Draft Black Country Plan

Object

Representation ID: 21332

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

POLICY CSP1 – DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY: OBJECT:
William Davis Homes (WDH) welcome the preparation of the Black Country Plan (BCP) and the intention of the Black Country authorities (BCAs) to positively plan for sustainable development and growth in the plan period to 2039. With that said, WDH has serious concerns in relation to the overall approach taken by the BCAs in relation to the level of growth that the Regulation 18 BCP seeks to plan for, the overall spatial strategy pursued in seeking to meet the housing needs of the BCAs, and the allocation of development sites in that context. As such, significant changes are required in the BCAs’ preparation of its Regulation 19 plan to reflect the below considerations, in order to ensure that the plan is sound.

Plan Period:
The BCP is inconsistent when referring to its plan period, which is a fundamental matter in the implementation and monitoring of the plan. Whilst the plan is titled Draft Black Country Plan 2018-2039, paragraph 3.21 refers to a housing requirement over the period 2020-2039. On the basis of the BCAs’ approach towards calculating its housing needs and setting out its housing supply, it would appear that the correct plan period is 2020-2039, but that matter clearly must be clarified through modifications to ensure clarity for monitoring purposes.

Planning Context:
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is underpinned by a presumption in favour of sustainable development that requires Local Plans to positively plan for and meet the development needs of their area as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas (para. 11). Ensuring that there is a continual supply of both market and affordable housing is a critical policy imperative for the Government and it remains a central tenet of the NPPF.

That is because insufficient housing provision has resulted in a nationwide “housing crisis” that needs to be remedied as a matter of urgency in order to address its acute socio-economic consequences (escalating house prices, rocketing rents, declining home ownership, increased housing benefit burden, reduced labour mobility, etc). The affordability issues associated with this are particularly acute within the jurisdiction of the BCAs, as well as within the wider Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA) of which the BCAs form an integral part.

The NPPF, therefore, emphasises the Government’s objective of “boosting the supply of homes” (para. 60) and requires strategic plan making authorities to establish a housing requirement figure for their whole area which shows the extent to which their identified housing need, and any needs that cannot be met in neighbouring areas, can be met over the plan period. It is, therefore, essential that the market and affordable housing needs arising in the plan area over the period to 2039 are identified and fully provided for in the BCP.

In that context, WDH fundamentally objects to the BCAs’ proposed approach towards determining the level of growth that the BCP seeks to accommodate for the following reasons:

Overall Housing Need:
Whilst WDH recognises that the local housing need (LHN) of the BCAs is 76,076 dwellings, as informed by the Housing Market Assessment that quite correctly takes into account the Government’s introduction of a 35% uplift to the local housing need figure for Wolverhampton, Government policy and guidance clearly sets out that this is a “minimum starting point in determining the number of homes needed in an area” (Planning Practice Guidance Ref. 2a-010-20190220).

That PPG states that “there will be circumstances where it is appropriate to consider whether actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates”, stating that appropriate circumstances may include “situations where increases in housing need are likely to exceed past trends [from which the household projections are based on] because of” … “growth strategies for the area that are likely to be delivered” and “strategic infrastructure improvements that are likely to drive an increase in the homes needed locally.”

The arrival of HS2 within the plan area and its surrounds must be considered such an exceptional circumstance, given that it will most certainly drive an increase in economic activity and therefore increase housing demand due to the commuting proximity of the BCAs to Birmingham, which is to act as a hub for HS2. As such, the BCAs’ housing need would benefit from an uplift to meet the inevitable additional demand from that economic activity. That matter is considered further in Turley's 'Technical Review of Housing Need and Supply in the Black Country' Report that is submitted alongside these representations.

Level of growth / Housing requirement:
Notwithstanding that point, Turley's report highlights that delivering to the base housing need of 76,076 dwellings would require just a 0.7% increase to the existing housing stock (compared to the 1.1% increase needed nationally to meet the nation's combined standard-method derived housing need), and as such that that level of growth should be entirely achievable. As such, WDH strongly objects to the BCAs’ intention to deliver just 47,837 dwellings to meet its own housing need and thus the decision to seek to export some 28,000 dwellings of its base housing need to neighbouring authorities that are themselves constrained.

In addition to WDH’s concerns that the BCAs’ identified supply will not deliver to that rate in reality (see below), that approach directly opposes the Government’s imperative of boosting the supply of homes to deal with the national housing crisis, as well as the requirement as per paragraph 11b of the NPPF for policies to “as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing” unless there is strong reasoning to restrict the overall scale of development, or if the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

In the first instance, the BCAs’ contention that they have a housing capacity of only 47,837 dwellings is demonstrably inaccurate, with the BCAs not having maximised potential housing delivery from all suitable sites available in sustainable settlements before seeking to export a significant degree (37%) of its need. Rather, in order to demonstrate that the BCAs have taken into account all ‘reasonable options’ before exporting that need, they must seek to accurately ascertain the true capacity of all suitable sites. That exercise should set aside policy constraints such as Green Belt (i.e. a ‘policy-off’ approach) and judge each promoted site on its merits as a suitable location for growth, and then test that capacity through the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) process. The BCAs have clearly failed to pursue that approach given that they have overlooked a number of wholly suitable and available development sites, including WDH’s site at Bromwich Lane (as set out in WDH’s response to Policy HOU1).

In failing to pursue that approach of identifying and allocating all suitable sites, the BCAs have failed to provide justification for their departure from the guidance of NPPF paragraph 11b that authorities must provide for their own housing needs as a minimum, and have unduly sought to limit the extent of development within the plan area without any evidence or justification, and without fully assessing the reasonable alternatives available. The BCP as currently drafted cannot, therefore, be considered to be positively prepared in accordance with NPPF paragraph 16b and as such would not be found to be sound if submitted in its current form.

In parallel to that, the BCAs should also ascertain the level of growth that could be accommodated before significant adverse impacts arise through the SA process, and should ensure that they meet that level of growth by maximising delivery from that supply of suitable development sites that are located within or adjacent to sustainable settlements but are not yet proposed to be allocated. The approach of identifying the maximum level of growth that could be accommodated through the SA would align with the requirement of NPPF paragraph 32 for local plans to be “informed throughout their preparation by a sustainability appraisal”, which must “consider and compare all reasonable alternatives as the plan evolves” (Strategic Environmental Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)).

The BCAs’ current approach of seeking to unduly limit growth without justification and export the BCAs’ housing need rather than deal with it within its own jurisdiction fails to meet those requirements. The SA published alongside the Regulation 18 BCP reflects that failure in considering only five options in relation to housing delivery:
• Option 1 – 40,117 dwellings;
• Option 2 – 47,837 dwellings (as informed by an inaccurate position on the BCAs’ capacity);
• Option 3 – 76,076 dwellings;
• Option 4 – 79,076 dwellings (76,076 dwellings plus 3,000 dwelling contribution towards Birmingham’s housing shortfall);
• Option 5 – 47,837 dwellings, with 28,239 dwellings exported through the Duty to Cooperate (also informed by an inaccurate position on the BCAs’ capacity).

By testing just five options and failing to test the considerable number of reasonable alternative options between delivering 47,837 dwellings and 76,076 dwellings (the next highest value), the SA’s approach clearly has not considered “all reasonable alternatives”; not least because the SA has failed to test the ‘true’ capacity of the BCAs’ (as above). That is a clear failing of both the SA and the Regulation 18 plan, which is not sound in its current form as a result.

Whilst there may be at least a degree of unmet need exported from the jurisdiction of the BCAs, it is imperative that the BCAs seek to maximise the level of growth that can be delivered through the plan itself, so as to minimise the level of growth that needs to be met elsewhere.

The approach to maximising growth in the BCA itself and minimising the level of exported need is particularly important given the context of the BCAs’ surrounding authorities, which themselves are constrained by many of the same planning policy constraints that the BCAs experience. Birmingham City Council (BCC) is clearly not in a position to contribute given its own unmet needs, South Staffordshire falls almost entirely within Green Belt designation, Cannock Chase is almost entirely subject to Green Belt and / or AONB designation, Lichfield is subject to Green Belt designation and is seeking in its own Regulation 19 plan to reduce its contribution to neighbouring unmet needs, Wyre Forest is largely constrained by Green Belt in its north and east and is largely countryside in its south and west (and therefore unsuitable for large-scale development), and Bromsgrove is entirely awash with Green Belt designation outside of its urban areas. Outside of the HMA, it is understood that the BCAs are anticipating Shropshire to pick up a large apportionment of this unmet need, despite that authority largely comprising designated Green Belt, countryside and rural settlements.

That difficult and constrained context has played a significant part in the ability of the HMA authorities to make a significant contribution towards the unmet needs of BCC since the adoption of the Birmingham Development Plan (BDP) in January 2017. The GBBCHMA’s latest position statement (July 2020) identified that, when compared to the c. 37,900 dwellings that the BDP sought to export, neighbouring authorities have committed just 3,720 dwellings towards the unmet needs in the wider HMA through adopted plans. As a result, BCC’s own unmet need continues to persist both pre-2031 and post-2031. Therefore, when considering the BCAs’ own housing requirement (and therefore the level of growth exported), It is critical that the BCAs learn from those historic difficulties when meeting BCC’s unmet need; rather than seeking to export a significant level of unmet need with no mechanisms in place to ensure that it is met.

Rather, given the constrained context of neighbouring authorities, the reality for the BCAs is that neighbouring authorities are unlikely to be able to accommodate significant development that would meet the substantial unmet need of 28,239 dwellings; and therefore a large amount of the unmet housing need of the BCAs may well be ‘lost.’ That is recognised within the BCP itself, with paragraph 3.25 stating that the approach “may only address a proportion of the housing and economic shortfall, as it is inappropriate and beyond the powers of the BCA to establish the limits of sustainable development in neighbouring authorities.” That position is not an appropriate approach, and therefore will not meet the tests of soundness. Moreover, the Turley report considers in detail how the failure to meet the BCAs’ housing needs in full would exacerbate the severe socio-economic consequences arising within the BCAs and wider HMA, for example increasing pre-existing housing affordability issues and limiting economic growth. As such it is imperative that this position is avoided.

Therefore, an appropriate approach towards that matter (in addition to accurately ascertaining the BCAs’ true housing capacity as above) would be for the BCAs to ascertain the maximum level of growth that they can accommodate before significant adverse impacts arise (setting that figure as the plan’s housing requirement), and to then identify sufficient land to meet that level of growth. That is clearly achievable given that there are numerous sites that are suitable and located in sustainable locations for growth that the BCAs have failed to allocate (see below).

It is therefore important that the SA revisits its approach to assessing the ‘housing delivery options’ in order to understand the level of growth that the BCAs could accommodate. That revised SA should therefore test the increased ‘true’ capacity of the BCAs, as well as reasonable alternatives above that in increments of 5,000 dwellings for example, in order to understand the point at which there is an evidenced reason to restrict the level of scale.

Whilst it is of course not possible to pre-empt the findings of that revised SA and understand the exact level of growth that the BCAs could bring forward without significant adverse impacts, it is clear that the BCP could and should plan for a significantly higher level of growth over the plan period by allocating the numerous suitable and available development sites within the plan area that as yet have not been included as proposed allocations. That approach should be reflected through significant changes to the BCP within the future Regulation 19 publication, that seek to assure that the BCP delivers as much of the BCAs’ housing needs as possible. The suitability of Bromwich Lane, Pedmore is set out in more detail in response to Policy HOU1, and as such should be included as an allocation in the Regulation 19 plan.

Housing Supply:
Notwithstanding WDH’s objection to the overall level of development in the plan period, WDH also has particular concerns as to whether the BCAs’ purported housing supply is accurate in any event, and whether the actual level of delivery in the plan period will meet the level that the BCAs contend (47,837 dwellings).

In particular, and whilst it is recognised that the BCAs’ approach to maximising the opportunity from brownfield sites before releasing Green Belt sites accords with the NPPF, WDH has concerns over the dependence in that supply on delivery from brownfield sites in urban areas. Of the housing allocations proposed within the BCP, 81% of the dwellings will be delivered at brownfield sites; reflecting the BCP's particular dependence. That concern is also set out in the submitted Turley Report which notes the BCAs' application of unrealistic delivery assumption at sites where the BCAs have experienced recent difficulties in delivering housing (i.e. occupied employment land and existing allocations). That informs Turley's finding that the true capacity should be 9,571 dwellings lower than purported.

However, that fails to reflect the particular complexities when delivering brownfield sites, which can experience delays at various stages of the development process. Prior to an application’s submission, existing tenants / landowners can delay or halt development aspirations, whether that is because of differing opinions on land value, or difficulties in relocating tenants. Furthermore, such sites are difficult to develop by their very nature, with the cost and difficulty of remediation a key constraint. Even if a site does not experience such issues, their build-out periods are often longer than those of greenfield sites. Indeed, Lichfields’ Start to Finish: What factors affect the build-out rates of large scale housing sites? identifies that brownfield sites experience a longer period between receiving full planning permission and the delivery of dwellings, and also that the average build-out rates of greenfield sites are 34% higher than brownfield sites.

There is also an additional element of complexity and uncertainty in relation to brownfield sites being delivered in ‘Strategic Centres’ and ‘Core Regeneration Areas’, which comprises 43% (20,769 dwellings) of the overall supply as set out in Policy CSP1. That is because delivery of sites within those locations is entirely subject to the separate review of the “existing suite of Area Action Plans for Brierley Hill, West Bromwich, Walsall and Wolverhampton” (i.e. the Strategic Centres) and the designated Core Regeneration Areas.

Those Area Action Plan (AAP) Reviews will themselves be subject to evidence gathering, drafting, public consultation, further alterations, public examination and later adoption before coming into force; which is of course a time-consuming process itself. As such, and given that it is reasonable to assume that developers will await the adoption of those new AAPs before advancing with planning applications, any delays in the preparation of those AAPs could result in delays in the delivery of significant elements of the BCAs’ already reduced supply. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that those AAPs will identify the level of growth expected from them at this stage once further evidence on site suitability is gathered. For example, should the AAPs’ evidence identify that some sites that are currently earmarked for potential development are entirely unsuitable (be that be through hard constraints, viability, deliverability etc.) then the expected delivery from those sites will be lost completely.

Furthermore, Table 2 (beneath Policy CSP1) states that 7,651 dwellings will be delivered in the plan period from “small windfall housing” sites that lie outside of the Strategic Centres. That is a significant element of the supply that equates to 16% of the overall supply or 348 dwellings per annum (dpa), despite the plan providing no evidence-based justification for that assumption as required by NPPF paragraph 35b. Notwithstanding that lack of justification, and even if the BCAs have achieved windfall development of that level previously, the windfall allowance within the BCP must take a reasonable view on future windfall delivery, and should take into account that the land available for windfall development will become increasingly limited / depleted in the near future; particularly given that the adopted Black Country Core Strategy and the emerging BCP focus considerable growth to urban areas. Therefore, to assume a 348dpa windfall allowance is not suitable.

As such, whilst WDH understand DBC’s allocation of brownfield land, the associated difficulties of delivering such sites do not provide sufficient certainty that development will commence in a timely manner, and that the sites identified by the BCAs will deliver to the level anticipated (which itself is well below the overall housing need). Those concerns are compounded given the un-evidenced inclusion of a significant windfall allowance within the BCAs’ purported supply.

In normal circumstances where an authority was not seeking to export an element of its housing need, WDH would suggest that an uplift be included in an authority’s housing need above its housing requirement to ensure flexibility in its land supply and provide certainty that a sufficient amount of housing would come forward. Indeed, a 2016 Local Plans Expert Group report recommended to Government that local plans should incorporate a 20% uplift above an authority’s minimum housing need to ensure that plans are resilient and their supply robust. Clearly that is not deliverable here given the BCAs’ circumstances, but this emphasises the need for the BCP to be robust in its assumptions on the housing delivery expected in the plan period.

Moreover, it reiterates the fact that the BCAs could and should allocate more sites in order to meet more of their own housing needs (given the presence of suitable sites that have not been allocated, as below), and in order to remedy the particular dependence on brownfield development. That would align with the guidance of the NPPF, which states that “planning policies should identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites” to meet its housing needs (paragraph 68), and notes that “small and medium sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, and are often built-out relatively quickly” (paragraph 69). The delivery of small – medium sized sites would critically also ensure that the BCAs could identify a five-year supply of housing during the early plan period where AAPs are being prepared and brownfield delivery is limited.

Specifically, and to reduce the existing dependence on brownfield sites, a large element of those additional allocations should be at greenfield sites in sustainable locations, as below.

Spatial Strategy:
Notwithstanding the above matters, WDH consider the absence of a clear spatial strategy to be particularly concerning, and therefore question the justification that has underpinned the approach taken to directing development to specific areas and the identification of the BCP’s proposed allocations. As such, the existing approach of loosely directing residential development to growth areas is not robust, in that it has not been justified and evidenced, and therefore would not pass the test of soundness.

Indeed, the preparation of a spatial strategy is fundamental to plan-making, with NPPF paragraph 20 requiring plans to “set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and quality of development.” Moreover, that spatial strategy would play a key role in the identification of additional development sites, and would focus growth to those areas that are most suitable in order to ensure that additional development could be accommodated with very little additional impact. Similarly, it would be an important mechanism in guiding development should the proposed allocations fail to deliver as the BCAs expect.

It is WDH’s view, therefore, that a clear spatial strategy should be defined within Policy CSP1 to clearly guide residential development over the plan period. A suitable approach to that would be to undertake an audit of the settlements in the plan area, considering both their needs and suitability to accommodate residential development (which itself should take into consideration accessibility, services and facilities, environmental constraints and land availability), and to focus growth to the most sustainable settlements identified.

Such an audit would reflect that Pedmore is a wholly sustainable settlement that would be suitable for accommodating residential development to a higher scale than is currently planned. Indeed, Pedmore is a residential suburb of Stourbridge, which itself contains a full range of high order services and community facilities. However, Pedmore itself also has a range of local services and facilities including a primary school, convenience store, church, cricket club and local park. Furthermore, Pedmore is well located to benefit from the services and retail facilities available in Hagley and West Hagley to the west of the settlement, including a medical centre.

Pedmore is also well served by public transport links, with bus route 318 running close to the site along Hagley Road (the A491), which links the site and settlement both to Pedmore, Stourbridge Bus Station and Bromsgrove Bus Station and the services and facilities therein. Stourbridge Junction Train Station and Hagley Train Station are also located nearby to the site and settlement (accessible via bus), and therefore offer opportunities for multi-modal travel to other settlements on that train line (including Kidderminster, West Bromwich, Birmingham, Solihull, Worcester Stratford upon Avon).

As such, Pedmore is clearly an entirely appropriate and sustainable location for residential development, with residents able to readily access and support the services and facilities required to meet their day-to-day needs, and benefit from convenient public transport services to key employment and higher order service centres. The sustainability of the settlement should be recognised by the BCAs through the spatial strategy that should be added to the plan, and should be reflected through the allocation of residential sites adjacent to the settlement so as to meet more of the BCAs’ housing needs and provide certainty in their housing supply.

Green Belt release:
In light of the above context, the BCAs must clearly seek to maximise delivery from Green Belt sites within their own jurisdiction rather than seeking to export a large element of its unmet need to neighbouring authorities that themselves are constrained by key planning designations, and as such are unlikely to be able to meet that unmet need fully. The BCAs must achieve that by first allocating those suitable Green Belt sites that are located within sustainable locations adjacent to the Black Country conurbation.

Indeed, the BCAs’ approach to releasing Green Belt land to meet their housing need is justified and wholly in accordance with the NPPF; albeit WDH strongly object to the BCAs’ approach to the level of Green Belt release and the quantum of development that has been proposed in the Regulation 18 BCP given the above context. The clear evidenced need and justification for Green Belt release has been recognised in the BCP itself, which states that the BCAs have “identified and made effective and extensive use of brownfield and urban sites and have also undertaken density uplifts in relation to both existing and new allocations” prior to releasing Green Belt land (in accordance with NPPF paragraph 141), and that notwithstanding that approach “there is a significant need to provide for the continued managed growth of the Black Country, to enable it to provide capacity for economic prosperity”, and as such that the BCAs “feel they have demonstrated that exceptional circumstances exist to justify the redrawing of green belt boundaries around the urban edge to release land for development” (in accordance with NPPF paragraph 140).

The BCP also sets out that, in identifying suitable Green Belt sites, “land should therefore be fully assessed not just against its suitability for Green Belt status but also with regard to the sustainability of the development it might accommodate relative to various issues important to the BCP or the wider area” and that the BCAs will release land that “if developed, would cause the least harm to the purposes of Green Belt and to landscape character, is suitable and available for development and that could create long-term and defensible Green Belt boundaries.” As such, the BCP states that the approach taken to allocating Green Belt land is the “rounding-off” of the built form.

Whilst WDH are of the view that this approach is justified and sensible in principle, it is demonstrated in response to Policy HOU1 that it has not been implemented consistently when assessing promoted sites, which has resulted in the BCP failing to allocate sites that could be developed with limited harm to the purposes of the Green Belt and landscape character subject to mitigation, and that would contribute to the creation of a “sustainable pattern of development” in accordance with NPPF paragraph 142. That is demonstrated in WDH’s response to Policy HOU1 in relation to WDH’s site at Bromwich Lane, Pedmore (SA Site Ref. SA-0016-DUD), and indeed it is critical that the BCP allocates such sites so as to ensure that it meets as much of its own housing needs as possible through substantial changes to the plan within the forthcoming Regulation 19 document.

Bromwich Lane
Bromwich Lane, Pedmore is one such example of an entirely suitable site in a sustainable location that the BCP has failed to allocate. The merits of that site, as well as WDH’s concerns with the application of the site assessment methodology when assessing the site, are outlined in further detail in WDH’s response to Policy HOU1.

That response highlights that, on the basis of the technical and environmental assessments of the site that have been carried out by WDH, there are no insurmountable development constraints that cannot be mitigated through the development of a sensitive scheme that includes suitable mitigation measures.

Those assessments find that the site is well-located at the edge of the Black Country conurbation and adjacent to the inherently sustainable settlement of Pedmore (as above), and that site access can be achieved in a manner that would achieve unrestricted two-way vehicular movements along Bromwich Lane. Relevant assessments have also found that the site is not subject to any nature conservation designations and that, whilst some protected species may be present, they can be accommodated through sensitive design to enhance the ecological value of the site, that the majority of trees will not be impacted by the proposals (save for the small scale removal required to accommodate access) and rather will be incorporated into generous landscape buffers that will be enhanced through new tree planting, and that the site is unlikely to have a detrimental impact upon surrounding heritage assets. The site is also not located within the floodplain, sustainable drainage can be accommodated within the development to provide surface water attenuation, and there is capacity within the existing foul sewerage network.

Given that Bromwich Lane, Pedmore is demonstrably an unconstrained and suitable development site yet has not been allocated by the BCAs, WDH’s response to Policy HOU1 highlights the inconsistencies in the site’s assessment within the BCP’s SA. In particular, that response demonstrates that the SA’s approach towards the site’s Green Belt and landscape considerations is unjustified, and that the development of the site would be entirely in accordance with the BCP’s approach to allocating Green Belt sites that round-off the built form, and can be developed with the least harm to the purposes of the Green Belt and landscape character.

Object

Representation ID: 21333

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

[unallocated site - Bromwich Lane]

The BCP also sets out that, in identifying suitable Green Belt sites, “land should therefore be fully assessed not just against its suitability for Green Belt status but also with regard to the sustainability of the development it might accommodate relative to various issues important to the BCP or the wider area” and that the BCAs will release land that “if developed, would cause the least harm to the purposes of Green Belt and to landscape character, is suitable and available for development and that could create long-term and defensible Green Belt boundaries.” As such, the BCP states that the approach taken to allocating Green Belt land is the “rounding-off” of the built form.

Whilst WDH are of the view that this approach is justified and sensible in principle, it is demonstrated in response to Policy HOU1 that it has not been implemented consistently when assessing promoted sites, which has resulted in the BCP failing to allocate sites that could be developed with limited harm to the purposes of the Green Belt and landscape character subject to mitigation, and that would contribute to the creation of a “sustainable pattern of development” in accordance with NPPF paragraph 142. That is demonstrated in WDH’s response to Policy HOU1 in relation to WDH’s site at Bromwich Lane, Pedmore (SA Site Ref. SA-0016-DUD), and indeed it is critical that the BCP allocates such sites so as to ensure that it meets as much of its own housing needs as possible through substantial changes to the plan within the forthcoming Regulation 19 document.

Bromwich Lane
Bromwich Lane, Pedmore is one such example of an entirely suitable site in a sustainable location that the BCP has failed to allocate. The merits of that site, as well as WDH’s concerns with the application of the site assessment methodology when assessing the site, are outlined in further detail in WDH’s response to Policy HOU1.

That response highlights that, on the basis of the technical and environmental assessments of the site that have been carried out by WDH, there are no insurmountable development constraints that cannot be mitigated through the development of a sensitive scheme that includes suitable mitigation measures.

Those assessments find that the site is well-located at the edge of the Black Country conurbation and adjacent to the inherently sustainable settlement of Pedmore (as above), and that site access can be achieved in a manner that would achieve unrestricted two-way vehicular movements along Bromwich Lane. Relevant assessments have also found that the site is not subject to any nature conservation designations and that, whilst some protected species may be present, they can be accommodated through sensitive design to enhance the ecological value of the site, that the majority of trees will not be impacted by the proposals (save for the small scale removal required to accommodate access) and rather will be incorporated into generous landscape buffers that will be enhanced through new tree planting, and that the site is unlikely to have a detrimental impact upon surrounding heritage assets. The site is also not located within the floodplain, sustainable drainage can be accommodated within the development to provide surface water attenuation, and there is capacity within the existing foul sewerage network.

Given that Bromwich Lane, Pedmore is demonstrably an unconstrained and suitable development site yet has not been allocated by the BCAs, WDH’s response to Policy HOU1 highlights the inconsistencies in the site’s assessment within the BCP’s SA. In particular, that response demonstrates that the SA’s approach towards the site’s Green Belt and landscape considerations is unjustified, and that the development of the site would be entirely in accordance with the BCP’s approach to allocating Green Belt sites that round-off the built form, and can be developed with the least harm to the purposes of the Green Belt and landscape character.

Object

Representation ID: 21334

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

POLICY CSP3 – TOWNS AND NEIGHBOURHOOD AREAS AND THE GREEN BELT: OBJECT
WDH’s response to Policy CSP1 sets out their concerns in relation to the BCP’s overall development strategy, and as such those comments are referred to in response to Policy CSP3. Those comments set out that, given the scale of the BCAs’ own housing needs and the housing context in the wider HMA, the BCP should seek to meet a higher proportion of the BCAs’ housing needs before exporting its unmet need to neighbouring authorities. That response to Policy CSP1 highlights that this approach to maximising development within the jurisdiction of the BCAs is entirely justified, and that the SA should be revisited to ascertain the maximum level of housing that could be accommodated before significant adverse impacts arise.

In that context, WDH recognise the important role that Towns and Neighbourhood Areas and the Green Belt adjacent to such settlements can play in meeting the BCAs’ considerable housing needs. Indeed, the supporting text for the policy outlines that these areas relate to the built-up area “where most of its residents live” and that “a key spatial priority of the Plan is to support the delivery of a constant supply of new housing development”, a significant amount of which will be accommodated in these locations.

That is an entirely appropriate and justified approach in principle, and WDH are of the view that the BCP should maximise growth in those areas where there are suitable sites in sustainable locations so as to meet the BCAs’ housing needs more fully. That approach would ensure that housing needs would be met close to where they arise, which would be testament to positive planning and would be an inherently sustainable approach to development.

As set out in WDH’s response to Policy CSP1, it is important that the BCAs develop a clear spatial to guide that identification of further development sites. Doing so would ensure that the BCP allocates those sites that are located in the most sustainable locations so as to limit the adverse impacts of that additional development, and would also provide further clarity to direct future growth should sites fail to deliver or the BCAs’ housing needs increase further.

The merits of Pedmore as an inherently sustainable location for growth are set out in WDH’s response to Policy CSP2 given its location adjacent to the main built form of Stourbridge, the range of services and facilities available both within Pedmore and nearby settlements, and the excellent connectivity that the settlement shares with surrounding settlements and higher-order settlements. The clear suitability of Pedmore as a location for growth should be reflected in the spatial strategy that must be developed to sit within Policy CSP1. The merits of Bromwich Lane, Pedmore are outlined in WDH’s response to Policies CSP1 and HOU1.

WDH also recognises the policy objectives of Policy CSP3, and notes the key role that the development of Bromwich Lane, Pedmore could play in realising those. Notably, the site’s development would deliver green corridors and key open spaces that would contribute towards an integrated and continuous green infrastructure network, and would also benefit from strong links to nearby Core Regeneration Areas and Strategic Centres to ensure the site’s integration with the existing built form. Upon the delivery of a sensitive development scheme with appropriate mitigation, the site would also ‘round-off’ the existing urban form and provide a defensible Green Belt that creates a clear threshold between the redefined settlement edge and the Countryside to the south and west, which would provide easy access to the countryside for residents whilst also safeguarding and enhancing its heritage, recreational, agricultural and conservation values. The development of Bromwich Lane, Pedmore would therefore be testament to sustainable development, as demonstrated in WDH’s response to Policy HOU1.

Object

Representation ID: 21336

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

POLICY GB1 – THE BLACK COUNTRY GREEN BELT: OBJECT
WDH recognises Policy GB1’s intention for sites that are released from the Green Belt to define new boundaries in a “readily recognisable and permanent way”, and in that regard notes that the development of Bromwich Lane, Pedmore would achieve that in a manner that would ‘round-off’ the existing built form whilst having minimal impact on the purposes of the Green Belt and the surrounding landscape. That is discussed in further detail in response to Policy HOU1, which demonstrates that development in this location would integrate effectively with the existing settlement.

WDH note that Policy GB1 as currently drafted seeks to preserve the Black Country Green Belt from ‘inappropriate development’, reflecting the provisions of NPPF paragraphs 148 and 149. However, in reflecting the guidance of the NPPF in relation to Green Belt, it is important that Policy GB1 makes allowances for ‘inappropriate development’ where ‘very special circumstances’ exist by virtue of the potential harm to the Green Belt being outweighed by other considerations. That should be made clear through the inclusion of an additional ‘clause’ to Policy GB1.

In addition to that, WDH note that, for sites that are removed from the Green Belt for development, “compensatory improvements to the environmental quality, biodiversity and accessibility of remaining green belt land will be secured to offset the impact of removing the land from green belt.”

Whilst WDH recognise the intention of that policy requirement, the BCP must clearly set out the amount, type and scale of compensation that is required to sufficiently offset the impact of the removal of such sites, which should be justified based on proportionate evidence. Until that information is provided, the policy is not “clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals” in accordance with NPPF paragraph 16d. The relationship that those requirements would have on sites that also would be required to meet open space standards should also be considered by the BCAs, given the inevitable impact on development capacity.

Moreover, further information is required to set out how that compensation would be secured. Should that be through the mechanism of Section 106 contributions, the requirement must be evidence-based, justified, and directly applicable to the proposed development to ensure that it is CIL Regulation 122 compliant.

Comment

Representation ID: 21337

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

POLICY DEL1 – INFRASTRUCTURE PROVISION: COMMENT
WDH recognises the intention of Policy DEL1 and the importance of delivering the infrastructure required to support sustainable development. In that regard, it is important that the policy recognises the role of a wide range of actors in delivering infrastructure. In doing so, the policy policy should be more explicit to encourage the proactive involvement of actors within infrastructure delivery. For example, the policy should reflect that it is the responsibility of the utilities company to provide necessary water supply and wastewater infrastructure to support development. Their investment programmes are not necessarily integrated with Local Plans, and often will not address the development requirements for an area until specific proposals become committed, normally through the grant of planning permission.

Furthermore, it is noted that Policy DEL1 states that the BCAs will “set out in Development Plan Documents, Infrastructure Delivery Plans, Supplementary Planning Documents, and where appropriate, Masterplans” the infrastructure that is to be provided or supported, the prioritisation of and resources for infrastructure provision, the scale and form of obligation or levy to be applied to each type of infrastructure, and the procedure for maintenance payments and charges for preparing agreements. However, in order to give clarity to developers as to the scale and form of the infrastructure provision and contributions required, it is important that this is set out within the BCP itself, rather than being deferred to DPDs, SPDs, and Masterplan Reports that are produced thereafter. Indeed, recent case law has confirmed that policies that have a cost implication on development proposals cannot be deferred to an SPD or alike.

WDH does, however, welcome that the policy makes provision for “material considerations” that may indicate that some elements of required infrastructure cannot be delivered; which is an entirely sensible approach.

Comment

Representation ID: 21338

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

POLICY DEL3 – PROMOTION OF FIBRE TO THE PREMISES AND 5G NETWORKS: COMMENT
WDH recognises the intention of Policy DEL3 and the BCAs’ desire to ensure that all major development provide Fibre to the Premises. However, that requirement should be taken into account within a comprehensive Viability Assessment that demonstrates that “the total cumulative cost of all relevant policies will not undermine deliverability of the plan” (Ref. 10-002-20190509).

Comment

Representation ID: 21344

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

POLICY HW3 – HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENTS (HIAs): COMMENT
Policy HW3 requires development proposals to “demonstrate that they would have an acceptable impact on health and wellbeing through either a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) or Health Impact Assessment Screening Report.” Whilst the intention of that policy requirement is understood, the policy should clearly set out the threshold at which a HIA is required, to ensure consistency between planning applications.

Object

Representation ID: 21345

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

POLICY HOU1 – DELIVERING SUSTAINABLE HOUSING GROWTH: OBJECT
Policy HOU1 sets out that “sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 47,837 net new homes over the period 2020-2039.” WDH’s response to Policy CSP1 above sets out their objection to this scale of growth as follows:
• Housing Needs: Whilst WDH recognises that the BCAs’ housing need over the plan period is 76,076 dwellings when calculated in accordance with the Government’s Standard Method, a further uplift should be incorporated to reflect the anticipated economic activity relating to the arrival of HS2 in the wider area.
• Scale of Growth / Housing Requirement: The BCAs should seek to maximise the delivery of housing within their jurisdiction before exporting any unmet need, given the BCAs’ own substantial housing needs and the context in the wider HMA of a significant housing need. Given that there are a number of suitable and available development sites that have not been included as proposed allocations (see below), the BCAs have failed to provide sufficient justification for their proposed approach of limiting growth to 47,837 dwellings. The BCAs should therefore revisit their audit of promoted sites to ensure that their purported housing capacity is accurate and maximises the potential of sites in the area. Alongside that, the plan’s SA should be revisited to fully consider the maximum level of housing that could be accommodated before additional significant adverse impacts arise.
• Housing Supply: In addition to the concerns in relation to providing a level of housing supply that is well below the overall housing needs of the BCAs, WDH also has concerns as to whether the BCP would deliver the quantum of housing that the BCAs are expecting.
WDH’s response to Policy CSP1 highlights the particular dependence on a number of brownfield sites that can often be constrained, resulting in sites being delayed or failing to deliver. That matter, when combined with the BCAs’ unreasonable approach to the windfall allowance, is likely to result in a scenario where actual delivery in the plan period does not reach 47,837 dwellings, which itself falls a long way short of the BCAs’ housing needs. WDH’s response therefore outlines the importance of allocating small-medium sized greenfield sites (including Green Belt sites) both to increase the proportion of the BCAs’ housing needs that are met, and to provide further delivery early in the plan period.
• Spatial Strategy: The lack of a spatial strategy that is informed by an audit of settlements is concerning, and raises queries in relation to the justification for the BCP’s focussing of growth to particular settlements. Notwithstanding that, however, a spatial strategy should be prepared based on an audit of the housing needs of settlements and their suitability to accommodate growth. That spatial strategy should direct additional growth to sustainable settlements so as to meet a higher proportion of the BCAs’ housing needs. The suitability of Pedmore should be reflected in that, given its location adjacent to the Black Country conurbation, the presence of numerous services and facilities within the settlement, and its excellent connectivity to nearby settlements and the services and facilities therein.
• Green Belt release: In principle, the BCAs’ justification of Green Belt release is sound and justified in accordance with the NPPF. That said, given that the BCAs should seek to meet more of their own housing needs for the reasons set out above, the BCP should maximise delivery from Green Belt sites where there are suitable sites in sustainable locations that have not yet been allocated for development. The suitability of WDH’s site at Bromwich Lane, Pedmore is set out below in that regard.


Bromwich Lane, Pedmore
As set out above and in detail in response to Policy CSP1, Pedmore is an inherently sustainable location for growth. In that context, Bromwich Lane, Pedmore (SA Site Assessment Ref. SA-0016-DUD, the location of which is shown in the Vision Document that has been submitted alongside these representations) is a suitable development site that accords with the BCPs’ approach to releasing Green Belt sites that would ‘round-off’ the existing built form (see BCP paragraph 3.17) in a manner that would result in “the least harm to the purposes of Green Belt and to landscape character” (see BCP paragraph 3.16).

As such, the site’s development would accord entirely with the BCP’s proposed approach. The failure of the BCAs to allocate the site, therefore, reflects WDH’s concerns regarding the assessment of sites and application of the assessment methodology, as set out below.
A series of technical and environmental assessments have been undertaken in relation to Bromwich Lane, Pedmore that have highlighted that the site has no insurmountable development constraints that cannot be mitigated. Those site assessments are summarised in the Vision Document that has been submitted alongside these representations.

Principally, an appropriate vehicular access with achievable visibility splays can be provided via a new junction with Bromwich Lane, with a new footpath along the southern edge to be provided within the site as well as a small section to the north of Bromwich Lane to connect with the existing footpath on the southern side. The opportunity to widen Bromwich Lane along the site frontage would be taken where feasible to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the proposed development, which would include removing the west priority-controlled section of road to achieve unrestricted two-way vehicular movements along Bromwich Lane.

An ecological assessment of the site has confirmed that the site is not subject to any nature conservation designations, that the majority of the site is of low ecological value, and that, whilst some protected species are likely to be present in the area, they can be accommodated and the ecological value of the site as a whole can be enhanced through the proposed development. Indeed, whilst the hedgerows and areas of scrub along the boundaries provide suitable habitat for foraging and commuting bats and black poplar with moderate potential to support roosting bats is present in the site’s south-west, those areas will be retained as open space with an appropriate development offset and enhanced through planting, landscaping and the creation of an attenuation pond. Similarly, the site’s hedgerows that are of ecological value at a local level will be retained and enhanced where possible in accordance with the recommendations of the ecological assessment. , the site has been found to offer limited foraging habitat. As such, there are no ecological constraints to the site’s development, and indeed the development scheme can realise ecological enhancements through its sensitive landscape scheme.

Given their location, the majority of the trees at the site’s boundary will not be impacted by proposals and instead will be retained and incorporated into areas of public open space that will reinforce the site’s green infrastructure connections. An arboricultural assessment has considered the unavoidable removal of trees from a tree group of moderate arboricultural and landscape value at the site’s access, and has confirmed that the loss of this small section of the tree group would not diminish the group’s overall amenity value and that appropriate mitigation for the loss can be provided.

An archaeological desk-based assessment and a consideration of the site’s heritage impact has established that there are no designated or recorded heritage assets within the site or listed buildings within its vicinity, and that the site is not visible from the Hagley Conservation Area and thus that the site will not impact on its setting and character. Whilst Wychbury Ring is located c. 1km from the site, it is shrouded by woodland and separated from the site by the busy Hagley Road and the residential development alongside it. That is also the case for Hagley Hall Park and Garden and its listed buildings and structures that are located to the south and south-east of the site. As such, the proposed development is unlikely to have a detrimental impact upon the site’s surrounding heritage assets.

In relation to drainage, the site is located in flood zone 1 and is therefore at low risk of flooding. In addition, whilst there are small areas of the site that are at low and medium risk of surface water flooding, they are contained to the site’s western boundaries and therefore can be accommodated within the proposed open space corridor in that location. It is intended that surface water is attenuated within the site within the proposed attenuation basins at the site’s south-west corner before being discharged via an existing surface water sewer at Redlake Drive. There is also capacity within the existing foul sewerage network to accommodate the proposed development.

A landscape and visual assessment of the site has also been carried out. That assessment outlines that the site is designated by Dudley MBC’s Urban Historic Landscape Characterisation Study as falling within an ‘Area of High Historic Landscape Value’ that largely relates to the landscape relating to Wychbury Hill and Hillfort, and Hagley Park and Garden. The assessment of the site finds that there is a clear physical and visual break between the more valued landscape to the east and south-east of Hagley Road by virtue of the presence of the busy Hagley Road and the development along it, and that the site shares limited visual interconnectivity with those landscape / heritage features as a result. Rather, the landscape character of the site itself is undoubtedly affected by its relationship with the adjacent built form that encloses the site on two sides and gives significant visual containment.

The assessment therefore finds that the site’s development would have only minimal impact on landscape character, and would not at all appear incongruous given that it would be contained on 2 of its 3 sides by existing residential development. Moreover, it found that the key landscape features defining the site can be retained, enhanced, and supplemented to provide a softer transition to the countryside to the south and the area of higher value landscape. A visual appraisal has also highlighted that distant views of the site are limited by the visual containment that the site benefits from by virtue of the surrounding topography and the existing built form, and that any views of the site are seen in the context of the existing built form, which is often more prominent than the development would be (by virtue of its robust landscape framework and proposed boundary planting). Thus, any residential development would be integrated in its context, and the impact on visual amenity would be minimal.

A Green Belt appraisal has also been undertaken to ascertain the harm associated with the release of the site. That appraisal highlights that the site’s location and aspect mean that it does not form a particularly sensitive part of the Green Belt. Indeed, the site is already bordered to the west, north and east by well-established development, and the proposed development would not encroach south as far as the existing built form that borders it to the east and west. As such, the site’s development would consolidate the existing built form (rather than resulting in urban sprawl), would have minimal impact in terms of the coalescence of settlements given that the development would sit in front of and below the existing settlement and therefore would not impact on the perception of the separate identity of Pedmore and Hagley, and would result in limited countryside encroachment (further negated by the site’s strong landscape structure). The appraisal therefore outlines that the location of the site and its strong landscape structure mean that the degree of harm resulting from its release would be limited and that, rather, the site’s development offers an opportunity to round-off the built form and create a clear, robust and defensible boundary.

As such, it is clear from the assessments of the site that it is an inherently suitable development site that is not subject to any insurmountable constraints.

The BCP’s assessment of Bromwich Lane, Pedmore
The site’s inherent suitability for development as demonstrated through that suite of technical and environmental assessments has not, however, been reflected in the BCP’s evidence base and its approach to the site’s assessment, thus raising serious concerns in relation to the suitability and consistent application of the BCAs’ site assessment methodology. Indeed, WDH have previously written to the BCAs to express those concerns, and that letter has been submitted alongside these representations (Ref. 332 MR 160620 DMBC).
The unsuitability of the site assessment methodology and its inconsistent application is reflected both within the assessment of the site within the BCP’s Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and the Site Assessment Report (SAR), both of which assess the site under Site Reference SA-0016-DUD. When interrogating the justification for the site’s performance against the criteria of those assessments, it is clear that the assessment of the site has failed to consider the site’s true context, the ability for site’s development to readily and easily incorporate suitable mitigation to reduce any impacts, and the potential benefits that the site’s development could bring.

However, the BCAs’ assessments of other promoted sites did take into account those matters, for example in the assessment of the site(s) between the railway line and Worcester Lane that are proposed to be allocated in the BCP, which themselves are assessed under Site Refs. SA-0010-DUD-A, SA-0010-DUD-B, and SA-0018-DUD-C. The unsuitability and inconsistencies in the BCAs’ assessment of each site is set out below with reference to the SAR, highlighting that the site assessment would have identified Bromwich Lane, Pedmore as a suitable allocation site had the methodology been justified and applied consistently.

WDH’s principal objection to the site assessment methodology relates to the approach taken when assessing Green Belt harm and landscape impact, with the SAR registering a Green Belt harm rating of ‘Very high’ and a landscape sensitivity rating of ‘moderate to high’ for the site. Those conclusions are informed directly by the Black Country Green Belt Study (BCGBS) and Black Country Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (BCLSA), and indeed the letter submitted to the BCAs by WDH (as above) set out concerns in relation to the methodologies of both of those assessments; highlighting the manner in which an unsuitable methodology can result in inaccurate conclusions being attributed to a promoted site, which has clearly now directly resulted in the failure of the BCPs to allocate the site.

In relation to the BCGBS, WDH notes that the site is assessed as part of the broader Green Belt parcel of B60, which is a parcel of 181.3 hectares (of which the site is 4.2ha) that covers an area with significant variations both in terms of its character and contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt. That parcel varies from areas in urban fringe locations that are influenced largely by the adjacent urban environment (such as the site) to overwhelmingly open, vast and rural elements of the countryside (such as the land at the parcel’s west), and as such is clearly an incorrect scale upon which to assess the site and its Green Belt contribution. That resulted in a Stage 1 assessment that found strong contribution towards purposes 1, 2, 3 and 5. That clearly, as set out above, does not reflect the reality of the site itself and its contribution towards Green Belt purposes. Rather WDH’s previous comments highlighted that a contribution at the lower end of moderate would be more appropriate for purposes 1, 2 and 3 given the site’s context as set out in the above analysis.

As such it is clear that the Stage 1 assessment of Parcel B60, which was then attributed to the site and informed the assessment of the harm attributed to the release of any land within the parcel, was directly informed by an unsuitable methodology that sought to assess a very large and varied Green Belt parcel, rather than breaking the parcel down into smaller parcels that more accurately reflect the clear variations in character and Green Belt contribution. That Stage 1 assessment then fed into the Stage 2 assessment of the release of ‘any uncontained land’ within Parcel B60 (under Scenario B60s1). Notwithstanding that the site cannot be considered ‘uncontained’ given that it is clearly contained by the built form, that approach was itself inconsistent in comparison to the assessment of other promoted sites, some of which were assessed as part of their own ‘scenarios’ whilst others were included in broader release scenarios such as that seen in scenario B60s1. As a result of that flawed methodology, the release of B60As1 was attributed ‘very high’ harm. An accurate assessment that took into account the site’s context and characteristics would have found low-moderate harm associated with the release of the site from the Green Belt.

The manner in which the inconsistent application of the BCGBS’ methodology has directly influenced its findings and, ultimately, the fortunes of promoted sites when the BCAs came to identify allocation sites is highlighted further when that methodology is compared to the Worcester Lane site(s), where more suitable assessment parcels resulted in a more favourable conclusion. For example, the northernmost parcel (SA-0010-DUD-A) was assessed as its own assessment parcel (B63) of just 1.1ha (compared to the 181.3ha parcel that Bromwich Lane was included in) for all stages, which lead to favourable outcomes early on that then, in turn, fed into the conclusion that there would only be low to moderate harm. That is despite that element of the site having similar characteristics to WDH’s site at Bromwich Lane (albeit on a slightly smaller scale) in that it is surrounded on its east and west sides by existing development that protrudes further into the open countryside than the site itself, with an open southern boundary. The approach of including Bromwich Lane as its own Green Belt parcel would have been more suitable, therefore. Had that not been the case, Bromwich Lane should at the very least have been afforded its own ‘release scenario’ at Stage 3, which was the approach taken to the central parcel at Worcester Lane (SA-0010-DUD-B) despite the fact that that parcel was less contained than the Bromwich Lane site (with built development covering only half of its western boundary and the proposed allocation building further south than its adjacent urban form to the west).

The matter of Green Belt appraisal methodology was recently considered in an appeal in St Albans District (Appeal Ref. 3265926), whereby the Inspector found that, as a result of the inclusion of a more discrete Green Belt site within a much larger Green Belt assessment parcel that included more significant Green Belt parcels, that the characteristics of the wider assessment parcels “bear little or no relationship to the appeal site.” The Inspector therefore concluded that there was “only very limited correlation between the conclusions drawn here in relation to the function of the land or assessment of its function relative to the purposes of the Green belt when compared to the appeal site” in allowing the release of that Green Belt site.

WDH also has similar concerns to the methodology and findings of the BCLSA, which acts as ‘Stage 3’ of the BCGBS. Again, the site is attributed to Parcel BL15 that is a 223.8ha parcel which again includes more urbanised land such as the site, as well as open, clearly more sensitive landscape to the west. Even when considered at the smaller scale of BL15s2, the site is assessed alongside land that would clearly represent a considerable visual extension into the countryside beyond the well-contained site and into the landscape that separates Pedmore and Hagley, and is therefore inherently more sensitive in landscape terms. The result of the assessment was therefore naturally weighted in light of this.

Indeed, and as set out in the attached letter to the BCAs, the conclusions found were often not relevant to the site; given its context as the least sensitive location within both Parcels BL15 and BL15s2. Principally, the assessment of those parcels found their ‘moderate to high’ sensitivity arose as a result to its “additional role in providing a perceived gap” between Pedmore and Hagley. Clearly, that is not the case for a development site that would not extend development any further south beyond the already established built form. As set out in the letter to the BCAs, a more accurate judgement of the site would be that is has low-moderate sensitivity to built development.
Given that, as set out above, there are no technical or environmental constraints relating to the site, it can only be seen that the unevidenced and inaccurate assessment of the impact of the site’s development on the Green Belt and landscape has significantly weighted the BCAs decision not to allocate the site. Had the site been assessed correctly therefore, by considering the opportunity for the site’s development to actually bring a benefit to the integrity of the retained Green Belt through the provision of development that rounds off the built form and delivers a clear and robust new Green Belt boundary, the site would have been identified for its clear suitability and would have been allocated.

Notwithstanding that, it is also noted that other elements of the site’s assessment are inaccurate, and do not reflect the site’s credentials. The ‘red’ rating in relation to heritage assets suggests that the site’s capacity is “significantly limited unless harm is caused to asset(s) which cannot be wholly mitigated.” As set out above, the site’s development is unlikely to have any detrimental impact upon designated assets, and moreover the provision of an enhanced southern boundary would create a clearer transition between the redefined built form and the surrounding historic landscape. It would be more accurate for the site to be attributed a green rating, given that there are no assets on the site and that assets in its surrounds would have a “negligible impact on site capacity.”

Similarly, the site is incorrectly attributed a ‘red’ rating in relation to ‘visual amenity and character of the area’, which is applied to sites where the capacity would be “significantly limited unless harm is caused to visual amenity / local character which cannot be wholly mitigated.” As set out above, the site should have been assessed to have only low-moderate landscape sensitivity, and therefore development could be accommodated within the site without reducing the site’s capacity. Rather, a green result should have been attributed.

The amber rating in relation to Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) also suggests that the presence of TPO trees on the site would limit development capacity. Again, the Vision Document submitted alongside this document demonstrates that this is not the case. Indeed, previous arboricultural assessments of the site have highlighted that the loss of only a small section of the protected tree group would not diminish the group’s overall amenity value and that appropriate mitigation for the loss can be provided within the development. Therefore, the site can be delivered at full capacity without impacting upon TPO trees, and as such the site should have been attributed a green result for this criteria.

That is similarly the case in relation to the amber rating given to ‘Flood risk, drainage and ground water’ which would suggest that the site’s capacity would be ‘significantly’ reduced to allow for mitigation relating to drainage and flood risk issues. Again, that is not reflective of the nature of the site, which has a very limited area of low-moderate surface water flood risk at the site’s western boundary which could be incorporated within an open space corridor with no impact on the site’s capacity. Therefore, the site should also have been attributed a green result for this criteria. It is noted that the splitting of the allocated site(s) between the railway line and Worcester Lane, despite the fact that they will likely be developed comprehensively, has resulted in the surface water flooding issues relating to an area of high surface water flood risk at the site’s north being attributed only to one parcel, despite being a (more significant) constraint to the sites as a whole.

The SAR also attributes a red rating to the site in relation to ‘Highway Access and Transportation’ that suggests that the development has access constraints that cannot be viably overcome. As set out above, that is clearly inaccurate. Rather, access to the site is achievable and viably deliverable, and would also bring about limited improvements to the functionality of Bromwich Road by introducing unrestricted two-way travel. A green, or at least amber, rating should have been attributed for this criteria.

The approach taken in the SAR towards ‘opportunities’ also fails to take into account the benefits that the site’s development would deliver. Indeed, whilst the assessment of the proposed allocation sites (Site Refs. SA-0010-DUD-A, SA-0010-DUD-B, and SA-0018-DUD-C) gives a green rating by virtue of the perceived opportunity to deliver a defensible green belt boundary, that approach is not taken at SA-0016-DUD (Bromwich Lane) despite the clear benefits that the development would bring in that regard, as set out above. The opportunity to round off the built form and improve the functionality of Bromwich Lane through the delivery of unrestricted two-way travel is also overlooked. A green rating should have been attributed for this criteria therefore.

In contrast to the unjustifiably negative approach to Bromwich Lane, the BCAs appear to have come to more favourable conclusions for the proposed allocation site between Worcester Lane and the railway line (SA-0010-DUD-A, 0010-DUD-B, and 0018-DUD-C). Indeed, despite the presence of a number of Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINCs) at the site’s north, south and western boundaries, the sites are afforded an amber rating in relation to ‘biodiversity and geodiversity.’ However, it would be reasonable to expect a significant development offset from those boundaries to sensitively accommodate those designations, and as such that should arguably be ‘red.’

In addition, the sites are given only an ‘amber’ rating in relation to noise impact, despite the location of the railway line that runs adjacent to the western boundary of all parcels. To accommodate that and achieve required acoustic levels, it is reasonable to expect that a significant offset from the western boundary would be required. Given that the narrow nature of the site, it is reasonable to suggest that the requirement for an offset would “significantly limit” the development’s capacity; and that a ‘red’ rating should be attributed to all parcels.

Therefore, when making appropriate adjustments to reflect the true potential of the site, it would have performed more favourable than the sites between the railway line and Worcester Lane that are proposed to be allocated. The adjusted results for those sites in light of the above analysis are highlighted in bold, underlined and italicised below.

Implications
As such, it is clear that, had the SAR fully taken into account the site’s context and the merits of the proposed development, WDH’s site at Bromwich Lane, Pedmore (Site Ref. SA-0016-DUD) would have performed more favourably than the proposed allocation sites at Worcester Lane (SA-0010-DUD-A, SA-0010-DUD-B, and SA-0018-DUD-C), reflecting that the former is an inherently suitable development site with no insurmountable constraints.

That is not to say that the site at Worcester Lane should be removed in favour of WDH’s site at Bromwich Lane, but that Bromwich Lane should be allocated in addition to the proposed allocations to date given its inherent suitability and its more sustainable location near to Hagley Road (as correctly reflected in the SAR’s assessment of the site). Critically, the allocation of suitable sites such as Bromwich Lane, Pedmore would result in the BCAs meeting more of their housing needs within their own jurisdiction, thus reducing the amount of that need that must be exported and thus potentially may not be met.

Furthermore, the allocation of Bromwich Lane, Pedmore would be entirely in-keeping with the approach set out within the BCP of allocating those sites that would have the least impact in Green Belt and landscape terms and pursuing development opportunities that would round off the existing urban form. It would also reflect the sustainability of the settlement as a whole and as such the release of a Green Belt site in this area would be justified and appropriate, and would promote sustainable patterns of development in accordance with NPPF paragraph 142.

Thus, the allocation of Bromwich Lane would be an entirely justified and appropriate approach that should be incorporated alongside the wider significant modifications that are required to the future Regulation 19 publication (as set out in WDH’s comments to other policies).

The Proposed Scheme for Bromwich Lane, Pedmore (SA Site Assessment Reference SA-0016-DUD)
In that context, the emerging Masterplan for the site (as set out in the submitted Vision Document) provides for the delivery of c. 85 – 100 dwellings, and in doing so demonstrates how a well-designed scheme that integrates entirely with the existing built form will be delivered to provide much-needed housing in a sustainable location, with residents having direct access to, and providing support for, the range of local facilities within the settlement.

As set out above, access to the site will be provided via a new junction off Bromwich Lane, with a new footpath provided within the site along the southern edge of Bromwich Lane and a small section to the north of Bromwich Lane to connect to the existing footpath on the northern side. The opportunity to introduce unrestricted two-way movements along Bromwich Lane will also be considered by removing the west priority-controlled section of the road along Bromwich Lane.

The residential aspect of the scheme responds sensitively to surrounding uses, integrating well with the existing built form. In responding to the existing pattern of development to the west of Bromwich Lane, the existing western hedgerow and tree corridor adjacent to the site’s access will be retained and enhanced to reinforce the ‘leafy’ settlement character and filter views of the housing. Meanwhile, to respond positively to the dwellings along Hagley Road, dwellings that back onto the site’s eastern boundary incorporate generous rear gardens with enhanced buffer planting to prevent overlooking into the existing properties.

The site’s residential aspect will be designed in a perimeter block layout in order to promote activity and provide natural surveillance over streets and public spaces whilst also securing private boundaries (including the current existing exposed boundaries to the east). That built form will be served by a clear hierarchy of streets that establishes good legibility and also incorporates informal open spaces. That layout also includes a small residential square at the centre of the site, creating a focal / meeting space within the development.

To ensure that the site is well integrated into the wider landscape and reflect the leafy nature of surrounding residential areas, the residential aspect of the site will incorporate street trees and significant planting within gardens and open spaces to provide a green canopy effect to the development, within which residential properties will nestle. That planting will particularly increase at the site’s higher slopes (such as the eastern boundary) to limit any views of the development and soften the appearance of the settlement edge as it is viewed from the wider landscape.

The treatment of the site’s southern boundary also contributes to the development’s sensitive approach to landscape character. The site’s southern boundary will be reinforced through significant native tree and hedgerow planting that will offer further screening of the site from the surrounding landscape and create a clear and robust Green Belt boundary whilst rounding-off the built form. Beyond that southern boundary, the site’s south-western corner will be free of residential development to allow for the provision of attenuation features, whilst the built aspect along the southern boundary to the east will also be offset from the site’s boundary to accommodate an open space corridor. That open space corridor will also incorporate significant tree planting to provide an attractive setting for the open space, and border the proposed pedestrian link through the open space corridor that in turn links to the play space that is proposed near to the site’s southern boundary.

A further open space corridor will be provided at the site’s north-west, providing opportunities for habitat mitigation, informal recreation and also helping to assimilate the site with its surrounds. That open space area and the residential aspect adjacent to it will be well connected to the aforementioned more significant open space area to the site’s south via a footpath link that will travel along the site’s western boundary before heading towards its southern boundary. The footpath will then exit the site at its south-western corner, providing access to Bromwich Lane and Redlake Drive. That will provide a key pedestrian link towards the services and facilities available within Pedmore to the north.

As such, it is clear that a well-designed and sensitive development scheme can be delivered to maximise the potential of a suitable site in a sustainable location, in a manner that will promote the BCPs’ approach to development by focussing development to a site that will round off the built form and promote clear and have the least impact on the Green Belt and surrounding landscape. Indeed, the development of the site will establish a robust Green Belt boundary that will strengthen the integrity of the retained Green Belt.

In the context that the BCP should maximise delivery from within the jurisdiction of the BCAs so as to meet a higher proportion of their own needs, the site should clearly be allocated without delay as part of the significant modifications that should be made to the plan ahead of the publication of the Regulation 19 document.

Comment

Representation ID: 21346

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

POLICY HOU2 – HOUSING DENSITY, TYPE AND ACCESSIBILITY
WDH supports the BCAs’ recognition that residential net densities will be informed by the range, types and sizes of dwellings, accessibility to sustainable transport, and the need to achieve high-quality design and minimise amenity. In that regard, WDH recognises the indicative densities set out within the supporting text to the policy. That said, WDH would welcome a reference to final residential densities being informed by ‘development viability and site and settlement-specific considerations.’

Similarly, WDH welcomes the recognition in Policy HOU2 that final housing mixes will be informed by the most recently available evidence, and also recognises the inclusion of an indicative mix within the supporting text which itself is informed by the most recent Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). However, WDH would appreciate additional flexibility being built into that policy given that the housing needs will inevitably vary greatly between the urban centres of Wolverhampton, Walsall, Brierley Hill and West Bromwich and more suburban areas. Therefore, the policy should be redrafted to read that final housing mixes should be “in line with most recently available information in relation to localised housing needs, and taking into account site and settlement-specific considerations, as well as viability.”

Object

Representation ID: 21347

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

POLICY HOU3 – DELIVERING AFFORDABLE, WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE AND SELF BUILD / CUSTOM BUILD HOUSING
WDH notes the requirement for 30% of dwellings to be delivered as affordable houses within the Higher Value Zone “where this is financially viable.” In addition, WDH welcomes the flexibility afforded by the policy in relation to tenure splits and types of affordable houses delivered, which Policy HOU3 states will be “determined on a site by site basis, based on national planning policy and best available information regarding local housing needs, site surroundings and viability considerations.” With that said, it is important for the plan’s viability assessment to consider a range of tenure splits to ensure that they are viable on all site typologies.

In relation to accessible dwellings, Policy HOU3 requires a minimum of 15% of dwellings to be delivered to M4(3) standard, with the remainder to meet M4(2) standards within higher value zones. However, that policy requirement is not justified based on proportionate evidence as required by NPPF paragraph 35b. Rather, the SHMA suggests that there is a need for just 23% M4(2) delivery, with evidence of only limited M4(3) need. As such, the requirement for accessible housing should reflect this need, rather than being artificially boosted without any evidence or justification.

Furthermore, the level of accessible housing delivery that is defined (once justified by evidence) must be considered within a viability assessment that must demonstrate that the cumulative cost impact of all policy requirements in the plan does not render the plan unviable and thus undeliverable. However, with that said, the reference that any provision being more flexible to account for viability and site characteristics is supported.

Policy HOU3 also requires at least 5% of plots on sites of 100 dwellings or more to be made available for self-build or custom build “where there is currently a need for self-build and custom build plots identified in the self-build and custom build register for the local authority where the site is located”, “or sufficient to match the current number on the register if lower.” WDH has concerns in relation to that requirement, noting that custom and self-build (CSB) registers are not means tested, meaning an individual’s registration seldom equates to a genuine desire and ability to develop a CSB plot. Rather, registrations on CSB registers often relate to a desire for CSB housing in a specific location, rather than within estate-like housing developments. As such, to require CSB delivery when registrations are, by the BCPs own admission, “modest” when compared to neighbouring authorities does not seem to be a justified approach.

Moreover, the delivery of CSB housing is subject to practical difficulties, and is often dependent on the ability for sites to provide independent construction access and infrastructure, and deal with difficult health and safety issues. Furthermore, CSB housing has the potential to undermine the realisation of consistent design principles across a scheme, and can also negatively impact on delivery timescales. Thus, it would be more suitable for the BCAs only to support CSB housing on specific CSB housing sites, and to remove the blanket requirement of 5% CSB delivery on sites of 100+ dwellings.

Despite the above concerns, however, WDH welcomes the allowance made for financial viability assessments and the variation of actual housing delivery from the requirements set out in Policy HOU3 to a viable level. Indeed, that is an entirely appropriate and justified approach.