Draft Black Country Plan

Object

Representation ID: 23083

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Worcester Lane Resident's Group

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

On behalf of the Worcester Lane Resident’s Group, we are instructed to make a representation to the above plan. The concern of the group relates largely to sites DUH206, DUH207 and DUH209 which are proposed for a cumulative total of around 115 new homes during the next plan period:
Firstly, the residents do accept the need to plan for new housing over the course of the next plan period and that growth opportunities within the Borough are limited as many brownfield sites have already been redeveloped or viability remains a constraint.
However, the group are very much of the view that there are still a number of deliverable, previously developed sites within the Borough that have not been included as potential housing allocations, despite not being as constrained as the surrounding Green Belt which is some of the most protected type of land, in planning terms.
We consider the overall approach adopted by the Black Country authorities is flawed on the basis that many sites have been automatically ruled out on the grounds that they may have a local protective ecological designation – such as a SINC. We do not understand why the starting point to rule such sites out was not Footnote 7 (Framework paragraph 11), which are listed as follows: ‘The policies referred to are those in this Framework (rather than those in development plans) relating to: habitats sites (and those sites listed in paragraph 181) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a National Park (or within the Broads Authority) or defined as Heritage Coast; irreplaceable habitats; designated heritage assets (and other heritage assets of archaeological interest referred to in footnote 68); and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change’. Aligned to this, Paragraph 181 states that: ‘The following should be given the same protection as habitats sites: a) potential Special Protection Areas and possible Special Areas of Conservation; b) listed or proposed Ramsar sites; and c) sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on habitats sites, potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation, and listed or proposed Ramsar sites.’ These high-status designations are clearly of greatest importance and as a starting point normally development or change is either resisted or very carefully controlled.
We consider the Black Country authorities may have hampered their own efforts in searching for future housing sites within the existing urban areas, by ruling out sites that they have limited information about but have unfortunately assumed an awful lot. Indeed, we understand that around 62 potential sites have been ‘ruled out’ through the SHELAA process, and given the very binary assessments carried out, we consider that some reconsideration of ruled out sites needs to be undertaken again. Or we consider the council will have failed the exceptional circumstances case to release the Green Belt in this location.
By way of an example of such a site, the land at New Hawne Colliery, Hayseech Road, Halesowen is an entirely previously developed site (a colliery since the late 1800s, which was reopened in the 1970s), with an extensive area of potentially developable land, together with opportunities for management and improvement to the habitats within the site.
The residents are aware that the above site is being promoted for a residential allocation (DUH059) and that only part of the site is currently subject to an allocation for 15 dwellings which is focussed on the historic colliery buildings. Given the historic use of the site across a far wider expanse, it is considered that some of the land associated with the former colliery could be a potential housing allocation and that this has the capacity to directly offset the need to allocate in the Green Belt at Worcester Lane:

The wider site was not considered as it has a SINC designation. However, no full PEA has been undertaken on the site, nor a tree survey to confirm how valuable the site truly is in ecological terms. It was simply not considered.
You will be aware that paragraph 140 of the Framework (2021) states that:
‘Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified’. Further, paragraph 141 of the Framework is clear that: ‘Before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries, the strategic policy-making authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. This will be assessed through the examination of its strategic policies, which will take into account the preceding paragraph, and whether the strategy: a) makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land; b) optimises the density of development in line with the policies in
chapter 11 of this Framework, including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimum density standards in town and city centres and other locations well served by public transport; and c) has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground.’
In echoing this, the Black Country authorities will be aware of the outcome of the West of England Joint Spatial Plan1 (Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol City, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire) which was formally withdrawn in April 2020 as a result of the Inspector’s serious concerns over the soundness of the plan. The major issue was the four authorities were heavily criticised for trying to make evidence fit around their strategy for housing, jobs and infrastructure, rather than being led by it. Matters such as insufficient evidence to demonstrate the ‘exceptional circumstances’ needed to release Green Belt were at the heart of this.
11 https://www.westofengland-ca.gov.uk/west-of-england-strategic-planning/
The Inspectors Malcolm Rivett and Steven Lee recorded that ‘We conclude that robust evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that the 12 SDLs [Strategic Development Locations] proposed in the plan have been selected against reasonable alternatives on a robust, consistent and objective basis’. Further they stated that ‘Consequently, given that the SDLs are an integral part of the plan’s spatial strategy, we cannot conclude that the spatial strategy is itself sound.’
The residents consider that the Black Country authorities need to be very careful about their approach to this, and this leads directly on to how they work with neighbouring authorities such as South Staffordshire, who are being expected to take 4,000 new dwellings of unmet need from the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA. We cannot envisage South Staffordshire, Shropshire, Bromsgrove and Redditch, Lichfield, Stafford, Cannock Chase, Telford and Wrekin and Solihull being particularly supportive of a strategy by the Black Country where they have not adequately scrutinised their brownfield site opportunities before expecting to be able to export their need elsewhere.
Finally, Paragraph 142 of the Framework states that: ‘When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. Strategic policymaking authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary. Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously developed and/or is well-served by public transport. They should also set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land.’
The resident’s group do not consider that this has happened here. There are other opportunities within the urban area of the Borough which could come forward and need to be scrutinised further, before the Green Belt land at Worcester Lane is released (i.e. where exceptional circumstances are demonstrated).
Further matters of concern to the residents also include the following:
• The site is a valued landscape – its Green Belt function as an undeveloped break in the existing built form provides visual relief for many who live in the area. Paragraph 174 of the Framework reinforces the need to protect such sites where: ‘Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes…’
• The site is known to suffer from pluvial flooding – significant work would be required (together with significant land take from the site) to provide adequate volumetric storage for 1 in 100 flood events (plus 40% for climate change).
• It is understood that the site may suffer from geotechnical issues, where the railway embankments had to have extensive reinforcement works undertaken a short while ago. A ground investigation which looks closely at this should be required of the promoter in any event.
• The strategic nature of Green Belt should (if exceptional circumstances dictate) be released on a far larger scale than is being proposed with the land at Worcester Lane. As Green Belt is a designation which remains permanent and enduring beyond plan periods, the residents consider that a more holistic approach to planning for the loss of Green Belt should be undertaken, to underpin a more sustainable and well-planned result, rather than ‘nibbling’ at Green Belt to deliver smaller schemes that will not incorporate new community facilities. Larger schemes could include more facilities and services within major urban extensions such as schools; community centres; neighbourhood centres (including some shops, healthcare, etc).
• There appears to be no consideration of ‘compensatory’ open space being created within the site of any significance, this is not the expectation of local people, nor the relevant parts of the Framework.
• Given the location of the site relative to shops, services, local employment and railway services, the residents consider there to be far more sustainable alternatives than this site, where it is clear that very few future residents will walk or cycle anywhere in reality.
Yours sincerely

Comment

Representation ID: 23084

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Worcester Lane Resident's Group

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

On behalf of the Worcester Lane Resident’s Group, we are instructed to make a representation to the above plan. The concern of the group relates largely to sites DUH206, DUH207 and DUH209 which are proposed for a cumulative total of around 115 new homes during the next plan period:
Firstly, the residents do accept the need to plan for new housing over the course of the next plan period and that growth opportunities within the Borough are limited as many brownfield sites have already been redeveloped or viability remains a constraint.