoting the site helps to influence what is ultimately delivered. Often what is proposed on site has been informed by housing market intelligence undertaken by sales experts at development companies and, therefore, should be taken into account. Particularly given recent experience in the down turn in the apartment market, it is important that sites are allocated for the right type and mix of housing to ensure that it will be delivered, occupied and successful.

5.13 In the more suburban locations, it is suggested that Sustainable Urban Extensions should look to provide a different offer to potentially what exists in the Strategic Centres and Regeneration Corridors, such as a mix of larger and lower density homes, which will attract those households that in the past have migrated elsewhere. Given the emphasis on delivering more high density homes in the Strategic Centres, it is important that this housing mix is offset by more larger homes in appropriate locations . Otherwise, there is a concern that the Black Country will have a disproportional amount of small homes, which will further encourage more families to migrate elsewhere and not meet the aspiration to diversify the wider HMA.

Question 13b: What infrastructure do you think would be needed for different sizes of SUEs?

5.14 4 The type of infrastructure needed will vary depending on the different location and size of each site and must be compliant with paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations that requires planning obligations (which applies to most infrastructure) to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms ; directly related

J
to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the
development.

5.15 With the above in mind, however, provision for open space (both forma l and informal), local centre and potentially a primary school should be considered for sites in excess of 1,000 homes.

Question 13c: Are there any potential locations that should be considered for SUEs (please submit through the 'call for sites' form) and what infrastructure would be required to support these?

5.16 6 Land at Home Farm, Sandhills is a location on the edge of Brownhills in Walsall Borough that Could accommodate in excess of 1,200 homes, complete with open space, al local centre and potentially a primary school if required. A Call for Sites form is included at Appendix B, which demonstrates the sites suitability, achievability and deliverability.In addition, a Technical Compendium is included at Appendix C, which includes evidence in relation to landscape and visual matters, cultural heritage and archaeology, transportation, agricultural circumstances, ecology, flood risk and drainage and ground conditions. A ll of which serves to demonstrate there are no constraints to the delivery of the site and that residential development of circa 1,200 homes can be successfully achieved.

Question 13d: Do you think that the Core Strategy should set out detailed guidance for the development of SUEs (e.g. type and tenure of housing, specific infrastructure required), rather than details being determined at a local level in light of local policies? Yes/No; Any further comments?

5.17 For the reasons outlined above, relating to considering existing local circumstances and CIL Regulation requirements in respect of any charging schedule and planning obligation requirements, it is advised that detailed guidance for the development of SUEs should not be specified within the Black Country Core Strategy as each site wi ll vary and deserves a more detailed consideration, a longside the developer, at the local level.

Question 14: Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Housing Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details

5.18 There are no other sustainable and deliverable options that we are aware of within the Black Country administrative boundary that are capable of delivering the housing spatia l options.


Black Country Core Strategy ssues & Options


Question 15a: If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the 'export' of housing growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA? Yes/ No; What factors should be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities in neighbouring authorities e.g. proximity to the edge of the urban area, proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access tojobs?

5.19 If, once all realistically deliverable options have been considered, there remains an unmet need for housing it is agreed that the Black Country authorities should consider the possibility of exporting growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA.In particular, there are options to expand existing settlements that are close to the administrative boundary (for example, in both the Black Country and South Staffordshire) across authorities and, therefore, once all options within the HMA have been explored, these could help deliver growth in a sustainable and deliverab le manner. These opportunities should be explored first prior to exporting further growth to other authorities within the HMA where there is less of a spatial connection.

Question 15b: Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/N o; If yes, please provide details.

5.20 No comments.

Question 15c: Do you think there are ways to ensure that exporting housing will meet the needs of people who would otherwise live in the Black Country? (e.g. transport improvements, provision of affordable housing, creation of employment opportunities) Yes/N o; If yes, please provide details.

5.21 It is important to consider a number of factors, including migration and travel to work patterns, which have been used to identify the extent of the HMA, to determine where households relocate to when leaving the Black Country in order to understand where and why those moves are taking place. Whilst planning can attempt to influence where people relocate to, there is no mechanism to guide or restrict people moving to or from certain locations. Once knowledge of movers can be understood can the planning system can attempt to recreate those attractive characteristics (homes that are more affordable, good public transport links, employment opportunities etc.) in locations where there is capacity for the homes to be delivered. It is advised that an additional analysis of the data, where necessary, is undertaken to provide the Black Country authorities w ith the relevant

intelligence to deliver a successful strategy for growth outside the administrative
area.

Question 16: Do you support Spatial Option E1 ? Yes/ No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access) If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).

Question 17: Do you support Spatial Option E2 ? Yes/ No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites e.g. quick motorway access, good sustainable transport links? If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).

Question 18: Do you support Spatial Option E3? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access) If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).

Question 19a: Do you support Spatial Option E4? Yes/No; Any further comments?

Question 19b: Should any factors be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities? Yes/No; If yes, what should they be? (e.g. quick motorway access, strong transport links with the Black Country, good sustainable transport links with the Black Country) If you think there are any potential locations that should be considered, please provide details.

Question 20: Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Employment Land Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

5.22 As previously outlined, there is concern that some of the employment sites currently identified are potentially not fit for purpose and others that are identified to be transferred to housing remain in employment occupation. In light of this mismatch, it is welcomed that an updated qualitative assessment has been undertaken and has informed how much employment land is has be found outside the urban area.




SEPTEMBER 2017 J HS J BIR.4327 Page I 22

5.23 In terms of where the employment land should be located outside the urban area,
as with housing, decisions should be based on the results of the Green Belt Review and the suitability, sustainability and deliverability of sites. For employment land sites, the suitability of a site may well include good transportation links for goods and people. The Call for Sites consultation will assist in putting forward suggestions for sites.

5.24 In terms of exporting employment land, it is considered that a proportionate amount of employment land to housing land exported should be made in an attempt to create more sustainable communities, that is unless there is good reason not to do so (i.e. due to improved public transport links between exported housing and employment sites). As evidenced in work supporting theIssues and Options Draft, whilst the Black Country is a sufficiently self contained labour market there are strong linkages with Birmingham and South Staffordshire. This would therefore suggest that these locations should be first explored for transporting any employment land growth, however, given the land capacity issues in Birmingham it is more likely that South Staffordshire would be able to assist.

Blac k Country Core Stra t egy ssues & Options Pegasus

6. DELIVERING GROWTH - INFRASTRUCTURE & VIABILITY

Question 21: Do you think that changes are required to Policy DEL1 to ensure it covers both development within the existing urban area and any within the Green Belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

6.1 Policy DELl is considered to be sound on the basis that it is sufficient ly flexible to deal with different circumstances on different sites across the Black Country, including sites that are to be removed from the Green Belt.

Question 22: Do you have evidence of a requirement for new social infrastructure to serve existing needs? Yes/ No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.

6.2 We are in consultation with the releva nt authorities to explore any requirements for social infrastructure to serve any need relating to the development proposals proposed at Home Farm, Sandhills.

Question 23: Do you have evidence of social infrastructure that is no longer needed and where the site could be reallocated for alternative uses? Yes/ No; If yes, please provide details.

6.3 No comment.

Question 24: Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current social infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new housing ? Yes/ No; If yes, please provide details.

6.4 No comment.

Question 25: Will there be any new social infrastructure requirements necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/ No; If yes, please explain the type and scale of any new social infrastructure required.

6.5 No comment.

Question 26: Do you have any evidence of a requirement for new physical infrastructure to serve existing needs? Yes/ No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.

6.6 No comment.

J
Question 27: Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of
current physical infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new developments? Yes/ No; If yes, please provide details.

6.7 No comment.

Question 28: Do you think physical infrastructure is necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, what type and scale of physical infrastructure is necessary?

6.8 As set out above, the need for infrastructure will vary for each site. Given such different circumstances, it would be inappropriate and potentially unlawful (as it would conflict with paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations) to incorporate a blanket policy requiring specific infrastructure on every large housing site.

Question 29: Do you think there are any other tools or interventions that could be used to ensure enough infrastructure is provided by developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

6.9 9 It is considered that the existing national framework (which includes the NPPF and CIL Regulations) provides a sufficient tool to ensure the relevant Infrastructure is delivered. In addition, the CIL Charging Schedule allows authorities to raise funds for named infrastructure projects, which should be updated in line with the Core Strategy. Therefore, it is considered that there are existing provisions to deliver infrastructure and no additional interventions in the Black Country Core Strategy Review are needed.

Question 30: Do you have any suggestions around how the strategy can be developed in order to maintain the urban regeneration focus of the Black Country while at the same time bringing forward sites in the green belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

6.10 There is no a need for any specific interventions, such as phasing, to protect the delivery of urban regeneration in the Black Country. Indeed, it is considered that development of green field and Green Belt sites can very much compliment urban regeneration through the provision of a more varied form of development that will help diversify the housing stock and profile of residents in the wider area, which will assist to sustain and improve the vitality of existing communities. Further, as highlighted above, given the priority to significantly boost the delivery of housing green field and Green Belt sites should come forward for development as soon as

J
practically possible.In light of the lead in and build out rates of larger sites, the
land should be encouraged to be developed as soon as possible so to ensure the homes are delivered in the plan period and the needs are met.

Question 31: Do you think that the right scale and form of funding is available to support the delivery of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If no, what alternative sources of funding or delivery mechanisms should be investigated?

6.11 When delivering green field/ Green Belt sites, there is an opportunity to deliver infrastructure to meet the needs arising from the proposal, which may have wider benefits for the local community .In addition, it is likely that the communities created by the Sustainable Urban Extensions will potentially be more affluent and share their wealth using local shops and services within the wider Black Country, which will contribute to more successful and prosperous community.






































SEPTEMBER 2017 J HS J BIR.4327 Page I 26

J
7. REVIEW OF EXISTING CORE STRATEGY POLICIES & PROPOSALS

Housing

Question 35: Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No; If no, please explain why

7.1 As identified above, it is important that a range of sites in different locations are identified to be in the best possible position of delivering the development requirements. In terms of presenting these sites in the Core Strategy, whilst it is useful to identify a housing trajectory, it is important that there is not a phasing policy as such that would prevent the delivery of housing, given the current housing crisis. As stated above, the delivery of housing on greenfield and Green Belt land will not compromise the delivery of urban regeneration as the development on the urban edge will complement and rejuvenate the environment in a different way.

7.2 In terms of the proposed level of discounting, it is considered that if the LPA adopt an approach to identify a further 20% of sites in accordance with the LPEG recommendations identified above, there would not necessarily be a need for the application of discounting in determining the overal l level of supply. It is interesting to note that the level of discounting proposed by LPEG is suggested for all LPAs, not necessarily those which have experienced difficulty in delivery. It could therefore be argued that an increased buffer of 25% could be applied in order to take a cautious approach.

Question 36: Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 should be changed? Yes/No; If yes, what standards should be applied instead, for example should the minimum net density of 35 dwellings per hectare be increased to maximise brownfield housing delivery?

7.3 It is clear that the current accessibility and density standards outlined in the adopted Core Strategy were formulated in the context of the vast majority of development taking place on brownfield sites within the defined urban area. As reiterated throughout these representations, there is now a clear need for Green Belt release as part of the Local Plan Review to meet emerging , objectively assessed housing needs. We outline in further detail below why the adopted accessibility and densities would not be applicable to Green Belt sites, however would suggest that the current standards do not allow sufficient flexibility on brownfield sites. A blanket application of prescriptive accessibility and density

J
standards across the Black Country, be it brownfield or greenfield, does not allow
sufficient flexibi lity which take into account site specific characteristics. The Council should allow for greater flexibility when assessing accessibility and density standards, with a more pragmatic approach which allows appropriate assessment for site-specific characteristics and also an assessment of market demand which may vary significa ntly across the large Black Country area.

7.4 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF outlines how local authorities should set out their own approach towards density. It is suggested that the currently adopted approach does not allow for sufficient assessment of local characteristics.It is clear that the chosen approach must be reflective of local circumstances, including the matters outlined above as well as infrastructure and services available in the locality. It is advocated that a more flexible approach to density and accessibility standards is taken as part of the emerging Local Plan Review.

Question 37a: Do you think that the existing Policy HOU2 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/ No; If no, please explain why

7.5 In line with the comments above, it is suggested that the Council should assess each site on a case by case basis in terms of accessibility and density standa rds. This approach wou ld suggest that the numerical baseline trigger of 15 homes or more will not always be appropriate or applicable, and -as advocated throughout these representations it suggested that there should be a complete re-assessment on accessibil ity and density standards as part of the emerging Local Plan Review.

Question 38: Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards are appropriate for green belt release locations? Yes/No; If no, what standards should be applied in these locations and why?

7.6 No, it is not considered that the current standards would be applicable to Green Belt release locations. The adopted standards are overly prescriptive, and as previously discussed were written in the context of brownfield land. Green Belt release sites have a completely different type of character, therefore consideration of accessibility and density standards in relation to these sites should be reflective of local character and site characteristics. The more suburban settings of Green Belt release land lends itself to lower densities which are more approp riate to the Green Belt setting, which typically deliver more family homes. The Council must provide robust evidence to test any forthcoming accessibility and density standa rds

Black Country Core Strategy ssues & Options J
in relation to Green Belt release locations, which allows for a flexible and pragmatic
approach.

Question 39: Do you think separate accessibility standards are needed for particular types of housing e.g. housing for the elderly or affordable housing (as occupiers may be less mobile and more dependent on public transport)? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.

7.7 It is clear that separate accessibility standards will apply to particular types of housing such as affordable and for the elderly population, however in line with the sentiment expressed above, any forthcoming standards should be based on robust evidence and allow for sufficient flexibility to avoid any unnecessa ry constraints to development coming forward.

Question 40: Do you agree that the 2017 SHMA findings should be used to set general house type targets for the Plan period? Yes/ No; If no, please explain why.

7.8 A general and blanket application for house types across the Black Country should not be advanced as part of the Local Plan Review. Paragraph 50 is clear that local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends and market trends. It is therefo re notable that the NPPF specifically highlights 'market trends' in this context, which acknowledges that the market must inform such decisions.

7.9 Whilst the 2017 SHMA does provide an assessment of demographic and market trends, it is notable that it looks at a wider area assessment and is focused at a higher level. This assessment therefore does not draw out sub-market trends, and cover smaller areas within the vast Black Country area . Again, a blanket policy of house type targets across the Black Country area would not allow for sufficient flexibility to assess each site on a site by site basis, taking into consideration local market trends and demand. The NPPF does not state that specific policies should be set to enforce that local demand is met. As such, it is considered that this should be left for the market to decide, as opposed to applying rigid and prescriptive house size standards.

7.10 It is suggested that the evidence presented in the SHMA should be put into the Plan as an informative and general guide, but should not feed into a specific policy requirement which outlines housing mix percentages that should be applied across the Black Country. A policy containing general house type targets could present as a significant constraint to the delivery of a site where there is no local market

Black Country Core Strate gy ssues & Options Pegasus

demand for this house type, which in turn would have a negative impact on achieving the necessary housing growth targets to be delivered in the Black Country over the Plan period.

Question 41a: Do you support the introduction of a policy approach towards self and custom build housing in the Core Strategy? Yes/No; If yes, would you support:

7.11 It is not considered that there is a policy need for the Core Strategy to address self and custom build housing in the emerging Review. Paragraph 6.32 indicates that there are only nine records on self and custom build registers in the Black Country.
It is evident that that there is very limited demand in the Black Country, which is unsurprising given that self and custom build housing is often more popular in rural areas. Given the limited demand it is therefore not considered necessary to ta ke a policy approach towa rds self and custom build housing withi n the Local Plan Review.

Question 41b: A target for each authority? Yes/ No; Any further comments

7.12 Given that there is evidence of little market demand, it is not considered necessary for the Core Strategy to set targets for each of the Black Country authorit ies. If it was considered to be necessary as the Loca l Plan Review progresses, any targets being set should be formulated on the basis of robust evidence such as monitoring of the registers, to provide an indication of how many self-build homes will be needed.

Question 41c: A requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots ? Yes/ No; Any further comments?

7.13 There should not be a requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots. This can pose an unnecessary market constraint for large housebuilders when there may be limited or no market demand for self-build plots. Self and custom build plots are often unusual and unique in character, therefore would not be best suited to be located within a large housing development with more uniform house types. If deemed necessary, self and custom build housing should be allocated specific site allocations, as discussed below.

Question 41d: Another approach altogether? Yes/ No; If yes, please specify.

7.14 4If it is considered necessary for the Review to address self and custom build housing, this should be addressed by the Council's identifying and allocating

Black Country Core Strategy ssues & Options Pegasus
J
specific plots for these uses. dentifying site-specific plots would ensure that the
most appropriate and suitable locations for self an d custom-build will be allocated, via the assessment of appropriate evidence and market demand.In addition, this might be more likely to be achieved on surplus publicly owned land.

Question 42: Do you agree that the annual affordable homes target should be increased to reflect the 2017 Black Country Strategic Housing Market Assessment? Yes/ No; If no, please explain why.

7.15 As a general principle, the notion of applying different affordable housing ratios to different parts of the Black Country, based on an understanding of needs and viability, is acceptable. Given that the Black Country represents a vast area, there will not be a uniform housing market, and there will be sub-market trends within this wider area. As such, a more flexible approach which assesses local housing market evidence on a case by case basis could be justified. That said, there is an inherent simplicity and attraction to a single rate figure, which is easy for the development industry to understand.

7.16 In terms of the annual affordable housing target, it is unclear how theIssues and Options document has calculated the figure of 832 homes per year. At paragra ph
7.42 of the June 2017 SHMA Part Two- affordable housing document, it is stated that the total annual affordable housing need is 677 dwellings, which represents 19.8% of the annual projected household growth. This differs to paragraph 6.36 of theIssues and Options document, which states that the affordable housing target is 23.4% of total housing need or 832 homes per year. From paragraph 7.47 of the SHMA, it appears that this figure may have been calculated by adding the overall requirement of 16.6% of housing to be affordable rented and 6.7% shared ownership. Clarity is sought on how this figure has been calcuiated, and we reserve the right to comment further on this matter.

Question 43a: Do you think that the existing Policy HOU3 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/ No; If no, please explain why.

7.17 We have not undertaken detailed analysis of the findings and assumptions of the SHMA and affordable housing delivery matters, therefore would like to reserve the right to comment on this matter further . However, on face value, it appears to be a reasonable threshold and is not dissimilar to other locations.

Question 44a: Do you think that the affordable housing requirement for eligible
sites in Question 43 should be kept at 25% of the total number of homes on the site? Yes/ No; Any further comments?

7.18 Based on the current evidence, a blanket rate of 25% affordable housing would appear to be sound.

7.19 However, irrespective of the fina l rate, any amendments to the currently adopted affordable housing policy must continue to have a clause in it which stipulates that this requirement is subject to viability tests. Any revised affordable housing requirements will also need to carefully consider the implications of adopted Community nfrastructure Levy (CIL) regimes. Both Sandwell and Dudley Councils have adopted CIL Charging Schedules. These will have implications on viability, therefore if revised affordable housing targets are to progressed then these CIL tariffs will need to re-assessed and re-visited.

Question 44b: If no, should the percentage be increased to allow for the provision of affordable home ownership? Yes/ No; If yes, what should the percentage be and why?

7.20 At paragraph 6.39 of the ssues and Options Paper, it is stated that options need to be explored to increase affordable housing delivery of private sites. One option would be to increase the overall affordable housing proportion, which would require developers to provide affordable home ownership products plus an appropriate proportion of other affordable tenures. This paragraph follows on from commentary relating to the Housing White Paper.

7.21 The Housing White Paper discusses Starter Homes at Chapter 4, and explains how the government intend to amend the NPPF to introduce a clear policy expectation that housing sites deliver a minimum of 10% affordable home ownership units. t is later stated that it will be for local areas to work with developers to agree an appropriate level of delivery of starter homes, alongside other affordable home ownership and rented tenures.

7.22 The policy position on Starter Homes is not yet fully clear, and has yet to be formall y established through a formal amendment and update to the NPPF. Until the national policy position on Starter Homes has been made clear, it would be premature for the Core Strategy Review to suggest an uplift in the affordable housing requirement to include affordable home ownership such as Starter Homes. Any suggestion to uplift the affordable housing requirement to include Starter

Homes should be reflective of the national policy position, as well as founded upon
a robust evident base which dictates exactly what percentage this element should be of the overall affordable housing requirement.

Question 45: Should an increased affordable housing requirement be set for green belt release sites, to reflect the likely financial viability of these sites? Yes/No; If yes, what should this be.

7.23 The likely financial viability of Green Belt sites will vary across different areas of the Black Country, therefore any affordable housing requirements for Green Belt sites will need to be reflective of these circumstances. Any affordable housing targets for Green Belt sites should be based on robust evidence, and acknowledge that many sites may need to support and deliver other infrastructure requirements.

7.24 Ultimately, any affordab le housing strategy w ill need to address the affordable housing need as well as the need for market housing. Bearing in mind that the SHMA confirms over 70% of homes required are for homes to be sold on the open market, any affordable housing policy must not dilute the delivery of these needs/requirements. A higher figure on Green Belt sites over and above a standard blanket figure would potentially do this.

Employment

Question 49a: Is there still a need for existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing? Yes/ No; If no, please explain why.

7.25 The Black Country is to be the subject of large levels of both employment and housing growth over the Plan Period. These uses are very much inter-iinked with one another, and will drive each other's need for growth. The Local Plan Review, in order to meet emerging employment and housing needs, must identify a significant number of specific sites for employment and housing uses. By planning proactively and identifying suitable sites for both employment land and housing land, this should reduce the pressures to manage the release of poorer quality employment land, which may not always be suitable for release. The Local Plan Review should also seek to undertake a further review of poorer quality employment land to make it available for other suitable uses, if it proves to no longer be viable for employment land use. This is in line with policy provisions of the NPPF, which at Paragraph 22 outlines that planning policies should avoid the long-term protection

of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a
site being used for that purpose.

Question 50: Do you think that the Core Strategy should continue to set a target for the total employment land stock in Policy EMP1? Yes/ No; Please explain why.

7.26 The continuation of setting a target for employment land stock would be supported. Policy EMPl should make it clear that these are not maximum figures, to encourage further flexibility for additiona l growth.

Retail

Question 59: Have all the appropriate centres within the Black Country been identified? Yes/No; If not, please specify additional centres

7.27 No comment.

Question 61: In addition to para 4.33 of the current Core Strategy should the revised Core Strategy include criteria for the creation of new centres that might be needed as a result of any additional housing identified through the plan? Yes/ No; Any further comments?

7.28 Criteria would be a useful policy tool to help assess the designation of new centres, and should be in line with previous methodolog ies used which set out clear thresholds.

Question 71: Should the Core Strategy set housing targets for the Town Centres?

7.29 Housing within Town Centres should be supported, in line with paragraph 23 of the NPPF which discusses the important role that residential development can play in ensuring the vitality of Town Centres. Any housing targets should be based on what sites are known to be readily available, suitable and viable for residential development. Market demand for housing in these areas will also need to be fully assessed. t is notable from the outcome of the 2017 SHMA that there is most demand for three bedroom properties (40%). The highest demand is therefore for family housing, and not for flats which are often the most popular within Town Centre locations. Any housing targets set for the Town Centre would therefore need to consider the findings of the SHMA, and be reflective of the fact that family housing is often more suitable for delivery on larger sites, including on sites which are currently located within the Green Belt.

Environment

Question 99a: Do you think that national standards for housing development on water consumption should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.

7.30 When referring to water consumption paragraph 6.1.52 of theIssues and Options document states that the Black Country does not currently lie in an area of serious water stress, therefore clear need may be difficult to demonstrate. This evidence suggests that there is limited or no need to introduce such a policy, therefore it is not considered that the Core Strategy Review should seek to introduce water consumption standards for housing development .

Question 99b: Do you think that national access standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.

7.31 The introduction of any national access standards, with theIssues and Options document referring specifically to Lifetime Homes, again must be based on a robust evidence base which can demonstrate market demand.It is noted that Paragraph 50 of the NPPF states that planning authorities must plan for a mix of housing to meet a range of needs. n the same paragraph, it is later stated that these must be based on current and future market trends. If Lifetime Home standards are to be introduced these will therefore need to be based on robust evidence, to ensure that the standards are not overly onerous and prevent the delivery of other types of housing which have higher levels of market demand.

Question 99c: Do you think that national space standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.

7.32 As reiterated throughout these representations, it is not considered that a blanket approach of prescriptive standards across the Black Country allows sufficient flexibility to assess local market and site considerations in an appropriate manner. Whilst it is recognised that space standa rds can be an important tool to ensure that high quality of homes are delivered, we agree with the sentiment expressed in the recent Housing White Paper. The Paper explains that the government are concerned that a one size fits all approach may not reflect the needs and aspirations of a wider range of households. The White Paper also states that the
Government will be undertaking a review of the Nationa lly Described Space

Standards . t is suggested that the Core Strategy Review should await the outcome of this national review of national space standards, to ensure compliance with national policy and to ensure that the most appropriate approach to space standards, if required, is taken.

Question 99d: Do you think that the standards should be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No; If yes, please explain how and why.

7.33 As discussed above, prescriptive standards do not always allow sufficient flexibility for local market needs, so we would not advocate a blanket approach of different standards to brownfield and greenfield sites.

Open Space, Sport and Recreation

Question 102a: Do you support the proposed changes relating to open space, sport and recreation? Yes/ No; If no, please explain

7.34 Paragraph 6. 1.60 of theIssues and Options paper outlines how adopted Policy ENV6 creates the framework for open space policies at the local level. The ssues and Options paper outlines how this is in line with national guidance, and that it is proposed to retain this policy and update some references in the supporting text to reflect changing circumstances . It is agreed that the local level remains the appropriate place to set open space policies, and that Policy ENV6 should continue to endorse this approach.

J
8. CONCLUSION

8.1 Gallagher Estates has acqui red an interest in a number of sites either within the Black Country or within neighbouring authority areas that are geograph ically well related to the Major Urban Area. Al l sites are sustainably located adjacent to the existing urban area.

8.2 These sites are promoted as a suitable, deliverable and available land, subject to its release from the Green Belt. Therefore, the development of these sites would constitute sustainable development.

8.3 Gallagher Estates fully support the Black Country Authorities' decision to review the currently adopted Core Strategy, however wish to raise the following:

* Whilst the OAN is generally appropriate as a starting point, a number of concerns have been identified with the SHMA and it is recommended that it is updated to address the issues raised. Further, evidence is awaited with regard to unmet need in the wider HMA. Once this has been concluded, the Black Country authorities can arrive at an appropriate dwelling requirement for the Black Country.

* It is acknowledged that the housing land supply in the Black Country has not yet been identified as the authorities need to undertake further work upon receiving the Call for Sites submissions. After which, the shortfall in housing supply can be confirmed.

* It is welcomed that the Black Country authorities acknowledge the need to remove land from the Green Belt to meet emerging development requirements and that a Green Belt Review is soon to be prepared.

* In terms of selecting sites for development, it is advised that a range of types sites, of different sizes, in different locations need to be identified to be in the best possible position to deliver the dwelling requirements.

* Land at Home Farm, Sandhills is an appropriate location for residential development as supported by the Call for Sites submission and Technical Compendium included with these representations.

8.4 Gallagher Estates look forward to engaging with the Black Country Authorities and providing additional information, as required, to assist the Council in progressing the preparation of an up to date Local Plan.

Well, here we go again less than two years after last attempt to build on our precious green belt countryside. I objected strongly then as I do now. There are enough brown sites in this Borough to be developed so please use them. Do any councillors actually walk in the countryside surrounding Halesowen to see how many folk walk, cycle, etc in our beautiful countryside? I understand that people need work and accommodation but look at the proposed plans for Halesowen town centre to rejuvenate the centre by utilising old buildings there and conversion into apartments.

The road infrastructure around the town is pretty overstretched as it is so you don't have to think too hard to imagine the impact and devastation on the existing road system. The A456 has been de-trucked and look how busy and congested that already is.

We will just become one sprawling conurbation of Birmingham it it is allowed to happen. Learn lessons from other cities please. Johannesburg in South Africa has now consumed small towns like the former Boksburg which was around twenty miles away. It is now just a suburb of the city.

For this proposed planning to come so soon after the last attempt makes citizens suspicious about the motives perhaps of some councillors who may have a vested interest in such planning going ahead?

Please listen to the comments of your citizens. I have yet to meet one person who is in agreement with the proposals!

The Strategic Challenges and Opportunities (Questions 2-6)
2.4 Taylor Wimpey generally agrees with the key issues identified but makes specific comment regarding relevant issues below.
Key Issue 1 - Updating the Evidence Base
Taylor Wimpey considers that the Key Evidence set out in Table 1 is broadly sufficient to support the BCCS review but notes that the Government is currently proposing material changes to the Framework and Practice Guidance to make the evidence requirements for Local Plans more proportionate1. Any such changes may lead to further additional work being necessary for the BCCS to be found sound when examined. Taylor Wimpey therefore reserves the right to make further comment on evidence requirements until such time that more detail is available on the proposed changes to national policy and guidance.
Key Issue 2 - Meeting the Housing Needs of a Growing Population
2.6 The CD identifies a housing need of 78,190 for the Black Country for the period 2014 to 2036; 3,554 dwellings per annum [dpa]. Taylor Wimpey considers that this is insufficient to meet the needs of the Black Country's growing population and is not in line with national guidance. The 'Black Country Housing Needs Assessment - Headroom Report' sets out the basis for this view.
2.7 The CD is based upon the March 2017 Strategic Housing Market Assessment [SHMA] which uses the 2014 Sub-National Population Projections [SNPP], with an allowance for vacancy rates and adjustment for past housing under-delivery. Finally the CD uplifts the target by 3,000 dwellings to accommodate some of Birmingham's unmet housing need. The SHMA has a flawed methodological approach, particularly: the lack of alternative household and populations projections such as using long term migration rates and no sensitivity adjustment for historic low household formation rates in younger age cohorts as required by the Framework [§159] and 1 Housing White Paper [§1.10 and A.19] Practice Guidance2; and an underestimate of the need to increase delivery in response to market signals (as recommended by the Practice Guidance3 and in recommendations made by the Local Plan Experts Group [LPEG]4).
2.8 Taylor Wimpey commissioned Lichfields to undertake an independent assessment of the Black Country's OAHN. This involved modelling a number of demographic and economic scenarios to forecast future population and household growth, following the Framework and recommendations of the Practice Guidance and LPEG. This found that the CD significantly underestimates the level of housing required to support the needs of the Black Country's growing population.
2.9 A more appropriate and robust OAHN for the Black Country (excluding South Staffordshire) is 4,518 to 5,473 dpa. This is based upon the long term migration trends seen in the Black Country, with an adjustment to household formation rates for younger age cohorts. The OAHN also includes uplifts to each local authority to reflect negative market signals and an increased affordable housing need in Dudley. Finally the OAHN sets out an increased requirement of up to 955 dpa to reflect the Black Country's proportionate 'fair share' of Birmingham's unmet housing need. The 'Black Country Housing Needs Assessment - Headroom Report' provides further detail on the approach and assumptions used to derive this OAHN.
Key Issue 3 - Supporting a Resurgent Economy
2.10 The Framework and Practice Guidance make it clear that economic growth needs and housing must align to promote sustainable patterns of development. An imbalance between housing and employment land growth could lead to unsustainable commuting patterns or constrain growth. The Practice Guidance5 makes clear that economic forecasts must have regard to the growth of working age population within the HMA, and consider demographically derived assessments of future employment needs6. This is particularly important as the economic growth ambitions of Birmingham will need to be supported by housing provision in the wider HMA, and the Black Country local authorities have an important role to play in supporting this. The Practice Guidance7 goes on to say that a failure to agree housing provision as part of the duty to cooperate would result in unmet housing need. The Framework sets out that Local Planning Authorities [LPAs] should ensure that their assessment of strategies for housing, employment and other uses are integrated, and that they take full account of relevant market and economic signals [§158].
2.11 The BCCS sets out the Economic Development Needs Assessment's [EDNA] recommendations for up to 800 ha of additional employment land to meet the Black Country's B1, B2 and B8 needs for the period 2014 to 2036. Taylor Wimpey welcomes the Black Country's aspirations for economic growth, though further evidence is required to ensure that there is sufficient housing provision to support these ambitions. The EDNA is based solely upon economic led scenarios (past delivery rates and economic growth forecasts) and does not consider the needs arising from anticipated housing growth. Further evidence is therefore required to determine the demographically led need for employment land in the Black Country to ensure that employment land supply and housing provision align, as the CD fails to align with national guidance. This evidence would need to demonstrate the anticipated employment land required to support
2 Practice Guidance Ref: 2a-015-20140306
3 Practice Guidance Ref: 2a-019-20140306
4 LPEG (March 2016) Report to the Communities Secretary and to the Minister of Housing and Planning
5 Practice Guidance Ref: 2a-018-20140306
6 Practice Guidance Ref: 2a-032-20140306
7 Practice Guidance Ref: 2a-018-20140306
demographically led scenarios, to ensure that it would not result in an over or under supply of employment land.
2.12 Taylor Wimpey welcomes the recognition in the CD that some employment sites may be unfit for purpose and could be considered for alternative uses such as housing. This aligns with the Framework [§22] which states that allocated employment sites for which there is no reasonable prospect of development should not be protected in the long term. Proposals for alternative uses on such sites should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities.
Key Issue 6 - Reviewing the Role and Extent of the Green Belt
2.13 Local planning authorities are currently required by the Framework [§14] to positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area. The Framework [§17] also sets out 12 core planning principles, including how planning should:
"...proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth. Plans should take account of market signals, such as land prices and housing affordability, and set out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in their area, taking account of the needs of the residential and business communities."
2.14 The Practice Guidance8 states that the need for housing refers to:
"...the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that is likely to be needed in the housing market area over the plan period - and should cater for the housing demand of the area and identify the scale of housing supply necessary to meet that demand."
2.15 Furthermore, as set out in Housing White Paper, the Government intends to extend the requirement to accommodate housing need to also include "any needs that genuinely cannot be met within neighbouring authorities."9
2.16 The CD [§3.42] recognises the need to identify new sites outside of the urban area and currently in the Green Belt, to accommodate the housing need of the Black Country. In addition to the housing needs of the Black Country local authorities, any additional identified need from the GBHMA must be accommodated within the Black Country. Housing sites must therefore be released from the Green Belt as there is insufficient available land within the urban areas to meet the requirements.
2.17 The Framework [§§83-85] sets out the need to demonstrate 'exceptional circumstances' when amending Green Belt boundaries and this is reinforced by the Housing White Paper [§§137- 140]. Taylor Wimpey considers that the scale of the housing required and the lack of land outwith the Green Belt constitutes the necessary 'exceptional circumstances' to justify that Green Belt land should be released for housing. The local authorities therefore need to provide a sound evidence base which is robust in demonstrating the 'exceptional circumstances case' and ensure it complies with the Housing White Paper [§139].
8 Practice Guidance Ref: 2a-003-20140306
9 Housing White Paper - Page 79: Box 2
2.18 In this context, Taylor Wimpey fully supports the carrying out of a Strategic Green Belt Review as this is necessary to ensure sufficient land is provided to meet the Black Country's and GBHMA's objectively assessed housing needs over the course of the plan period.
2.19 Taylor Wimpey supports the release of Green Belt sites, including specific allocations for development by 2036 through the Core Strategy review. It is critical that the Green Belt Review process is fully informed by the GBHMA Growth Study and that developers and other stakeholders are fully engaged both in terms of the proposed methodology and any site assessment work.
2.20 Call for Sites forms and Development Statements for the sites at Chester Road, Streetly and Bosty Lane, Aldridge are being submitted on behalf of Taylor Wimpey alongside these representations. The Call for Sites submission in relation to Chester Road, Streetly clearly demonstrates that the site no longer fulfils the purposes of including the land within the Green Belt; should be removed from it; and, should be allocated for housing development in the BCCS.
2.21 Furthermore, in addition to housing allocations, the BCCS should allocate safeguarded land to provide greater certainty over the Green Belt boundaries beyond the plan period.
2.22 Where housing delivery is failing to meet plan requirements, a partial or full plan review should normally be considered to allocate safeguarded land for housing development. However, it is imperative that the BCCS includes clear triggers for such a review to ensure that the plan is transparent and effective.
2.23 In accordance with the recommendations of the LPEG Report, the Council should provide a mechanism for the release of developable reserve sites equivalent to 20% of the housing requirement. Taylor Wimpey considers that reserve sites, to be taken out of the safeguarded land supply if certain triggers are met, should be identified in the BCCS. This approach has been taken by other local authorities in adopted Local Plans and such triggers would include the lack of a five year supply or delivery below the housing trajectory. A good example of this is the West Lancashire Local Plan [Policy RS6] which includes the following mechanism for releasing reserve sites after 5 years of the plan, namely:
"If less than 80% of the pro rata housing target has been delivered after 5 years of the Plan period, then the Council will release land from that safeguarded from development..."
2.24 Similar triggers are included in the policy for low delivery after 10 years or if new evidence emerges that the housing requirement should be higher. An extract of the West Lancashire Local Plan [Policy RS6] is included at Annex 1 for reference.
Key Issue 9 - Working Effectively With Neighbours
2.25 It is acknowledgement that the Black Country authorities are committed to working in partnership with neighbouring stakeholders and meeting the requirements of the Duty to Co- Operate set out in the Framework. However, significant emphasis should be put on the Black Country's role and responsibility for meeting any unmet housing need from the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area [GBHMA].
2.26 Any additional identified need from the GBHMA must be accommodated within the Black Country and additional sites allocated for housing.
Reviewing the Strategy to Meet New Challenges and Opportunities
Vision, Principles, Spatial Objectives and Strategic Policies (Questions 7-9)
2.27 It is considered that the BCCS vision and sustainability principles remain generally appropriate as they reflect the sustainability principles of the Framework and Practice Guidance. Taylor Wimpey however, reserves the right to make further comment on the specific wording at subsequent stages of consultation on the BCCS.
2.28 It is considered that the BCCS spatial objectives remain generally appropriate but an obvious omission is a specific objective for providing the necessary level of housing in the Black Country, including any unmet housing need from the GBHMA. Such an objective should be added and other relevant objectives (i.e. 1 and 8) also amended to reflect the need to provide sufficient high quality housing in the locations where it is needed.
2.29 Taylor Wimpey agrees that policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the growth network. In particular, the policies will need to reflect and provide for adequate levels of housing based on robust evidence and including any additional identified need from the GBHMA.
Reviewing the Spatial Strategy
Stage 1: Strategic Options 1A and 1B - Continuing the Role of the Growth Network (Questions 10 and 11)
2.30 The adopted BCCS spatial strategy focussed on the Growth Network, which was identified as having the ability to meet the 'majority of long term development needs' [BCCS §4.11]. Taylor Wimpey agreed that the Growth Network no longer has the ability to meet the majority of long term development needs and the CD identifies two strategic options to meeting the housing and employment requirements.
2.31 Strategic Option 1A would seek to meet all remaining housing and employment land growth needs outside the Growth Network, whilst Strategic Option 1B would seek to re-structure the Growth Network, releasing some existing employment land for housing within regeneration corridors.
2.32 The CD makes it clear that Option 1B would be 'very challenging' [§§4.18-4.20] and acknowledges that despite the previous aim to shrink the stock of employment land, the employment land stock has proved to be more resilient than predicted and sites have proved difficult to bring forward for housing [CD §5.19]. The adopted BCCS planned for a contraction in net employment land but there is now a recognised need to increase employment land stock. If any employment land were to be redeveloped for housing within the regeneration corridors, or any amendments to any regeneration corridor boundaries were proposed, the local authorities will need to ensure that any proposed development sites were sustainable and viable.
2.33 Further work is therefore required in order to assess the feasibility of Option 1B in terms of whether it would be viable and/or sustainable and determine how much employment land would realistically be available and developable for housing.
2.34 Any employment land displaced under Option 1B would need to be made up elsewhere
[CD §4.19]. Therefore, whilst Taylor Wimpey does not object to the retention of the Growth
Network, there is a need to provide additional land to accommodate the housing needs of the Black Country and the unmet needs of the GBHMA. The CD identifies that further land will be required to provide 22-25,000 new homes and up to 300ha of new employment land [§4.12]. Additionally, analysis undertaken by Lichfields indicates that the BCCS proposals to accommodate 3,000 dwellings of Birmingham's unmet needs significantly underestimates the proportionate 'fair share' expected of the Black Country based on the size of its population. The requirement could be as high as 955 dpa, though it is recognised that more recent evidence is needed to determine the feasibility of distributing Birmingham's unmet need across the wider GBHMA.
2.35 There is a clear and unquestionable need to provide significant amounts of housing land outwith the Growth Network within the Green Belt. Therefore the BCCS must identify and allocate suitable sites for release from the Green Belt for housing development, whichever strategic option is pursued. Taylor Wimpey however broadly supports Option 1A.
Stage 2: Strategic Options 2A and 2B - Housing and Employment Outside the Urban Area (Questions 12-20)
2.36 There is inadequate land within the Black Country urban area to meet emerging employment and housing needs and there is also a pressing need to assist Birmingham in meeting its acute housing shortfall. Additionally an independent assessment of the Black Country's OAHN indicates a much higher requirement than that proposed by the BCCS (further details are provided in the 'Black Country Housing Needs Assessment - Headroom Report'). This need cannot be met within the existing urban area of the Black Country and therefore exceptional circumstances exist to justify the release of enough sites from the Green Belt to boost the supply of housing to meet the identified needs.
2.37 The CD identifies two spatial housing options to achieve this, namely 'rounding off' (Spatial Option H1) and Sustainable Urban Extensions [SUEs] (Spatial Option H2).
2.38 Taylor Wimpey considers that strategic scale Sustainable Urban Extensions [SUE] would normally comprise approximately 700 or more dwellings and provide new strategic social and physical infrastructure such as major highways improvements, and community healthcare and education facilities such as GPs practices or schools. Sites of around 300-700 dwellings may also constitute SUEs where they would provide substantial elements of social and physical infrastructure but not to the same scale as strategic SUEs.

2.39 Allocating SUEs of different scales across the Black Country could contribute to a mix of uses and a wide range of house types to significantly boost the supply of housing and could provide for significant investment in new infrastructure. However, relying only on very large scale sites to deliver the housing needed would have associated risks. Strategic scale sites often have more complex issues associated with them such as multiple ownerships and/or significant infrastructure requirements, which can restrict and/or delay delivery. Releasing smaller sites would help promote choice and opportunity for those in need of housing and also for developers to ensure that sustainable developments in the right locations will be viable and actually delivered. Smaller sites would need to be largely supported by existing infrastructure but could also contribute improvements to and therefore boost the existing local infrastructure in appropriate sustainable locations.

2.40 Taylor Wimpey therefore considers that there is merit in both Spatial Options H1 (rounding off) and H2 (Sustainable Urban Extensions) and therefore the most appropriate overall spatial approach in the BCCS should be to combine the two approaches. Specifically, the local authorities should identify deliverable and viable sites of all range of sizes, in sustainable locations where the size of the site and range of house types can reflect the local need for housing and the character of the area.

2.41 The critical challenge facing the Black Country is that whichever approach is adopted, large areas of the Green Belt are required for housing. Any site released from the Green Belt for housing would need to be available, suitable, achievable and viable and well related to existing patterns of development. All sites will also need to be assessed and those which would cause the least harm to Green Belt purposes. The Black Country Green Belt Review (due to be published in 2019) is therefore a crucial piece of work to identify sustainable sites which can be allocated for housing in the BCCS.

2.42 In this context, Call for Sites submissions relating to land at Chester Road, Streetly, and Bosty Lane, Aldridge accompany these representations and set out how each site would; provide a sustainable location for residential development; no longer contribute to Green Belt purposes; and, should therefore be removed from the Green Belt and allocated for residential development.

2.43 Taylor Wimpey objects to the suggestion that the Black Country's housing growth could be exported to neighbouring authorities for a number of reasons:
1 The OAHN should be fully met within the Black Country HMA to meet the needs of its residents and its growing population. However it is recognised that HMAs do not align precisely with local authority boundaries and there are grey areas at the margins in particular. As such, there can be overlaps between HMAs and there are situations where sites fall within multiple HMAs. For example the wider Black Country & South Staffordshire HMA has some overlap between the LPAs of Wolverhampton and South Staffordshire. In such situations where sites abut the borders of HMAs and are well related and accessible to settlements in adjoining districts, they can practically help meet some of the neighbouring needs whilst also meeting the needs of their HMA.

2 The nearby areas in the GBHMA cannot accommodate additional housing growth; for example Birmingham is already looking to neighbouring authorities to accommodate its growth. It is therefore unfeasible to expect neighbouring authorities to also accommodate the needs of the Black Country HMA.

3 As detailed in the 'Black Country Housing Needs Assessment - Headroom Report' there is a significant need for housing growth in the Black Country HMA, above the target proposed by the CD. Homes need to be built in locations that meet the needs of the residents living within and moving to the Black Country HMA. Additionally the Black Country HMA has an important role to play in helping to accommodate the unmet needs of Birmingham that must be shared by neighbouring authorities. Housing growth must be physically accommodated somewhere and it is not realistic or feasible for the Black Country HMA's needs to be exported to neighbouring authorities, particularly in addition to Birmingham's needs being exported.
4 The CD does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it would not be able to accommodate its housing growth needs within the Black Country HMA.

2.44 Taylor Wimpey considers that there are sufficient sites and locations within the Black Country to accommodate housing growth and sustainable development, albeit not within the existing urban area.

2.45 Taylor Wimpey considers that exporting housing needs would not be realistic as it would primarily rely upon increased levels of commuting. This would fall on journeys by car, increasing traffic flows between authorities within and outside the Black Country HMA. This is considered to be both unsustainable and undesirable, exacerbating existing pressures on the road network. The proposed Wednesbury to Brierly Hill Metro extension is expected to be open for passenger services in 2023, providing connectivity to regional and national rail services and Dudley Town Centre10. The Metro extension would improve capacity, journey times and accessibility for residents and people working in Dudley and Sandwell.

2.46 Whilst Taylor Wimpey does not wish to comment in detail on the spatial options for accommodating employment land growth, it notes that the Practice Guidance11 requires that potential job growth is considered in the context of potential unsustainable commuting patterns and as such plan-makers should consider how the location of new housing could help address this. Ensuring a sufficient supply of homes within easy access of employment sources represents a central facet of any efficiently functioning economy and can help to minimise housing pressures and unsustainable levels of commuting (and therefore congestion and carbon emissions).
Delivering Growth - Infrastructure and Viability

2.47 The local authorities should ensure that any proposed changes to policy DEL1 accord with the Framework [§§173-177] and do not place any unnecessary additional burden on smaller development sites as a result of attempting to be applicable to SUEs. Requirements relating to infrastructure needed in association with SUEs could be detailed in a separate policy or policies specific to each SUE.

2.48 Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to provide a further response on any changes to policy DEL1 or other policies dealing with infrastructure requirements at later stages of the preparation of the BCCS.

Social Infrastructure (Questions 22-25)

2.49 Taylor Wimpey does not have any specific comments to make on social infrastructure at this time but accepts that new social infrastructure is often required in relation to housing developments in order to achieve sustainable, high quality development. However, the local authorities must ensure that the BCCS accords with the Framework [§§173-177] and does not place unnecessarily burdensome requirements on developments to the point that viability and deliverability is impacted. Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to comment on such issues at the next stage of preparing the BCCS.

Physical Infrastructure (Questions 26-28)

2.50 Taylor Wimpey does not wish to make detailed comments on physical infrastructure at this time but accepts that new physical infrastructure is often required in relation to housing developments in order to achieve sustainable, high quality development. However, the local authorities must ensure that the BCCS accords with the Framework [§§173-177] and does not place unnecessarily burdensome requirements on developments to the point that viability and deliverability is impacted. Any infrastructure requirements should be proportionate to the scale of development proposed. Taylor Wimpey notes that the requirement of new physical infrastructure to serve any needs should be based on robust evidence.

10 http://www.metroalliance.co.uk/wednesbury-brierley-hill/
11 Practice Guidance Ref: 2a-018-20140306
2.51 Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to comment on such issues at the next stage of preparing the BCCS.
Delivery and Viability (Questions 29-30)
2.52 The CD [§§5.22-5.23] states that the Black Country has a good track record of working with developers to address viability issues and deliver sites and that delivery work will be undertaken in relation to Green Belt sites to understand what is required to make them viable and deliver the necessary infrastructure. A pro-active approach to ensure that any sites released from the Green Belt are viable and deliverable is welcomed.
2.53 In terms of the possible impacts of Green Belt release on the deliverability of brownfield sites, Taylor Wimpey notes that the Housing White Paper sets out clear policy proposals which the Council needs to consider in terms of ensuring that its Local Plan evidence base is robust. This includes the Housing Delivery Test [Housing White Paper §1.10] and a need to ensure that it has examined fully all other reasonable options when considering the release of land from the Green Belt [Housing White Paper §1.39-1.40].
2.54 Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to comment on the appropriateness of infrastructure delivery mechanisms either through conditions, planning/highway obligations or CIL until the Government provides further advice following the publication of the White Paper and any amendments to CIL and S106 obligations which are anticipated in the Autumn Budget.
Funding for Site Development and Infrastructure (Question 31)
2.55 The mechanisms listed in the CD [§§5.35-5.38], for funding infrastructure associated with developments are considered appropriate.
2.56 Taylor Wimpey does not wish to comment on the specific sources of funding to make developments viable [CD §§5.26-5.32] but notes that 25% of the existing Black Country housing land supply is not viable under current market conditions [CD §5.28]. The CD states that the sources of funding identified 'should' provide enough support to ring forward a sufficient supply of land to meet short to medium term needs as set out in the existing local plan [§5.32]. However, housing needs in excess of those in the existing BCCS have now been identified including additional need from the GBHMA and the release of Green Belt land is needed to meet those needs. If the identified sources fail to deliver the anticipated level of funding, there will be extra pressure for viable and deliverable sites to provide for the increased levels of housing need.

2.57 It is essential therefore that viable, deliverable Green Belt sites are allocated through the BCCS and the local authorities should also consider identifying further safeguarded land as set out in the Framework [§85] in order to meet development needs stretching well beyond the plan period (see §§2.21- 2.24 above).
Review of Existing Core Strategy Policies and Proposals
Policy Area A - Health and Wellbeing (Questions 32-34)
2.58 Taylor Wimpey does not have any specific comments to make on health and wellbeing at this time but in terms of design features of new developments, the local authorities must ensure that the BCCS accords with the Framework [§§173-177] and does not place unnecessarily burdensome requirements on developments to the point that viability and deliverability is impacted. Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to comment on such issues at the next stage of preparing the BCCS.
Policy Area B - Creating Sustainable Communities in the Black Country (Questions 35 - 48)
HOU1 - Housing Land Supply
2.59 The Framework [§47] is clear that there is a need to boost significantly the supply of housing in order to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes and ensure that Local Plans meet the full and objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the relevant housing market area.
2.60 The BCCS should plan for a level of housing growth to support the economic aspirations of the local authorities, align with their growth objectives, and accommodate the unmet need from the GBHMA. The local authorities should ensure that the relevant evidence base documents and studies have regard to each other, and that the objectively assessed need [OAN] for employment land is aligned with the OAN for housing. Demand for housing land and demand for employment land are inherently linked, and provision of both should be well planned and promote sustainable travel.
2.61 There are substantial negative economic and social implications of not providing sufficient housing to meet identified needs and demand. It is therefore crucial that enough housing land is allocated in the BCCS for residential development.
2.62 In order to ensure robustness and flexibility, the BCCS must ensure that the local authorities are able to demonstrate a deliverable 5 year supply of housing land throughout the life of the plan. It is therefore important that the spatial distribution of development allows all sites identified for development to conform with the deliverability criteria set out in the Framework [§47 and footnote 11].
2.63 Taylor Wimpey has not carried out a detailed assessment of any sources of supply or had the opportunity to review any evidence on which the housing supply in the BCCS will be based but notes that the housing target for the new plan period (2014-36) will be established through the BCCS review. Taylor Wimpey therefore reserves the right to comment on these issues at a later stage but notes that the BCCS will need to accord with the Framework [§47] and meet the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area. In particular:
1 Any sites identified in the BCCS land supply will need to meet the tests set out at footnotes 11 and 12 of the Framework and if a small sites windfall allowance is to be included, it must be based on robust evidence of past delivery of such sites;
2 The CD [§6.22] proposes a reduction in the levels of discount for non-delivery on sites within the Growth Network. Taylor Wimpey notes that the levels of discount should not be reduced unless robust evidence on past delivery can be presented in support of this. The housing needs of the Black Country and GBHMA can only be met by releasing sites from the Green Belt, outside of the growth network where there will be less certainty and therefore an appropriate discount is necessary; and,
3 The housing requirement in the BCCS should be treated as a minimum rather than a maximum figure and an adequate surplus should be provided to give flexibility to deal with changing circumstances as required by the Framework [§153].
2.64 In summary, the BCCS must provide the necessary land to accommodate both the housing needs of the Black Country and the additional need from the GBHMA. The BCCS must also provide flexibility to deal with changing circumstances as required by the Framework [§153] and for the longer term needs of the Black Country. The local authorities therefore need to identify significant amounts of Green Belt land and allocate sites such as those at Bosty Lane, Aldridge and Chester Road, Streetly, through the BCCS.
HOU2 - Housing Density, Type and Accessibility
2.65 Taylor Wimpey supports parts of the existing text to policy HOU2 in so much as it recognises that the density and type of new housing provided on each site will be informed by:
1 The need for a range of types and sizes of accommodation to meet identified sub regional and local needs;
2 The level of accessibility by sustainable transport to residential services, including any improvements to be secured through development; and,
3 The need to achieve high quality design and minimise amenity impacts, taking into account the characteristics and mix of uses in the area where the proposal is located.
2.66 Taylor Wimpey supports the removal of the final paragraph of policy HOU2 [CD §6.28] which currently requires local plan documents to prescribe the density and house type mix for each allocation.
2.67 The Housing White Paper signals the Government's intention to minimise the use of local standards (through the Housing Standards Review) and therefore Taylor Wimpey does not support accessibility standards applied on a 'blanket' policy basis as this can lead to viability issues on developments.
2.68 Higher density development will be more appropriate in town centres and close to public transport nodes and local services but the current policy wording was adopted in the context of a spatial strategy which did not require substantial Green Belt release, as is now required. The policy should be updated to allow for the density and house type mix of any housing development site should reflect the local context in which the site is located.
2.69 The balance of new housing types and sizes should be based on an appropriate evidence base such as the 2017 SHMA findings. It is important however to also maintain a degree of flexibility to respond to changing local circumstances and more up-to-date evidence as time goes on.
2.70 Taylor Wimpey would not support a policy requirement for serviced plots on large housing sites if it threatened the viability and/or deliverability of the site. If such a requirement was introduced, there must be a mechanism to relax the requirement if it proved to not be viable on any given site.
2.71 Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to make more detailed comments on the specific wording of policy HOU2 at future stages in the preparation of the BCCS.
Policy HOU3 - Affordable Housing
2.72 The Council is querying whether the annual affordable homes target should be increased to reflect the 2017 Black Country Strategic Housing Market Assessment. Such an increase should only occur if the SHMA is robust.
2.73 Taylor Wimpey generally supports the provision of affordable housing, particularly in light of the Housing White Paper which sets out the Government's commitment to helping to support people to buy their own homes. Taylor Wimpey is supportive of the inclusion of starter homes as defined affordable housing provision and the Council should amend any evidence within the SHMA to meet emerging National Guidance. The White Paper [§4.15] states that there is a desire to deliver starter homes as part of a mixed package of affordable housing that can respond to local needs and markets.
2.74 The threshold in Policy HOU3 of sites of 15 or more dwellings should be reduced to sites of 11 or more dwellings to reflect the Practice Guidance12 and ensure that all major housing development proposals that can contribute to the provision of affordable housing, do contribute, particularly if the overall annual affordable homes target is increased.
2.75 Taylor Wimpey strongly objects to the proposal to increase the affordable housing requirement on future Green belt release sites. The 25% affordable housing requirement on private housing sites should not be increased, nor should a higher requirement set for Green Belt release housing sites, unless robust evidence shows that his would be viable and deliverable. The local authorities must ensure that the BCCS accords with the Framework [§173-177] and does not place unnecessarily burdensome requirements on developments to the point that viability and deliverability is impacted. In any case therefore, the final paragraph of Policy HOU3 must be retained so that on sites where the policy requirement for affordable housing is proven not to be viable, the maximum proportion of affordable housing will be sought which will not undermine the development's viability.
Policy HOU5 - Education and Health Care Facilities
2.76 If Policy HOU5 were to be expanded to include any other types of built social infrastructure, they would need to be adequately evidenced and viability tested to ensure that they would not place additional burdens on housing development sites to the point that viability and/or deliverability is threatened.
2.77 Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to comment further on this matter and any specific policy wording at subsequent stages in the preparation of the BCCS.
Policy Area B - Creating Sustainable Communities in the Black Country (Question 49)
Policy DEL2 - Managing the Balance between Employment Land and Housing
2.78 Taylor Wimpey does not wish to provide detailed comments at this point on whether policy DEL2 should be retained and/or amended as this will depend largely on the overall spatial strategic and strategic option pursued. Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to comment further on this matter and any specific policy wording at subsequent stages in the preparation of the BCCS.
Policy Area F - The Black Country Environment (Questions 94-103)
Policies CSP3 and CSP4 - Environmental Infrastructure and Placemaking
2.79 The proposed changes to Policies CSP3 and CSP4 set out in the CD [§6.1.46] are supported as they will simply make the policies consistent with the local authorities' adopted Development Plan Documents.
12 Practice Guidance Ref: 23b-031-20161116
2.80 If Garden City principles were to be introduced they would need to be fully viability tested so as not to threaten the viability and/or delivery of housing sites.
2.81 Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to make further detailed comments on the specific wording of these policies at subsequent stages in the preparation of the BCCS.
Policy ENV3 Design Quality
2.82 Taylor Wimpey agrees with the proposed change to Policy ENV3 to remove the requirement to meet Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 or above for residential development as this no longer accords with national policy and guidance.
2.83 Taylor Wimpey acknowledges the need to provide accessible accommodation but given the Government's intention to minimise the use of local standards (through the Housing Standards Review), Taylor Wimpey would not support the introduction of any additional accessibility standards introduced on a 'blanket' policy basis as this would lead to viability issues on developments. The same would be true for water consumption and space standards. The BCCS must accord with the Framework [§§173-177] and not place unnecessarily burdensome requirements on developments to the point that viability and deliverability is impacted.
2.84 Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to comment on these issues at the next stage of preparing the Local Plan.
ENV5 Flood Risk, Sustainable Drainage (SuDS) and Urban Heat Island Effects
2.85 Taylor Wimpey generally supports the proposed change to policy ENV5 to prioritise natural green space SuDS where it is "practical and viable" [CD §6.1.58]. The BCCS should also go further and define what is meant by 'practical' (i.e. where natural green space SuDS would not prevent the efficient use of land or achieving an overall high quality, well designed development).
2.86 Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to make further detailed comments on the specific wording of these policies at subsequent stages in the preparation of the BCCS.
ENV7 - Renewable Energy
2.87 Taylor Wimpey acknowledges and agrees with the recognition [CD §6.1.64] that any change to the % requirement would need to be justified with evidence. Taylor Wimpey therefore reserves the right to make further comment on any changes proposed at subsequent stages of the preparation of the BCCS.
Policy Are J - Growth Network Detailed Proposals (Question 117)
2.88 Taylor Wimpey agrees in principle with the proposed approach of updating and amending Appendix 2 and Tables 2 and 3 of the existing Core Strategy but reserves the right to make further comment on any specific changes proposed at subsequent stages of the preparation of the BCCS.
Policy Area K - Monitoring and Additional Policies (Question 118-119)
2.89 Taylor Wimpey supports the proposals to streamline and simplify the Core Strategy Monitoring Framework and focus on the key quantitative indicators, in particular 'net new homes'.
2.90 There is a clear and over-riding need to release sites from the Green Belt to meet the housing needs of the Black Country and GBHMA. Taylor Wimpey fully supports the recognition that a new section in the BCCS should allocate specific Green Belt sites for housing development [CD §6.2.6]. Taylor Wimpey reserves the right to make further detailed comments on such a section and the policies it contains at subsequent stages in the preparation of the BCCS.

Question 1 - Do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies? Yes/No; If not, what do you think should be the scope of the review?
The adopted Core Strategy predates the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Core Strategy should be fully updated to take account of all relevant changes in Government policies and guidance, including the implementation of provisions being brought in through the Housing and Planning Act (2016), such as Starter Homes and the Brownfield Land Register. The Black Country covers four Local Authorities and it is therefore crucial that the spatial strategy is fully reviewed so that all the policies are relevant and up-to-date. Furthermore, the scale of the proposed changes to the existing strategy warrants a full and comprehensive Core Strategy Review. It is also essential that the Review takes account of the Birmingham Housing Market Area (HMA) shortfall.
Question 2 - Do you think that the key evidence set out in Table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If not, what further evidence is required and, if there are any particular issues that should be taken into account in considering development on any particular sites or in any particular areas, please provide details.
The existing evidence base is, in part, dated and needs to be brought fully up-to-date in order to provide a sound and robust basis for the emerging Core Strategy.
Our client continues to promote the acceptability of the redevelopment of the previous developed land (including Factory complex AP (UK)) at Heathfield Lane West, Darlaston (Walsall Borough) for housing development (please refer to the Call for Sites submission).
Question 3 - Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014-36 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.
We recognise that there will be a need to release greenfield (including Green Belt) land for development to plug the shortfall between the existing supply identified through the Black Country Core Strategy constituent Authorities' SHLAAs and the final objectively assessed housing need figure for the Black Country. In reviewing the existing supply data we consider that it is important to continue to encourage housing development on previously developed sites, to assist with the delivery of regeneration across the Black Country and to contribute to achieving sustainable development. There should be an appropriate balance between previously developed and greenfield land supply.
The completions and SHLAA housing supply figure of 48,185 homes includes the previously developed land (including factory complex AP (UK)) at Heathfield Lane West, Darlaston (please refer to the Call for Sites Submission). We support the retention of this site, as a suitable site for significant housing delivery, in the housing land supply.
Question 6 - Do you agree that the key issues set out in Part 3 are the key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy Review? Yes/No; If not, what other key issues should be taken into account?
We agree with the essence of the key issues summarised in the first two bullet points. The Black Country Authorities should still retain their focus on supporting the redevelopment of brownfield land for housing, where appropriate, alongside the need to look beyond the existing Growth Network for additional land supply. However we consider that a full review of the Core Strategy should be undertaken, supported by a robust and up-to-date evidence base, to ensure the Core Strategy is sound.
Question 7 - Do you think that the Core Strategy vision and sustainability principles remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest?
The NPPF (paragraph 17) states that the principles of planning should encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed. The NPPF does not provide a specific hierarchy for the development of land and therefore we recognise that having a sustainability principle that seeks to put brownfield land first could be difficult to justify and enforce. Accordingly we consider that the fourth sustainability principle should more closely reflect the wording of the NPPF. However it is important that the Black Country Authorities still positively encourage the redevelopment of suitable brownfield sites because these are still an important element of having a balanced housing land supply.
Question 9 - Do you agree that Policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the Growth Network? Yes/No; If not, what changes do you think should be made to Policies CSP1 and CSP2 in response to new challenges and opportunities?
We consider that Core Strategy policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be updated to reflect growth proposals beyond the Growth Network.
Question 10 - In continuing to promote growth within the Growth Network, is there a need to amend the boundaries of any of the Regeneration Corridors in the existing Core Strategy? Yes/No; If so, which boundaries and why?
We consider that the boundary of Regeneration Corridor RC5 should be expanded to include the former AP (UK) and Moxley Tip sites because these are both significant regeneration sites and both included within the emerging Walsall Site Allocations Document.
Question 11b - Are there any current employment areas that might be considered suitable for redevelopment to housing? Yes/No; Please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form.
We continue to support the redevelopment of the former AP (UK) site to housing. This site has extant planning permission (ref. 08/0394/FUL) for redevelopment to housing and is the subject of a draft allocation (HO303) within Policy HC1 of the ongoing Walsall Site Allocations Document. Proposals for the redevelopment of this site for housing are being actively pursued. We therefore strongly promote the inclusion of this site as a housing site within the Core Strategy (please refer to the Call for Sites submission).
Question 35 - Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
The shortfall in housing land supply means that the percentage of housing development on previously developed land is going to decrease from the 95% target included in current Core Strategy Policy HOU1 due to the need to release greenfield land to meet the Emerging needs. The Black Country Authorities should however continue to positively encourage and support development on previously developed sites, through viability negotiations and through the use of grant funding where necessary. This will enable suitable previously developed sites to come forward for housing development at the earliest opportunity as part of a balanced housing land supply.
Question 36 - Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 should be changed? Yes/No; If yes, what standards should be applied instead, for example should the minimum net density of 35 dwellings per hectare be increased to maximise brownfield housing delivery?
NPPF paragraph 58 states that policies should aim to ensure that developments should respond to local character and history and reflect the identity of local surroundings. NPPF paragraph 59 identifies that design policies should avoid unnecessary prescription or detail and infers that the approach to density should be taken in relation to the neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally. The NPPF does not therefore currently set minimum density standards.
Any proposed changes to accessibility and density standards need to be justified with appropriate evidence. Before a review of Policy HOU2 and Table 8 is pursued, further evidence should be provided on whether the accessibility and density standards have been successful. We consider that applying blanket policies on density does not always lead to the most appropriate forms of development that are deliverable, viable, and compatible with the location and meet market requirements. The wording of Policy HOU2 should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate approaches to density to be considered on a site-by-site basis.
We therefore disagree with setting a minimum net density of 35dph and with a possible increase on this figure. Furthermore any proposed changes to the current accessibility standards should only be undertaken using the criteria set out in the Planning Practice Guidance.
Question 37a - Do you think that the existing Policy HOU2 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why
Question 37b - If no, should it be reduced to 11 homes or more? Yes/No; If no what other threshold should be used and why?
Further evidence should be presented on what proportion of housing delivery across the Black Country has been on sites of 15 dwellings or more. The Black Country faces significant challenges over the viability of sites within its housing land supply under the current market conditions. The Core Strategy should be supported by up-to-date viability evidence. Any proposed changes to site size thresholds needs to be supported by robust evidence on viability and deliverability. The NPPF (paragraphs 173 & 174) sets out the need for policies to avoid placing such burdens on sites that their ability to be developed viably is threatened and to avoid placing the implementation of the plan at serious risk. We reserve the right to comment further as and when new evidence becomes available.
Question 39 - Do you think separate accessibility standards are needed for particular types of housing e.g. housing for the elderly or affordable housing (as occupiers may be less mobile and more dependent on public transport)? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
The proposal for any additional accessibility standards for particular types of housing should be justified by sufficient appropriate evidence that meets the requirements of the Planning Practice Guidance. The NPPF (paragraphs 173 and 174) sets out the need for policies to be supported by evidence, the need for policies to avoid placing such burdens on sites that their ability to be developed viably is threatened and the need to avoid placing the implementation of the plan at serious risk. More evidence is therefore required. We reserve the right to comment further as and when new evidence becomes available.
Question 40 - Do you agree that the 2017 SHMA findings should be used to set general house type targets for the Plan period? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
The NPPF (paragraph 50) requires Local Planning Authorities to take Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMAs) into account as part of the evidence base for developing Local Plans. The NPPF also states that local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community, as well as identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations, reflecting local demand.
Therefore it is appropriate for the 2017 Black Country and South Staffordshire SHMA should form part of the consideration in appraising the mix of homes to be delivered on individual sites. However the Core Strategy policies should avoid setting prescriptive house type targets for the Plan period to provide the flexibility for a wide range of factors to be taken into account in delivering different types of housing on sites in the Black Country over the course of the Plan period.
Question 41a - Do you support the introduction of a policy approach towards self and custom build housing in the Core Strategy? Yes/No; If yes, would you support:
Question 41b - A target for each authority? Yes/No; Any further comments
Question 41c - A requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots? Yes/No; Any further comments?
Question 41d - Another approach altogether? Yes/No; If yes, please specify. Question 41e - Do you support the use of a variety of local approaches to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) across the Black Country? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
It is considered that there is currently insufficient evidence to support a requirement for the Core Strategy strategic policies to introduce either a specific policy approach towards self and custom build housing, or a target for each authority, or a requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots. Whilst the Core
Strategy could encourage the development of self and custom build housing, it should not introduce specific delivery requirements and targets without robust evidence.
Question 42 - Do you agree that the annual affordable homes target should be increased to reflect the 2017 Black Country Strategic Housing Market Assessment? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
Detailed evidence is required to determine, amongst other matters, viability and past delivery across the BCCS area, before any changes can be proposed.
Question 43a - Do you think that the existing Policy HOU3 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
Question 43b - If no, should it be reduced to 11 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, what threshold should be used?
Further evidence is required. The Black Country faces significant challenges over the viability of sites within its housing land supply under the current market conditions. The Core Strategy should be supported by up-to-date viability evidence. Any proposed change to site size thresholds needs to be supported by robust evidence on viability and deliverability. The NPPF (paragraphs 174 and 174) sets out the need for policies to avoid placing such burdens on sites that their ability to be developed viably is threatened and to avoid placing the implementation of the Plan at serious risk. We reserve the right to comment further as and when new evidence becomes available.
Question 44a - Do you think that the affordable housing requirement for eligible sites in Question 43 should be kept at 25% of the total number of homes on the site? Yes /No; Any further comments?
Question 44b If no, should the percentage be increased to allow for the provision of affordable home ownership? Yes/No; If yes, what should the percentage be and why?
Further detailed evidence is required to support any proposed changes. The Core Strategy should be supported by up-to-date viability evidence, including with respect to whether a 25% requirement remains viable.
Any proposed changes to affordable housing requirements needs to be supported by robust evidence on viability and deliverability. The NPPF (paragraphs 173 and 174) sets out the need for policies to avoid placing such burdens on sites that their ability to be developed viably is threatened and to avoid placing the implementation of the plan at serious risk. We reserve the right to comment further as and when new evidence becomes available.
Question 49a - Is there still a need for existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
Question 49b - If yes, should this policy be used to assess the release of employment land to alternative uses, other than housing? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why.
Where there is clear evidence that the existing employment use is not required, then such previously developed sites should be released to meet the housing requirement within the Black Country. The NPPF (paragraph 17) encourages the effective use of land by reusing previously developed (brownfield) land. The NPPF (paragraph 22) also states that planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose.
Question 99a - Do you think that national standards for housing development on water consumption should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why?
Our client considers that the approach to water efficiency should reflect the outcome of the Housing Standards Review (2015) and therefore seeking a water efficiency target of 125 litres per person per day being the minimum national standard, implemented through building regulations.
The DCLG Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) issued on 25 March 2015 stated that "From the date that the Deregulation Bill 2015 is given Royal Assent, local planning authorities and qualifying bodies preparing neighbourhood plans should not set in their emerging Local Plans, neighbourhood plans, or supplementary planning documents, any additional local technical standards or requirements relating to the construction, internal layout or performance of new dwellings". The Deregulation Bill was given Royal Assent on 26 March 2015.
Any variation to the national minimum standard would therefore require additional evidence. As acknowledged in paragraph 6.1.52 of the Black Country Core Strategy Issues and Options Report, the Black Country does not currently lie in an area of serious water stress and therefore it does not appear likely that a variation to the national minimum standard could be demonstrated. However we reserve the right to comment further if new evidence becomes available.
The WMS also states that the optional new national technical standards with respect to water should only be required through any new Local Plan policies if they address a clearly evidenced need, and where their impact on viability has been considered in accordance with the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance. The Planning Practice Guidance identifies that in order for Local Planning Authorities to introduce a new requirement they need to identify a 'clear need' based on: existing sources of evidence; consultations with the local water and sewerage companies, the Environment Agency and catchment partnerships; and consideration of the impact on viability and housing supply of such a requirement.
Question 99b - Do you think that national access standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
In accordance with the requirements of the NPPF (paragraph 174), in setting any local standards through Local Plan documents, "local planning authorities should assess the likely cumulative impacts on development in their area of all existing and proposed local standards, supplementary planning documents and policies that support the development plan, when added to nationally required standards. In order to be appropriate, the cumulative impact of these standards and policies should not put implementation of the plan at serious risk, and should facilitate development throughout the economic cycle. Evidence supporting the assessment should be proportionate, using only appropriate available evidence".
The national accessibility standards are not a requirement. The NPPF (paragraph 158) makes it clear that each local planning authority should ensure that their Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date, and relevant evidence. The new Core Strategy should therefore only require developers to meet the national accessibility standards if this can be justified by appropriate evidence in accordance with the criteria set out in the Planning Practice Guidance, with reference to Requirement M4(2) and/or M4(3) of the optional requirements in the Building Regulations. We reserve the right to comment further if and when new evidence becomes available.
Question 99c - Do you think that national space standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
In accordance with the requirements of the NPPF (paragraph 174), in setting any local standards through Local Plan documents, "local planning authorities should assess the likely cumulative impacts on development in their area of all existing and proposed local standards, supplementary planning documents and policies that support the development plan, when added to nationally required standards. In order to be appropriate, the cumulative impact of these standards and policies should not put implementation of the plan at serious risk, and should facilitate development throughout the economic cycle. Evidence supporting the assessment should be proportionate, using only appropriate available evidence".
We consider that space standards should be left to developers to determine in line with market requirements.
Whilst the Housing Standards Review introduces a new national space standard, this has not been incorporated into the Building Standards and is not a requirement. Housebuilders have a vested interest in building products that meet market needs, which will sell and which are viable to build. The policies in the new Core Strategy should be sufficiently flexible to allow this to happen without adding a prescriptive policy burden. If the market demands space standards in line with the optional national standards, then it is more likely that developers will deliver these. These considerations all form part of the need to take account of 'market signals', as required by the NPPF.
The NPPF makes it clear that each local planning authority should ensure that their Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence. The new Core Strategy should therefore only require developers to meet the National Space Standards if this can be justified by taking account of need (evidence provided on the size and type of dwelling currently being built in the area), viability (consideration of the impact of adopting the space standards as part of the Plan's viability assessment) and timing (potential need to factor in a reasonable transition period following adoption of a new policy on space standards to allow developers to factor this into future land acquisitions), in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Practice Guidance. We reserve the right to comment further if and when new evidence becomes available.
Question 99d - Do you think that the standards should be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No; If yes, please explain how and why
There is currently no evidence presented with the Issues and Options consultation document to use to make an informed decision on whether the standards should be different for brownfield and greenfield sites.

Question 1: Do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies? Yes/No; If not, what do you think should be the scope of the review?
2.4 In response to Question 1 and whether it should be a partial review or not, whilst the existing strategy identifies the most sustainable locations for growth in the context of delivering development requirements identified by the Regional Strategy (RS), there is now a new and much bigger challenge ahead in meeting the arising needs for homes identified by the latest evidence and there is concern that the existing spatial strategy may not facilitate the delivery of these needs. The Black Country authorities, therefore, need to be mindful of this and not attempt to put "a square peg in a round hole".
2.5 It is our view that urban regeneration can be achieved whilst pursuing development on the urban edge. Indeed, the scale of housing need is so large that both must be encouraged in order to meet current and arising housing needs within the Black Country.
2.6 It is extremely important that in reviewing the Core Strategy it fully takes account of and facilitates the delivery of strategic economic plans, as recognised in paragraph 1.15. All too often these strategies are ignored and, accordingly, development plans could effectively frustrate economic growth from being realised.
2.7 In terms of the Plan period proposed in paragraph 1.17, whilst a 15-year time period from adoption is appropriate, there is concern that the preparation of plans is often delayed (due to reasons beyond the control of the LPAs) and it may be prudent to stretch the period further to prevent such an issue from occurring.
2.8 It is welcomed that the Issues and Options document recognises that it will not be possible to accommodate all future development needs within the urban area and that an examination of the potential for development land outside the existing urban area, which is effectively land within the Green Belt, will take place as part of the Core Strategy review process.
3. THE BLACK COUNTRY TODAY - THE EXISTING STRATEGY
3.1 As set out within this section, the delivery of both employment and housing land has not come forward as originally envisaged in part due to the after effects of the recession. Surplus employment land which might have been available for housing has not come forward due to a strengthening economy and local firms being more robust than anticipated. In addition, the range of locations available has not in all cases met with market expectations as to where people want to live.
3.2 In terms of the employment land, it is important that sufficient land is provided for new employment and that there is not an overreliance on land that is currently in use. It is impressive that despite generally poor economic performance local businesses have performed well. Should the economy significantly improve within the Plan period in line with LEP aspirations (considered later in this response), there is concern that it may become difficult to transfer a wide range of existing employment locations to housing allocations. It is appropriate, therefore, for the Council to ensure the evidence contained within the Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment is reviewed and updated regularly. This will enable the land supply to be responsive to arising needs and not rigidly be wedded to delivering commitments that are unlikely to be realised.
3.3 What is further emphasised by the analysis in this section is that urban regeneration cannot be delivered quickly and that there are a number of factors beyond the control of the Black Country authorities that may have implications for the delivery of the strategy. This further emphasises the need for a mix of types of sites (brownfield, brownfield compulsory purchase, greenfield and Green Belt) of different forms of development (high density, mid and low density family homes) in a variety of locations, which will maximise the opportunities to deliver a successful Local Plan.
3.4 Finally, in respect of the proposal to maintain 300 hectares of employment land that will become vacant by way of general churn over the Plan period. Whilst the principle is considered acceptable, there should be appropriate evidence to support the assumption.
3.5 Our experience is that there are employment sites that clients are looking to secure a residential allocation on that have not been identified thus far. In light of these changing circumstances, the Black Country authorities should ensure that the policy approach is flexible to allow sites in appropriate locations to be brought forward for housing throughout the Plan period and likewise, sites that have been allocated for housing but have not come forward should be removed from the supply.
4. THE STRATEGIC CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
4.1 It is welcomed that the Black Country authorities are updating their evidence base. Indeed, the adopted Core Strategy took the development requirements from the adopted Regional Strategy (RS), which has since been revoked and is unquestionably out of date. Since the RS was published there has been a number of population and household projections published showing increasing dwelling requirements in the Black Country, which were largely ignored and, therefore, it should come as no surprise that there is a significant increase in forming households.
4.2 In terms of the list of evidence either prepared or due to be completed, it appears to be sufficiently comprehensive.
4.3 A separate review of the housing evidence based, including the Strategic Housing Market Assessment for the Black Country and South Staffordshire, is contained at Appendix A. The key conclusions arising from the report as summarised as follows:
* In determining the OAN, there are concerns with regard to the SHMA methodology and it is suggested a further scenario should be tested to consider long term growth which includes balanced periods of economic prosperity and decline.
* There is concern that the economic growth scenarios do not use the latest economic forecast data and that the methodology translating the job growth into dwelling growth is not sufficiently robust to accurately determine the impact of forecasts based on existing circumstances and also more aspirational job growth targets, such as those arising from the SEP.
* In terms of providing uplifts for market signals, a 25% uplift for South Staffs is appropriate. It is advised that dwelling requirements for the Black Country should not be reduced as a result of this and, accordingly, it should not count towards meeting any unmet needs outside of the HMA as the main function is to provide slack within the housing market and prevent house prices from increasing at an accelerated rate.
4.4 In addition, consideration of the Housing Background Report is also contained in the Housing Evidence Based Review Paper contained at Appendix A. The key findings from reviewing the evidence is set out below:
* Clearly a lot of work is yet to be done to determine what the housing land supply position is in the Black Country. Given that much of the existing evidence is based on the adopted Core Strategy, it is recognised that the SHLAAs across the four authorities will need to be updated, both in terms of revising the methodology and range of sites assessed, to reflect a potentially different approach to locating development.
* It is commendable that the Housing Background Report has examined existing sources of supply in an attempt to provide additional homes from sites within the urban area. There is concern, however, that by changing policies, for example, to increase the minimum density on sites has wider policy implications to take into account than simply increasing the number of homes.
* The Housing Background Report suggests a continued allowance for larger windfall sites. It is suggested that it is inappropriate to include an allowance for this source as there is no certainty that this land will come forward for development.
* Other sources, such as converting employment sites to residential sites, based on the evidence presented and feedback from the development industry, it is known that there are employment sites functioning well as employment sites but are to be converted to residential and other employment sites that are unoccupied and undesirable that are to be retained as employment sites. Clearly, there is a mismatch between employment land need and employment land supply. It is advised that the qualitative assessment of employment informs future land supply recommendations and allocations are revised where necessary.
4.5 As a result of the dwelling requirements generated by the SHMA and the land supply identified from the Housing Background Report, it is concluded that there in insufficient urban land to provide for the development requirements and that a Green Belt Review should be conducted. It is noted that scoping is underway and that the work is to be completed in mid-2018. It is hopeful that the development industry will be involved in defining the methodology of the work to ensure that it is conducted in a robust way.
4.6 Another very important piece of work to be taken into consideration will be the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA Strategic Growth Study. It is unclear at this stage what role the Black Country authorities will play in meeting the wider needs of Birmingham and, indeed, whether it can now contribute given that meeting the needs of the indigenous population will be a tall order. Further, there is uncertainty with regard to how far the study will go in identifying locations for growth and how this evidence will be taken forward in emerging Development Plans, particularly given that it is premature to the Green Belt Review for the wider Black Country area. It is our view that there are sites within the Green Belt that will provide sustainable locations for growth and that their removal will not compromise the purposes of the Green Belt and, accordingly it will remain purposeful and functional.
Question 2: Do you think that the key evidence set out in Table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If not, what further evidence is required and, if there are any particular issues that should be taken into account in considering development on any particular sites or in any particular areas, please provide details
4.7 It is considered that the evidence contained within Table 1 is comprehensive, however, as suggested above and below, a number of concerns have been highlighted and it is therefore suggested that these are addressed in order to improve the soundness of the next iteration of the Core Strategy Review.
4.8 It is welcomed that an updated qualitative assessment of employment land has been undertaken in order to identify if the sites are fit for purpose, alongside the quantitative employment land study. It has been identified that a number of employment land sites that have been suggested for residential land allocations remain in occupation as functioning employment sites. These sites should be removed from the housing land supply. Conversely, there are vacant employment land sites that have been marketed over a period of time where no market interest has been forthcoming and, therefore, it is recommended that these sites should be considered for housing delivery.
4.9 It is noted that Viability Studies are identified as evidence base documents that are still to be prepared. Whilst not specifically identified, it is recommended that affordable housing viability is a key matter that needs to be addressed as part of this evidence base to ensure the level suggested by the SHMA Part 2 is deliverable. If this is not the case, the delivery of both market and affordable housing could be compromised and prevent the successful delivery of any new strategy.
Question 3: Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014-36 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.
4.10 In terms of the extent of the sub market, which includes the Black Country and South Staffordshire, this is considered to be appropriate. It is recognised and welcomed that the Black Country authorities and South Staffordshire have jointly undertaken a SHMA for the sub area, which facilitates the preparation of an Issues and Options Core Strategy Review. There is concern, however, that the remaining constituent authorities within the wider Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area have not taken part and there is a danger that housing need for the whole HMA may not entirely be comprehensively captured due to the different time periods covered by the separate studies. It is advised that a SHMA, consistent with the guidance in the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance, is prepared for the entire HMA over the same Plan period (as opposed to a housing needs study), which will properly consider all relevant factors in a consistent and comprehensive manner.
4.11 The OAN arrived at by the SHMA is generally appropriate in identifying the starting point for determining the dwelling requirement, however, it is suggested a further scenario should be tested to consider long term growth which includes balanced periods of economic prosperity and decline. There is concern that the economic growth scenarios contain potentially out of date employment forecasts and the methodology to determine appropriate dwelling requirements is not sufficiently robust to accurately determine the impact of forecasts based on existing circumstances. In addition, more aspirational job growth targets, such as those arising from the SEP, may not necessarily be appropriate for the Black Country (as discussed later in these representations).
4.12 In terms of providing an uplift for market signals, a 25% uplift for South Staffs is agreed to be appropriate. It is advised that dwelling requirements for the Black Country should not be reduced as a result of this and, accordingly, the application of such an uplift in South Staffordshire should not count towards meeting any unmet needs outside of the HMA as the main function is to provide slack or headroom within the housing market and prevent house prices from increasing at an accelerated rate, exacerbating issues of affordability.
4.13 Clearly, the evidence contained in the SHMA does not consider the potential to accommodate any of Birmingham City's housing needs and that this could result in increased dwelling requirements. We reserve our position in respect of this matter and await the publication of the HMA wide Strategic Housing Needs Study.
4.14 We shortly await a consultation publication from central Government in relation to providing a standardised methodology for generating dwelling requirements. This is anticipated in Autumn 2017. The Black Country authorities will need to take account of any proposed national policy changes identified through the consultation paper. We reserve our position on this matter, until the full details and implications for the Back Country are known. It is considered that, whilst a standard methodology will be helpful in identifying a baseline dwelling requirement, the consideration of long term trends and economic forecasts cannot be carried out in a mathematical calculation outside a demographic/ economic model. In light of this, the SHMA prepared for the sub-area could remain useful as evidence to inform the review of the Black Country Core Strategy.
4.15 In terms of meeting the dwelling requirements, it is understood that the 'Call for Sites' consultation will inform an updated SHLAA, which will assess sites both within and outside the urban area to determine the maximum number of dwellings that can be realistically delivered within the Black Country over the proposed Plan period. The Housing Background Report that has been published as part of the evidence base for the Issues and Options Core Strategy Review has considered assumptions contained within the SHLAA based on adopted policies and considers changes to the policies to boost the delivery of housing on existing sites. Whilst it is a commendable that the Black Country authorities are exploring all potential options to boost housing on urban land, there are wider implications of doing so and accordingly, caution is expressed in response to a number of the identified approaches proposed.
4.16 As confirmed in paragraph 3.15, it is extremely important that the Black Country authorities 'firm up' the housing supply in order to ensure that there is sufficient provision to meet the dwelling requirements. It is also considered appropriate to provide an additional buffer of housing land supply to provide a contingency when sites are delayed. As explained earlier in the Issues and Options Report, sites providing a total of 3,000 homes have not come forward as anticipated. It is considered that additional supply is required to provide flexibility and minimise any durations within the Plan period where the housing trajectory would otherwise dip.
4.17 In terms of the extent of a buffer for housing land, the Local Plan Expert Group suggested that additional land, equivalent to delivering 20% of the overall dwelling requirement, is added to the supply, which will provide a contingency of land to be used as and when necessary during the Plan period. It is suggested that this additional land will help ensure the dwelling delivery targets and housing needs are met in a timely manner, which will reduce the opportunity for households to become concealed or shared. Given the issues experienced in respect of delivery in the past, it could be argued that an increased buffer of circa 25% could be applied.
4.18 It is also appropriate to ensure that, as well as identifying the right amount of land, there is sufficient variety in the types of sites (brownfield, greenfield, Green Belt) are identified, reflecting different sizes, in a range of locations. This variety in provision will allow the best opportunity for multiple sites to come forward at the same time without market constraint and hence ensuring delivery targets are met. In addition, this approach will also provide market choice to existing and arising households looking to move into a new home in the Black Country, which will have wider social benefits (i.e. allow families to live nearby one another and provide an opportunity to diversify existing communities through providing alternative homes to the existing housing stock).
4.19 Indeed, as previously documented in the adopted Core Strategy, it is considered that the ambition to retain the young and professional population within the Black Country should be maintained and that suitable and attractive housing and complementary environments are encouraged.
4.20 Finally, it is welcomed that the Black Country authorities have agreed to test the dwelling requirement figures on an ongoing basis. It is hoped that the suggested changes/alternative scenarios suggested above are implemented in order to ensure the evidence base is robust and the resultant policies and proposals soundly based.
Question 4: Do you consider the employment land requirement identified for the Black Country up to 2036 in the EDNA is appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.
4.21 The Core Strategy review intends to utilise the Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) for the Black Country, published in May 2017, to inform future employment land requirements. The EDNA uses forecasts produced as part of the West Midlands Combined Authority Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) to calculate long-term growth, noting that the 'Super SEP Economy+ Scenario' is the preferred aspirational scenario. This scenario assumes average annual growth in employment of 1.3% across the Combined Authority and presents an ambitious view of future growth in the area, with 500,000 jobs created between 2013 and 2030.
4.22 The SEP Technical Appendix breaks down the job forecasts for the three Local Enterprise Partnerships that form the Combined Authority (Black Country; Coventry & Warwickshire; and Greater Birmingham & Solihull). Jobs growth in the Black Country LEP is forecast to be around 1.1% per annum, whilst it is forecast at 1.5% per annum in the other two LEP areas. This averages out at annual growth of approximately 1.3%. Using data from the Business Register & Employment Survey, published by the Office for National Statistics, it is possible to look at employment trends over the last five to six years (2009-15) and this analysis suggests that the growth rate used in the aspirational growth scenario may be too ambitious for the Back Country:
4.23 Between 2009 and 2015, total employment in the Black Country LEP increased from around 450,000 to approximately 453,000. This equates to average annual growth of 0.1%. Walsall (1.5% p.a.) and Sandwell (0.9% p.a.) experienced jobs growth, although Dudley (-1.1% p.a.) and Wolverhampton (-0.8%) both suffered a fall in employment.
4.24 By contrast, both the Coventry & Warwickshire and Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEPs saw total job numbers increase by 1.3% p.a. from 2009-13. A number of districts in these LEPs saw particularly strong growth over the period, notably Solihull and Lichfield in Greater Birmingham & Solihull, where employment grew by at least 3.0% on an annual basis. In short, the 1.3% average across the West Midlands Combined Authority Area is substantially bolstered by Solihull and Lichfield and therefore it is very ambitious to suggest this will occur across the Black Country area.
4.25 That said, growth in the Black Country needs to be faster than in previous years and the new Core Strategy has a vital role to play in supporting this, however the analysis presented above suggests that the growth targets need to be lowered to better reflect the local economic climate. It is considered unlikely that an annual increase of 1.0% or more will happen in the area in the long-term, especially with the Coventry & Warwickshire and Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEPs capturing new job opportunities at a faster rate in recent years. Lowering the employment growth rate means the amount of employment floorspace needed would be lower. This would not reduce the demographically based housing targets for the area but it would potentially free up previously allocated employment sites for other uses such as residential. This would help the Black Country meet its future housing targets and ensure that it has enough homes for its future workforce to live in.
4.26 As identified in the supporting report and above, it is known that employment sites that had previously been identified for housing are still operational with businesses continuing to use the land and, conversely, there are sites allocated for employment that have been vacant and subsequently market, however, remain unoccupied, which could be transferred to a residential use. It is therefore recommended that the Councils ensure that updated EDNA qualitative review conclusions are taken into account and correct uses applied where appropriate.
Question 5: Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt Review? Yes/No; If not, what additional work do you think is necessary?
4.27 In respect of the Green Belt Review, on the basis of the evidence published setting out housing need and supply, it is agreed that it will be necessary to find sites outside of the existing urban area, which will require removing land from the Green Belt where it is appropriate to do so. This will provide an opportunity to identify strategic sites that can provide a significant amount of homes to contribute to meeting identified housing needs. It is considered that there are a number of locations whereby housing sites can be identified, without the purposes of the Green Belt being compromised, ensuring the function and integrity of the Green Belt will remain.
4.28 In addition, areas on the urban fringe have the potential to ensure new homes can be delivered in an established, well landscaped environment, which could be attractive to those young families and professionals that the Black Country authorities have had difficulty in retaining, often through out-migration to neighbouring Shire districts considered to represent more aspirational locations.
4.29 In terms of the process and methodology for undertaking a Green Belt Review, it is understood that the awaited Strategic Housing Needs Study (SHNS) will be accompanied by Strategic Green Belt Review across Greater Birmingham and that the Black Country authorities have been engaged in presenting potential opportunities. It is reassuring that this engagement between consultants and local planning authorities is taking place as there is a danger that logical locations fail to be identified due to a lack of understanding of environmental conditions and/ or local circumstances that are applicable to sites.
4.30 It is agreed and makes sense for the local planning authorities to conduct a Stage 2 Green Belt Assessment following the completion of the higher-level work. Any input on reviewing the draft methodology for the Stage 3 Green Belt Review would be welcomed.
Question 6: Do you agree that the key issues set out in Part 3 are the key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy Review? Yes/No; If not, what other key issues should be taken into account?
4.31 The key issues presented are considered to be relevant, however, there are a number of inconsistencies relating to matters identified above against the previous questions raised.
5. REVIEWING THE STRATEGY TO MEET NEW CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
Question 7: Do you think that the Core Strategy vision and sustainability principles remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest?
5.1 In the main, the Core Strategy Vision and sustainability principles are considered to be appropriate, with exception to the principle of 'brownfield first'. It is understood that the NPPF, whilst it encourages an efficient use of land and for brown field land to be recycled, it does not suggest a sequential approach to development. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the development of greenfield land will compromise the development of brownfield land. Often the type of developers of the different land categories are different and, given the scale of the housing need, it is appropriate that the early delivery of housing is encouraged from all types of sites. In particular, the larger, potentially Green Belt, sites will have a longer lead in time due to the time it takes to plan for, determine and implement a comprehensive scheme. Indeed, a recent study entitled 'Start to Finish', prepared by NLP, supports this claim. When planning the housing trajectory for the Core Strategy, the larger sites should be planned in to come forward as soon as practically possible.
5.2 It is therefore suggested that the reference to 'putting brownfield first' is inappropriate and that it should be replaced by 'ensuring an efficient use of land to meet the identified housing needs', which encourages the recycling of land and recognises the contributions of greenfield/ Green Belt land to meeting housing delivery targets.
Question 8: Do you think that the Core Strategy spatial objectives remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest and how might these changes impact on individual Core Strategy policies?
5.3 Whilst the objectives outlined generally remain sound, there is concern that one of the NPPFs main priorities is absent. This is in relation to significantly boosting the supply of housing. It is suggested that an additional objective is added in order to ensure that meeting housing needs remains a priority within the Black Country. Once a preferred option is arrived at, spatial references as to where the housing growth will be delivered could be included (for example, meeting housing needs on urban (brownfield and greenfield) land and at extensions to the urban area).
5.4 Further, given the increased employment land requirements, the second objective relating to employment land being within the best locations within the Regeneration Corridors may no longer be appropriate. Indeed, as highlighted earlier, there is concern that there is a mismatch in land allocations, and it is appropriate for the Core Strategy review to ensure all employment sites are fit for purpose. This may conclude that employment opportunities should be identified on new land outside of the Regeneration Corridors. Should this be the case, the objective would be inappropriately worded.
Question 9: Do you agree that Policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the Growth Network? Yes/No; If not, what changes do you think should be made to Policies CSP1 and CSP2 in response to new challenges and opportunities?
5.5 It is agreed that the policies could remain, if the development requirements and related changes are made to ensure the policies are consistent with the overall strategy. The changes relate to both the quantum of development (homes, employment and retail space), the location of development (within and beyond the existing Regeneration Corridors) and the type of development (brownfield, greenfield and on land removed from the Green Belt). It is considered that references should be made to urban extensions (on land removed from the Green Belt) in Policy CSP2 specifically, to highlight the important contribution that such sites will make to meeting the development requirements of the Plan.
Question 10: In continuing to promote growth within the Growth Network, is there a need to amend the boundaries of any of the Regeneration Corridors in the existing Core Strategy? Yes/No; If so, which boundaries and why?
5.6 No comment.
Question 11a: Do you support Strategic Option 1A? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If no, do you support Option 1B? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If you support the release of further employment land for housing, what should the characteristics of these employment areas be?
5.7 Option 1A is considered to be appropriate for accommodating the growth needs of the Black Country over the Plan period to 2036. This option would significantly boost the supply of housing land and help to meet the significant current and future identified need.
Question 11b: Are there any current employment areas that might be considered suitable for redevelopment to housing? Yes/No; Please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form.
5.8 As highlighted previously, the key to understanding where the most appropriate employment/ housing locations are within the Growth Network and Corridors will be determined through a qualitative assessment of allocated employment sites. It is understood an updated assessment has been undertaken and such work, complete with responses to the Call for Sites consultation, will provide the Black Country authorities with evidence to determine the urban capacity for housing, which may include transferring some employment land to housing as well as housing land to employment. This work will then outline the number of dwellings to be accommodated beyond the existing Growth Network within the Green Belt.
5.9 It is welcomed that the Issues and Options Draft recognises the need to release Green Belt in all scenarios proposed.
Question 12a: Do you support Spatial Option H1? Yes/No; What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. ability to create a defensible new green belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services.
5.10 No comment.
Question 12b: Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.11 No comment.
Question 13a: Do you support Spatial Option H2? Yes/No; What should the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) be? e.g. minimum/ maximum size, mix of uses, mix of housing types, accessibility to other areas. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs, potential to support existing settlements / services, proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban regeneration.
5.12 Given the scale of the housing need, there is concern that the development requirements could not be met with just one of the suggested options presented and, therefore, a combination of both options will be necessary.
5.13 To be in the best possible position to significantly boost the amount of housing and meet the development requirements in the Black Country, in accordance with the NPPF, it is advised that opportunities to both round off edges of the Green Belt and Sustainable Urban Extensions are proposed in the Preferred Options Draft Core Strategy. As highlighted within the Issues and Options Draft, there are challenges and opportunities that come with both types of development, for example from a delivery perspective, smaller sites will come forward more quickly due to the nature of these being straight forward proposals (with limited infrastructure necessary and one or few land owners) and larger sites will ultimately take longer as they are more complex (with multiple land uses, infrastructure and land owners). This fact has been evidenced by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (now known as Lichfields) within their report 'Start to Finish' who concluded that the average planning approval period of schemes of 2,000+ dwellings is 6.1 years and the annual average build out rate is 161 dwellings per annum. These figures demonstrate the need to have a number of sites of different sizes and in different locations removed from the Green Belt. The report also identifies, with regard to housing delivery, that 50% more homes per annum are delivered on average on large greenfield sites than large brownfield sites. This is a significant benefit of including greenfield sites within the Preferred Option and will assist to secure its delivery.
5.14 In terms of the locations for removing land from the Green Belt, this should be informed by the Strategic Growth Study and a Black Country Review of the Green Belt. The more detailed study will provide an assessment of land parcels against the purposes of the Green Belt and is likely to recommend that those that compromise the purposes the least will be shortlisted for further consideration to be removed from the Green Belt. It is advised that the next stage should be a consideration of the shortlisted sites based on their suitability (i.e. are the neighbouring uses compatible, would any previous land uses prevent the development of the site), sustainability (i.e. proximity to/ ability to provide local services/ public transport/ employment opportunities) and deliverability (i.e. whether the site is available, being promoted for development, has no barriers to coming forward etc.) credentials. Clearly each site will fair differently against such criteria and the Call for Sites submission will assist the Council to come to a decision on the preferred sites. It is advised that the Black Country authorities should be mindful of the opportunities, through infrastructure and design, that development can bring that will enhance the diversity and character of a particular location.
5.15 In terms of the characteristics of a Sustainable Urban Extension, this is likely to vary depending on the location of each site. For example, some may be more urban and others suburban in their character and would, therefore, provide a different land use offer. It is important that each are considered on a site by site basis to ensure that any subsequent allocation delivers a successful development. It is important that the developer responsible for promoting the site helps to influence what is ultimately delivered. Often what is proposed on site has been informed by housing market intelligence undertaken by sales experts at development companies and, therefore, should be taken into account. Particularly given recent experience in the down turn in the apartment market, it is important that sites are allocated for the right type and mix of housing to ensure that it will be delivered, occupied and successful.
5.16 In the more suburban locations, it is suggested that Sustainable Urban Extensions should look to provide a different offer to potentially what exists in the Strategic Centres and Regeneration Corridors, such as a mix of larger and lower density homes, which will attract those households that in the past have migrated elsewhere. Given the emphasis on delivering more high density homes in the Strategic Centres, it is important that this housing mix is offset by more larger homes in appropriate locations. Otherwise, there is a concern that the Black Country will have a disproportional amount of small homes, which will further encourage more families to migrate elsewhere and not meet the aspiration to diversify the wider HMA.
Question 13b: What infrastructure do you think would be needed for different sizes of SUEs?
5.17 The type of infrastructure needed will vary depending on the different location and size of each site and must be compliant with paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations that requires planning obligations (which applies to most infrastructure) to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. With the above in mind, however, provision for open space (both formal and informal), local centre and potentially a primary school should be considered for sites in excess of 1,000 homes.
Question 13c: Are there any potential locations that should be considered for SUEs (please submit through the 'call for sites' form) and what infrastructure would be required to support these?
5.18 No comment.
Question 13d: Do you think that the Core Strategy should set out detailed guidance for the development of SUEs (e.g. type and tenure of housing, specific infrastructure required), rather than details being determined at a local level in light of local policies? Yes/No; Any further comments?
5.19 For the reasons outlined above, relating to considering existing local circumstances and CIL Regulation requirements in respect of any charging schedule and planning obligation requirements, it is advised that detailed guidance for the development of SUEs should not be specified within the Black Country Core Strategy as each site will vary and deserves a more detailed consideration, alongside the developer, at the local level.
Question 14: Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Housing Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details
5.20 There are no other sustainable and deliverable options that we are aware of within the Black Country administrative boundary that are capable of delivering the housing spatial options.
Question 15a: If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the 'export' of housing growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA? Yes/No; What factors should be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities in neighbouring authorities e.g. proximity to the edge of the urban area, proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs?
5.21 Even if all realistically deliverable options have been considered within the Black Country, there will remain an unmet need for housing. Therefore, it is necessary for the Black Country authorities to consider the possibility of exporting growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA. In particular, there are options to expand existing settlements that are close to the administrative boundary (for example, in South Staffordshire) across authorities and could help deliver the necessary growth in a sustainable and deliverable manner. These opportunities should be explored first prior to exporting further growth to other authorities within the HMA where there is less of a spatial connection.
Question 15b: Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.22 No comment.
Question 15c: Do you think there are ways to ensure that exporting housing will meet the needs of people who would otherwise live in the Black Country? (e.g. transport improvements, provision of affordable housing, creation of employment opportunities) Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.23 It is important to consider a number of factors, including migration and travel to work patterns, which have been used to identify the extent of the HMA, to determine where households relocate to when leaving the Black Country in order to understand where and why those moves are taking place. Whilst planning can attempt to influence where people relocate to, there is no mechanism to guide or restrict people moving to or from certain locations. Once knowledge of movers can be understood can the planning system can attempt to recreate those attractive characteristics (homes that are more affordable, good public transport links, employment opportunities etc.) in locations where there is capacity for the homes to be delivered. It is advised that an additional analysis of the data, where necessary, is undertaken to provide the Black Country authorities with the relevant intelligence to deliver a successful strategy for growth outside the administrative area.
Question 16: Do you support Spatial Option E1? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access) If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.24 No comment.
Question 17: Do you support Spatial Option E2? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites e.g. quick motorway access, good sustainable transport links? If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.25 No comment.
Question 18: Do you support Spatial Option E3? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access) If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.26 No comment.
Question 19a: Do you support Spatial Option E4? Yes/No; Any further comments?
5.27 No comment.
Question 19b: Should any factors be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities? Yes/No; If yes, what should they be? (e.g. quick motorway access, strong transport links with the Black Country, good sustainable transport links with the Black Country) If you think there are any potential locations that should be considered, please provide details.
5.28 No comment.
Question 20: Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Employment Land Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.29 As previously outlined, there is concern that some of the employment sites currently identified are potentially not fit for purpose and others that are identified to be transferred to housing remain in employment occupation. In light of this mismatch, it is welcomed that an updated qualitative assessment has been undertaken and has informed how much employment land is has be found outside the urban area.
5.30 In terms of where the employment land should be located outside the urban area, as with housing, decisions should be based on the results of the Green Belt Review and the suitability, sustainability and deliverability of sites. For employment land sites, the suitability of a site may well include good transportation links for goods and people. The Call for Sites consultation will assist in putting forward suggestions for sites.
6. DELIVERING GROWTH - INFRASTRUCTURE & VIABILITY
Question 21: Do you think that changes are required to Policy DEL1 to ensure it covers both development within the existing urban area and any within the Green Belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.1 Policy DEL1 is considered to be sound on the basis that it is sufficiently flexible to deal with different circumstances on different sites across the Black Country, including sites that are to be removed from the Green Belt.
Question 22: Do you have evidence of a requirement for new social infrastructure to serve existing needs? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.
6.2 No comment.
Question 23: Do you have evidence of social infrastructure that is no longer needed and where the site could be reallocated for alternative uses? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.3 No comment.
Question 24: Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current social infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new housing? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.4 No comment.
Question 25: Will there be any new social infrastructure requirements necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, please explain the type and scale of any new social infrastructure required.
6.5 It is recognised that delivery of new housing developments may give rise to the need to deliver supporting infrastructure. Committed to working with the relevant authorities and service providers to determine the capacity of existing infrastructure and determine the level of mitigatory provision necessary to support an increase in the population in this location. It is however important that each potential large new housing development is given independent consideration in respect of any infrastructure obligations, recognising that pressures will be dependent on location and existing infrastructure capacity.
Question 26: Do you have any evidence of a requirement for new physical infrastructure to serve existing needs? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.
6.6 No comment.
Question 27: Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current physical infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.7 No comment.
Question 28: Do you think physical infrastructure is necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, what type and scale of physical infrastructure is necessary?
6.8 As set out above, the need for infrastructure will vary for each site. Given such different circumstances, it would be inappropriate and potentially unlawful (as it would conflict with paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations) to incorporate a blanket policy requiring specific infrastructure on every large housing site.
Question 29: Do you think there are any other tools or interventions that could be used to ensure enough infrastructure is provided by developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.9 It is considered that the existing national framework (which includes the NPPF and CIL Regulations) provides a sufficient tool to ensure the relevant infrastructure is delivered. In addition, the CIL Charging Schedule allows authorities to raise funds for named infrastructure projects, which should be updated in line with any Core Strategy advanced. Therefore, it is considered that there are existing provisions to deliver infrastructure and no additional interventions through the Black Country Core Strategy Review are needed.
Question 30: Do you have any suggestions around how the strategy can be developed in order to maintain the urban regeneration focus of the Black Country while at the same time bringing forward sites in the green belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.10 There is no a need for any specific interventions, such as phasing, to protect the delivery of urban regeneration in the Black Country. Indeed, it is considered that development of greenfield and Green Belt sites can very much compliment urban regeneration through the provision of a more varied form of development that will help diversify the housing stock and profile of residents in the wider area, which will assist to sustain and improve the vitality of existing communities. Further, as highlighted above, given the priority to significantly boost the delivery of housing greenfield and Green Belt sites should come forward for development as soon as practically possible. Given lead in and build out rates of larger sites, the land should be encouraged to be developed as soon as possible so to ensure the homes are delivered in the Plan period and the needs are met.
Question 31: Do you think that the right scale and form of funding is available to support the delivery of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If no, what alternative sources of funding or delivery mechanisms should be investigated?
6.11 When delivering greenfield/ Green Belt sites, there is an opportunity to deliver infrastructure to meet the needs arising from the proposal, which may have wider benefits for the local community. In addition, it is likely that the communities created by the Sustainable Urban Extensions will potentially be more affluent and share their wealth using local shops and services within the wider Black Country, which will contribute to more successful and prosperous communities.
7. REVIEW OF EXISTING CORE STRATEGY POLICIES & PROPOSALS Housing
Question 35: Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No; If no, please explain why
7.1 As identified above, it is important that a range of sites in different locations are identified to be in the best possible position of delivering the development requirements. In terms of presenting these sites in the Core Strategy, whilst it is useful to identify a housing trajectory, it is important that there is not a phasing policy as such that would prevent the delivery of housing, given the current housing crisis. As stated above, the delivery of housing on greenfield and Green Belt land will not compromise the delivery of urban regeneration as the development on the urban edge will complement and rejuvenate the environment in a different way.
7.2 In terms of the proposed level of discounting, it is considered that if the LPA adopt an approach to identify a further 20% of sites in accordance with the LPEG recommendations identified above, there would not necessarily be a need for the application of discounting in determining the overall level of supply. It is interesting to note that the level of discounting proposed by LPEG is suggested for all LPAs, not necessarily those which have experienced difficulty in delivery. It could therefore be argued that an increased buffer of 25% could be applied in order to take a cautious approach.
Question 36: Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 should be changed? Yes/No; If yes, what standards should be applied instead, for example should the minimum net density of 35 dwellings per hectare be increased to maximise brownfield housing delivery?
7.3 It is clear that the current accessibility and density standards outlined in the adopted Core Strategy were formulated in the context of the vast majority of development taking place on brownfield sites within the defined urban area. As reiterated throughout these representations, there is now a clear need for Green Belt release as part of the Local Plan Review to meet emerging, objectively assessed housing needs. We outline in further detail below why the adopted accessibility and densities would not be applicable to Green Belt sites, however would suggest that the current standards do not allow sufficient flexibility on brownfield sites. A blanket application of prescriptive accessibility and density standards across the Black Country, be it brownfield or greenfield, does not allow sufficient flexibility which take into account site specific characteristics. The Council should allow for greater flexibility when assessing accessibility and density standards, with a more pragmatic approach which allows appropriate assessment for site-specific characteristics and also an assessment of market demand which may vary significantly across the large Black Country area.
7.4 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF outlines how local authorities should set out their own approach towards density. It is suggested that the currently adopted approach does not allow for sufficient assessment of local characteristics. It is clear that the chosen approach must be reflective of local circumstances, including the matters outlined above as well as infrastructure and services available in the locality. It is advocated that a more flexible approach to density and accessibility standards is taken as part of the emerging Local Plan Review.
Question 37a: Do you think that the existing Policy HOU2 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why
7.5 In line with the comments above, it is suggested that the Council should assess each site on a case by case basis in terms of accessibility and density standards. This approach would suggest that the numerical baseline trigger of 15 homes or more will not always be appropriate or applicable, and as advocated throughout these representations it suggested that there should be a complete reassessment on accessibility and density standards as part of the emerging Local Plan Review.
Question 38: Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards are appropriate for green belt release locations? Yes/No; If no, what standards should be applied in these locations and why?
7.6 No, it is not considered that the current standards would be applicable to Green Belt release locations. The adopted standards are overly prescriptive, and as previously discussed were written in the context of brownfield land. Green Belt release sites have a completely different type of character, therefore consideration of accessibility and density standards in relation to these sites should be reflective of local character and site characteristics. The more suburban settings of Green Belt release land lends itself to lower densities which are more appropriate to the Green Belt setting, which typically deliver more family homes. The Council must provide robust evidence to test any forthcoming accessibility and density standards in relation to Green Belt release locations, which allows for a flexible and pragmatic approach.
Question 39: Do you think separate accessibility standards are needed for particular types of housing e.g. housing for the elderly or affordable housing (as occupiers may be less mobile and more dependent on public transport)? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
7.7 It is clear that separate accessibility standards will apply to particular types of housing such as affordable and for the elderly population, however in line with the sentiment expressed above, any forthcoming standards should be based on robust evidence and allow for sufficient flexibility to avoid any unnecessary constraints to development coming forward.
Question 40: Do you agree that the 2017 SHMA findings should be used to set general house type targets for the Plan period? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.8 A general and blanket application for house types across the Black Country should not be advanced as part of the Local Plan Review. Paragraph 50 is clear that local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends and market trends. It is therefore notable that the NPPF specifically highlights 'market trends' in this context, which acknowledges that the market must inform such decisions.
7.9 Whilst the 2017 SHMA does provide an assessment of demographic and market trends, it is notable that it looks at a wider area assessment and is focused at a higher level. This assessment therefore does not draw out sub-market trends, and cover smaller areas within the vast Black Country area. Again, a blanket policy of house type targets across the Black Country area would not allow for sufficient flexibility to assess each site on a site by site basis, taking into consideration local market trends and demand. The NPPF does not state that specific policies should be set to enforce that local demand is met. As such, it is considered that this should be left for the market to decide, as opposed to applying rigid and prescriptive house size standards.
7.10 It is suggested that the evidence presented in the SHMA should be put into the Plan as an informative and general guide, but should not feed into a specific policy requirement which outlines housing mix percentages that should be applied across the Black Country. A policy containing general house type targets could present as a significant constraint to the delivery of a site where there is no local market demand for this house type, which in turn would have a negative impact on achieving the necessary housing growth targets to be delivered in the Black Country over the Plan period.
Question 41a: Do you support the introduction of a policy approach towards self and custom build housing in the Core Strategy? Yes/No; If yes, would you support:
7.11 It is not considered that there is a policy need for the Core Strategy to address self and custom build housing in the emerging Review. Paragraph 6.32 indicates that there are only nine records on self and custom build registers in the Black Country. It is evident that that there is very limited demand in the Black Country, which is unsurprising given that self and custom build housing is often more popular in rural areas. Given the limited demand it is therefore not considered necessary to take a policy approach towards self and custom build housing within the Local Plan Review.
Question 41b: A target for each authority? Yes/No; Any further comments
7.12 Given that there is evidence of little market demand, it is not considered necessary for the Core Strategy to set targets for each of the Black Country authorities. If it was considered to be necessary as the Local Plan Review progresses, any targets being set should be formulated on the basis of robust evidence such as monitoring of the registers, to provide an indication of how many self-build homes will be needed.
Question 41c: A requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots? Yes/No; Any further comments?
7.13 There should not be a requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots. This can pose an unnecessary market constraint for large housebuilders when there may be limited or no market demand for self-build plots. Self and custom build plots are often unusual and unique in character, therefore would not be best suited to be located within a large housing development with more uniform house types. If deemed necessary, self and custom build housing should be allocated specific site allocations, as discussed below.
Question 41d: Another approach altogether? Yes/No; If yes, please specify.
7.14 If it is considered necessary for the Review to address self and custom build housing, this should be addressed by the Council's identifying and allocating specific plots for these uses. Identifying site-specific plots would ensure that the most appropriate and suitable locations for self and custom-build will be allocated, via the assessment of appropriate evidence and market demand. In addition, this might be more likely to be achieved on surplus publicly owned land.
Question 42: Do you agree that the annual affordable homes target should be increased to reflect the 2017 Black Country Strategic Housing Market Assessment? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.15 As a general principle, the notion of applying different affordable housing ratios to different parts of the Black Country, based on an understanding of needs and viability, is acceptable. Given that the Black Country represents a vast area, there will not be a uniform housing market, and there will be sub-market trends within this wider area. As such, a more flexible approach which assesses local housing market evidence on a case by case basis could be justified. That said, there is an inherent simplicity and attraction to a single rate figure, which is easy for the development industry to understand.
7.16 In terms of the annual affordable housing target, it is unclear how the Issues and Options document has calculated the figure of 832 homes per year. At paragraph 7.42 of the June 2017 SHMA Part Two- affordable housing document, it is stated that the total annual affordable housing need is 677 dwellings, which represents 19.8% of the annual projected household growth. This differs to paragraph 6.36 of the Issues and Options document, which states that the affordable housing target is 23.4% of total housing need or 832 homes per year. From paragraph 7.47 of the SHMA, it appears that this figure may have been calculated by adding the overall requirement of 16.6% of housing to be affordable rented and 6.7% shared ownership. Clarity is sought on how this figure has been calculated, and we reserve the right to comment further on this matter.
Question 43a: Do you think that the existing Policy HOU3 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.17 We have not undertaken detailed analysis of the findings and assumptions of the SHMA and affordable housing delivery matters, therefore would like to reserve the right to comment on this matter further. However, on face value, it appears to be a reasonable threshold and is not dissimilar to other locations.
Question 44a: Do you think that the affordable housing requirement for eligible sites in Question 43 should be kept at 25% of the total number of homes on the site? Yes /No; Any further comments?
7.18 Based on the current evidence, a blanket rate of 25% affordable housing would appear to be sound.
7.19 However, irrespective of the final rate, any amendments to the currently adopted affordable housing policy must continue to have a clause in it which stipulates that this requirement is subject to viability tests. Any revised affordable housing requirements will also need to carefully consider the implications of adopted Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regimes. Both Sandwell and Dudley Councils have adopted CIL Charging Schedules. These will have implications on viability, therefore if revised affordable housing targets are to progressed then these CIL tariffs will need to re-assessed and re-visited.
Question 44b: If no, should the percentage be increased to allow for the provision of affordable home ownership? Yes/No; If yes, what should the percentage be and why?
7.20 At paragraph 6.39 of the Issues and Options Paper, it is stated that options need to be explored to increase affordable housing delivery of private sites. One option would be to increase the overall affordable housing proportion, which would require developers to provide affordable home ownership products plus an appropriate proportion of other affordable tenures. This paragraph follows on from commentary relating to the Housing White Paper.
7.21 The Housing White Paper discusses Starter Homes at Chapter 4, and explains how the government intend to amend the NPPF to introduce a clear policy expectation that housing sites deliver a minimum of 10% affordable home ownership units. It is later stated that it will be for local areas to work with developers to agree an appropriate level of delivery of starter homes, alongside other affordable home ownership and rented tenures.
7.22 The policy position on Starter Homes is not yet fully clear, and has yet to be formally established through a formal amendment and update to the NPPF. Until the national policy position on Starter Homes has been made clear, it would be premature for the Core Strategy Review to suggest an uplift in the affordable housing requirement to include affordable home ownership such as Starter Homes. Any suggestion to uplift the affordable housing requirement to include Starter Homes should be reflective of the national policy position, as well as founded upon a robust evident base which dictates exactly what percentage this element should be of the overall affordable housing requirement.
Question 45: Should an increased affordable housing requirement be set for green belt release sites, to reflect the likely financial viability of these sites? Yes/No; If yes, what should this be.
7.23 The likely financial viability of Green Belt sites will vary across different areas of the Black Country, therefore any affordable housing requirements for Green Belt sites will need to be reflective of these circumstances. Any affordable housing targets for Green Belt sites should be based on robust evidence, and acknowledge that many sites may need to support and deliver other infrastructure requirements.
7.24 Ultimately, any affordable housing strategy will need to address the affordable housing need as well as the need for market housing. Bearing in mind that the SHMA confirms over 70% of homes required are for homes to be sold on the open market, any affordable housing policy must not dilute the delivery of these needs/requirements. A higher figure on Green Belt sites over and above a standard blanket figure would potentially do this.
Employment Question 49a: Is there still a need for existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.25 The Black Country is to be the subject of large levels of both employment and housing growth over the Plan period. These uses are very much inter-linked with one another, and will drive each other's need for growth. The Local Plan Review, in order to meet emerging employment and housing needs, must identify a significant number of specific sites for employment and housing uses. By planning proactively and identifying suitable sites for both employment land and housing land, this should reduce the pressures to manage the release of poorer quality employment land, which may not always be suitable for release. The Local Plan Review should also seek to undertake a further review of poorer quality employment land to make it available for other suitable uses, if it proves to no longer be viable for employment land use. This is in line with policy provisions of the NPPF, which at Paragraph 22 outlines that planning policies should avoid the long-term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose.
Question 50: Do you think that the Core Strategy should continue to set a target for the total employment land stock in Policy EMP1? Yes/No; Please explain why.
7.26 The continuation of setting a target for employment land stock would be supported. Policy EMP1 should make it clear that these are not maximum figures, to encourage further flexibility for additional growth.
Retail Question 59: Have all the appropriate centres within the Black Country been identified? Yes/No; If not, please specify additional centres
7.27 No comment.
Question 61: In addition to para 4.33 of the current Core Strategy should the revised Core Strategy include criteria for the creation of new centres that might be needed as a result of any additional housing identified through the plan? Yes/No; Any further comments?
7.28 Criteria would be a useful policy tool to help assess the designation of new centres, and should be in line with previous methodologies used which set out clear thresholds.
Question 71: Should the Core Strategy set housing targets for the Town Centres?
7.29 Housing within Town Centres should be supported, in line with paragraph 23 of the NPPF which discusses the important role that residential development can play in ensuring the vitality of Town Centres. Any housing targets should be based on what sites are known to be readily available, suitable and viable for residential development. Market demand for housing in these areas will also need to be fully assessed. It is notable from the outcome of the 2017 SHMA that there is most demand for three bedroom properties (40%). The highest demand is therefore for family housing, and not for flats which are often the most popular within Town Centre locations. Any housing targets set for the Town Centre would therefore need to consider the findings of the SHMA, and be reflective of the fact that family housing is often more suitable for delivery on larger sites, including on sites which are currently located within the Green Belt.
Environment Question 99a: Do you think that national standards for housing development on water consumption should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.30 When referring to water consumption paragraph 6.1.52 of the Issues and Options document states that the Black Country does not currently lie in an area of serious water stress, therefore clear need may be difficult to demonstrate. This evidence suggests that there is limited or no need to introduce such a policy, therefore it is not considered that the Core Strategy Review should seek to introduce water consumption standards for housing development.
Question 99b: Do you think that national access standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.31 The introduction of any national access standards, with the Issues and Options document referring specifically to Lifetime Homes, again must be based on a robust evidence base which can demonstrate market demand. It is noted that Paragraph 50 of the NPPF states that planning authorities must plan for a mix of housing to meet a range of needs. In the same paragraph, it is later stated that these must be based on current and future market trends. If Lifetime Home standards are to be introduced these will therefore need to be based on robust evidence, to ensure that the standards are not overly onerous and prevent the delivery of other types of housing which have higher levels of market demand.
Question 99c: Do you think that national space standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.32 As reiterated throughout these representations, it is not considered that a blanket approach of prescriptive standards across the Black Country allows sufficient flexibility to assess local market and site considerations in an appropriate manner. Whilst it is recognised that space standards can be an important tool to ensure that high quality of homes are delivered, we agree with the sentiment expressed in the recent Housing White Paper. The Paper explains that the government are concerned that a one size fits all approach may not reflect the needs and aspirations of a wider range of households. The White Paper also states that the Government will be undertaking a review of the Nationally Described Space Standards. It is suggested that the Core Strategy Review should await the outcome of this national review of national space standards, to ensure compliance with national policy and to ensure that the most appropriate approach to space standards, if required, is taken.
Question 99d: Do you think that the standards should be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No; If yes, please explain how and why.
7.33 As discussed above, prescriptive standards do not always allow sufficient flexibility for local market needs, so we would not advocate a blanket approach of different standards to brownfield and greenfield sites.
Open Space, Sport and Recreation Question 102a: Do you support the proposed changes relating to open space, sport and recreation? Yes/No; If no, please explain
7.34 Paragraph 6.1.60 of the Issues and Options paper outlines how adopted Policy ENV6 creates the framework for open space policies at the local level. The Issues and Options paper outlines how this is in line with national guidance, and that it is proposed to retain this policy and update some references in the supporting text to reflect changing circumstances. It is agreed that the local level remains the appropriate place to set open space policies, and that Policy ENV6 should continue to endorse this approach.

Question 1: Do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies? Yes/No; If not, what do you think should be the scope of the review?
2.4 In response to Question 1 and whether it should be a partial review or not, whilst the existing strategy identifies the most sustainable locations for growth in the context of delivering development requirements identified by the Regional Strategy (RS), there is now a new and much bigger challenge ahead in meeting the arising needs for homes identified by the latest evidence and there is concern that the existing spatial strategy may not facilitate the delivery of these needs. The Black Country authorities, therefore, need to be mindful of this and not attempt to put "a square peg in a round hole".
2.5 It is our view that urban regeneration can be achieved whilst pursuing development on the urban edge. Indeed, the scale of housing need is so large that both must be encouraged in order to meet current and arising housing needs within the Black Country.
2.6 It is extremely important that in reviewing the Core Strategy it fully takes account of and facilitates the delivery of strategic economic plans, as recognised in paragraph 1.15. All too often these strategies are ignored and, accordingly, development plans could effectively frustrate economic growth from being realised.
2.7 In terms of the Plan period proposed in paragraph 1.17, whilst a 15-year time period from adoption is appropriate, there is concern that the preparation of plans is often delayed (due to reasons beyond the control of the LPAs) and it may be prudent to stretch the period further to prevent such an issue from occurring.
2.8 It is welcomed that the Issues and Options document recognises that it will not be possible to accommodate all future development needs within the urban area and that an examination of the potential for development land outside the existing urban area, which is effectively land within the Green Belt, will take place as part of the Core Strategy review process.
3. THE BLACK COUNTRY TODAY - THE EXISTING STRATEGY
3.1 As set out within this section, the delivery of both employment and housing land has not come forward as originally envisaged in part due to the after effects of the recession. Surplus employment land which might have been available for housing has not come forward due to a strengthening economy and local firms being more robust than anticipated. In addition, the range of locations available has not in all cases met with market expectations as to where people want to live.
3.2 In terms of the employment land, it is important that sufficient land is provided for new employment and that there is not an overreliance on land that is currently in use. It is impressive that despite generally poor economic performance local businesses have performed well. Should the economy significantly improve within the Plan period in line with LEP aspirations (considered later in this response), there is concern that it may become difficult to transfer a wide range of existing employment locations to housing allocations. It is appropriate, therefore, for the Council to ensure the evidence contained within the Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment is reviewed and updated regularly. This will enable the land supply to be responsive to arising needs and not rigidly be wedded to delivering commitments that are unlikely to be realised.
3.3 What is further emphasised by the analysis in this section is that urban regeneration cannot be delivered quickly and that there are a number of factors beyond the control of the Black Country authorities that may have implications for the delivery of the strategy. This further emphasises the need for a mix of types of sites (brownfield, brownfield compulsory purchase, greenfield and Green Belt) of different forms of development (high density, mid and low density family homes) in a variety of locations, which will maximise the opportunities to deliver a successful Local Plan.
3.4 Finally, in respect of the proposal to maintain 300 hectares of employment land that will become vacant by way of general churn over the Plan period. Whilst the principle is considered acceptable, there should be appropriate evidence to support the assumption.
3.5 Our experience is that there are employment sites that clients are looking to secure a residential allocation on that have not been identified thus far. In light of these changing circumstances, the Black Country authorities should ensure that the policy approach is flexible to allow sites in appropriate locations to be brought forward for housing throughout the Plan period and likewise, sites that have been allocated for housing but have not come forward should be removed from the supply.
4. THE STRATEGIC CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
4.1 It is welcomed that the Black Country authorities are updating their evidence base. Indeed, the adopted Core Strategy took the development requirements from the adopted Regional Strategy (RS), which has since been revoked and is unquestionably out of date. Since the RS was published there has been a number of population and household projections published showing increasing dwelling requirements in the Black Country, which were largely ignored and, therefore, it should come as no surprise that there is a significant increase in forming households.
4.2 In terms of the list of evidence either prepared or due to be completed, it appears to be sufficiently comprehensive.
4.3 A separate review of the housing evidence based, including the Strategic Housing Market Assessment for the Black Country and South Staffordshire, is contained at Appendix A. The key conclusions arising from the report as summarised as follows:
* In determining the OAN, there are concerns with regard to the SHMA methodology and it is suggested a further scenario should be tested to consider long term growth which includes balanced periods of economic prosperity and decline.
* There is concern that the economic growth scenarios do not use the latest economic forecast data and that the methodology translating the job growth into dwelling growth is not sufficiently robust to accurately determine the impact of forecasts based on existing circumstances and also more aspirational job growth targets, such as those arising from the SEP.
* In terms of providing uplifts for market signals, a 25% uplift for South Staffs is appropriate. It is advised that dwelling requirements for the Black Country should not be reduced as a result of this and, accordingly, it should not count towards meeting any unmet needs outside of the HMA as the main function is to provide slack within the housing market and prevent house prices from increasing at an accelerated rate.
4.4 In addition, consideration of the Housing Background Report is also contained in the Housing Evidence Based Review Paper contained at Appendix A. The key findings from reviewing the evidence is set out below:
* Clearly a lot of work is yet to be done to determine what the housing land supply position is in the Black Country. Given that much of the existing evidence is based on the adopted Core Strategy, it is recognised that the SHLAAs across the four authorities will need to be updated, both in terms of revising the methodology and range of sites assessed, to reflect a potentially different approach to locating development.
* It is commendable that the Housing Background Report has examined existing sources of supply in an attempt to provide additional homes from sites within the urban area. There is concern, however, that by changing policies, for example, to increase the minimum density on sites has wider policy implications to take into account than simply increasing the number of homes.
* The Housing Background Report suggests a continued allowance for larger windfall sites. It is suggested that it is inappropriate to include an allowance for this source as there is no certainty that this land will come forward for development.
* Other sources, such as converting employment sites to residential sites, based on the evidence presented and feedback from the development industry, it is known that there are employment sites functioning well as employment sites but are to be converted to residential and other employment sites that are unoccupied and undesirable that are to be retained as employment sites. Clearly, there is a mismatch between employment land need and employment land supply. It is advised that the qualitative assessment of employment informs future land supply recommendations and allocations are revised where necessary.
4.5 As a result of the dwelling requirements generated by the SHMA and the land supply identified from the Housing Background Report, it is concluded that there in insufficient urban land to provide for the development requirements and that a Green Belt Review should be conducted. It is noted that scoping is underway and that the work is to be completed in mid-2018. It is hopeful that the development industry will be involved in defining the methodology of the work to ensure that it is conducted in a robust way.
4.6 Another very important piece of work to be taken into consideration will be the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA Strategic Growth Study. It is unclear at this stage what role the Black Country authorities will play in meeting the wider needs of Birmingham and, indeed, whether it can now contribute given that meeting the needs of the indigenous population will be a tall order. Further, there is uncertainty with regard to how far the study will go in identifying locations for growth and how this evidence will be taken forward in emerging Development Plans, particularly given that it is premature to the Green Belt Review for the wider Black Country area. It is our view that there are sites within the Green Belt that will provide sustainable locations for growth and that their removal will not compromise the purposes of the Green Belt and, accordingly it will remain purposeful and functional.
Question 2: Do you think that the key evidence set out in Table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If not, what further evidence is required and, if there are any particular issues that should be taken into account in considering development on any particular sites or in any particular areas, please provide details
4.7 It is considered that the evidence contained within Table 1 is comprehensive, however, as suggested above and below, a number of concerns have been highlighted and it is therefore suggested that these are addressed in order to improve the soundness of the next iteration of the Core Strategy Review.
4.8 It is welcomed that an updated qualitative assessment of employment land has been undertaken in order to identify if the sites are fit for purpose, alongside the quantitative employment land study. It has been identified that a number of employment land sites that have been suggested for residential land allocations remain in occupation as functioning employment sites. These sites should be removed from the housing land supply. Conversely, there are vacant employment land sites that have been marketed over a period of time where no market interest has been forthcoming and, therefore, it is recommended that these sites should be considered for housing delivery.
4.9 It is noted that Viability Studies are identified as evidence base documents that are still to be prepared. Whilst not specifically identified, it is recommended that affordable housing viability is a key matter that needs to be addressed as part of this evidence base to ensure the level suggested by the SHMA Part 2 is deliverable. If this is not the case, the delivery of both market and affordable housing could be compromised and prevent the successful delivery of any new strategy.
Question 3: Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014-36 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.
4.10 In terms of the extent of the sub market, which includes the Black Country and South Staffordshire, this is considered to be appropriate. It is recognised and welcomed that the Black Country authorities and South Staffordshire have jointly undertaken a SHMA for the sub area, which facilitates the preparation of an Issues and Options Core Strategy Review. There is concern, however, that the remaining constituent authorities within the wider Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area have not taken part and there is a danger that housing need for the whole HMA may not entirely be comprehensively captured due to the different time periods covered by the separate studies. It is advised that a SHMA, consistent with the guidance in the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance, is prepared for the entire HMA over the same Plan period (as opposed to a housing needs study), which will properly consider all relevant factors in a consistent and comprehensive manner.
4.11 The OAN arrived at by the SHMA is generally appropriate in identifying the starting point for determining the dwelling requirement, however, it is suggested a further scenario should be tested to consider long term growth which includes balanced periods of economic prosperity and decline. There is concern that the economic growth scenarios contain potentially out of date employment forecasts and the methodology to determine appropriate dwelling requirements is not sufficiently robust to accurately determine the impact of forecasts based on existing circumstances. In addition, more aspirational job growth targets, such as those arising from the SEP, may not necessarily be appropriate for the Black Country (as discussed later in these representations).
4.12 In terms of providing an uplift for market signals, a 25% uplift for South Staffs is agreed to be appropriate. It is advised that dwelling requirements for the Black Country should not be reduced as a result of this and, accordingly, the application of such an uplift in South Staffordshire should not count towards meeting any unmet needs outside of the HMA as the main function is to provide slack or headroom within the housing market and prevent house prices from increasing at an accelerated rate, exacerbating issues of affordability.
4.13 Clearly, the evidence contained in the SHMA does not consider the potential to accommodate any of Birmingham City's housing needs and that this could result in increased dwelling requirements. We reserve our position in respect of this matter and await the publication of the HMA wide Strategic Housing Needs Study.
4.14 We shortly await a consultation publication from central Government in relation to providing a standardised methodology for generating dwelling requirements. This is anticipated in Autumn 2017. The Black Country authorities will need to take account of any proposed national policy changes identified through the consultation paper. We reserve our position on this matter, until the full details and implications for the Back Country are known. It is considered that, whilst a standard methodology will be helpful in identifying a baseline dwelling requirement, the consideration of long term trends and economic forecasts cannot be carried out in a mathematical calculation outside a demographic/ economic model. In light of this, the SHMA prepared for the sub-area could remain useful as evidence to inform the review of the Black Country Core Strategy.
4.15 In terms of meeting the dwelling requirements, it is understood that the 'Call for Sites' consultation will inform an updated SHLAA, which will assess sites both within and outside the urban area to determine the maximum number of dwellings that can be realistically delivered within the Black Country over the proposed Plan period. The Housing Background Report that has been published as part of the evidence base for the Issues and Options Core Strategy Review has considered assumptions contained within the SHLAA based on adopted policies and considers changes to the policies to boost the delivery of housing on existing sites. Whilst it is a commendable that the Black Country authorities are exploring all potential options to boost housing on urban land, there are wider implications of doing so and accordingly, caution is expressed in response to a number of the identified approaches proposed.
4.16 As confirmed in paragraph 3.15, it is extremely important that the Black Country authorities 'firm up' the housing supply in order to ensure that there is sufficient provision to meet the dwelling requirements. It is also considered appropriate to provide an additional buffer of housing land supply to provide a contingency when sites are delayed. As explained earlier in the Issues and Options Report, sites providing a total of 3,000 homes have not come forward as anticipated. It is considered that additional supply is required to provide flexibility and minimise any durations within the Plan period where the housing trajectory would otherwise dip.
4.17 In terms of the extent of a buffer for housing land, the Local Plan Expert Group suggested that additional land, equivalent to delivering 20% of the overall dwelling requirement, is added to the supply, which will provide a contingency of land to be used as and when necessary during the Plan period. It is suggested that this additional land will help ensure the dwelling delivery targets and housing needs are met in a timely manner, which will reduce the opportunity for households to become concealed or shared. Given the issues experienced in respect of delivery in the past, it could be argued that an increased buffer of circa 25% could be applied.
4.18 It is also appropriate to ensure that, as well as identifying the right amount of land, there is sufficient variety in the types of sites (brownfield, greenfield, Green Belt) are identified, reflecting different sizes, in a range of locations. This variety in provision will allow the best opportunity for multiple sites to come forward at the same time without market constraint and hence ensuring delivery targets are met. In addition, this approach will also provide market choice to existing and arising households looking to move into a new home in the Black Country, which will have wider social benefits (i.e. allow families to live nearby one another and provide an opportunity to diversify existing communities through providing alternative homes to the existing housing stock).
4.19 Indeed, as previously documented in the adopted Core Strategy, it is considered that the ambition to retain the young and professional population within the Black Country should be maintained and that suitable and attractive housing and complementary environments are encouraged.
4.20 Finally, it is welcomed that the Black Country authorities have agreed to test the dwelling requirement figures on an ongoing basis. It is hoped that the suggested changes/alternative scenarios suggested above are implemented in order to ensure the evidence base is robust and the resultant policies and proposals soundly based.
Question 4: Do you consider the employment land requirement identified for the Black Country up to 2036 in the EDNA is appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.
4.21 The Core Strategy review intends to utilise the Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) for the Black Country, published in May 2017, to inform future employment land requirements. The EDNA uses forecasts produced as part of the West Midlands Combined Authority Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) to calculate long-term growth, noting that the 'Super SEP Economy+ Scenario' is the preferred aspirational scenario. This scenario assumes average annual growth in employment of 1.3% across the Combined Authority and presents an ambitious view of future growth in the area, with 500,000 jobs created between 2013 and 2030.
4.22 The SEP Technical Appendix breaks down the job forecasts for the three Local Enterprise Partnerships that form the Combined Authority (Black Country; Coventry & Warwickshire; and Greater Birmingham & Solihull). Jobs growth in the Black Country LEP is forecast to be around 1.1% per annum, whilst it is forecast at 1.5% per annum in the other two LEP areas. This averages out at annual growth of approximately 1.3%. Using data from the Business Register & Employment Survey, published by the Office for National Statistics, it is possible to look at employment trends over the last five to six years (2009-15) and this analysis suggests that the growth rate used in the aspirational growth scenario may be too ambitious for the Back Country:
4.23 Between 2009 and 2015, total employment in the Black Country LEP increased from around 450,000 to approximately 453,000. This equates to average annual growth of 0.1%. Walsall (1.5% p.a.) and Sandwell (0.9% p.a.) experienced jobs growth, although Dudley (-1.1% p.a.) and Wolverhampton (-0.8%) both suffered a fall in employment.
4.24 By contrast, both the Coventry & Warwickshire and Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEPs saw total job numbers increase by 1.3% p.a. from 2009-13. A number of districts in these LEPs saw particularly strong growth over the period, notably Solihull and Lichfield in Greater Birmingham & Solihull, where employment grew by at least 3.0% on an annual basis. In short, the 1.3% average across the West Midlands Combined Authority Area is substantially bolstered by Solihull and Lichfield and therefore it is very ambitious to suggest this will occur across the Black Country area.
4.25 That said, growth in the Black Country needs to be faster than in previous years and the new Core Strategy has a vital role to play in supporting this, however the analysis presented above suggests that the growth targets need to be lowered to better reflect the local economic climate. It is considered unlikely that an annual increase of 1.0% or more will happen in the area in the long-term, especially with the Coventry & Warwickshire and Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEPs capturing new job opportunities at a faster rate in recent years. Lowering the employment growth rate means the amount of employment floorspace needed would be lower. This would not reduce the demographically based housing targets for the area but it would potentially free up previously allocated employment sites for other uses such as residential. This would help the Black Country meet its future housing targets and ensure that it has enough homes for its future workforce to live in.
4.26 As identified in the supporting report and above, it is known that employment sites that had previously been identified for housing are still operational with businesses continuing to use the land and, conversely, there are sites allocated for employment that have been vacant and subsequently market, however, remain unoccupied, which could be transferred to a residential use. It is therefore recommended that the Councils ensure that updated EDNA qualitative review conclusions are taken into account and correct uses applied where appropriate.
Question 5: Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt Review? Yes/No; If not, what additional work do you think is necessary?
4.27 In respect of the Green Belt Review, on the basis of the evidence published setting out housing need and supply, it is agreed that it will be necessary to find sites outside of the existing urban area, which will require removing land from the Green Belt where it is appropriate to do so. This will provide an opportunity to identify strategic sites that can provide a significant amount of homes to contribute to meeting identified housing needs. It is considered that there are a number of locations whereby housing sites can be identified, without the purposes of the Green Belt being compromised, ensuring the function and integrity of the Green Belt will remain.
4.28 In addition, areas on the urban fringe have the potential to ensure new homes can be delivered in an established, well landscaped environment, which could be attractive to those young families and professionals that the Black Country authorities have had difficulty in retaining, often through out-migration to neighbouring Shire districts considered to represent more aspirational locations.
4.29 In terms of the process and methodology for undertaking a Green Belt Review, it is understood that the awaited Strategic Housing Needs Study (SHNS) will be accompanied by Strategic Green Belt Review across Greater Birmingham and that the Black Country authorities have been engaged in presenting potential opportunities. It is reassuring that this engagement between consultants and local planning authorities is taking place as there is a danger that logical locations fail to be identified due to a lack of understanding of environmental conditions and/ or local circumstances that are applicable to sites.
4.30 It is agreed and makes sense for the local planning authorities to conduct a Stage 2 Green Belt Assessment following the completion of the higher-level work. Any input on reviewing the draft methodology for the Stage 3 Green Belt Review would be welcomed.
Question 6: Do you agree that the key issues set out in Part 3 are the key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy Review? Yes/No; If not, what other key issues should be taken into account?
4.31 The key issues presented are considered to be relevant, however, there are a number of inconsistencies relating to matters identified above against the previous questions raised.
5. REVIEWING THE STRATEGY TO MEET NEW CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
Question 7: Do you think that the Core Strategy vision and sustainability principles remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest?
5.1 In the main, the Core Strategy Vision and sustainability principles are considered to be appropriate, with exception to the principle of 'brownfield first'. It is understood that the NPPF, whilst it encourages an efficient use of land and for brown field land to be recycled, it does not suggest a sequential approach to development. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the development of greenfield land will compromise the development of brownfield land. Often the type of developers of the different land categories are different and, given the scale of the housing need, it is appropriate that the early delivery of housing is encouraged from all types of sites. In particular, the larger, potentially Green Belt, sites will have a longer lead in time due to the time it takes to plan for, determine and implement a comprehensive scheme. Indeed, a recent study entitled 'Start to Finish', prepared by NLP, supports this claim. When planning the housing trajectory for the Core Strategy, the larger sites should be planned in to come forward as soon as practically possible.
5.2 It is therefore suggested that the reference to 'putting brownfield first' is inappropriate and that it should be replaced by 'ensuring an efficient use of land to meet the identified housing needs', which encourages the recycling of land and recognises the contributions of greenfield/ Green Belt land to meeting housing delivery targets.
Question 8: Do you think that the Core Strategy spatial objectives remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest and how might these changes impact on individual Core Strategy policies?
5.3 Whilst the objectives outlined generally remain sound, there is concern that one of the NPPFs main priorities is absent. This is in relation to significantly boosting the supply of housing. It is suggested that an additional objective is added in order to ensure that meeting housing needs remains a priority within the Black Country. Once a preferred option is arrived at, spatial references as to where the housing growth will be delivered could be included (for example, meeting housing needs on urban (brownfield and greenfield) land and at extensions to the urban area).
5.4 Further, given the increased employment land requirements, the second objective relating to employment land being within the best locations within the Regeneration Corridors may no longer be appropriate. Indeed, as highlighted earlier, there is concern that there is a mismatch in land allocations, and it is appropriate for the Core Strategy review to ensure all employment sites are fit for purpose. This may conclude that employment opportunities should be identified on new land outside of the Regeneration Corridors. Should this be the case, the objective would be inappropriately worded.
Question 9: Do you agree that Policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the Growth Network? Yes/No; If not, what changes do you think should be made to Policies CSP1 and CSP2 in response to new challenges and opportunities?
5.5 It is agreed that the policies could remain, if the development requirements and related changes are made to ensure the policies are consistent with the overall strategy. The changes relate to both the quantum of development (homes, employment and retail space), the location of development (within and beyond the existing Regeneration Corridors) and the type of development (brownfield, greenfield and on land removed from the Green Belt). It is considered that references should be made to urban extensions (on land removed from the Green Belt) in Policy CSP2 specifically, to highlight the important contribution that such sites will make to meeting the development requirements of the Plan.
5.6 As touched upon above and throughout these Representations, it is clear that given the significant amounts of housing that will need to be delivered across the Black Country, there will be a need for a switch from a sole focus on brownfield regeneration to a need for a dual approach that focuses on both brownfield and strategic greenfield/green belt release. The focus on Regeneration Corridors and Strategic Centres was very much a product of the times and housing needs of when the Core Strategy was first adopted in 2011. In light of the emerging, higher housing requirements, it is clear that there is a need for a fresh approach to the spatial distribution of growth across the Black Country. Whilst reference to strategic centres and regeneration corridors could remain, this remit needs to be expanded to reflect the evident need for urban extensions outside of the existing growth networks. Indeed, Sustainable Urban Extensions both within the Black Country administrative boundaries and within the adjacent South Staffordshire District will be required to meet emerging housing requirements. These policies should therefore be expanded to include references to urban extensions in the form of green field land outside of the defined urban area, to ensure that sufficient certainty is built into the plan that the housing needs of the area will be met. Amending these policies to make it clear that both brown field and green field land is required will ensure that a fresh approach to spatial distribution across the Black Country Area would be secured and delivered.
5.7 On a separate note, whilst a point mostly relating to the South Staffordshire Local Plan to which separate representations will be made, it is considered that the currently adopted approach to spatial distribution in South Staffordshire will need to be re-assessed. Given the huge housing requirements of the Black Country and the shared housing market between South Staffordshire and the Black Country, it is considered that suitable urban extension sites located within South Staffordshire District would be the logical and sensible locations to meet any remaining unmet housing need. In terms of the relevance of this point to the Black Country Review, it will be important for the Black Country authorities to collaborate with South Staffordshire on cross boundary issues, and to identify suitable extension sites to the Black Country built area which fall within the planning jurisdiction of South Staffordshire District. It is welcomed that this approach is planned to be undertaken, by virtue of the forthcoming Green Belt Review which will be a joint exercise between the Black Country Authorities and South Staffordshire District.

Question 10: In continuing to promote growth within the Growth Network, is there a need to amend the boundaries of any of the Regeneration Corridors in the existing Core Strategy? Yes/No; If so, which boundaries and why?
Question 11a: Do you support Strategic Option 1A? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If no, do you support Option 1B? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If you support the release of further employment land for housing, what should the characteristics of these employment areas be?
Question 11b: Are there any current employment areas that might be considered suitable for redevelopment to housing? Yes/No;
5.8 As highlighted previously, the key to understanding where the most appropriate employment/ housing locations are within the Growth Network and Corridors will be determined through a qualitative assessment of allocated employment sites. It is understood an updated assessment has been undertaken and such work, complete with responses to the Call for Sites consultation, will provide the Black Country authorities with evidence to determine the urban capacity for housing, which may include transferring some employment land to housing as well as housing land to employment. This work will then outline the number of dwellings to be accommodated beyond the existing Growth Network within the Green Belt.
5.9 It is welcomed that the Issues and Options Draft recognises the need to release Green Belt in all scenarios proposed.
Question 12a: Do you support Spatial Option H1? Yes/No; What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. ability to create a defensible new green belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services.
Question 12b: Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
Question 13a: Do you support Spatial Option H2? Yes/No; What should the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) be? e.g. minimum/ maximum size, mix of uses, mix of housing types, accessibility to other areas. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs, potential to support existing settlements / services, proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban regeneration.
5.10 Given the scale of the housing need, there is concern that the development requirements could not be met with just one of the suggested options presented and, therefore, a combination of both options will be necessary.
5.11 To be in the best possible position to significantly boost the amount of housing and meet the development requirements in the Black Country, in accordance with the NPPF, it is advised that opportunities to both round off edges of the Green Belt and Sustainable Urban Extensions are proposed in the Preferred Options Draft Core Strategy. As highlighted within the Issues and Options Draft, there are challenges and opportunities that come with both types of development, for example from a delivery perspective, smaller sites will come forward more quickly due to the nature of these being straight forward proposals (with limited infrastructure necessary and one or few land owners) and larger sites will ultimately take longer as they are more complex (with multiple land uses, infrastructure and land owners). This fact has been evidenced by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (now known as Lichfields) within their report 'Start to Finish' who concluded that the average planning approval period of schemes of 2,000+ dwellings is 6.1 years and the annual average build out rate is 161 dwellings per annum. These figures demonstrate the need to have a number of sites of different sizes and in different locations removed from the Green Belt. The report also identifies, with regard to housing delivery, that 50% more homes per annum are delivered on average on large greenfield sites than large brownfield sites. This is a significant benefit of including greenfield sites within the Preferred Option and will assist to secure its delivery.
5.12 In terms of the locations for removing land from the Green Belt, this should be informed by the Strategic Growth Study and a Black Country Review of the Green Belt. The more detailed study will provide an assessment of land parcels against the purposes of the Green Belt and is likely to recommend that those that compromise the purposes the least will be shortlisted for further consideration to be removed from the Green Belt. It is advised that the next stage should be a consideration of the shortlisted sites based on their suitability (i.e. are the neighbouring uses compatible, would any previous land uses prevent the development of the site), sustainability (i.e. proximity to/ ability to provide local services/ public transport/ employment opportunities) and deliverability (i.e. whether the site is available, being promoted for development, has no barriers to coming forward etc.) credentials. Clearly each site will fair differently against such criteria and the Call for Sites submission will assist the Council to come to a decision on the preferred sites. It is advised that the Black Country authorities should be mindful of the opportunities, through infrastructure and design, that development can bring that will enhance the diversity and character of a particular location.
5.13 In terms of the characteristics of a Sustainable Urban Extension, this is likely to vary depending on the location of each site. For example, some may be more urban and others suburban in their character and would, therefore, provide a different land use offer. It is important that each are considered on a site by site basis to ensure that any subsequent allocation delivers a successful development. It is important that the developer responsible for promoting the site helps to influence what is ultimately delivered. Often what is proposed on site has been informed by housing market intelligence undertaken by sales experts at development companies and, therefore, should be taken into account. Particularly given recent experience in the down turn in the apartment market, it is important that sites are allocated for the right type and mix of housing to ensure that it will be delivered, occupied and successful.
5.14 In the more suburban locations, it is suggested that Sustainable Urban Extensions should look to provide a different offer to potentially what exists in the Strategic Centres and Regeneration Corridors, such as a mix of larger and lower density homes, which will attract those households that in the past have migrated elsewhere. Given the emphasis on delivering more high density homes in the Strategic Centres, it is important that this housing mix is offset by more larger homes in appropriate locations. Otherwise, there is a concern that the Black Country will have a disproportional amount of small homes, which will further encourage more families to migrate elsewhere and not meet the aspiration to diversify the wider HMA.
Question 13b: What infrastructure do you think would be needed for different sizes of SUEs?
5.15 The type of infrastructure needed will vary depending on the different location and size of each site and must be compliant with paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations that requires planning obligations (which applies to most infrastructure) to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
5.16 With the above in mind, however, provision for open space (both formal and informal), local centre and potentially a primary school should be considered for sites in excess of 1,000 homes.
Question 13d: Do you think that the Core Strategy should set out detailed guidance for the development of SUEs (e.g. type and tenure of housing, specific infrastructure required), rather than details being determined at a local level in light of local policies? Yes/No; Any further comments?
5.19 For the reasons outlined above, relating to considering existing local circumstances and CIL Regulation requirements in respect of any charging schedule and planning obligation requirements, it is advised that detailed guidance for the development of SUEs should not be specified within the Black Country Core Strategy as each site will vary and deserves a more detailed consideration, alongside the developer, at the local level.
Question 14: Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Housing Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details
5.18 There are no other sustainable and deliverable options that we are aware of within the Black Country administrative boundary that are capable of delivering the housing spatial options.
Question 15a: If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the 'export' of housing growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA? Yes/No; What factors should be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities in neighbouring authorities e.g. proximity to the edge of the urban area, proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs?
5.19 If, once all realistically deliverable options have been considered, there remains an unmet need for housing it is agreed that the Black Country authorities should consider the possibility of exporting growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA. In particular, there are options to expand existing settlements that are close to the administrative boundary (for example, in South Staffordshire) across authorities and could help deliver the necessary growth in a sustainable and deliverable manner. These opportunities should be explored first prior to exporting further growth to other authorities within the HMA where there is less of a spatial connection.
Question 15c: Do you think there are ways to ensure that exporting housing will meet the needs of people who would otherwise live in the Black Country? (e.g. transport improvements, provision of affordable housing, creation of employment opportunities) Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.20 It is important to consider a number of factors, including migration and travel to work patterns, which have been used to identify the extent of the HMA, to determine where households relocate to when leaving the Black Country in order to understand where and why those moves are taking place. Whilst planning can attempt to influence where people relocate to, there is no mechanism to guide or restrict people moving to or from certain locations. Once knowledge of movers can be understood can the planning system can attempt to recreate those attractive characteristics (homes that are more affordable, good public transport links, employment opportunities etc.) in locations where there is capacity for the homes to be delivered. It is advised that an additional analysis of the data, where necessary, is undertaken to provide the Black Country authorities with the relevant intelligence to deliver a successful strategy for growth outside the administrative area.
Question 16: Do you support Spatial Option E1? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access). If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
Question 17: Do you support Spatial Option E2? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites e.g. quick motorway access, good sustainable transport links? If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
Question 18: Do you support Spatial Option E3? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access). If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
Question 19a: Do you support Spatial Option E4? Yes/No; Any further comments?
Question 19b: Should any factors be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities? Yes/No; If yes, what should they be? (e.g. quick motorway access, strong transport links with the Black Country, good sustainable transport links with the Black Country) If you think there are any potential locations that should be considered, please provide details.
Question 20: Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Employment Land Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.21 As previously outlined, there is concern that some of the employment sites currently identified are potentially not fit for purpose and others that are identified to be transferred to housing remain in employment occupation. In light of this mismatch, it is welcomed that an updated qualitative assessment has been undertaken and has informed how much employment land is has be found outside the urban area.
5.22 In terms of where the employment land should be located outside the urban area, as with housing, decisions should be based on the results of the Green Belt Review and the suitability, sustainability and deliverability of sites. For employment land sites, the suitability of a site may well include good transportation links for goods and people. Indeed, there is likely to be a significant growth in the need for logistics floorspace to accommodate rapid increases in the dot.com purchasing of goods and demand for next day delivery. Efficient access to motorway junctions and the strategic road network and the availability of large sites will therefore take priority, as well as other considerations such as the ability to operate 24 hours. Placing such sites directly next to the existing urban area may therefore be impractical. The Call for Sites consultation will assist in putting forward suggestions for sites.
5.23 In terms of exporting employment land, it is considered that a proportionate amount of employment land to housing land exported should be made in an attempt to create more sustainable communities, that is unless there is good reason not to do so (i.e. due to improved public transport links between exported housing and employment sites). As evidenced in work supporting the Issues and Options Draft, whilst the Black Country is a sufficiently self-contained labour market there are strong linkages with Birmingham and South Staffordshire. This would therefore suggest that these locations should be first explored for transporting any employment land growth, however, given the land capacity issues in Birmingham it is more likely that South Staffordshire would be able to assist.
6. DELIVERING GROWTH - INFRASTRUCTURE & VIABILITY
Question 21: Do you think that changes are required to Policy DEL1 to ensure it covers both development within the existing urban area and any within the Green Belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.1 Policy DEL1 is considered to be sound on the basis that it is sufficiently flexible to deal with different circumstances on different sites across the Black Country, including sites that are to be removed from the Green Belt.
Question 23: Do you have evidence of social infrastructure that is no longer needed and where the site could be reallocated for alternative uses? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.2 No comment.
Question 24: Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current social infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new housing? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.3 No comment.
Question 25: Will there be any new social infrastructure requirements necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, please explain the type and scale of any new social infrastructure required.
6.4 No comment.
Question 26: Do you have any evidence of a requirement for new physical infrastructure to serve existing needs? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.
6.5 No comment.
Question 27: Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current physical infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.6 No comment.
Question 28: Do you think physical infrastructure is necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, what type and scale of physical infrastructure is necessary?
6.7 As set out above, the need for infrastructure will vary for each site. Given such different circumstances, it would be inappropriate and potentially unlawful (as it would conflict with paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations) to incorporate a blanket policy requiring specific infrastructure on every large housing site.
Question 29: Do you think there are any other tools or interventions that could be used to ensure enough infrastructure is provided by developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.8 It is considered that the existing national framework (which includes the NPPF and CIL Regulations) provides a sufficient tool to ensure the relevant infrastructure is delivered. In addition, the CIL Charging Schedule allows authorities to raise funds for named infrastructure projects, which should be updated in line with any Core Strategy advanced. Therefore, it is considered that there are existing provisions to deliver infrastructure and no additional interventions through the Black Country Core Strategy Review are needed.
Question 30: Do you have any suggestions around how the strategy can be developed in order to maintain the urban regeneration focus of the Black Country while at the same time bringing forward sites in the green belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.9 There is no a need for any specific interventions, such as phasing, to protect the delivery of urban regeneration in the Black Country. Indeed, it is considered that development of greenfield and Green Belt sites can very much compliment urban regeneration through the provision of a more varied form of development that will help diversify the housing stock and profile of residents in the wider area, which will assist to sustain and improve the vitality of existing communities. Further, as highlighted above, given the priority to significantly boost the delivery of housing greenfield and Green Belt sites should come forward for development as soon as practically possible. Given lead in and build out rates of larger sites, the land should be encouraged to be developed as soon as possible so to ensure the homes are delivered in the Plan period and the needs are met.
Question 31: Do you think that the right scale and form of funding is available to support the delivery of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If no, what alternative sources of funding or delivery mechanisms should be investigated?
6.10 When delivering greenfield/ Green Belt sites, there is an opportunity to deliver infrastructure to meet the needs arising from the proposal, which may have wider benefits for the local community. In addition, it is likely that the communities created by the Sustainable Urban Extensions will potentially be more affluent and share their wealth using local shops and services within the wider Black Country, which will contribute to more successful and prosperous communities.
7. REVIEW OF EXISTING CORE STRATEGY POLICIES & PROPOSALS
Housing Question 35: Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No; If no, please explain why
7.1 As identified above, it is important that a range of sites in different locations are identified to be in the best possible position of delivering the development requirements. In terms of presenting these sites in the Core Strategy, whilst it is useful to identify a housing trajectory, it is important that there is not a phasing policy as such that would prevent the delivery of housing, given the current housing crisis. As stated above, the delivery of housing on greenfield and Green Belt land will not compromise the delivery of urban regeneration as the development on the urban edge will complement and rejuvenate the environment in a different way.
7.2 In terms of the proposed level of discounting, it is considered that if the LPA adopt an approach to identify a further 20% of sites in accordance with the LPEG recommendations identified above, there would not necessarily be a need for the application of discounting in determining the overall level of supply. It is interesting to note that the level of discounting proposed by LPEG is suggested for all LPAs, not necessarily those which have experienced difficulty in delivery. It could therefore be argued that an increased buffer of 25% could be applied in order to take a cautious approach.
Question 36: Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 should be changed? Yes/No; If yes, what standards should be applied instead, for example should the minimum net density of 35 dwellings per hectare be increased to maximise brownfield housing delivery?
7.3 It is clear that the current accessibility and density standards outlined in the adopted Core Strategy were formulated in the context of the vast majority of development taking place on brownfield sites within the defined urban area. As reiterated throughout these representations, there is now a clear need for Green Belt release as part of the Local Plan Review to meet emerging, objectively assessed housing needs. We outline in further detail below why the adopted accessibility and densities would not be applicable to Green Belt sites, however would suggest that the current standards do not allow sufficient flexibility on brownfield sites. A blanket application of prescriptive accessibility and density standards across the Black Country, be it brownfield or greenfield, does not allow sufficient flexibility which take into account site specific characteristics. The Council should allow for greater flexibility when assessing accessibility and density standards, with a more pragmatic approach which allows appropriate assessment for site-specific characteristics and also an assessment of market demand which may vary significantly across the large Black Country area.
7.4 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF outlines how local authorities should set out their own approach towards density. It is suggested that the currently adopted approach does not allow for sufficient assessment of local characteristics. It is clear that the chosen approach must be reflective of local circumstances, including the matters outlined above as well as infrastructure and services available in the locality. It is advocated that a more flexible approach to density and accessibility standards is taken as part of the emerging Local Plan Review.
Question 37a: Do you think that the existing Policy HOU2 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why
7.5 In line with the comments above, it is suggested that the Council should assess each site on a case by case basis in terms of accessibility and density standards. This approach would suggest that the numerical baseline trigger of 15 homes or more will not always be appropriate or applicable, and as advocated throughout these representations it suggested that there should be a complete reassessment on accessibility and density standards as part of the emerging Local Plan Review.
Question 38: Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards are appropriate for green belt release locations? Yes/No; If no, what standards should be applied in these locations and why?
7.6 No, it is not considered that the current standards would be applicable to Green Belt release locations. The adopted standards are overly prescriptive, and as previously discussed were written in the context of brownfield land. Green Belt release sites have a completely different type of character, therefore consideration of accessibility and density standards in relation to these sites should be reflective of local character and site characteristics. The more suburban settings of Green Belt release land lends itself to lower densities which are more appropriate to the Green Belt setting, which typically deliver more family homes. The Council must provide robust evidence to test any forthcoming accessibility and density standards in relation to Green Belt release locations, which allows for a flexible and pragmatic approach.
Question 39: Do you think separate accessibility standards are needed for particular types of housing e.g. housing for the elderly or affordable housing (as occupiers may be less mobile and more dependent on public transport)? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
7.7 It is clear that separate accessibility standards will apply to particular types of housing such as affordable and for the elderly population, however in line with the sentiment expressed above, any forthcoming standards should be based on robust evidence and allow for sufficient flexibility to avoid any unnecessary constraints to development coming forward.
Question 40: Do you agree that the 2017 SHMA findings should be used to set general house type targets for the Plan period? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.8 A general and blanket application for house types across the Black Country should not be advanced as part of the Local Plan Review. Paragraph 50 is clear that local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends and market trends. It is therefore notable that the NPPF specifically highlights 'market trends' in this context, which acknowledges that the market must inform such decisions.
7.9 Whilst the 2017 SHMA does provide an assessment of demographic and market trends, it is notable that it looks at a wider area assessment and is focused at a higher level. This assessment therefore does not draw out sub-market trends, and cover smaller areas within the vast Black Country area. Again, a blanket policy of house type targets across the Black Country area would not allow for sufficient flexibility to assess each site on a site by site basis, taking into consideration local market trends and demand. The NPPF does not state that specific policies should be set to enforce that local demand is met. As such, it is considered that this should be left for the market to decide, as opposed to applying rigid and prescriptive house size standards.
7.10 It is suggested that the evidence presented in the SHMA should be put into the Plan as an informative and general guide, but should not feed into a specific policy requirement which outlines housing mix percentages that should be applied across the Black Country. A policy containing general house type targets could present as a significant constraint to the delivery of a site where there is no local market demand for this house type, which in turn would have a negative impact on achieving the necessary housing growth targets to be delivered in the Black Country over the Plan period.
Question 41a: Do you support the introduction of a policy approach towards self and custom build housing in the Core Strategy? Yes/No; If yes, would you support:
7.11 It is not considered that there is a policy need for the Core Strategy to address self and custom build housing in the emerging Review. Paragraph 6.32 indicates that there are only nine records on self and custom build registers in the Black Country. It is evident that that there is very limited demand in the Black Country, which is unsurprising given that self and custom build housing is often more popular in rural areas. Given the limited demand it is therefore not considered necessary to take a policy approach towards self and custom build housing within the Local Plan Review.
Question 41b: A target for each authority? Yes/No; Any further comments
7.12 Given that there is evidence of little market demand, it is not considered necessary for the Core Strategy to set targets for each of the Black Country authorities. If it was considered to be necessary as the Local Plan Review progresses, any targets being set should be formulated on the basis of robust evidence such as monitoring of the registers, to provide an indication of how many self-build homes will be needed.
Question 41c: A requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots? Yes/No; Any further comments?
7.13 There should not be a requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots. This can pose an unnecessary market constraint for large housebuilders when there may be limited or no market demand for self-build plots. Self and custom build plots are often unusual and unique in character, therefore would not be best suited to be located within a large housing development with more uniform house types. If deemed necessary, self and custom build housing should be allocated specific site allocations, as discussed below.
Question 41d: Another approach altogether? Yes/No; If yes, please specify.
7.14 If it is considered necessary for the Review to address self and custom build housing, this should be addressed by the Council's identifying and allocating specific plots for these uses. Identifying site-specific plots would ensure that the most appropriate and suitable locations for self and custom-build will be allocated, via the assessment of appropriate evidence and market demand. In addition, this might be more likely to be achieved on surplus publicly owned land.
Question 42: Do you agree that the annual affordable homes target should be increased to reflect the 2017 Black Country Strategic Housing Market Assessment? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.15 As a general principle, the notion of applying different affordable housing ratios to different parts of the Black Country, based on an understanding of needs and viability, is acceptable. Given that the Black Country represents a vast area, there will not be a uniform housing market, and there will be sub-market trends within this wider area. As such, a more flexible approach which assesses local housing market evidence on a case by case basis could be justified. That said, there is an inherent simplicity and attraction to a single rate figure, which is easy for the development industry to understand.
7.16 In terms of the annual affordable housing target, it is unclear how the Issues and Options document has calculated the figure of 832 homes per year. At paragraph 7.42 of the June 2017 SHMA Part Two- affordable housing document, it is stated that the total annual affordable housing need is 677 dwellings, which represents 19.8% of the annual projected household growth. This differs to paragraph 6.36 of the Issues and Options document, which states that the affordable housing target is 23.4% of total housing need or 832 homes per year. From paragraph 7.47 of the SHMA, it appears that this figure may have been calculated by adding the overall requirement of 16.6% of housing to be affordable rented and 6.7% shared ownership. Clarity is sought on how this figure has been calculated, and we reserve the right to comment further on this matter.
Question 43a: Do you think that the existing Policy HOU3 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.17 We have not undertaken detailed analysis of the findings and assumptions of the SHMA and affordable housing delivery matters, therefore would like to reserve the right to comment on this matter further. However, on face value, it appears to be a reasonable threshold and is not dissimilar to other locations.
Question 44a: Do you think that the affordable housing requirement for eligible sites in Question 43 should be kept at 25% of the total number of homes on the site? Yes /No; Any further comments?
7.18 Based on the current evidence, a blanket rate of 25% affordable housing would appear to be sound.
7.19 However, irrespective of the final rate, any amendments to the currently adopted affordable housing policy must continue to have a clause in it which stipulates that this requirement is subject to viability tests. Any revised affordable housing requirements will also need to carefully consider the implications of adopted Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regimes. Both Sandwell and Dudley Councils have adopted CIL Charging Schedules. These will have implications on viability, therefore if revised affordable housing targets are to progressed then these CIL tariffs will need to re-assessed and re-visited.
Question 44b: If no, should the percentage be increased to allow for the provision of affordable home ownership? Yes/No; If yes, what should the percentage be and why?
7.20 At paragraph 6.39 of the Issues and Options Paper, it is stated that options need to be explored to increase affordable housing delivery of private sites. One option would be to increase the overall affordable housing proportion, which would require developers to provide affordable home ownership products plus an appropriate proportion of other affordable tenures. This paragraph follows on from commentary relating to the Housing White Paper.
7.21 The Housing White Paper discusses Starter Homes at Chapter 4, and explains how the government intend to amend the NPPF to introduce a clear policy expectation that housing sites deliver a minimum of 10% affordable home ownership units. It is later stated that it will be for local areas to work with developers to agree an appropriate level of delivery of starter homes, alongside other affordable home ownership and rented tenures.
7.22 The policy position on Starter Homes is not yet fully clear, and has yet to be formally established through a formal amendment and update to the NPPF. Until the national policy position on Starter Homes has been made clear, it would be premature for the Core Strategy Review to suggest an uplift in the affordable housing requirement to include affordable home ownership such as Starter Homes. Any suggestion to uplift the affordable housing requirement to include Starter Homes should be reflective of the national policy position, as well as founded upon a robust evident base which dictates exactly what percentage this element should be of the overall affordable housing requirement.
Question 45: Should an increased affordable housing requirement be set for green belt release sites, to reflect the likely financial viability of these sites? Yes/No; If yes, what should this be.
7.23 The likely financial viability of Green Belt sites will vary across different areas of the Black Country, therefore any affordable housing requirements for Green Belt sites will need to be reflective of these circumstances. Any affordable housing targets for Green Belt sites should be based on robust evidence, and acknowledge that many sites may need to support and deliver other infrastructure requirements.
7.24 Ultimately, any affordable housing strategy will need to address the affordable housing need as well as the need for market housing. Bearing in mind that the SHMA confirms over 70% of homes required are for homes to be sold on the open market, any affordable housing policy must not dilute the delivery of these needs/requirements. A higher figure on Green Belt sites over and above a standard blanket figure would potentially do this.
Employment Question 49a: Is there still a need for existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.25 The Black Country is to be the subject of large levels of both employment and housing growth over the Plan period. These uses are very much inter-linked with one another, and will drive each other's need for growth. The Local Plan Review, in order to meet emerging employment and housing needs, must identify a significant number of specific sites for employment and housing uses. By planning proactively and identifying suitable sites for both employment land and housing land, this should reduce the pressures to manage the release of poorer quality employment land, which may not always be suitable for release. The Local Plan Review should also seek to undertake a further review of poorer quality employment land to make it available for other suitable uses, if it proves to no longer be viable for employment land use. This is in line with policy provisions of the NPPF, which at Paragraph 22 outlines that planning policies should avoid the long-term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose.
Question 50: Do you think that the Core Strategy should continue to set a target for the total employment land stock in Policy EMP1? Yes/No; Please explain why.
7.26 The continuation of setting a target for employment land stock would be supported. Policy EMP1 should make it clear that these are not maximum figures, to encourage further flexibility for additional growth.
Retail Question 59: Have all the appropriate centres within the Black Country been identified? Yes/No; If not, please specify additional centres
7.27 Figure 11 and Table 6 of the Issues and Options Paper make no reference to Hardwick. We have replicated Figure 11 on the following page [SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT FOR IMAGE], and labelled Hardwick which we consider should be identified as a Local Centre within the retail hierarchy. There are a number of local facilities in Hardwick, including a cluster of shops, public houses and restaurants centred around the Chester Road/Hardwick Road junction. There are 9 facilities located at this junction, which comprise of 2 no. restaurants, 1 no. public house, 5 no retail units and 1 no. A5 unit. Hardwick is therefore well served by a number of local facilities, and should therefore be a designated centre within the Core Strategy Review. This is particularly the case given that Hardwick is well-suited to accommodate future housing growth as explained in other sections of these Representations, therefore Hardwick should be designated as a centre to reflect future growth in the area.
Question 61: In addition to para 4.33 of the current Core Strategy should the revised Core Strategy include criteria for the creation of new centres that might be needed as a result of any additional housing identified through the plan? Yes/No; Any further comments?
7.28 As discussed above, it is suggested that through the Local Plan Review, there will be a need to designate new centres (such as Hardwick) as a result of additional housing growth. Criteria would be a useful policy tool to help assess the designation of new centres, and should be in line with previous methodologies used which set out clear thresholds.
Question 71: Should the Core Strategy set housing targets for the Town Centres?
7.29 Housing within Town Centres should be supported, in line with paragraph 23 of the NPPF which discusses the important role that residential development can play in ensuring the vitality of Town Centres. Any housing targets should be based on what sites are known to be readily available, suitable and viable for residential development. Market demand for housing in these areas will also need to be fully assessed. It is notable from the outcome of the 2017 SHMA that there is most demand for three bedroom properties (40%). The highest demand is therefore for family housing, and not for flats which are often the most popular within Town Centre locations. Any housing targets set for the Town Centre would therefore need to consider the findings of the SHMA, and be reflective of the fact that family housing is often more suitable for delivery on larger sites, including on sites which are currently located within the Green Belt.
Environment Question 99a: Do you think that national standards for housing development on water consumption should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.30 When referring to water consumption paragraph 6.1.52 of the Issues and Options document states that the Black Country does not currently lie in an area of serious water stress, therefore clear need may be difficult to demonstrate. This evidence suggests that there is limited or no need to introduce such a policy, therefore it is not considered that the Core Strategy Review should seek to introduce water consumption standards for housing development.
Question 99b: Do you think that national access standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.31 The introduction of any national access standards, with the Issues and Options document referring specifically to Lifetime Homes, again must be based on a robust evidence base which can demonstrate market demand. It is noted that Paragraph 50 of the NPPF states that planning authorities must plan for a mix of housing to meet a range of needs. In the same paragraph, it is later stated that these must be based on current and future market trends. If Lifetime Home standards are to be introduced these will therefore need to be based on robust evidence, to ensure that the standards are not overly onerous and prevent the delivery of other types of housing which have higher levels of market demand.
Question 99c: Do you think that national space standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.32 As reiterated throughout these representations, it is not considered that a blanket approach of prescriptive standards across the Black Country allows sufficient flexibility to assess local market and site considerations in an appropriate manner. Whilst it is recognised that space standards can be an important tool to ensure that high quality of homes are delivered, we agree with the sentiment expressed in the recent Housing White Paper. The Paper explains that the government are concerned that a one size fits all approach may not reflect the needs and aspirations of a wider range of households. The White Paper also states that the Government will be undertaking a review of the Nationally Described Space Standards. It is suggested that the Core Strategy Review should await the outcome of this national review of national space standards, to ensure compliance with national policy and to ensure that the most appropriate approach to space standards, if required, is taken.
Question 99d: Do you think that the standards should be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No; If yes, please explain how and why.
7.33 As discussed above, prescriptive standards do not always allow sufficient flexibility for local market needs, so we would not advocate a blanket approach of different standards to brownfield and greenfield sites.
Open Space, Sport and Recreation Question 102a: Do you support the proposed changes relating to open space, sport and recreation? Yes/No; If no, please explain
7.34 Paragraph 6.1.60 of the Issues and Options paper outlines how adopted Policy ENV6 creates the framework for open space policies at the local level. The Issues and Options paper outlines how this is in line with national guidance, and that it is proposed to retain this policy and update some references in the supporting text to reflect changing circumstances. It is agreed that the local level remains the appropriate place to set open space policies, and that Policy ENV6 should continue to endorse this approach.

8. CONCLUSION
8.1 Wallace Land Investments are actively pursuing land promotion opportunities across the Black
Country. Wallace fully support the Black Country Authorities' decision to review the currently adopted Core Strategy.
8.2 It is clear that there will be a need for Green Belt release to accommodate the housing needs of both the Black Country and indeed the overspill needs of Birmingham. There will therefore be a clear switch from the adopted Core Strategy focusing on development within the urban area, to exploring sustainable opportunities outside of the existing urban area.
8.3 Wallace are of the view that the evidently large housing needs of the Black Country can and should be partly delivered on sites suitable for Green Belt release.
8.4 Wallace look forward to future opportunities to engage with the Black Country Authorities to identify suitable sites for allocation in the emerging Core Strategy Review, in order to ensure that future housing needs will be met.

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Bruton Knowles have been instructed by Mr and Mrs Lees to prepare a representation to the Black Country Core Strategy Issues and Options document (June 2017). The clients are aware the land forms part of a larger representation, submitted by Taylor Wimpey, but want to ensure the local authority is aware the site is available either as a stand-alone parcel of land or as part of Taylor Wimpey's submission.
1.2 The report therefore has been written from the perspective of a far smaller site coming forward and not all questions will be relevant. It is considered only the some of the questions are considered directly applicable insofar as my clients individual site is concerned.
2
2. ISSUES AND OPTIONS
2.1 Question 1 - Do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a
partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and
updating existing policies? Yes/No; If not, what do you think should be
the scope of the review?
2.2 The Core Strategy was adopted prior to the publication of the National
Planning Policy Framework, and therefore is likely to be considered out of date
which provides an additional layer of uncertainty should the review be
adopted. That said, if the review is as comprehensive as it appears to be the
case so far, this may limit any questioning of the Development Plan.
2.3 Question 3 - Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black
Country over the period 2014-36 in the SHMA, and the anticipated
amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance?
Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line
with national guidance
2.4 There is the risk that the numbers required for the whole of the Housing
Market Area may not have been included within the plan period, and it
probably won't be known if these numbers are appropriate until the results of
the current call for sites are analysed.
2.5 Question 5 - Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black
Country Green Belt Review? Yes/No; If not, what additional work do you
think is necessary?
2.6 It is agreed there will be a significant housing need within the Black Country
and the wider HMA, since the Core Strategy was adopted and a need for
employment land, which will require the identification of new sites on land
outside the urban area that is not currently proposed for development.
3
2.7 Question 6 - Do you agree that the key issues set out in Part 3 are the
key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy
Review? Yes/No; If not, what other key issues should be taken into
account?
2.8 Yes, these issues reflect the needs which are required within the Core
Strategy Review.
2.9 Question 7 - Do you think that the Core Strategy vision and sustainability
principles remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would
you suggest?
2.10 We are not aware that the NPPF provides a sequential test for Brownfield land
but clearly encouragement of the use of Previously Developed Land is
welcome.
2.11 Perhaps the Core Principles of the NPPF could be worked into the
sustainability principles.
2.12 Question 8 - Do you think that the Core Strategy spatial objectives
remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest
and how might these changes impact on individual Core Strategy
policies?
2.13 The 10 objectives do not refer to the 'golden thread' of sustainable
development which could be emphasised, and a boost of housing is not
referred to as per paragraph 47 of the NPPF. Both of these are considered to
be relevant if the review is not going to be challenged upon adoption.
4
2.14 Question 12a - Do you support Spatial Option H1? Yes/No; what criteria
should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. ability to create a defensible
new green belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services
2.15 Our client's land could either "Round off" the edge of the green belt, as per H1,
or could be part of a wider urban extension (H2). However for the purposes of
this representation our client prefers H1.
2.16 Question 12b - Do you think there are any potential locations that should
be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details (please submit
specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
2.17 Yes our client's site has been submitted as part of the call for sites.
2.18 Question 13a - Do you support Spatial Option H2? Yes/No; what should
the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) be? e.g. minimum/
maximum size, mix of uses, mix of housing types, accessibility to other
areas. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g.
proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy
access to jobs, potential to support existing settlements / services,
proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban
regeneration.
2.19 Q 13(a-d) and Q14, It is understood my clients' site has been submitted as a
wider SUE and detailed answers will be provided.
5
2.20 Question 15a - If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the 'export' of housing growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA? Yes/No; What factors should be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities in neighbouring authorities e.g. proximity to the edge of the urban area, proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs?
2.21 Only if all opportunities to release land such as my clients' site has been fully located.
6
3. LAND OF CANNOCK ROAD (SUBJECT SITE)
3.1 The subject site is approximately 3.2 hectares and is located on the outskirts of Wolverhampton and is positioned opposite to Cannock Road, which provides direct access onto the M54 (1.3 miles distance). Wolverhampton City Centre is located 2.5 miles south of the site.
(Subject Site Outlined in Red, Google Maps 2017)
3.2 The area in which the site is located has a high level of public transport provision and a high level of service/facility provisions. Included within a 0.5 mile radius is: a supermarket, various restaurants, a petrol filling station and various educational and child care facilities.
3.3 Directly adjacent to the site is the Old Hampton Lane Bus Stop, which provides frequent direct services to both Wolverhampton City Centre and Cannock Town Centre.
3.4 A desktop search of planning designations has been undertaken to inform this paper. Information has been sourced utilising the Multi Agency Geographic Information System ('MAGIC' GIS) and the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and Wolverhampton Proposals Map.
7
3.5 The findings have outlined that a large portion of the site is located within the Wolverhampton City Centre Boundary. The northern corner of the site falls just outside (illustrated below).
(Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and Wolverhampton Proposals Map)
3.6 The site is also located within a Green Belt designation.
3.7 Environment Agency Flood Risk mapping for land-use planning, indicates that the site is located in a Flood Risk Zone 1. This indicates that the site has a low probability of flooding (less than 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river flooding).
3.8 We consider that the above information demonstrates that proposed site is sustainably located and will therefore meet the 'golden thread' running through the National Planning Policy Framework.
3.9 The subject site would offer a sustainable urban extension and is promoted as a suitable, deliverable and an available site, subject to its release from the Green Belt.
8
4. CONCLUSION
4.1 Bruton Knowles would like to consider that the scale of the housing required in the Black Country, along with the lack of sufficient land available, means that 'exceptional circumstances' exist to justify that Green Belt land should be released for housing.
4.2 The subject site has no physical constraints and is sustainably located on the outskirts of the existing urban area of Wolverhampton. And subject to the site's release from the Green Belt it would offer a deliverable and an available site that should be allocated for housing development.

Question 1: Do you agree that the Core Strategy review should be a partial review, retaining and stretching the existing spatial strategy and updating existing policies? Yes/No; If not, what do you think should be the scope of the review?
2.4 In response to Question 1 and whether it should be a partial review or not, whilst the existing strategy identifies the most sustainable locations for growth in the context of delivering development requirements identified by the Regional Strategy (RS), there is now a new and much bigger challenge ahead in meeting the arising needs for homes identified by the latest evidence and there is concern that the existing spatial strategy may not facilitate the delivery of these needs. The Black Country authorities, therefore, need to be mindful of this and not attempt to put "a square peg in a round hole".
2.5 It is our view that urban regeneration can be achieved whilst pursuing development on the urban edge. Indeed, the scale of housing need is so large that both must be encouraged in order to meet current and arising housing needs within the Black Country.
2.6 It is extremely important that in reviewing the Core Strategy it fully takes account of and facilitates the delivery of strategic economic plans, as recognised in paragraph 1.15. All too often these strategies are ignored and, accordingly, development plans could effectively frustrate economic growth from being realised.
2.7 In terms of the Plan period proposed in paragraph 1.17, whilst a 15-year time period from adoption is appropriate, there is concern that the preparation of plans is often delayed (due to reasons beyond the control of the LPAs) and it may be prudent to stretch the period further to prevent such an issue from occurring.
2.8 It is welcomed that the Issues and Options document recognises that it will not be possible to accommodate all future development needs within the urban area and that an examination of the potential for development land outside the existing urban area, which is effectively land within the Green Belt, will take place as part of the Core Strategy review process.
3. THE BLACK COUNTRY TODAY - THE EXISTING STRATEGY
3.1 As set out within this section, the delivery of both employment and housing land has not come forward as originally envisaged in part due to the after effects of the recession. Surplus employment land which might have been available for housing has not come forward due to a strengthening economy and local firms being more robust than anticipated. In addition, the range of locations available has not in all cases met with market expectations as to where people want to live.
3.2 In terms of the employment land, it is important that sufficient land is provided for new employment and that there is not an overreliance on land that is currently in use. It is impressive that despite generally poor economic performance local businesses have performed well. Should the economy significantly improve within the Plan period in line with LEP aspirations (considered later in this response), there is concern that it may become difficult to transfer a wide range of existing employment locations to housing allocations. It is appropriate, therefore, for the Council to ensure the evidence contained within the Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment is reviewed and updated regularly. This will enable the land supply to be responsive to arising needs and not rigidly be wedded to delivering commitments that are unlikely to be realised.
3.3 What is further emphasised by the analysis in this section is that urban regeneration cannot be delivered quickly and that there are a number of factors beyond the control of the Black Country authorities that may have implications for the delivery of the strategy. This further emphasises the need for a mix of types of sites (brownfield, brownfield compulsory purchase, greenfield and Green Belt) of different forms of development (high density, mid and low density family homes) in a variety of locations, which will maximise the opportunities to deliver a successful Local Plan.
3.4 Finally, in respect of the proposal to maintain 300 hectares of employment land that will become vacant by way of general churn over the Plan period. Whilst the principle is considered acceptable, there should be appropriate evidence to support the assumption.
3.5 Our experience is that there are employment sites that clients are looking to secure a residential allocation on that have not been identified thus far. In light of these changing circumstances, the Black Country authorities should ensure that the policy approach is flexible to allow sites in appropriate locations to be brought forward for housing throughout the Plan period and likewise, sites that have been allocated for housing but have not come forward should be removed from the supply.
4. THE STRATEGIC CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
4.1 It is welcomed that the Black Country authorities are updating their evidence base. Indeed, the adopted Core Strategy took the development requirements from the adopted Regional Strategy (RS), which has since been revoked and is unquestionably out of date. Since the RS was published there has been a number of population and household projections published showing increasing dwelling requirements in the Black Country, which were largely ignored and, therefore, it should come as no surprise that there is a significant increase in forming households.
4.2 In terms of the list of evidence either prepared or due to be completed, it appears to be sufficiently comprehensive.
4.3 In respect of the Strategic Market Assessment for the Black Country and South Staffordshire Richborough Estates would wish to raise the following key comments:
* In determining the OAN, there are concerns with regard to the SHMA methodology and it is suggested a further scenario should be tested to consider long term growth which includes balanced periods of economic prosperity and decline.
* There is concern that the economic growth scenarios do not use the latest economic forecast data and that the methodology translating the job growth into dwelling growth is not sufficiently robust to accurately determine the impact of forecasts based on existing circumstances and also more aspirational job growth targets, such as those arising from the SEP.
* In terms of providing uplifts for market signals, a 25% uplift for South Staffs is appropriate. It is advised that dwelling requirements for the Black Country should not be reduced as a result of this and, accordingly, it should not count towards meeting any unmet needs outside of the HMA as the main function is to provide slack within the housing market and prevent house prices from increasing at an accelerated rate.
4.4 In respect of the Housing Background Report, Richborough Estates would wish to make the following key comments:
* Clearly a lot of work is yet to be done to determine what the housing land supply position is in the Black Country. Given that much of the existing evidence is based on the adopted Core Strategy, it is recognised that the SHLAAs across the four authorities will need to be updated, both in terms of revising the methodology and range of sites assessed, to reflect a potentially different approach to locating development.
* It is commendable that the Housing Background Report has examined existing sources of supply in an attempt to provide additional homes from sites within the urban area. There is concern, however, that by changing policies, for example, to increase the minimum density on sites has wider policy implications to take into account than simply increasing the number of homes.
* The Housing Background Report suggests a continued allowance for larger windfall sites. It is suggested that it is inappropriate to include an allowance for this source as there is no certainty that this land will come forward for development.
* Other sources, such as converting employment sites to residential sites, based on the evidence presented and feedback from the development industry, it is known that there are employment sites functioning well as employment sites but are to be converted to residential and other employment sites that are unoccupied and undesirable that are to be retained as employment sites. Clearly, there is a mismatch between employment land need and employment land supply. It is advised that the qualitative assessment of employment informs future land supply recommendations and allocations are revised where necessary.
4.5 As a result of the dwelling requirements generated by the SHMA and the land supply identified from the Housing Background Report, it is concluded that there in insufficient urban land to provide for the development requirements and that a Green Belt Review should be conducted. It is noted that scoping is underway and that the work is to be completed in mid-2018. It is hopeful that the development industry will be involved in defining the methodology of the work to ensure that it is conducted in a robust way.
4.6 Another very important piece of work to be taken into consideration will be the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA Strategic Growth Study. It is unclear at this stage what role the Black Country authorities will play in meeting the wider needs of Birmingham and, indeed, whether it can now contribute given that meeting the needs of the indigenous population will be a tall order. Further, there is uncertainty with regard to how far the study will go in identifying locations for growth and how this evidence will be taken forward in emerging Development Plans, particularly given that it is premature to the Green Belt Review for the wider Black Country area. It is our view that there are sites within the Green Belt that will provide sustainable locations for growth and that their removal will not compromise the purposes of the Green Belt and, accordingly it will remain purposeful and functional.
Question 2: Do you think that the key evidence set out in Table 1 is sufficient to support the key stages of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If not, what further evidence is required and, if there are any particular issues that should be taken into account in considering development on any particular sites or in any particular areas, please provide details
4.7 It is considered that the evidence contained within Table 1 is comprehensive, however, as suggested above and below, a number of concerns have been highlighted and it is therefore suggested that these are addressed in order to improve the soundness of the next iteration of the Core Strategy Review.
4.8 It is welcomed that an updated qualitative assessment of employment land has been undertaken in order to identify if the sites are fit for purpose, alongside the quantitative employment land study. It has been identified that a number of employment land sites that have been suggested for residential land allocations remain in occupation as functioning employment sites. These sites should be removed from the housing land supply. Conversely, there are vacant employment land sites that have been marketed over a period of time where no market interest has been forthcoming and, therefore, it is recommended that these sites should be considered for housing delivery.
4.9 It is noted that Viability Studies are identified as evidence base documents that are still to be prepared. Whilst not specifically identified, it is recommended that affordable housing viability is a key matter that needs to be addressed as part of this evidence base to ensure the level suggested by the SHMA Part 2 is deliverable. If this is not the case, the delivery of both market and affordable housing could be compromised and prevent the successful delivery of any new strategy.
Question 3: Do you agree that the housing need identified for the Black Country over the period 2014-36 in the SHMA, and the anticipated amount of supply, are appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.
4.10 In terms of the extent of the sub market, which includes the Black Country and South Staffordshire, this is considered to be appropriate. It is recognised and welcomed that the Black Country authorities and South Staffordshire have jointly undertaken a SHMA for the sub area, which facilitates the preparation of an Issues and Options Core Strategy Review. There is concern, however, that the remaining constituent authorities within the wider Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area have not taken part and there is a danger that housing need for the whole HMA may not entirely be comprehensively captured due to the different time periods covered by the separate studies. It is advised that a SHMA, consistent with the guidance in the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance, is prepared for the entire HMA over the same Plan period (as opposed to a housing needs study), which will properly consider all relevant factors in a consistent and comprehensive manner.
4.11 The OAN arrived at by the SHMA is generally appropriate in identifying the starting point for determining the dwelling requirement, however, it is suggested a further scenario should be tested to consider long term growth which includes balanced periods of economic prosperity and decline. There is concern that the economic growth scenarios contain potentially out of date employment forecasts and the methodology to determine appropriate dwelling requirements is not sufficiently robust to accurately determine the impact of forecasts based on existing circumstances. In addition, more aspirational job growth targets, such as those arising from the SEP, may not necessarily be appropriate for the Black Country (as discussed later in these representations).
4.12 In terms of providing an uplift for market signals, a 25% uplift for South Staffs is agreed to be appropriate. It is advised that dwelling requirements for the Black Country should not be reduced as a result of this and, accordingly, the application of such an uplift in South Staffordshire should not count towards meeting any unmet needs outside of the HMA as the main function is to provide slack or headroom within the housing market and prevent house prices from increasing at an accelerated rate, exacerbating issues of affordability.
4.13 Clearly, the evidence contained in the SHMA does not consider the potential to accommodate any of Birmingham City's housing needs and that this could result in increased dwelling requirements. We reserve our position in respect of this matter and await the publication of the HMA wide Strategic Housing Needs Study.
4.14 We shortly await a consultation publication from central Government in relation to providing a standardised methodology for generating dwelling requirements. This is anticipated in Autumn 2017. The Black Country authorities will need to take account of any proposed national policy changes identified through the consultation paper. We reserve our position on this matter, until the full details and implications for the Back Country are known. It is considered that, whilst a standard methodology will be helpful in identifying a baseline dwelling requirement, the consideration of long term trends and economic forecasts cannot be carried out in a mathematical calculation outside a demographic/ economic model. In light of this, the SHMA prepared for the sub-area could remain useful as evidence to inform the review of the Black Country Core Strategy.
4.15 In terms of meeting the dwelling requirements, it is understood that the 'Call for Sites' consultation will inform an updated SHLAA, which will assess sites both within and outside the urban area to determine the maximum number of dwellings that can be realistically delivered within the Black Country over the proposed Plan period. The Housing Background Report that has been published as part of the evidence base for the Issues and Options Core Strategy Review has considered assumptions contained within the SHLAA based on adopted policies and considers changes to the policies to boost the delivery of housing on existing sites. Whilst it is a commendable that the Black Country authorities are exploring all potential options to boost housing on urban land, there are wider implications of doing so and accordingly, caution is expressed in response to a number of the identified approaches proposed.
4.16 As confirmed in paragraph 3.15, it is extremely important that the Black Country authorities 'firm up' the housing supply in order to ensure that there is sufficient provision to meet the dwelling requirements. It is also considered appropriate to provide an additional buffer of housing land supply to provide a contingency when sites are delayed. As explained earlier in the Issues and Options Report, sites providing a total of 3,000 homes have not come forward as anticipated. It is considered that additional supply is required to provide flexibility and minimise any durations within the Plan period where the housing trajectory would otherwise dip.
4.17 In terms of the extent of a buffer for housing land, the Local Plan Expert Group suggested that additional land, equivalent to delivering 20% of the overall dwelling requirement, is added to the supply, which will provide a contingency of land to be used as and when necessary during the Plan period. It is suggested that this additional land will help ensure the dwelling delivery targets and housing needs are met in a timely manner, which will reduce the opportunity for households to become concealed or shared. Given the issues experienced in respect of delivery in the past, it could be argued that an increased buffer of circa 25% could be applied.
4.18 It is also appropriate to ensure that, as well as identifying the right amount of land, there is sufficient variety in the types of sites (brownfield, greenfield, Green Belt) are identified, reflecting different sizes, in a range of locations. This variety in provision will allow the best opportunity for multiple sites to come forward at the same time without market constraint and hence ensuring delivery targets are met. In addition, this approach will also provide market choice to existing and arising households looking to move into a new home in the Black Country, which will have wider social benefits (i.e. allow families to live nearby one another and provide an opportunity to diversify existing communities through providing alternative homes to the existing housing stock).
4.19 Indeed, as previously documented in the adopted Core Strategy, it is considered that the ambition to retain the young and professional population within the Black Country should be maintained and that suitable and attractive housing and complementary environments are encouraged.
4.20 Finally, it is welcomed that the Black Country authorities have agreed to test the dwelling requirement figures on an ongoing basis. It is hoped that the suggested changes/alternative scenarios suggested above are implemented in order to ensure the evidence base is robust and the resultant policies and proposals soundly based.
Question 4: Do you consider the employment land requirement identified for the Black Country up to 2036 in the EDNA is appropriate and in line with national guidance? Yes/No; If not, please explain why they are not appropriate and in line with national guidance.
4.21 The Core Strategy review intends to utilise the Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) for the Black Country, published in May 2017, to inform future employment land requirements. The EDNA uses forecasts produced as part of the West Midlands Combined Authority Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) to calculate long-term growth, noting that the 'Super SEP Economy+ Scenario' is the preferred aspirational scenario. This scenario assumes average annual growth in employment of 1.3% across the Combined Authority and presents an ambitious view of future growth in the area, with 500,000 jobs created between 2013 and 2030.
4.22 The SEP Technical Appendix breaks down the job forecasts for the three Local Enterprise Partnerships that form the Combined Authority (Black Country; Coventry & Warwickshire; and Greater Birmingham & Solihull). Jobs growth in the Black Country LEP is forecast to be around 1.1% per annum, whilst it is forecast at 1.5% per annum in the other two LEP areas. This averages out at annual growth of approximately 1.3%. Using data from the Business Register & Employment Survey, published by the Office for National Statistics, it is possible to look at employment trends over the last five to six years (2009-15) and this analysis suggests that the growth rate used in the aspirational growth scenario may be too ambitious for the Back Country:
4.23 Between 2009 and 2015, total employment in the Black Country LEP increased from around 450,000 to approximately 453,000. This equates to average annual growth of 0.1%. Walsall (1.5% p.a.) and Sandwell (0.9% p.a.) experienced jobs growth, although Dudley (-1.1% p.a.) and Wolverhampton (-0.8%) both suffered a fall in employment.
4.24 By contrast, both the Coventry & Warwickshire and Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEPs saw total job numbers increase by 1.3% p.a. from 2009-13. A number of districts in these LEPs saw particularly strong growth over the period, notably Solihull and Lichfield in Greater Birmingham & Solihull, where employment grew by at least 3.0% on an annual basis. In short, the 1.3% average across the West Midlands Combined Authority Area is substantially bolstered by Solihull and Lichfield and therefore it is very ambitious to suggest this will occur across the Black Country area.
4.25 That said, growth in the Black Country needs to be faster than in previous years and the new Core Strategy has a vital role to play in supporting this, however the analysis presented above suggests that the growth targets need to be lowered to better reflect the local economic climate. It is considered unlikely that an annual increase of 1.0% or more will happen in the area in the long-term, especially with the Coventry & Warwickshire and Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEPs capturing new job opportunities at a faster rate in recent years. Lowering the employment growth rate means the amount of employment floorspace needed would be lower. This would not reduce the demographically based housing targets for the area but it would potentially free up previously allocated employment sites for other uses such as residential. This would help the Black Country meet its future housing targets and ensure that it has enough homes for its future workforce to live in.
4.26 As identified in the supporting report and above, it is known that employment sites that had previously been identified for housing are still operational with businesses continuing to use the land and, conversely, there are sites allocated for employment that have been vacant and subsequently market, however, remain unoccupied, which could be transferred to a residential use. It is therefore recommended that the Councils ensure that updated EDNA qualitative review conclusions are taken into account and correct uses applied where appropriate.
Question 5: Do you agree with the proposed approach to the Black Country Green Belt Review? Yes/No; If not, what additional work do you think is necessary?
4.27 In respect of the Green Belt Review, on the basis of the evidence published setting out housing need and supply, it is agreed that it will be necessary to find sites outside of the existing urban area, which will require removing land from the Green Belt where it is appropriate to do so. This will provide an opportunity to identify strategic sites that can provide a significant amount of homes to contribute to meeting identified housing needs. It is considered that there are a number of locations whereby housing sites can be identified, without the purposes of the Green Belt being compromised, ensuring the function and integrity of the Green Belt will remain.
4.28 In addition, areas on the urban fringe have the potential to ensure new homes can be delivered in an established, well landscaped environment, which could be attractive to those young families and professionals that the Black Country authorities have had difficulty in retaining, often through out-migration to neighbouring Shire districts considered to represent more aspirational locations.
4.29 In terms of the process and methodology for undertaking a Green Belt Review, it is understood that the awaited Strategic Housing Needs Study (SHNS) will be accompanied by Strategic Green Belt Review across Greater Birmingham and that the Black Country authorities have been engaged in presenting potential opportunities. It is reassuring that this engagement between consultants and local planning authorities is taking place as there is a danger that logical locations fail to be identified due to a lack of understanding of environmental conditions and/ or local circumstances that are applicable to sites.
4.30 It is agreed and makes sense for the local planning authorities to conduct a Stage 2 Green Belt Assessment following the completion of the higher-level work. Any input on reviewing the draft methodology for the Stage 3 Green Belt Review would be welcomed.
Question 6: Do you agree that the key issues set out in Part 3 are the key issues that need to be taken into account through the Core Strategy Review? Yes/No; If not, what other key issues should be taken into account?
4.31 The key issues presented are considered to be relevant, however, there are a number of inconsistencies relating to matters identified above against the previous questions raised.
5. REVIEWING THE STRATEGY TO MEET NEW CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
Question 7: Do you think that the Core Strategy vision and sustainability principles remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest?
5.1 In the main, the Core Strategy Vision and sustainability principles are considered to be appropriate, with exception to the principle of 'brownfield first'. It is understood that the NPPF, whilst it encourages an efficient use of land and for brown field land to be recycled, it does not suggest a sequential approach to development. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the development of greenfield land will compromise the development of brownfield land. Often the type of developers of the different land categories are different and, given the scale of the housing need, it is appropriate that the early delivery of housing is encouraged from all types of sites. In particular, the larger, potentially Green Belt, sites will have a longer lead in time due to the time it takes to plan for, determine and implement a comprehensive scheme. Indeed, a recent study entitled 'Start to Finish', prepared by NLP, supports this claim. When planning the housing trajectory for the Core Strategy, the larger sites should be planned in to come forward as soon as practically possible.
5.2 It is therefore suggested that the reference to 'putting brownfield first' is inappropriate and that it should be replaced by 'ensuring an efficient use of land to meet the identified housing needs', which encourages the recycling of land and recognises the contributions of greenfield/ Green Belt land to meeting housing delivery targets.
Question 8: Do you think that the Core Strategy spatial objectives remain appropriate? Yes/No; If not, what alternatives would you suggest and how might these changes impact on individual Core Strategy policies?
5.3 Whilst the objectives outlined generally remain sound, there is concern that one of the NPPFs main priorities is absent. This is in relation to significantly boosting the supply of housing. It is suggested that an additional objective is added in order to ensure that meeting housing needs remains a priority within the Black Country. Once a preferred option is arrived at, spatial references as to where the housing growth will be delivered could be included (for example, meeting housing needs on urban (brownfield and greenfield) land and at extensions to the urban area).
5.4 Further, given the increased employment land requirements, the second objective relating to employment land being within the best locations within the Regeneration Corridors may no longer be appropriate. Indeed, as highlighted earlier, there is concern that there is a mismatch in land allocations, and it is appropriate for the Core Strategy review to ensure all employment sites are fit for purpose. This may conclude that employment opportunities should be identified on new land outside of the Regeneration Corridors. Should this be the case, the objective would be inappropriately worded.
Question 9: Do you agree that Policies CSP1 and CSP2 should be retained and updated to reflect new evidence and growth proposals outside the Growth Network? Yes/No; If not, what changes do you think should be made to Policies CSP1 and CSP2 in response to new challenges and opportunities?
5.5 It is agreed that the policies could remain, if the development requirements and related changes are made to ensure the policies are consistent with the overall strategy. The changes relate to both the quantum of development (homes, employment and retail space), the location of development (within and beyond the existing Regeneration Corridors) and the type of development (brownfield, greenfield and on land removed from the Green Belt). It is considered that references should be made to urban extensions (on land removed from the Green Belt) in Policy CSP2 specifically, to highlight the important contribution that such sites will make to meeting the development requirements of the Plan.
Question 10: In continuing to promote growth within the Growth Network, is there a need to amend the boundaries of any of the Regeneration Corridors in the existing Core Strategy? Yes/No; If so, which boundaries and why?
5.6 No comment

Question 11a: Do you support Strategic Option 1A? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If no, do you support Option 1B? Yes/No; If yes, please explain why. If you support the release of further employment land for housing, what should the characteristics of these employment areas be?
5.7 No comment.
Question 11b: Are there any current employment areas that might be considered suitable for redevelopment to housing? Yes/No;
5.8 As highlighted previously, the key to understanding where the most appropriate employment/ housing locations are within the Growth Network and Corridors will be determined through a qualitative assessment of allocated employment sites. It is understood an updated assessment has been undertaken and such work, complete with responses to the Call for Sites consultation, will provide the Black Country authorities with evidence to determine the urban capacity for housing, which may include transferring some employment land to housing as well as housing land to employment. This work will then outline the number of dwellings to be accommodated beyond the existing Growth Network within the Green Belt.
5.9 It is welcomed that the Issues and Options Draft recognises the need to release Green Belt in all scenarios proposed.
Question 12a: Do you support Spatial Option H1? Yes/No; What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. ability to create a defensible new green belt boundary, size, access to existing residential services.
Question 12b: Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.11 Richborough Estates considers that land at Pedmore Lane, Stourbridge should be considered. A call for sites submission has been undertaken in respect of this site to demonstrate availability, suitability and deliverability. This site would represent sustainable options for meeting housing needs arising from within the Black Country.
Question 13a: Do you support Spatial Option H2? Yes/No; What should the characteristics of Sustainable Urban Areas (SUEs) be? e.g. minimum/ maximum size, mix of uses, mix of housing types, accessibility to other areas. What criteria should be used to select suitable sites? e.g. proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs, potential to support existing settlements / services, proximity to the existing growth network, potential to support urban regeneration.
5.12 Given the scale of the housing need, there is concern that the development requirements could not be met with just one of the suggested options presented and, therefore, a combination of both options will be necessary.
5.13 To be in the best possible position to significantly boost the amount of housing and meet the development requirements in the Black Country, in accordance with the NPPF, it is advised that opportunities to both round off edges of the Green Belt and Sustainable Urban Extensions are proposed in the Preferred Options Draft Core Strategy. As highlighted within the Issues and Options Draft, there are challenges and opportunities that come with both types of development, for example from a delivery perspective, smaller sites will come forward more quickly due to the nature of these being straight forward proposals (with limited infrastructure necessary and one or few land owners) and larger sites will ultimately take longer as they are more complex (with multiple land uses, infrastructure and land owners). This fact has been evidenced by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (now known as Lichfields) within their report 'Start to Finish' who concluded that the average planning approval period of schemes of 2,000+ dwellings is 6.1 years and the annual average build out rate is 161 dwellings per annum. These figures demonstrate the need to have a number of sites of different sizes and in different locations removed from the Green Belt. The report also identifies, with regard to housing delivery, that 50% more homes per annum are delivered on average on large greenfield sites than large brownfield sites. This is a significant benefit of including greenfield sites within the Preferred Option and will assist to secure its delivery.
5.14 In terms of the locations for removing land from the Green Belt, this should be informed by the Strategic Growth Study and a Black Country Review of the Green Belt. The more detailed study will provide an assessment of land parcels against the purposes of the Green Belt and is likely to recommend that those that compromise the purposes the least will be shortlisted for further consideration to be removed from the Green Belt. It is advised that the next stage should be a consideration of the shortlisted sites based on their suitability (i.e. are the neighbouring uses compatible, would any previous land uses prevent the development of the site), sustainability (i.e. proximity to/ ability to provide local services/ public transport/ employment opportunities) and deliverability (i.e. whether the site is available, being promoted for development, has no barriers to coming forward etc.) credentials. Clearly each site will fair differently against such criteria and the Call for Sites submission will assist the Council to come to a decision on the preferred sites. It is advised that the Black Country authorities should be mindful of the opportunities, through infrastructure and design, that development can bring that will enhance the diversity and character of a particular location.
5.15 In terms of the characteristics of a Sustainable Urban Extension, this is likely to vary depending on the location of each site. For example, some may be more urban and others suburban in their character and would, therefore, provide a different land use offer. It is important that each are considered on a site by site basis to ensure that any subsequent allocation delivers a successful development. It is important that the developer responsible for promoting the site helps to influence what is ultimately delivered. Often what is proposed on site has been informed by housing market intelligence undertaken by sales experts at development companies and, therefore, should be taken into account. Particularly given recent experience in the down turn in the apartment market, it is important that sites are allocated for the right type and mix of housing to ensure that it will be delivered, occupied and successful.
5.16 In the more suburban locations, it is suggested that Sustainable Urban Extensions should look to provide a different offer to potentially what exists in the Strategic Centres and Regeneration Corridors, such as a mix of larger and lower density homes, which will attract those households that in the past have migrated elsewhere. Given the emphasis on delivering more high density homes in the Strategic Centres, it is important that this housing mix is offset by more larger homes in appropriate locations. Otherwise, there is a concern that the Black Country will have a disproportional amount of small homes, which will further encourage more families to migrate elsewhere and not meet the aspiration to diversify the wider HMA.
Question 13b: What infrastructure do you think would be needed for different sizes of SUEs?
5.17 The type of infrastructure needed will vary depending on the different location and size of each site and must be compliant with paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations that requires planning obligations (which applies to most infrastructure) to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
With the above in mind, however, provision for open space (both formal and informal), local centre and potentially a primary school should be considered for sites in excess of 1,000 homes.
Question 13c: Are there any potential locations that should be considered for SUEs (please submit through the 'call for sites' form) and what infrastructure would be required to support these?
5.18 No comment.
Question 13d: Do you think that the Core Strategy should set out detailed guidance for the development of SUEs (e.g. type and tenure of housing, specific infrastructure required), rather than details being determined at a local level in light of local policies? Yes/No; Any further comments?
5.19 For the reasons outlined above, relating to considering existing local circumstances and CIL Regulation requirements in respect of any charging schedule and planning obligation requirements, it is advised that detailed guidance for the development of SUEs should not be specified within the Black Country Core Strategy as each site will vary and deserves a more detailed consideration, alongside the developer, at the local level.
Question 14: Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Housing Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details
5.20 There are no other sustainable and deliverable options that we are aware of within the Black Country administrative boundary that are capable of delivering the housing spatial options.
Question 15a: If all housing need cannot be met within the Black Country, do you support the 'export' of housing growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA? Yes/No; What factors should be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities in neighbouring authorities e.g. proximity to the edge of the urban area, proximity to a rail station, availability of existing infrastructure, easy access to jobs?
5.21 Even if all realistically deliverable options have been considered within the Black Country, there will remain an unmet need for housing. Therefore, it is necessary for the Black Country authorities to consider the possibility of exporting growth to neighbouring authorities within the HMA. In particular, there are options to expand existing settlements that are close to the administrative boundary (for example, in South Staffordshire) across authorities and could help deliver the necessary growth in a sustainable and deliverable manner. These opportunities should be explored first prior to exporting further growth to other authorities within the HMA where there is less of a spatial connection.
Question 15b: Do you think there are any potential locations that should be considered? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.22 Richborough Estates considers there are a number of locations within South Staffordshire that provide geographically strong links with the Black Country and would represent sustainable housing sites. This includes land at Sneyd Lane, Essington and land at High Hill, Essington. A call for sites submission has been undertaken in respect of these sites to demonstrate availability, suitability and deliverability. These sites would represent sustainable options for meeting housing needs arising from within the Black Country.
Question 15c: Do you think there are ways to ensure that exporting housing will meet the needs of people who would otherwise live in the Black Country? (e.g. transport improvements, provision of affordable housing, creation of employment opportunities) Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.23 It is important to consider a number of factors, including migration and travel to work patterns, which have been used to identify the extent of the HMA, to determine where households relocate to when leaving the Black Country in order to understand where and why those moves are taking place. Whilst planning can attempt to influence where people relocate to, there is no mechanism to guide or restrict people moving to or from certain locations. Once knowledge of movers can be understood can the planning system can attempt to recreate those attractive characteristics (homes that are more affordable, good public transport links, employment opportunities etc.) in locations where there is capacity for the homes to be delivered. It is advised that an additional analysis of the data, where necessary, is undertaken to provide the Black Country authorities with the relevant intelligence to deliver a successful strategy for growth outside the administrative area.
Question 16: Do you support Spatial Option E1? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access). If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.24 No comment.
Question 17: Do you support Spatial Option E2? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites e.g. quick motorway access, good sustainable transport links? If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.25 No comment
Question 18: Do you support Spatial Option E3? Yes/No; What type of sites are needed to meet the needs of industry and what criteria should be used to select sites? (e.g. quick motorway access). If you think that are any potential locations that should be considered please provide details (please submit specific sites through the 'call for sites' form).
5.26 No comment.
Question 19a: Do you support Spatial Option E4? Yes/No; Any further comments?
5.27 No comment
Question 19b: Should any factors be taken into account in an assessment of the opportunities? Yes/No; If yes, what should they be? (e.g. quick motorway access, strong transport links with the Black Country, good sustainable transport links with the Black Country) If you think there are any potential locations that should be considered, please provide details.
5.28 No comment.
Question 20: Do you think there are any other deliverable and sustainable Employment Land Spatial Options? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
5.29 As previously outlined, there is concern that some of the employment sites currently identified are potentially not fit for purpose and others that are identified to be transferred to housing remain in employment occupation. In light of this mismatch, it is welcomed that an updated qualitative assessment has been undertaken and has informed how much employment land is has be found outside the urban area.
5.30 In terms of where the employment land should be located outside the urban area, as with housing, decisions should be based on the results of the Green Belt Review and the suitability, sustainability and deliverability of sites. For employment land sites, the suitability of a site may well include good transportation links for goods and people. Indeed, there is likely to be a significant growth in the need for logistics floorspace to accommodate rapid increases in the dot.com purchasing of goods and demand for next day delivery. Efficient access to motorway junctions and the strategic road network and the availability of large sites will therefore take priority, as well as other considerations such as the ability to operate 24 hours. Placing such sites directly next to the existing urban area may therefore be impractical. The Call for Sites consultation will assist in putting forward suggestions for sites.
5.31 In terms of exporting employment land, it is considered that a proportionate amount of employment land to housing land exported should be made in an attempt to create more sustainable communities, that is unless there is good reason not to do so (i.e. due to improved public transport links between exported housing and employment sites). As evidenced in work supporting the Issues and Options Draft, whilst the Black Country is a sufficiently self-contained labour market there are strong linkages with Birmingham and South Staffordshire. This would therefore suggest that these locations should be first explored for transporting any employment land growth, however, given the land capacity issues in Birmingham it is more likely that South Staffordshire would be able to assist.
6. DELIVERING GROWTH - INFRASTRUCTURE & VIABILITY
Question 21: Do you think that changes are required to Policy DEL1 to ensure it covers both development within the existing urban area and any within the Green Belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.1 Policy DEL1 is considered to be sound on the basis that it is sufficiently flexible to deal with different circumstances on different sites across the Black Country, including sites that are to be removed from the Green Belt.
Question 22: Do you have evidence of a requirement for new social infrastructure to serve existing needs? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.
6.2 Richborough Estates is in consultation with the relevant authorities to explore any requirements for social infrastructure to serve any need relating to the development proposals.
Question 23: Do you have evidence of social infrastructure that is no longer needed and where the site could be reallocated for alternative uses? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.3 No comment.
Question 24: Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current social infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new housing? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.4 No comment.
Question 25: Will there be any new social infrastructure requirements necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, please explain the type and scale of any new social infrastructure required.
6.5 It is recognised that delivery of new housing developments may give rise to the need to deliver supporting infrastructure. Richborough Estates is committed to working with the relevant authorities and service providers to determine the capacity of existing infrastructure and determine the level of mitigatory provision necessary to support an increase in the population in this location. It is however important that each potential large new housing development is given independent consideration in respect of any infrastructure obligations, recognising that pressures will be dependent on location and existing infrastructure capacity.
Question 26: Do you have any evidence of a requirement for new physical infrastructure to serve existing needs? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details of the type of facility and where it should be located.
6.6 No comment.
Question 27: Do you have evidence of pressure being placed on the capacity of current physical infrastructure which could be exacerbated by new developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.7 No comment.
Question 28: Do you think physical infrastructure is necessary to serve large new housing developments? Yes/No; If yes, what type and scale of physical infrastructure is necessary?
6.8 As set out above, the need for infrastructure will vary for each site. Given such different circumstances, it would be inappropriate and potentially unlawful (as it would conflict with paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations) to incorporate a blanket policy requiring specific infrastructure on every large housing site.
Question 29: Do you think there are any other tools or interventions that could be used to ensure enough infrastructure is provided by developments? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.9 It is considered that the existing national framework (which includes the NPPF and CIL Regulations) provides a sufficient tool to ensure the relevant infrastructure is delivered. In addition, the CIL Charging Schedule allows authorities to raise funds for named infrastructure projects, which should be updated in line with any Core Strategy advanced. Therefore, it is considered that there are existing provisions to deliver infrastructure and no additional interventions through the Black Country Core Strategy Review are needed.
Question 30: Do you have any suggestions around how the strategy can be developed in order to maintain the urban regeneration focus of the Black Country while at the same time bringing forward sites in the green belt? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
6.10 There is no a need for any specific interventions, such as phasing, to protect the delivery of urban regeneration in the Black Country. Indeed, it is considered that development of greenfield and Green Belt sites can very much compliment urban regeneration through the provision of a more varied form of development that will help diversify the housing stock and profile of residents in the wider area, which will assist to sustain and improve the vitality of existing communities. Further, as highlighted above, given the priority to significantly boost the delivery of housing greenfield and Green Belt sites should come forward for development as soon as practically possible. Given lead in and build out rates of larger sites, the land should be encouraged to be developed as soon as possible so to ensure the homes are delivered in the Plan period and the needs are met.
Question 31: Do you think that the right scale and form of funding is available to support the delivery of the Core Strategy review? Yes/No; If no, what alternative sources of funding or delivery mechanisms should be investigated?
6.11 When delivering greenfield/ Green Belt sites, there is an opportunity to deliver infrastructure to meet the needs arising from the proposal, which may have wider benefits for the local community. In addition, it is likely that the communities created by the Sustainable Urban Extensions will potentially be more affluent and share their wealth using local shops and services within the wider Black Country, which will contribute to more successful and prosperous communities.
7. REVIEW OF EXISTING CORE STRATEGY POLICIES & PROPOSALS
Housing Question 35: Do you support the proposed approach to housing land supply? Yes/No; If no, please explain why
7.1 As identified above, it is important that a range of sites in different locations are identified to be in the best possible position of delivering the development requirements. In terms of presenting these sites in the Core Strategy, whilst it is useful to identify a housing trajectory, it is important that there is not a phasing policy as such that would prevent the delivery of housing, given the current housing crisis. As stated above, the delivery of housing on greenfield and Green Belt land will not compromise the delivery of urban regeneration as the development on the urban edge will complement and rejuvenate the environment in a different way.
7.2 In terms of the proposed level of discounting, it is considered that if the LPA adopt an approach to identify a further 20% of sites in accordance with the LPEG recommendations identified above, there would not necessarily be a need for the application of discounting in determining the overall level of supply. It is interesting to note that the level of discounting proposed by LPEG is suggested for all LPAs, not necessarily those which have experienced difficulty in delivery. It could therefore be argued that an increased buffer of 25% could be applied in order to take a cautious approach.
Question 36: Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 should be changed? Yes/No; If yes, what standards should be applied instead, for example should the minimum net density of 35 dwellings per hectare be increased to maximise brownfield housing delivery?
7.3 It is clear that the current accessibility and density standards outlined in the adopted Core Strategy were formulated in the context of the vast majority of development taking place on brownfield sites within the defined urban area. As reiterated throughout these representations, there is now a clear need for Green Belt release as part of the Local Plan Review to meet emerging, objectively assessed housing needs. We outline in further detail below why the adopted accessibility and densities would not be applicable to Green Belt sites, however would suggest that the current standards do not allow sufficient flexibility on brownfield sites. A blanket application of prescriptive accessibility and density standards across the Black Country, be it brownfield or greenfield, does not allow sufficient flexibility which take into account site specific characteristics. The Council should allow for greater flexibility when assessing accessibility and density standards, with a more pragmatic approach which allows appropriate assessment for site-specific characteristics and also an assessment of market demand which may vary significantly across the large Black Country area.
7.4 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF outlines how local authorities should set out their own approach towards density. It is suggested that the currently adopted approach does not allow for sufficient assessment of local characteristics. It is clear that the chosen approach must be reflective of local circumstances, including the matters outlined above as well as infrastructure and services available in the locality. It is advocated that a more flexible approach to density and accessibility standards is taken as part of the emerging Local Plan Review.
Question 37a: Do you think that the existing Policy HOU2 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why
7.5 In line with the comments above, it is suggested that the Council should assess each site on a case by case basis in terms of accessibility and density standards. This approach would suggest that the numerical baseline trigger of 15 homes or more will not always be appropriate or applicable, and as advocated throughout these representations it suggested that there should be a complete reassessment on accessibility and density standards as part of the emerging Local Plan Review.
Question 38: Do you think that the current accessibility and density standards are appropriate for green belt release locations? Yes/No; If no, what standards should be applied in these locations and why?
7.6 No, it is not considered that the current standards would be applicable to Green Belt release locations. The adopted standards are overly prescriptive, and as previously discussed were written in the context of brownfield land. Green Belt release sites have a completely different type of character, therefore consideration of accessibility and density standards in relation to these sites should be reflective of local character and site characteristics. The more suburban settings of Green Belt release land lends itself to lower densities which are more appropriate to the Green Belt setting, which typically deliver more family homes. The Council must provide robust evidence to test any forthcoming accessibility and density standards in relation to Green Belt release locations, which allows for a flexible and pragmatic approach.
Question 39: Do you think separate accessibility standards are needed for particular types of housing e.g. housing for the elderly or affordable housing (as occupiers may be less mobile and more dependent on public transport)? Yes/No; If yes, please provide details.
7.7 It is clear that separate accessibility standards will apply to particular types of housing such as affordable and for the elderly population, however in line with the sentiment expressed above, any forthcoming standards should be based on robust evidence and allow for sufficient flexibility to avoid any unnecessary constraints to development coming forward.
Question 40: Do you agree that the 2017 SHMA findings should be used to set general house type targets for the Plan period? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.8 A general and blanket application for house types across the Black Country should not be advanced as part of the Local Plan Review. Paragraph 50 is clear that local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends and market trends. It is therefore notable that the NPPF specifically highlights 'market trends' in this context, which acknowledges that the market must inform such decisions.
7.9 Whilst the 2017 SHMA does provide an assessment of demographic and market trends, it is notable that it looks at a wider area assessment and is focused at a higher level. This assessment therefore does not draw out sub-market trends, and cover smaller areas within the vast Black Country area. Again, a blanket policy of house type targets across the Black Country area would not allow for sufficient flexibility to assess each site on a site by site basis, taking into consideration local market trends and demand. The NPPF does not state that specific policies should be set to enforce that local demand is met. As such, it is considered that this should be left for the market to decide, as opposed to applying rigid and prescriptive house size standards.
7.10 It is suggested that the evidence presented in the SHMA should be put into the Plan as an informative and general guide, but should not feed into a specific policy requirement which outlines housing mix percentages that should be applied across the Black Country. A policy containing general house type targets could present as a significant constraint to the delivery of a site where there is no local market demand for this house type, which in turn would have a negative impact on achieving the necessary housing growth targets to be delivered in the Black Country over the Plan period.
Question 41a: Do you support the introduction of a policy approach towards self and custom build housing in the Core Strategy? Yes/No; If yes, would you support:
7.11 It is not considered that there is a policy need for the Core Strategy to address self and custom build housing in the emerging Review. Paragraph 6.32 indicates that there are only nine records on self and custom build registers in the Black Country. It is evident that that there is very limited demand in the Black Country, which is unsurprising given that self and custom build housing is often more popular in rural areas. Given the limited demand it is therefore not considered necessary to take a policy approach towards self and custom build housing within the Local Plan Review.
Question 41b: A target for each authority? Yes/No; Any further comments
7.12 Given that there is evidence of little market demand, it is not considered necessary for the Core Strategy to set targets for each of the Black Country authorities. If it was considered to be necessary as the Local Plan Review progresses, any targets being set should be formulated on the basis of robust evidence such as monitoring of the registers, to provide an indication of how many self-build homes will be needed.
Question 41c: A requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots? Yes/No; Any further comments?
7.13 There should not be a requirement for large housing sites to provide serviced plots. This can pose an unnecessary market constraint for large housebuilders when there may be limited or no market demand for self-build plots. Self and custom build plots are often unusual and unique in character, therefore would not be best suited to be located within a large housing development with more uniform house types. If deemed necessary, self and custom build housing should be allocated specific site allocations, as discussed below.
Question 41d: Another approach altogether? Yes/No; If yes, please specify.
7.14 If it is considered necessary for the Review to address self and custom build housing, this should be addressed by the Council's identifying and allocating specific plots for these uses. Identifying site-specific plots would ensure that the most appropriate and suitable locations for self and custom-build will be allocated, via the assessment of appropriate evidence and market demand. In addition, this might be more likely to be achieved on surplus publicly owned land.
Question 42: Do you agree that the annual affordable homes target should be increased to reflect the 2017 Black Country Strategic Housing Market Assessment? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.15 As a general principle, the notion of applying different affordable housing ratios to different parts of the Black Country, based on an understanding of needs and viability, is acceptable. Given that the Black Country represents a vast area, there will not be a uniform housing market, and there will be sub-market trends within this wider area. As such, a more flexible approach which assesses local housing market evidence on a case by case basis could be justified. That said, there is an inherent simplicity and attraction to a single rate figure, which is easy for the development industry to understand.
7.16 In terms of the annual affordable housing target, it is unclear how the Issues and Options document has calculated the figure of 832 homes per year. At paragraph 7.42 of the June 2017 SHMA Part Two- affordable housing document, it is stated that the total annual affordable housing need is 677 dwellings, which represents 19.8% of the annual projected household growth. This differs to paragraph 6.36 of the Issues and Options document, which states that the affordable housing target is 23.4% of total housing need or 832 homes per year. From paragraph 7.47 of the SHMA, it appears that this figure may have been calculated by adding the overall requirement of 16.6% of housing to be affordable rented and 6.7% shared ownership. Clarity is sought on how this figure has been calculated, and we reserve the right to comment further on this matter.
Question 43a: Do you think that the existing Policy HOU3 site size threshold should be kept at 15 homes or more? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.17 We have not undertaken detailed analysis of the findings and assumptions of the SHMA and affordable housing delivery matters, therefore would like to reserve the right to comment on this matter further. However, on face value, it appears to be a reasonable threshold and is not dissimilar to other locations.
Question 44a: Do you think that the affordable housing requirement for eligible sites in Question 43 should be kept at 25% of the total number of homes on the site? Yes /No; Any further comments?
7.18 Based on the current evidence, a blanket rate of 25% affordable housing would appear to be sound.
7.19 However, irrespective of the final rate, any amendments to the currently adopted affordable housing policy must continue to have a clause in it which stipulates that this requirement is subject to viability tests. Any revised affordable housing requirements will also need to carefully consider the implications of adopted Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regimes. Both Sandwell and Dudley Councils have adopted CIL Charging Schedules. These will have implications on viability, therefore if revised affordable housing targets are to progressed then these CIL tariffs will need to re-assessed and re-visited.
Question 44b: If no, should the percentage be increased to allow for the provision of affordable home ownership? Yes/No; If yes, what should the percentage be and why?
7.20 At paragraph 6.39 of the Issues and Options Paper, it is stated that options need to be explored to increase affordable housing delivery of private sites. One option would be to increase the overall affordable housing proportion, which would require developers to provide affordable home ownership products plus an appropriate proportion of other affordable tenures. This paragraph follows on from commentary relating to the Housing White Paper.
7.21 The Housing White Paper discusses Starter Homes at Chapter 4, and explains how the government intend to amend the NPPF to introduce a clear policy expectation that housing sites deliver a minimum of 10% affordable home ownership units. It is later stated that it will be for local areas to work with developers to agree an appropriate level of delivery of starter homes, alongside other affordable home ownership and rented tenures.
7.22 The policy position on Starter Homes is not yet fully clear, and has yet to be formally established through a formal amendment and update to the NPPF. Until the national policy position on Starter Homes has been made clear, it would be premature for the Core Strategy Review to suggest an uplift in the affordable housing requirement to include affordable home ownership such as Starter Homes. Any suggestion to uplift the affordable housing requirement to include Starter Homes should be reflective of the national policy position, as well as founded upon a robust evident base which dictates exactly what percentage this element should be of the overall affordable housing requirement.
Question 45: Should an increased affordable housing requirement be set for green belt release sites, to reflect the likely financial viability of these sites? Yes/No; If yes, what should this be.
7.23 The likely financial viability of Green Belt sites will vary across different areas of the Black Country, therefore any affordable housing requirements for Green Belt sites will need to be reflective of these circumstances. Any affordable housing targets for Green Belt sites should be based on robust evidence, and acknowledge that many sites may need to support and deliver other infrastructure requirements.
7.24 Ultimately, any affordable housing strategy will need to address the affordable housing need as well as the need for market housing. Bearing in mind that the SHMA confirms over 70% of homes required are for homes to be sold on the open market, any affordable housing policy must not dilute the delivery of these needs/requirements. A higher figure on Green Belt sites over and above a standard blanket figure would potentially do this.
Employment Question 49a: Is there still a need for existing Policy DEL2 in order to manage the release of poorer quality employment land for housing? Yes/No; If no, please explain why.
7.25 The Black Country is to be the subject of large levels of both employment and housing growth over the Plan period. These uses are very much inter-linked with one another, and will drive each other's need for growth. The Local Plan Review, in order to meet emerging employment and housing needs, must identify a significant number of specific sites for employment and housing uses. By planning proactively and identifying suitable sites for both employment land and housing land, this should reduce the pressures to manage the release of poorer quality employment land, which may not always be suitable for release. The Local Plan Review should also seek to undertake a further review of poorer quality employment land to make it available for other suitable uses, if it proves to no longer be viable for employment land use. This is in line with policy provisions of the NPPF, which at Paragraph 22 outlines that planning policies should avoid the long-term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose.
Question 50: Do you think that the Core Strategy should continue to set a target for the total employment land stock in Policy EMP1? Yes/No; Please explain why.
7.26 The continuation of setting a target for employment land stock would be supported. Policy EMP1 should make it clear that these are not maximum figures, to encourage further flexibility for additional growth.
Retail Question 59: Have all the appropriate centres within the Black Country been identified? Yes/No; If not, please specify additional centres
7.27 No comment
Question 61: In addition to para 4.33 of the current Core Strategy should the revised Core Strategy include criteria for the creation of new centres that might be needed as a result of any additional housing identified through the plan? Yes/No; Any further comments?
7.28 Criteria would be a useful policy tool to help assess the designation of new centres, and should be in line with previous methodologies used which set out clear thresholds.
Question 71: Should the Core Strategy set housing targets for the Town Centres?
7.29 Housing within Town Centres should be supported, in line with paragraph 23 of the NPPF which discusses the important role that residential development can play in ensuring the vitality of Town Centres. Any housing targets should be based on what sites are known to be readily available, suitable and viable for residential development. Market demand for housing in these areas will also need to be fully assessed. It is notable from the outcome of the 2017 SHMA that there is most demand for three bedroom properties (40%). The highest demand is therefore for family housing, and not for flats which are often the most popular within Town Centre locations. Any housing targets set for the Town Centre would therefore need to consider the findings of the SHMA, and be reflective of the fact that family housing is often more suitable for delivery on larger sites, including on sites which are currently located within the Green Belt.
Environment Question 99a: Do you think that national standards for housing development on water consumption should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.30 When referring to water consumption paragraph 6.1.52 of the Issues and Options document states that the Black Country does not currently lie in an area of serious water stress, therefore clear need may be difficult to demonstrate. This evidence suggests that there is limited or no need to introduce such a policy, therefore it is not considered that the Core Strategy Review should seek to introduce water consumption standards for housing development.
Question 99b: Do you think that national access standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.31 The introduction of any national access standards, with the Issues and Options document referring specifically to Lifetime Homes, again must be based on a robust evidence base which can demonstrate market demand. It is noted that Paragraph 50 of the NPPF states that planning authorities must plan for a mix of housing to meet a range of needs. In the same paragraph, it is later stated that these must be based on current and future market trends. If Lifetime Home standards are to be introduced these will therefore need to be based on robust evidence, to ensure that the standards are not overly onerous and prevent the delivery of other types of housing which have higher levels of market demand.
Question 99c: Do you think that national space standards for housing development should be introduced in the Black Country? Yes/No; If yes, please specify what level and percentage would be appropriate and why.
7.32 As reiterated throughout these representations, it is not considered that a blanket approach of prescriptive standards across the Black Country allows sufficient flexibility to assess local market and site considerations in an appropriate manner. Whilst it is recognised that space standards can be an important tool to ensure that high quality of homes are delivered, we agree with the sentiment expressed in the recent Housing White Paper. The Paper explains that the government are concerned that a one size fits all approach may not reflect the needs and aspirations of a wider range of households. The White Paper also states that the Government will be undertaking a review of the Nationally Described Space Standards. It is suggested that the Core Strategy Review should await the outcome of this national review of national space standards, to ensure compliance with national policy and to ensure that the most appropriate approach to space standards, if required, is taken.
Question 99d: Do you think that the standards should be different for brownfield and greenfield sites? Yes/No; If yes, please explain how and why.
7.33 As discussed above, prescriptive standards do not always allow sufficient flexibility for local market needs, so we would not advocate a blanket approach of different standards to brownfield and greenfield sites.
Open Space, Sport and Recreation Question 102a: Do you support the proposed changes relating to open space, sport and recreation? Yes/No; If no, please explain
7.34 Paragraph 6.1.60 of the Issues and Options paper outlines how adopted Policy ENV6 creates the framework for open space policies at the local level. The Issues and Options paper outlines how this is in line with national guidance, and that it is proposed to retain this policy and update some references in the supporting text to reflect changing circumstances. It is agreed that the local level remains the appropriate place to set open space policies, and that Policy ENV6 should continue to endorse this approach.

8. CONCLUSION
8.1 Richborough Estates has acquired an interest in a number of sites either within the Black Country or within neighbouring authority areas that are geographically well related to the Major Urban Area. All sites are sustainably located adjacent to the existing urban area as demonstrated on the appended Site Location Plans.
8.2 These sites are promoted as suitable, deliverable and available options, subject to release from the Green Belt. The development of these sites would constitute sustainable development and would assist in meeting housing needs arising within the Black Country and the wider Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area.
8.3 Richborough Estates fully support the Black Country Authorities' decision to review the currently adopted Core Strategy, however wish to raise the following concerns:
* Whilst the OAN is generally appropriate as a starting point, a number of concerns have been identified with the SHMA and it is recommended that it is updated to address the issues raised. Further, evidence is awaited with regard to unmet need in the wider HMA. Once this has been concluded, the Black Country authorities can arrive at an appropriate dwelling requirement for the Black Country.
* It is acknowledged that the housing land supply in the Black Country has not yet been identified as the authorities need to undertake further work upon receiving the Call for Sites submissions. After which, the shortfall in housing supply can be confirmed.
* It is welcomed that the Black Country authorities acknowledge the need to remove land from the Green Belt to meet emerging development requirements and that a Green Belt Review is soon to be prepared.
* In terms of selecting sites for development, it is advised that a range of types sites, of different sizes, in different locations need to be identified to be in the best possible position to deliver the dwelling requirements.
* Land at: Pedmore Lane, Stourbrige; Sneyd Lane, Essington; and High Hill, Essington, represent appropriate locations for residential development as supported by the Call for Sites submissions.
8.4 Richborough Estates look forward to engaging with the Black Country Authorities and providing additional information, as required, to assist the Council in progressing the preparation of an up to date Local Plan.

St Modwen Developments Ltd ("St Modwen") have instructed Planning Prospects Ltd to prepare and
submit representations to the Issues and Options Consultation for the Review of the Black Country
Core Strategy (BCCS). St Modwen have extensive land ownership and development interests across
the BCCS area, and have a longstanding and extensive record in successfully bringing forward major
schemes in this part of the West Midlands. These representations are intended to support and
promote those interests.
As the BCCS Review progresses it is noted that further opportunities will arise for consultation in
September 2018, September 2019, and February 2020, before adoption scheduled for Autumn 2021.
St Modwen expect to make a contribution at each of these stages, and as plan preparation moves
forward it is anticipated that the comments made will become more detailed, technical and specific
in their nature. At the present stage in the process whilst the strategic direction of the BCCS Review
is still to be set, detailed policy wording has not been formulated, and certain key elements of the
evidence base have yet to be finalised the comments made on behalf of St Modwen are necessarily
more strategic and general in their nature. In the main they seek to influence the direction of travel
of the BCCS Review, rather than the detailed content. That said, some comments on matters of detail
are made where appropriate.
In this context, where a specific question, policy or section of text in the Issues and Options Report is
not commented on in these representations this should not be interpreted as meaning that St
Modwen necessarily agree (or indeed disagree) with it. Rather, these representations should be
understood as a statement of principles, which will be fleshed out where appropriate in subsequent
stages of consultation.
The approach taken is to assemble comments together in logical groups relating to individual
chapters or questions around specific topics. The representations should be read as a whole to
obtain a sense of the trajectory St Modwen consider the Review should follow. The short
questionnaire survey (ten questions) has also been completed on behalf of St Modwen, and
submitted separately.
However, a note of caution might be exercised at the outset. The Issues and Options Report (for
example at paragraph 2.13) is quite positive in its tone with regard to the effectiveness of the
adopted BCCS. There have undoubtedly been successes with the implementation of BCCS policy but
it must be remembered that over the relevant periods the overall targets in terms of new homes,
employment land, offices and retail have not been met (Issues and Options Report Appendix C). This
is not intended as a criticism, particularly in light of the challenging economic circumstances within
which it has operated. However, it does serve to emphasise quite strongly the importance of
ensuring the strategy and policy framework arrived at through the Review is formulated with great
care so as to maximise the opportunity and likelihood for development requirements across all
sectors in the Black Country to be met. St Modwen look forward to contributing positively to this
process and assisting the Black Country authorities with the Review.
Black Country Core Strategy: Response Form July 2017

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Question 1
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
It is considered that a "partial" review of the BCCS should be followed with a degree of caution. The
existing Core Strategy was, appropriately, focused on urban regeneration and accommodating
development needs entirely within the urban area, whereas the Review will necessarily adopt a
balanced approach across the BCCS area including, crucially, the Green Belt. The existing Core
Strategy was adopted in very different circumstances following the financial crisis at the end of the
last decade. It catered for different needs, with no requirement to accommodate overspill growth
from Birmingham, no certainty as to how employment land requirements would evolve in
subsequent years, and different expectations in terms of Midland Metro and HS2. It followed a
"Regeneration Corridor" approach which, for reasons expressed elsewhere in these representations,
is now considered outdated. It has proven challenging to meet development targets set by the
existing Core Strategy, and a step change is needed if current and future requirements are to be met.
For all these reasons it is difficult to see how the existing spatial strategy can be retained and
"stretched". The approach cannot be one that seeks to adapt the future strategy for the Black
Country into a variation of one which, by the time the Review is adopted, will be ten years old. A new
strategy is required.
Black Country Core Strategy: Response Form July 2017

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Question 2
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
The evidence set out in Table 1 is likely to be sufficient to support the various stages of the Review,
but until certain key documents become available it is not possible to say with certainty that it will
indeed prove adequate. In particular, the outcome of the HMA Strategic Growth Study, the Green
Belt Review, and the second stage Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) is likely to be
fundamental, and will be central to the nature of comments to be made by St Modwen in subsequent
consultations.
It is considered that for the second stage EDNA to be effective it must be informed by far wider
consultation with landowners, developers and employers than appears to have been the case with
the first stage exercise.
It is also considered that the scoping of the Green Belt Review should be informed by a consultation
process, to ensure that the exercise is ultimately completed in the most effective, and transparent,
manner. For example, care needs to be taken that the grain of analysis is not too coarse; if the spatial
framework is set too widely there will be a risk that smaller parcels of otherwise acceptable land are
overlooked within larger tranches. Furthermore, for this exercise it should also be the case that
administrative boundaries do not constrain the scope of the review or the identification of parcels.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Question 3
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
Until the HMA Strategic Growth Study is complete it will not be possible to comment on this issue
fully, but a considerable degree of caution should be applied to the suggested approach which would
see just 3,000 homes from Birmingham's shortfall accommodated in the Black Country. The shortfall
of almost 38,000 homes arising from Birmingham's needs that cannot be accommodated within the
City is unprecedented, and needs to be addressed; it is essential that this housing need is met. It is
not clear how the figure of 3,000 homes has been arrived at, but might be compared with the 3,790
homes which North Warwickshire Borough Council are seeking to plan for as their contribution to
meeting need exported from Birmingham. North Warwickshire is a largely rural authority, with three
fifths of its land classified as Green Belt. It is vital that the four Black Country authorities make a full
contribution in this regard, and it is not immediately clear from the Issues and Options Report that
this is likely to be the case.
It will be fundamental to the success of the BCCS Review that this overspill from Birmingham is dealt
with fairly, comprehensively and transparently. The approach is an issue for now, and should be
tackled head on at the earliest possible stage.
That said, an approach which balances the contribution that can be made by releasing surplus
employment land for housing, with a significant requirement to release Green Belt land, is supported.
This represents a clear shift away from the existing BCCS approach with its almost exclusive urban
focus, but one that is necessary if development needs are to be met.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Question 4
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
Until the Stage 2 report is completed it is not possible with certainty to comment on whether the
requirement is appropriate. That said, and as expressed elsewhere in these representations, for the
second stage EDNA to be effective it should be informed by far wider consultation with landowners,
developers and employers than appears to have been the case with the first stage exercise. The
Stage 1 report appears to have been informed by a fairly narrow range of consultees, and unless this
is addressed fully at Stage 2 it is unlikely that the employment land requirement will be properly
assessed.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Question 5
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
It is clear that a comprehensive review of the Green Belt is required. The existing BCCS is
characterised by an approach which protects the Green Belt and focuses development on
Regeneration Corridors. As acknowledged at paragraph 3.40 of the Issues and Options Report the
"exceptional circumstances" threshold for allowing development in the Green Belt has been met with
the development needs identified through the Review. It is appropriate that this should take place as
part of the Core Strategy Review, alongside the Strategic Growth Study, and in conjunction with other
neighbouring authorities.
That said, it is not possible to comment on whether the proposed approach to the Green Belt Review
is appropriate or not until the methodology has been identified. As expressed elsewhere in these
representations, this exercise is so fundamental to the emerging BCCS that it is essential the scoping
of the Green Belt Review should be informed by a consultation process, to ensure it is ultimately
completed in the most effective manner.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Question 6
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
Broadly, the key issues set out in Part 3 of the Issues and Options Report are the key ones to take into
account through the Review, subject to the comments made elsewhere in these representations
about dealing fairly, comprehensively and transparently with accommodating the overspill need for
homes from Birmingham, and ensuring the Green Belt Review is completed in the most effective
manner.
However, as expressed elsewhere in these representations, a further key issue is the need to
recognise where the existing BCCS has fallen short, the extent to which over the relevant periods it
has been unable to deliver the overall targets in terms of new homes, employment land, offices and
retail, and through the Review to ensure the policy framework becomes one which will ensure the
development needs of the Black County are met.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Question 7
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
The sustainability principles should be extended to include amongst their number the specific
recognition that the Black Country authorities must assist as fully as possible with meeting the
overspill development requirements of their neighbours (principally Birmingham).

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Question 8
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
It is considered that the legacy spatial objectives do not remain relevant. They are framed around a
strategy which focused almost entirely on directing development towards the Regeneration
Corridors. It is very clear that the BCCS Review will need to take a material change in direction and
allow for the prospect of significant growth in the Green Belt as part of a balanced approach to
accommodating growth. This should be recognised through the spatial objectives, i.e. acknowledging
the requirement to accommodate development in the most sustainable manner and in the most
appropriate locations within the Green Belt.
This recognition should extend beyond the housing sector, which presents perhaps the most
immediate and obvious challenges, and also include employment. The legacy spatial objectives seek
to direct employment towards the Strategic Centres and Regeneration Corridors, and there should
still be a role for this in the Review, but there should also be explicit recognition that needs for large
scale (particularly logistics focused) employment development will only be met in full if additional
unconstrained sites with immediate access to the Strategic Road Network are also provided.
The backdrop of development requirements identified in the early parts of the Issues and Options
Report provides the context for the spatial objectives to be revisited, and they should be recast
accordingly.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Question 9
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
In broad terms the parts of Policy CSP1 dealing with objectives to focus growth within the Strategic
Centres are appropriate. However, greater emphasis should be placed on the recognition that this
forms one part of a balanced approach to accommodating growth. For the reasons set out elsewhere
in these representations it is considered that the Regeneration Corridor focused approach is no
longer appropriate, and should be discontinued.
The implications of this include the requirement for a change of direction for Policy CSP2. This should
deal generally with accommodating growth in an even and balanced manner outside the Strategic
Centres, without reference to the Regeneration Corridors. It will also need to allow for the planned
growth required in the Green Belt.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Questions 10, 11a and 11b
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
The Regeneration Corridors are now a somewhat dated and perhaps artificial construct, and this
approach should be discontinued. They are somewhat insensitive to market and occupier needs. The
approach should be simplified by removing the corridors and accommodating development through
carefully identified and allocated sites, with a balanced approach to urban regeneration, redeveloping
existing employment land where appropriate, and expanding into the Green Belt. This should be
coupled with a straightforward criteria based approach to the development of land that is not
allocated. This would be an approach focused very much on the provision of land for development,
rather than protecting land or unnecessarily channelling growth. It would seek to optimise urban
capacity, broadly defined, whilst also recognising that some development needs can only be met in
the Green Belt.
Separate submissions will be made on behalf of St Modwen to the "call for sites".

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Questions 12a, 12b and 13a
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
It is important that Spatial Options H1 and H2 are not treated as alternatives, but rather as
approaches that might be combined in seeking to ensure that development needs are fully met.
There is considerable potential for "rounding off" and relatively modest incursions into the Green
Belt for small to medium sized housing sites, and the "opportunities" identified in this regard in the
table under paragraph 4.29 of the Issues and Options Report should all be recognised. A limited
number of Sustainable Urban Extensions should also be supported, albeit recognising that the
contribution such sites make to housing supply is only likely to be realised in the longer term.
Balance between the two Spatial Options is most likely to ensure continuity of delivery, choice to
housebuilders and buyers, and manageable impacts and infrastructure delivery challenges.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Question 15a
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
The only circumstances in which any housing growth should be exported elsewhere in the HMA is if
there is compelling evidence it cannot be accommodated within the Black Country, and there is a
robust and certain framework in place to ensure that the homes will be required. An ongoing and
open ended general process of discussion around this issue is not appropriate, as would be any policy
in the BCCS Review which relegated it as a problem for another day; it is an issue for now. The
export of housing from Birmingham is unprecedented in its scale, and the issue cannot continue to be
passed down the line. Agreement needs to be reached in terms of how need across the HMA is going
to be met, and the BCCS Review provides an ideal platform in this regard.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Questions 16 - 20
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
A combination of Spatial Options E1 and E2 is appropriate, i.e. expansion into, and new development
on, the Green Belt. Large, regular, deliverable, and unconstrained sites with immediate access to the
Strategic Road Network are required to contribute towards meeting the need for employment land,
particularly in relation to logistics led requirements; it might also prove to be the case that such sites
are capable of contributing more significantly towards infrastructure requirements. There remains a
role for the recycling of brownfield sites to contribute towards meeting employment land needs, but
this will not meet the requirements of the highly location sensitive large space occupiers that the
Black Country should be seeking to attract.
It might be that sites within Sustainable Urban Extensions (Spatial Option E3) can also make some
contribution in this regard, but this cannot be relied upon, particularly in the short term, and it is
unlikely that SUEs will provide an effective mechanism to accommodate large scale requirements.
Exporting growth to neighbouring areas (Spatial Option E4) should only be entertained as a last resort
and if there is compelling evidence it cannot be accommodated within the Black Country.
This again speaks to the point made elsewhere in these representations that for the second stage
EDNA to be most effective it should be informed by far wider consultation with landowners,
developers and employers than appears to have been the case with the first stage exercise. The
Stage 1 report appears to have been informed by a somewhat narrow range of consultees, and unless
this is addressed fully at Stage 2 it is unlikely that the employment land requirement will be properly
assessed.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Question 34a
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Agree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
Health and wellbeing impacts should be assessed, but only for large development proposals, and only
through the plan preparation process. There should be no development management policy around
this issue in the new BCCS, and no requirement for it at any stage in the process for small scale
development.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Questions 36 - 40, 41a - 41d
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Agree / Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
The type of approach set out in Policy HOU2 and Table 8 is appropriate in general terms, although
greater clarity should be provided to confirm that the standards are general ones, that their practical
application is highly location specific, and will be considered on a site by site basis to reflect local
circumstances. There is no requirement to increase the density standards, and again it should be
clarified that these (and indeed the accessibility standards) should be regarded as indicative only.
For Green Belt releases, site specific standards should be formulated to reflect local circumstances.
The exact nature of these standards should be consulted upon following further stages of plan
preparation once there is greater clarity as to what those sites are likely to be. There should be no
separate standards for particular housing types; this would add an unnecessary level of complexity
and risk hindering the delivery of such units where they might have been provided as part of schemes
otherwise broadly acceptable for their provision.
The SHMA should be used as a general guide to the types of houses to be delivered, but must be
applied generally, rather than rigidly, or again this will hinder delivery.
There should be no requirement for larger housing sites to provide serviced plots. Where there is
clear and quantified evidence of a need for self and custom built housing then a broad target should
be set for each of the constituent authorities. The ability to accommodate such provision should be
considered on a site by site basis, i.e. considering the contribution that might be made in this regard
by all housing sites, not just the large ones.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Questions 44a and 45
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Agree / Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
The affordable housing requirement is appropriate, but on the understanding that the provisions of
Policy HOU3 in terms of viability testing remain in place. There should not necessarily be an
increased requirement for Green Belt release sites. It might prove simplistic to assume these sites
will have greater financial viability in circumstances where they are likely to have significantly greater
costs associated with utilities and infrastructure provision. A general target of 25% subject to viability
is appropriate, although for larger allocations this might be determined on a site by site basis.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Questions 49a and 49b
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Agree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
There is a need for a policy to regulate the conversion of poorer quality employment land, but this
should be made more permissive of change. The approach should be to support and encourage the
recycling of such sites for alternative uses unless this is clearly and demonstrably unacceptable or
inappropriate. Policy DEL2 should be simplified and made more permissive. The release of
employment land to alternative uses should not be restricted to housing, and the conversion to
different forms of employment generating activity should also be viewed positively where
appropriate.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Questions 50 - 54
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Agree / Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
It is important that the BCCS Review provides clear guidance and structure to ensure that the "right"
employment land is delivered; the quantitative need is important but equally so the qualitative need.
The distinction between "Strategic High Quality" and "Local Quality" employment land is a useful one
in headline terms, but requires more refinement such that the sum of allocations ensures all
development needs are met.
The criteria used to define "Strategic High Quality" sites are broadly appropriate. However, it is
considered that whilst proximity to a large workforce is required, this need not be "skilled"; such an
approach would tend to discourage locations where upskilling is required and could be encouraged
by development. It is considered that "good proximity to an existing or proposed knowledge cluster"
should be deleted, as this is unnecessary for some key types of high quality employment, for example
sites focusing on logistics. All criteria should be refined to clarify that it is not just the presence of
each feature that is required, but potential for it to be provided where it does not already exist. Such
wording is currently provided for the "environmental quality" criterion but not the others, and it
should be included for all.
Some flexibility should be provided for alternative uses in the "Strategic High Quality" sites where this
would enable complementary activities (for example around eating and drinking, every day retail, or
hotel accommodation) which help to create an environment to attract major employers, and enable
them in turn to attract and retain employees. Equally, some allowance for employment generating
uses outside of the manufacturing and logistics sectors should be made. In both cases it is perhaps
difficult to see how this can be achieved other than on a site by site, case specific basis. The objective
should be for these sites to have a strong and clear focus on the manufacturing and logistics sectors,
and this should not be unnecessarily diluted, but where there are strong arguments for supporting
activities or other types of job creation this should be accommodated.
Against this background a portfolio, rather than reservoir, based approach seems more appropriate.
This should provide general guidance on the size, type and quality of sites that is needed, rather than
simply the amount. It need not be overly prescriptive, but rather supportive of the needs of
employers and the development industry.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Questions 95a and 95b
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Disagree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
Given the particular challenges faced by the Black Country authorities in terms of development
viability and attracting investment it might prove to be the case that it is difficult to pursue "Garden
City principles". It is of course important to ensure that the best practicable standards of design and
environmental infrastructure are achieved, but it may be that this can be done within a conventional
framework of fairly standard criteria based development management policies, rather than applying
an additional "Garden City" prism. Further consideration will be given to this point as any such
principles are established in subsequent stages of plan preparation.

Chapter / Page / Question / Paragraph
Questions 103a and 103b
Do you agree or disagree with the approach set out in the relevant section and /
or question?
Agree
Comments (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
A "fabric first" approach should be supported and encouraged by policy and the 10% requirement
retained, subject to viability.

see attachment

see attachment

see attachment

2.33 We discuss the strategy to meeting housing needs in the Green Belt in response to Q12a and Q13a.
2.34 The Green Belt Review should be a robust assessment, undertaken in accordance with national planning practice guidance and the NPPF, specifically taking account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and not including land that does not serve the five purposes of the Green Belt.
2.35 As part of this the methodology for the Green Belt Review should be published for consultation prior to work commencing. This will be important to ensure the Review is robust and has the support of the development industry.
2.36 The I&O Report indicates the GBHMA Strategic Growth Study (renamed the 'Strategic Locations Study') will "inform and provide the basis" for the Black Country Green Belt Review.

We agree that the evidence clearly demonstrates that a Green Belt review is needed to meet the development needs identified and that this is an essential component of the new Core Strategy.
However, it is also our view that the Green Belt review should extend beyond the current plan period in accordance with the Framework, which explains that when undertaking Green Belt reviews local authorities should consider revised Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term so they are capable of enduring beyond the plan period. In this context, it is highly likely that the need for housing and employment land will continue to grow and that capacity in the urban area will not exist to meet these needs. Consequently, safeguarded sites will also need to be identified. It is our view that the period up to 2051 should be considered. This is 15 years beyond the end of the existing plan period and links to the time period that local authorities are required to identified a supply of sites for (Paragraph 47).
Whilst the Green Belt review might be undertaken by the BCAs and South Staffordshire, it is important that the review is not just confined to their administrative area. Other authorities also directly adjoining the BCAs and an understanding of the function of the green belt along these boundaries is also important so that all the options available to deliver the housing need are considered.