Draft Black Country Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 23210

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Heyfield Development

Agent: Harris Lamb

Harris Lamb Planning Consultancy (‘HLPC’) are instructed by Heyford Developments (‘HD’) to submit representations to the Draft Black Country Plan (‘BCP’) and welcome the opportunity to comment at this time. HD are promoting land for residential development at land to the north Enville Road, Wall Heath within South Staffordshire and have previously submitted details of the site to the Call for Sites.

Notwithstanding HD’s support for the Black Country’s ongoing working relationship with South Staffordshire as its main functional neighbour and the identification that sites beyond the existing urban area need to be identified to meet the significant development needs identified, we set out our detailed comments below

Support

Representation ID: 23211

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Heyfield Development

Agent: Harris Lamb

Vision for the Black Country

This is succinct and to the point, which is welcomed.

Support

Representation ID: 23212

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Heyfield Development

Agent: Harris Lamb

Objectives and Strategic Priorities

HD welcome the inclusion of ‘Housing that meets all our needs’ as a Strategic Priority and consider themselves well placed to assist with helping meet these needs. We return to this point below.

Object

Representation ID: 23213

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Heyfield Development

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy CSP1 – Development Strategy

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


Housing Supply

Policy CSP1 identifies a housing requirement across the Black Country Authorities (BCA) of
76,076 dwellings over the period 2020 – 2039. However, only capacity for 47,837 of these has been identified leaving a shortfall of 28,239 dwellings against what is needed and will be
directed toward other authorities through the duty to cooperate.

Table 2 of the draft Plan suggests that a total of 76,076 dwellings is required during the Plan Period. This is, however, less than the Standard Method housing requirement identified by the Black Country Housing Market Assessment 2021 (“BCHMA”), produced by the Black Country Authorities. At paragraph 4.13 it is advised that “the final housing need in the Black Country, assessed using the revised Standard Method, is 4,019 per year”. The Plan period runs from 2020 to 2039. As such, the BCHMA concludes with a total of 76,361 dwellings required during the course of the plan period (4,019dpa x 19 years). As a minimum the overall housing requirement needs to be uplifted by 285 dwellings to be consistent with the Council’s evidenced based documents in accordance with Paragraph 61 of the Framework.

Paragraph 4.14 of the BCHMA advises that whilst paragraph 010 of the PPG identifies a series of circumstances where it may be appropriate to pursue a higher housing needs figure than is indicated by the Standard Method “this assessment is carried out on the basis that the Standard Method figure set out in the above will apply”. That being the case, the BCHMA does not test whether the minimum standard of housing requirement figure should be increased, contrary to the requirements of the PPG.

Paragraph ID:2a – 010 – 20201216, of the PPG advises that these circumstances where it may be appropriate to explore a higher housing figure include, but are not limited to, situations where increases in housing need are likely to exceed past trends because of:

• Growth strategies for the area that are likely to be deliverable;
• Strategic infrastructure improvements that are likely to drive an increase in the homes needed locally; or
• An authority agreeing to take on unmet need from neighbouring authorities.


Economic Growth

We are not aware of any assessment to establish whether the minimum Standard Method housing requirement should be exceeded. It could be the case that the minimum Standard Method housing requirement is not sufficient to meet the housing needs of the Black Country. In this regard we note that Table 5.1 of the BCHMA identifies that the percentage of people of working age in the Black Country will be less in 2039 than it is in 2020. In order to meet the emerging Plan’s economic growth aspirations it is necessary to ensure that a sufficient number of houses are provided to meet the jobs which will be created during the course of the Plan Period. An assessment should be undertaken to establish if the housing requirement needs to be uplifted to support economic growth.

Summary

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

Object

Representation ID: 23214

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Heyfield Development

Agent: Harris Lamb

Affordable Housing

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


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

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

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

Summary

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

Object

Representation ID: 23215

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Heyfield Development

Agent: Harris Lamb

Housing Supply

We also have a number of concerns with the deliverability of various sources of the housing demand supply identified by the Plan. Table 3 – Black Country Housing Land Supply Indicative Phasing 2020-2039, identifies the various sources of housing land supply. We have concerns with the sources of supply, including:

• Sites with Other Commitment – The sites in this category are expected to deliver
3,802 dwellings during the plan period. It is understood from the BCAs SHLAAs that an “other commitment” is a site with a resolution to grant planning permission but the Section 106 has not been signed. This source of supply is discounted by 10% in order to allow for non-delivery. It is not clear from the draft Plan how the 10% discount rate has been calculated. However, it is noted that the SHLAAs (e.g. Walsall SHLAA 2019 paragraph 17) advise that Other Commitments are discounted by 10% as the adopted Black Country Core Strategy (“BCCS”) applied a discount rate of 10% to commitments. It is advised that a discount rate that is based on past trends may not be an appropriate way of establishing future delivery rates.

Whilst this may be the case, we would also suggest that it is equally unreliable to take a discount rate from the adopted BCCS, which was published in 2011. The BCCS is in excess of ten years old, and its supporting evidence documents even older. At the very least, a past trend-based analysis should be undertaken in order to see if the discount rate is robust for the Other Commitments category. There is insufficient information available to determine whether the discount rate suggested is robust.




Furthermore, the age of these resolutions is not clear. It is our view that is the resolution to grant planning permission is more than 6 months old the site should not be included as a source of supply.

• Existing Housing Allocations in Strategic Centres – These sites are expected to provide 4,973 dwellings. This excludes those sites within the Strategic Centres that already have the benefit of planning permission, a resolution to grant planning permission, or are completed. The Walsall Site Allocations Document was adopted in
2019. The Dudley Borough Development Strategy was adopted in February 2017 and other various Dudley MBC AAPs were adopted between 2011 and 2017. The Sandwell Site Allocations and Delivery DPD was adopted in December 2012. The Wolverhampton Area Action Plans were adopted between 2014 and 2016. In most cases there has been a significant period for the sites allocated for development in the Strategic Centre to come forward for development, particularly at a time when multiple housebuilders have been actively searching for any potentially deliverable site searching due to a severe lack of supply. In this context, the fact that these sites have not delivered suggests that there may be problems with their delivery. That being the case, the 10% discount rate suggested for these sites is entirely unrealistic.

• Occupied Employment Land - Occupied employment land is expected to deliver
3,091 dwellings towards the total housing requirement. This should not be included as a source of supply. There is no guarantee if or when such sites will come forward for development. Landowner’s intentions may change during the Plan Period. In addition, we have frequently reviewed such sites that have been allocated in the aforementionedDevelopment Plan Documents with the site owners and/or housebuilders look for sites. In doing so, we have found that industrial values outweigh residential values in large parts of the Black Country. Furthermore, even if land values are similar or slightly exceed the employment values, owner occupiers have no incentive to move because there are no alternative units to move to or the cost of a new unit outweighs the land receipt, whilst landlords will lose their income. Consequently, it simply may not be economic to bring a site forward for residential development and/or an attractive proposition for the owner.

This has already been proven through the adopted development plan, where most of the allocated sites have remained in employment use.


It is also pertinent to note that there is a significant shortfall of employment land within the Black Country, and across the conurbation. Whilst new employment allocations are proposed by the Plan these will be new build estates where rents will be significantly greater than second-hand stock. It is unlikely that businesses that are located on the poorer quality employment sites will be able to afford to rent or buy a new premises. Secondary, and lower cost stock plays a vital role in the West Midlands economy. Losing land of this type to residential use may result in businesses closing. We are, therefore, extremely concerned that this source of supply could also have a detrimental effect on the supply of employment land through the plan area.

On the rare occasion currently occupied employment sites come forward for development during the Plan Period they will be part of the proposed windfall allowance.
• Green Belt sites - No discount is applied to Green Belt land release sites. In it simply unrealistic to assume every single predicted house will come forward on these sites in the plan period. It is possible that not all sites come forward or the lead in time is longer than expected (Langley SUE in the Birmingham Development Plan is a prime example of this where delivery was originally predicted to have commenced by now, and this has already been pushed back by several years, with the prospect of this timeframe slipping further); that when a planning application is submitted the aspirational target figures are not met for the site when the long list of policy requirements within the BCP have been properly accounted for; and/or not all of the site is delivered in the plan period.

• Other Allocations - The “Other” allocations within the plan have a 10% discount rate applied. It is not clear how this discount rate has been calculated. However, given the significant proportion of the allocations in the draft Plan that are not Green Belt are brownfield sites they are likely to have delivery constraints. A 10% discount rate is inadequate.

• Additional Site Capacity in Strategic Centres - The sites in this category are due to be identified and allocated through subsequent Local Plans produced later into the plan period. We are concerned that the housing figures identified for these areas are not robust, and ultimately the plan making process will find that there is not the capacity to deliver this level of development within future Local Plans. A substantial discount rates should, therefore, be applied to sites in this category.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we are concerned that the identified sources of supply will be incapable of meeting the housing requirement identified by the Plan. In addition, given the housing requirement should be a minimum there is clearly a distinct advantage in erring on the side of caution, and applying robust and realistic lapse rates to the various sources of supply as if additional housing does come forward this will be of no detriment to the Plan. However, a housing delivery shortfall has the potential to be extremely problematic, causing five-year housing land supply issues, failing the Housing Delivery Test and failing to provide much needed market and affordable housing within the Black Country for those that need it.

Object

Representation ID: 23216

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Heyfield Development

Agent: Harris Lamb

Density

As detailed in our response to policy HOU2, we are concerned that the density requirements identified are unrealistic. The emerging plan seeks to adopt a space standard policy which will increase dwelling sizes impacting upon density. It is not unusual, in our experience, for brownfield sites within the Black Country to have constraints that adversely affect density, such as mineshafts or due to their relationship to surrounding uses. In addition, Table 5.10 of the BCHMA, advises that 54% of the housing requirement should be delivered as three or more bedroom properties, with over 25% of the properties required as four bed plus. Larger dwellings take up more space. This will drive down the density that can be achieved.
It is, therefore, our view that the density policies are over ambitious and unrealistic, and the densities suggested will not be achieved. This in turn suggests that the capacity of the
allocations has been over estimated and housing delivery will be reduced accordingly.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we are concerned that the identified sources of supply will be incapable of meeting the housing requirement identified by the Plan. In addition, given the housing requirement should be a minimum there is clearly a distinct advantage in erring on the side of caution, and applying robust and realistic lapse rates to the various sources of supply as if additional housing does come forward this will be of no detriment to the Plan. However, a housing delivery shortfall has the potential to be extremely problematic, causing five-year housing land supply issues, failing the Housing Delivery Test and failing to provide much needed market and affordable housing within the Black Country for those that need it.

Comment

Representation ID: 23217

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Heyfield Development

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy CSP1 (2)

The second part of CSP1 sets out eight criteria which explain how the spatial strategy seeks to deliver this growth and sustainable patterns of development. Most of these are well




considered and accord with national policy. However, we do have comments on two of the criteria:

• 1st criteria – it remains to be seen whether the “majority” of development can be delivered in the urban area within the plan period. This is already marginal when the overspill is accounted for and with the issues raised above it could well be that this balances switches. This is important, because it helps contextualise the importance that greenfield sites will play if the development needs identified are going to be met.
• 4th criteria – HD agrees that very special circumstances exist to release sites from the Green Belt, and whilst there it is questionable whether the BCA have taken the opportunity to release an appropriate level of sites within its administrative area, it is evident that the numbers are so large that the BCA will need to continue to work with the adjoining authorities to deliver the development needs identified.

Comment

Representation ID: 23218

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Heyfield Development

Agent: Harris Lamb

Overspill

Notwithstanding the concerns about the capacity of the urban area in Black Country to deliver the development needs identified within the plan period and an additional capacity that might be identified in the Green Belt, it is evident that the overspill is going to be significant in terms of housing and employment land.

HD acknowledge that the BCP states this will be delivered through the duty to cooperate, however, at the draft plan stage we would have expected a clearer understanding on what this means and who is potential taking what in order to demonstrate the plan is positively prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Framework, which states:

“(a) Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs 21 ; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;” (our emphasis).

The evidence is clear that Birmingham and South Staffordshire have the strong functional and geographic relationship, but they Birmingham is not able to assist as it cannot meet its own needs. If the development needs are to be met in a location that relates to the Black Country, rather than the other side of the conurbation, South Staffordshire will have to take a significant proportion of the overspill.

South Staffordshire has agreed to test 4000 dwellings at this time, with employment land to be determined. By any measure, this is nowhere enough. This is not to take away from the positive working relationship between the BCAs and South Staffordshire, which in many ways is to be commended. Instead, this is a product of the vast numbers we are talking about.

HD, therefore, strongly encourages the BCAs to reopen these discussions with South
Staffordshire to see if additional capacity can be agreed.

HD is promoting a site immediately adjacent to Wall Heath in South Staffordshire. The site adjoins the Black Country on two sides. It is available and deliverable. This could add to the number of houses in South Staffordshire and HD will be submitting a vision document to South Staffordshire consultation later this year to demonstrate how this site could come forward.

Support

Representation ID: 23219

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Heyfield Development

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy CSP2 – The Strategic Centres and Core Growth Regeneration Areas

We generally support the objective of directing development to the Strategic Centres and Core Growth Regeneration Areas in the first instance and these being the focus for regeneration and investment. It is considered appropriate that new development should be directed to where it is most needed but also where it is best able to accommodate it in terms of accessibility and existence of facilities and services to serve new development. Locations such as these are considered suitable for higher density development, which will be biased toward a range of smaller units, where new residents would have the greatest access to commercial, cultural, leisure, entertainment and community facilities, as well as employment opportunities.

Notwithstanding the focus on Strategic Centres and the Core Growth Regeneration Areas we welcome the fact that the BCA acknowledge that most of its growth requirements cannot be met within these areas. That is not to undermine their role or the continued benefits that the regeneration of these areas will bring, but an acceptance that the development needs are now such that alternative sources of supply are needed if the development needs are going to be met.