Draft Black Country Plan

Object

Representation ID: 22513

Received: 24/01/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Avison Young

Paragraph 3.57-3.59 Off site decentralised energy provision may be out of the control of landowners and have viability issues which the policy viability evidence has not considered. "Part 4 of the policy goes on to deal with proposals for on-site energy provision and the means by which this can be achieved. These provisions (parts a to j of the policy wording) are detailed, but not clearly justified"

Object

Representation ID: 22514

Received: 24/01/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Avison Young

Paragraph 4.3-4.17 The site assessment SA-0066-WAL is challenged in response of the assessment of harm to green belt purposes and the size of the parcel assessed for the Landscape assessment which includes 'high value' features for which would not be within the setting or can be mitigated for. The sustainable credentials of the site are also commented on and argued.

Object

Representation ID: 44914

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy CSP1 – Development Strategy

Housing Need

2.1 Part 1 of policy CSP1 proposes to deliver at least 47,837 net new homes and create sustainable mixed communities that are supported by adequate infrastructure. However, Taylor Wimpey notes that the Draft Plan indicates that the Black Country’s housing need between 2020 and 2039 is 76,076 dwellings and, having regard to the Urban Capacity Review Update and
proposed allocations in the Draft Plan (including Green Belt releases), there remains a shortfall of 28,239 homes to 2039.

2.2 The BCP has failed to provide sufficient land to meet the minimum housing needs, as per the Framework [§11(b)] and will need to ensure that additional housing land is provided through further Green Belt release. For this reason and the other reasons set out below, Taylor Wimpey objects to Policy CSP1 and considers that the Draft BCP is failing to deliver sufficient housing land to meet need and additional Green Belt release is required to allow for the allocation of additional housing sites.

2.3 Taylor Wimpey is part of a consortium of housebuilders and land promoters being represented by Turley. Turley has been instructed by the consortium to take stock of the position relating to housing need and land supply across the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area [GBBCHMA] in order to quantify the true scale of unmet need to 2031, and beyond, mindful that emerging local plans are seeking to deliver growth into the late 2030s or, in several cases, beyond 2040. A copy of the Turley report prepared on behalf of the consortium is attached at Appendix 4.

2.4 Notwithstanding the findings of the Turley Report, Lichfields on behalf of Taylor Wimpey has a number of specific concerns with regard to housing need and these are set out in detail below.

2.5 The BCA’s approach through CSP1 is flawed on several grounds, and these are set out as follows:
1 Local Housing Need and Plan Period: An incorrect local housing need figure is utilised, and an insufficient plan period is incorporated.
2 GBBCHMA Unmet Housing Need: The BCP fails to address the unmet housing need arising from the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA’).
3 Black Country Unmet Housing Need and Duty to Cooperate: The Duty to Cooperate has not been fulfilled and the unmet housing need identified has been deferred rather than dealt with, contrary to NPPF paragraph 35(c).
4 Sustainability Appraisal: The Sustainability Appraisal fails to take into account the reasonable alternatives for housing growth and therefore would not be justified as per NPPF paragraph 35(b).
5 Exceptional Circumstances and Green Belt Release: The BCP does not seek to identify, allocate and release a sufficient supply of land within the Green Belt for housing to meet its needs.

Local Housing Need and Plan Period
2.6 Draft Policy CSP1 is unsound as it utilises an incorrect local housing need figure and does not incorporate a sufficient plan period.
The BCP “sets a housing target for the Black Country of 47,837 new homes over the period
2020-39, compared to a local housing need for 76,076 homes, creating a shortfall of 28,239 homes” (paragraph 3.21) [Lichfields emphasis].

2.8 Though the BCA has not set out its methodology for calculating a local housing need figure of 76,076 dwellings over a 19-year plan period, the calculated figure is seemingly incorrect. Calculated using the standard method as of April 2o21, utilising household projections over 2021-2031 and affordability ratios for 2020, the local housing need figure should equate as follows: [Table in attachment]

2.9 The BCA will therefore need to revise its calculation underpinning the local housing need figure in order to reflect the most up-to-date data, and consequently seek to plan for a minimum of
4,011 dwellings per annum (‘dpa’) rather than 4,004 dpa.

2.10 As for the plan period, the BCA should firstly ensure that the period is explicitly expressed
within Draft Policy CSP1 to ensure its soundness in the context of the Framework §16(d), 22 and
35.

2.11 Secondly, although the 19-year plan period may exceed the minimum 15-year requirement, The Framework [§22] goes on to state:

“Where larger scale developments such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns form part of the strategy for the area, policies should be set within a vision that looks further ahead (at least 30 years), to take into account the likely timescale for delivery.” [Lichfields emphasis]

2.12 Whilst it is acknowledged that the publication of the 2021 Framework post-dates this consultation, and therefore the BCA has not had the opportunity to address its final contents, the BCP will need to employ a 30-year delivery trajectory as the development strategy comprises larger scale developments.

2.13 In this regard, the Framework [§22] defines larger-scale developments as including “new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns”, and thus whilst the Council has not opted to include new settlements within its preferred growth strategy, it has nonetheless included significant extensions to existing villages in towns:
[Table in attachment]

2.14 Whilst it is noted that the quantitative threshold qualifying a “significant extension” is ill- defined, the above allocations are all between 900-1,400 dwellings and would therefore likely fall within the scope of a significant extension. Consequently, the BCP should employ a 30-year delivery trajectory to align with NPPF paragraph 22.

GBBCHMA Unmet Housing Need

2.15 Draft Policy CSP1 is unsound as it fails to address the unmet housing need arising from the
Great Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA’).

2.16 The HMA overall situation has primarily been set out within:
•The Strategic Growth Study’ (‘the 2018 SGS’);
•The ‘Housing Need and Housing Land Supply Position Statement’ (September 2018) (‘the
2018 Update’); and
• ‘Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA) Housing Need and Housing Land Supply Position Statement’ (July 2020) (’the 2020 Position Statement’).

2.17 A summary of the concluded shortfall is shown below. The chart compares how the original unmet need identified in the original Birmingham Development Plan [BDP] has been gradually whittled down by successive supply reviews, driven by Birmingham City Council [BCC].
[Graph in attachment]
2.18 Each of these positions has featured very different land supply figures, generally reflecting either changing supply evidence or differing assumptions on densities2. Indeed, the latest position reflected BCC’s ‘Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 2019’ data, which concluded that completions over 2011 to 2019 had exceeded the requirement by c.1,374
dwellings and that the Council’s supply of land has increased by c.14,300.

2.19 Taking the 2020 Position Statement at face value suggests that this significant unmet need challenge has been met. However, the raft of position statements above all use an unmet housing need figure derived for the whole GBBCHMA (i.e. Birmingham and the Black Country) which has not been tested through the examination process and only includes the period to
2031.

2.20 Importantly, the need figure does also not take into account the potential need to consider any uplift to supply to meet matters such as the delivery of affordable housing or economic growth.

2.21 The GBBCHMA Position Statement published in July 2020, concluded that the 2011-2031 shortfall is now estimated to be 2,597, a fall of 13,728 since the Greater Birmingham Strategic Growth Study was published in 2018.

2.22 Appendix 2 of the 2020 Position Statement sets out the allocated and emerging contributions made by the GBBCHMA authorities, which it says totals between 18,130-20,130 dwellings:
[Graph in attachment]

2.23 This huge reduction in the identified GBBCHMA shortfall set out in the 2020 Position Statement has been calculated on the basis of BCC banking all the ‘commitments’ made by the GBBCHMA authorities to contribute towards the unmet need.

2.24This is despite there being no formal agreement between the authorities making up the GBBCHMA regarding the apportionment of this unmet need, and importantly, these ‘commitments’ not forming part of any adopted Local Plan that has been tested through the
examination process.

2.25 In this context, arguably, the only adopted and examined shortfall is that set out in BCC’s adopted Local Plan. Therefore, contributions ought to be considered against the adopted c.37,900 shortfall if considering the period to 2031.

2.26 Whilst Taylor Wimpey agrees that Birmingham City Council has markedly improved its housing land supply since establishing the level of unmet need in 2017, it is considered however that there remains a sub-regional housing land supply shortfall across the HMA.

2.27 This is because several of the ‘banked’ housing contributions have been reduced or have been earmarked to help meet the Black Country’s needs.

2.28 This is demonstrated through reference to the following local authority positions around unmet need contributions to date:

South Staffordshire – ‘Up to 4,000’

2.29 It is not clear how much of South Staffordshire District’s emerging c.4,000 dwelling contribution can realistically be said to be exclusively Birmingham’s, given that even the most cursory glance at a map shows that the District wraps around Wolverhampton, Stourbridge and to a lesser extent Walsall. It will obviously have a major role in meeting the Black Country’s emerging unmet needs up to 2039. Furthermore, there are no signed Statements of Common Ground [SoCG] or Memorandums of Understanding [MoU] agreeing to this contribution for Birmingham. At best, only a small part of this 4,000-dwelling contribution is likely to be meeting Birmingham’s unmet needs, with the bulk going towards the Black Country’s.

Lichfield – ‘4,500’

2.30 In the Lichfield District Local Plan 2040 Regulation 19 consultation, Lichfield City Council has already reduced its contribution from c.4,500 to c.2,665. The Plan sets out at paragraph 4.22 that; “Therefore, of the 2,665 homes to be made available to the housing market area to meet their need, a capped contribution of 2,000 is to be made for the Black Country authorities’ needs starting after 2027 to assist with their identified shortfall up to 2040”. The Council is therefore, apportioning 75% of this contribution to help meet the Black Country’s emerging unmet housing need and not those arising from BCC, reducing its contribution to Birmingham from 4,500 to 665 (paragraph 4.22).

North Warwickshire – ‘3,790 + 620’

2.31 North Warwickshire Local Plan has now passed its examination. The Examining Inspector’s Report notes that the Memoranda of Understanding between “NWBC and BCC and TBC acknowledge that the ‘discrete’ figure of 913 homes is subsumed within the overarching figure of 3,790” (IR127). In essence, only 2,877 dwellings are actually going towards meeting Birmingham’s unmet housing needs.

Stratford on Avon – ‘2,720’

2.32 The 2020 Position Statement states that this c.2,720 dwelling contribution arises from the Coventry and Warwickshire MoU, which estimated that c.50% of the Council’s c.5,440 dwellings, above its demographic need, could be apportioned 50/50 between the GBBCHMA and Coventry and Warwickshire HMA. However, this is completely at odds with the Inspector’s conclusions at the Core Strategy Examination and the purpose of Policy CS.16, which is to provide a mechanism to meet these needs. Indeed, the Inspector was clear that the “MoU has identified a figure but this is based on an incorrect assumption that everything over and above the demographic need is ‘surplus’ and available to meet the needs of others.” (IR62). In essence, only the 600 dwellings being brought forward through the emerging Site Allocations Plan would contribute towards Birmingham.

2.33 These above figures are presented in the diagram below. It should be noted that these figures are dependent on how much of South Staffordshire’s 4,000 dwelling contribution can be attributed towards Birmingham, which at this stage is unknown.
[Graph in attachment]

2.34 This demonstrates that based upon the stated positions of each of the identified authorities that there is a likely shortfall of between 11,479 and 15,479 dwellings up to 2031.

2.35 There are also of course two main elements to the GBBCHMA unmet need; that coming from Birmingham City; and that coming from the Black Country. For the avoidance of any doubt the position set out above does not include the Black Country shortfall.

2.36 The Position Statement, however, did also conclude that there will be significant shortfall past
2031, with the Black Country alone identifying its own shortfall of 28,239 dwellings.

2.37 The level of shortfall post 2031 will of course be subject to consideration through the future plan making process for the remaining HMA local authorities.

2.38 Whilst it is possible to speculate around a potential minimum level hosing need based upon the current Standard Methodology and assessment of the existing publicly stated housing land supply position, there is of course uncertainty, given that each of the HMA authorities (excluding North Warwickshire) have not yet seen their emerging Local Plans process through
EiP.

2.39 Further still, beyond 2031, there is likely to be a very considerable level of additional unmet housing need arising in Birmingham, as a result of the city being subject to the Government’s
35% urban uplift on its local housing need figure, whilst the LHN figure will rise still further when the standard method Local Plan ‘cap’ is removed in January 2022. BCC has also now decided that it needs to undertake a Development Plan Review following the decision of its Cabinet on 29 June 2021.

2.40 Conclusively, it is incumbent upon the BCA to address the unmet housing need arising from the GBBCHMA as a whole, to avoid exacerbating the already significant shortfall of between 11,479 and 15,479 dwellings up to 2031. Consequently, the shortfall is compounded by the BCA choosing to defer, rather the deal with, its own unmet housing need up to 2039. It is Taylor Wimpey’s view that in the context of the NPPF [§26] the Plan is not effective and there is significant uncertainty between strategic policy-making. The Plan is neither positively prepared nor justified.

Black Country Unmet Housing Need and Duty to Cooperate

2.41 Draft Policy CSP1 is unsound as the BCPs own identified unmet housing need has been deferred rather than dealt with, contrary to the Framework (§35(c)), and the Duty to Cooperate has not been fulfilled.

2.42 The BCP “sets a housing target for the Black Country of 47,837 new homes over the period
2020-39, compared to a local housing need for 76,076 homes, creating a shortfall of 28,239 homes” (§3.21) [Lichfields emphasis].

2.43 The Black Country Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021) summarised the various sources of housing land supply, comparing current supply with identified need, for the plan period 2020-39. It identified a housing shortfall of 36,819 dwellings in the plan period and concluded that exceptional circumstances had been met to trigger a Green Belt review.

2.44 Table 23 of the BCP sets out the scale and distribution of housing growth as proposed in the development strategy. Additionally, Table 34 confirms that a total of 17,732 dwellings are to be delivered through housing allocations in the BCP, comprising the following sources:
• Occupied Employment Land: 3,091
• Sites released from the Green Belt: 7,720
• Other (discounted by 10%): 6,921

2.45 It is unclear as to the actual source of land supply attributable to the reduction of the shortfall from 36,819 dwellings (as identified in the Urban Capacity Review Update) to 28,239 dwellings (as identified in the BCP), though it is inferred this is derived from sites released from the Green Belt in addition to other sources such as increased densities and/or employment land.

2.46 Notwithstanding, the BCA confirms at Table 2 that it intends to export the 28,239-dwelling shortfall elsewhere in the GBBCHMA through the Duty to Cooperate. Consequently, the BCA has published a Duty to Cooperate Statement (July 2021) setting out how it assumes the shortfall will be addressed elsewhere through the local plan reviews of counterpart HMA authorities.

2.47 Whilst the BCA considers it has “fulfilled the duty through the plan preparation process”, it nonetheless confirms that “it is intended to draft and agree Statements of Common Ground with relevant authorities and bodies on key duty to co-operate issues at the BCP’s publication stage” (§1.10). The BCP later sets out that “the current position is set out in the Draft Plan
Statement of Consultation and will be elaborated on in more detail in Statements of Common
Ground at Publication stage” (§3.24).

2.48 Firstly, in the absence of any signed statements of common ground (‘SoCG’), Taylor Wimpey strongly disagrees with the BCA’s assertion that it has fulfilled the duty at this this stage. The Framework (§35(c)) confirms that plans are sound if they are “based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground”.

2.49 The PPG5 confirms that the preparation of SoCGs with neighbouring authorities will contribute in demonstrating whether the duty has been met:

“How will the duty to cooperate be considered at local plan examination?

The local plan examination will first assess whether a local planning authority has complied with the duty to cooperate and other legal requirements. The Inspector will use all available evidence including statements of common ground, Authority Monitoring Reports, and other submitted evidence (such as the statement of compliance prescribed by Planning Inspectorate’s examination procedure guidance) to determine whether the duty has been satisfied.”
[Lichfields emphasis]

2.50 Until the BCA has published such SoCGs and additional evidence detailing the discussions that have taken place, the duty has not been fulfilled.

2.51 The absence of any SoCG at this stage reinforces the apparent issues between the BCA and its counterpart HMA authorities as it is clear there remains a number of areas of disagreement.

2.52 Secondly, as the provisional housing contributions from neighbouring authorities addresses only a limited proportion of the 28,239-dwelling shortfall, the BCP has not sought to maximise housing land supply in order to deal with the residual unmet need.

2.53 In terms of the current position in respect of contributions from neighbouring authorities, the BCA has published a Duty to Cooperate Statement (July 2021) which sets out the direct and indirect ‘offers’ from each authority and considers that potential contributions could total up to14,750 dwellings.

2.54 However, Taylor Wimpey considers this assumption wholly flawed and misleading on several grounds. Following a review of the direct and indirect contributions within emerging plans throughout the HMA, it is likely that a potential contribution will total between 3,500–10,770 dwellings:
[Table in attachment]

2.55 Given that the BCA recognises that the contributions from some authorities “would need to be attributed to meeting the needs of Birmingham” (§7.6), it is wholly inappropriate to ‘bank’ each total contribution as being attributed solely to the Black Country. This is the case for South Staffordshire, Cannock Chase and Solihull who have each not specified to whom their contributions are attributed.

2.56 Furthermore, some authorities such as Stafford Borough have not expressed a definitive commitment to even consider making a contribution to the HMA, particularly as it has concluded that “Stafford Borough comprises its own Housing Market Area (HMA) and that its Functioning Economic Market Area (FEMA) predominantly aligns with Stafford Borough’s administrative boundary”. Similarly, some authorities such as Telford and Wrekin have not yet defined an approximate figure which they have committed to testing through their local plan review.

2.57 Whilst it is recognised that both Stafford and Telford and Wrekin are at early stages of their local plan review, it is nonetheless unknown as to how the BCA has derived contributions of 2,000 and 3,700 dwellings respectively. As such, these should be removed from any assumptions made by the BCA at this stage as to the potential total contribution to the shortfall.

2.58 Notwithstanding, even as discussions with counterpart authorities progress as part of the BCP’s preparation, it is likely that a total contribution of between 3,500–10,770 dwellings represents, at best, a maximum figure. The emerging position therefore demonstrates that the BCA will fall substantially short of addressing the unmet need.

2.59 In this context, the Framework (§35(c)) requires that cross-boundary strategic matters are “dealt with rather than deferred” and, at this stage of the BCP plan-making process, it is fundamentally unclear how the residual shortfall up to 2039 will be met through the BCP, serving to highlight the onus on the BCA to reduce this shortfall. In this respect, the justification text for Draft Policy CSP1 states:

“The BCA recognise that this approach may only address a proportion of the housing and employment shortfall, as it is inappropriate and beyond the powers of the BCA to establish the limits of sustainable development in neighbouring authorities.”

2.60 Not only is this approach fundamentally flawed and entirely contrary to the requirement of The Framework, but it is completely misaligned with “the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes” (Framework §60).

2.61 In the knowledge that a large proportion of the unmet need will remain unaddressed, Draft Policy CSP1 would be unsound as the BCA are seeking to defer, rather than deal with, the issue of unmet housing need through the BCP. The BCA should therefore seek to ensure that the housing supply within its administrative areas is truly maximised prior to being exported to other areas.

2.62 This consequently points to the need for the BCA to identify an understanding of the functional relationship between itself and the HMA constituent authorities, and to assess the likely effect of jobs-based growth within the Black Country upon demand for new housing.

2.63 As set out later in these representations, the BCA will be required to identify and release additional land from the Green Belt for housing to meet its identified needs and the BCP should allocate land at Chester Road, Streetly and Clent View Road, Stourbridge for residential development.

Sustainability Appraisal

2.64 Draft Policy CSP1 is unsound as it fails to take into account the reasonable alternatives for housing growth and therefore would not be justified as per the Framework (§35(b)).

2.65 Chapter 3 of the ‘Sustainability Appraisal of the Black Country Plan’ (Lepus Consulting, July 2021) (‘the SA’) sets out the various housing growth options assessed in sustainability terms. Table 3.1 of the SA outlines the five housing options subjected to the appraisal, as replicated below.
[Table in attachment]

2.66 Although the BCP Preferred Approach (Chapter 3.5) does not actually confirm the BCA’s preferred housing growth option, the Executive Summary confirms that the BCP “proposes a strategy that is most closely aligned with Option 5” (page vii).

2.67 There is seemingly no rationale or justification for the five housing options appraised, other than that “the four authorities developed five housing number and five employment number options to be subject to sustainability appraisal” (paragraph 3.1.2). Notwithstanding, the BCA’s approach is flawed on two grounds.

2.68 Firstly, the preferred option, Option 5, is effectively a duplicate of Option 2 as both options incorporate a housing requirement of 47,837 dwellings within the BCP area boundary. In itself, Option 5 is somewhat disingenuous as it refers to a housing requirement of 76,076 dwellings whilst proposing 28,239 dwellings to be exported outside of the BCP area boundary.

2.69 In this respect, the PPG17 confirms that the reasonable alternatives are to be identified “taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan or programme”. Consequently, it is not within the remit or scope of the SA to appraise the sustainability credentials of exporting housing growth outside of the administrative area of the Black Country and the area boundary of the BCP.

2.70 This option should therefore be removed, and the SA be amended to clarify that the preferred growth option is indeed Option 2 and not Option 5.

2.71 Secondly, following removal of Option 5 as set out above, the growth alternatives essentially comprise four separate housing quantum options:
• Option 1: 40,117 dwellings;
• Option 2: 47,837 dwellings;
• Option 3: 76,076 dwellings;
• Option 4: 79,076 dwellings.

2.72 Fundamentally, the distinction between Options 1 & 2 and Options 3 & 4 are too broad and wide-ranging such that the sustainability implications of a mid-range growth option have been disregarded. By way of illustration, the proportional difference between Option 1 and 2 amounts to circa 19%, whilst the difference between Option 3 and 4 amounts to circa 4%.

2.73 However, the proportional difference between Option 2 and 3 amounts to circa 59%: this is clearly too significant of a distinction and therefore does not allow for the appraisal of an intermediate growth option and its associated sustainability implications. In this regard, the
PPG18 states:
“Reasonable alternatives are the different realistic options considered by the plan-maker in developing the policies in the plan. They need to be sufficiently distinct to highlight the different sustainability implications of each so that meaningful comparisons can be made.”

2.74 By omitting a mid-range growth option, for example an option within a range of between
50,000–70,000 dwellings, the BCA has artificially omitted a reasonable but realistic alternative which could potentially provide more positive and less negative sustainability impacts, whilst still meeting the objectives, than the preferred option.

2.75 In this respect, whilst R (Friends of the Earth) v Welsh Ministers [2015]19 confirms it is for the plan-making body to identify the reasonable alternatives, Hickinbottom J sets out:

“Article 5(1) refers to “reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives… of the plan or programme…” (emphasis added). “Reasonableness” in this context is informed by the objectives sought to be achieved. An option which does not achieve the objectives, even if it can properly be called an “alternative” to the preferred plan, is not a “reasonable alternative”. An option which will, or sensibly may, achieve the objectives is a “reasonable alternative”.” (§88)

2.76 Consequently, the SA as currently prepared is unsound as the BCA has failed to identify and test the sustainability implications of a growth option within a range of between 50,000–70,000 dwellings as a reasonable alternative. For this reason, Draft Policy CSP1 is unsound as it conflicts with the Framework §32 and §35(c).

Exceptional Circumstances and Green Belt Release

2.77 Draft Policy CSP1 is unsound as it does not seek to identify, allocate and release a sufficient supply of land within the Green Belt for housing.

2.78 Principally, Taylor Wimpey agrees with the BCA’s conclusion that exceptional circumstances exist to justify the redrawing of Green Belt boundaries around the urban edge to release land for development (BCP §3.15). In this context, Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council20 confirms that the acuteness and intensity of housing need constitutes a matter for consideration in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist.

2.79 However, Taylor Wimpey fundamentally disagrees with the BCA’s approach in assessing the
suitability of Green Belt land for development:

“The BCA have undertaken an extensive Green Belt and landscape sensitivity assessment to identify land that, if developed, would cause the least harm to the purposes of the Green Belt and to landscape character, is suitable and available for development and that could create long-term and defensible Green Belt boundaries. […]” (§3.16)

2.80 This approach is contrary to the Framework (§142) which states:
“When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. Strategic policy making 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. […]” [Lichfields emphasis]

2.81 The Framework §143(a) also confirms that when defining Green Belt boundaries, plans should “ensure consistency with the development plan’s strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development”.

2.82 Crucially, neither the Framework or PPG suggest that, once exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to justify Green Belt release, the approach to reviewing Green Belt boundaries should be solely dictated or informed by causing the least harm to the purposes of the Green Belt. Indeed, the objective of the Framework §142 and §143(a) seeks to promote sustainable development and, more specifically, land “which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport.” It follows that high-performing Green Belt areas
may indeed prove to be the most sustainable locations for housing, whilst low-performing Green
Belt areas may indeed be the least sustainable locations for housing.

2.83 It is therefore apparent that the BCA’s approach, in identifying land that “if developed, would cause the least harm to the purposes of the Green Belt”, is contrary to the objectives of the Framework and may well not seek to ensure the most sustainable strategy for the BCP. The BCA should not just be seeking to cause the least harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, but rather should identify locations within the Green Belt that, if developed for housing, would most contribute to sustainable development.

2.84 Furthermore, there are several shortcomings in the Black Country Green Belt Study: Stage 1 and 2 Report (Land Use Consultants, September 2019). In this regard, Taylor Wimpey wishes to draw upon the signficiant issues raised by the Inspector in the ongoing examination into the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan.

2.85 Submitted for examination in May 2017, the plan as submitted did not provide for a sufficient housing land supply to meet the Full Objectively Assessed Housing Need (‘FOAHN’). Following stages 1 and 2 of the hearing sessions, the Inspector issued a 'Green Belt review' note21 in December 2017 setting out its initial thoughts relating to the soundness of the plan in the context of the Green Belt Review findings:

“The Council has suggested that it is unable to meet its housing need because of Green Belt restrictions among other concerns. In my concluding remarks to the Hearing sessions into Strategic Matters, I pointed out that I did not consider the development strategy put forward in the plan to be sound, in part because there was insufficient justification for the failure to identify sufficient developable sites within the Green Belt. That is largely because the phase 1 Green Belt Review was at such a strategic level as to render its findings on the extent of the potential harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, caused by development within the large parcels considered as a whole, debatable when applied to smaller individual potential development sites adjacent to the urban areas. It goes without saying that a finer grained approach would better reveal the variations in how land performs against the purposes of the Green Belt. Such an approach is also more likely to reveal opportunities as well as localised constraints, both of which might reasonably be considered further.” (page 1) [Emphasis added]

2.86 Following conclusion of the examination hearings over three years, the Inspector raised fundamental issues relating to the soundness of the plan and, amongst other matters, requested the Council to provide additional sites to make up the supply of housing land to meet the FOAHN. The Inspector later published its ‘Supplementary Conclusions and Advice’ note22 in June 2021, setting out:
“14. The sites that passed the site selection process but were not submitted to the Examination,
appear to have been rejected primarily because the Land Use Consultants (LUC) stage 3 GB
study concluded that they would cause high or moderate/high harm to the GB and/or they would erode the green gaps between excluded villages. At the same time, the Council also resolved to no longer support a number of Regulation 19 sites that the LUC report had similarly concluded would cause high harm to the GB, including some that had already been examined and found to be potentially sound.

15. Whilst the harm to the GB’s purposes is certainly a significant consideration in the assessment of a site’s appropriateness for allocation, other than in locations that were specifically classified as “essential GB”, it is not a trump card. It is undoubtedly an important starting point for the assessment, but it is nevertheless only one of a number of factors that should be appropriately weighed in the exceptional circumstances’ consideration and then in the overall soundness balance. Whilst site selection should have regard to the extent of the harm to the GB, sustainability and accessibility factors, as well as other planning considerations, also warrant weight in this balance.

16. Site selection is a complex process, which needs to be undertaken in a consistent and transparent manner. There is no evidence to suggest that the Council followed such a process when considering which additional sites to place before the Examination. Indeed, not all land previously considered appropriate for development by the Council but also being assessed as causing high or moderate/high harm to the GB, if developed, was selected for removal from the plan. At best this suggests an inconsistent approach and a lack of objectivity. The
conclusions are not justified and thereby unsound.” [Lichfields emphasis]

2.87 In short, it is critical that the BCA avoids a similar fate to that experienced by Welwyn Hatfield.
The BCA should therefore seek to alter its approach in the Site Assessment and Selection Methodology (August 2021) and, consequently, seek to identify and allocate further land within the Green Belt for housing, particularly given the 28,239-dwelling shortfall identified in the BCP.

2.88 This is a fundamental issue of the BCP which, unless resolved at the Regulation 19 stage, will most likely lead to it being found unsound at examination. Additionally, it is an issue echoed by counterpart GBBCHMA authorities including South Staffordshire which, within its recent publication of the Local Plan Review Preferred Options (September 2021) consultation, sets out:
“[…] the Council will be working with the Birmingham and the Black Country authorities to ensure that housing supply within their administrative areas is truly maximised prior to being exported to other areas […]” (§4.11)

2.89 It will therefore prove critical that the BCA provides additional Green Belt land for housing not only to address the 28,239-dwelling shortfall, but also to fulfil the Duty to Cooperate by ensuring counterpart GBBCHMA authorities are satisfied the BCA has truly maximised its housing land supply.

2.90 Lastly, as the BCA has demonstrated that exceptional circumstances exist to justify Green Belt release, the BCP should seek to allocate a sufficient quantum of land for housing through this local plan review in order to avoid the need for a further Green Belt review through future local plan reviews. In this regard, the Framework §140 states:

“Strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries, having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so they can endure beyond the plan period.”

2.91 Given that the BCA has identified a 28,239-dwelling shortfall – which, as earlier identified, no more than around half of this will be met by neighbouring authorities through the Duty to Cooperate – and that the supply of land in urban areas has been maximised through the Urban Capacity Study (May 2021), the BCA will most likely be obliged to undertake a further Green Belt review following a future review of the BCP upon adoption. Consequently, the BCA should seek to maximise sufficient land through the current review to avoid such a scenario, as per the Framework (§140). The BCA should therefore identify land at Chester Road Streetly and land at Clent View Road, Stourbridge.

Part 2(d)

2.92 Part 2(d) of the policy seeks to deliver a limited number of Neighbourhood Growth Areas in highly sustainable locations on the edge of the Urban Area. Whilst Taylor Wimpey generally supports this approach we consider that the release of further land on the edge of the urban area is necessary in order to meet the massive housing shortfall of 28,239 homes that the Draft BCP is currently failing to accommodate and accommodate any additional need from the GBBCHMA.
This should include land at Chester Road, Streetly and Land at Clent View Road, Stourbridge.

Part 2(e)

2.93 Part 2(e) of the policy seeks to protect the openness, integrity and function of the Black Country’s designated and retained Green Belt by resisting inappropriate development. Whilst this aim is generally supported by Taylor Wimpey, for the reasons set out in these representations, we consider that further Green Belt release is required in order to meet housing need. The Framework is clear that when defining Green Belt boundaries plans should not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open. In this case, land at Chester Road, Streetly and Land at Clent View Road, Stourbridge should be allocated.

Comment

Representation ID: 44918

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy CSP3 - Towns and Neighbourhood
Areas and the Green Belt

3.1Taylor Wimpey strongly supports the Neighbourhood Growth Area that includes Strategic Allocation WSA.2 and will contribute to meeting the housing needs of the BCP.

3.2 However, for the reasons set out in these representations it is considered that additional housing land in sustainable locations on the edge of the urban area needs to be identified to meet housing need and this will require the release of additional Green Belt land. For the reasons set out in the previous sections of the report, the provision of 27,068 new homes is not justified as it fails to meet the minimum number of homes required. The figure should be significantly more.

3.3 In order to meet this need and support the delivery of sustainable development Taylor Wimpey considers that Land at Chester Road, Streetly and Land at Clent View Road Stourbridge should be released from the Green Belt and allocated for residential development. We provide further detail and the deliverability, sustainability and masterplan aspirations for these sites in these
representations.

Comment

Representation ID: 44919

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy CSP4 - Achieving well-designed places

4.1 The Framework [§127] requires plans to set out a clear design vision and expectations, so that applicants have as much certainty as possible about what is likely to be acceptable. Whilst policy CSP4 is generally supported, it is considered that some of the wording is vague in places and fails to provide clarity of what would be expected of developers. For example, it states that:

4.2 “Building designs will be sought that are appropriate to the Black Country...”

4.3 However, no further information is provided on what “appropriate” design would be. It also states:
“All development will be required to demonstrate a clear understanding of the historic character and local distinctiveness of its location and show how proposals make a positive contribution to Black Country place-making and environmental improvement”.

4.4 Again, no clarification is provided as to what “Black Country place-making and environmental
improvement” would constitute.

4.5 The policy would therefore benefit from further clarification either within the policy text itself or the justification text. The policy as drafted conflicts with the Framework §16 (d) as it is not evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals. Given the focus in national policy on creating beautiful and distinctive places with a consistent and high quality standard of design, and in accordance with the Framework [§128], it may be worthwhile for a design guide to be prepared as part of the BCP which reflects local character and design preferences and would provide more specific guidance to developers on design requirements. The policy requirements should be set out in sufficient detail to determine a planning
application without relying on, other criteria or guidelines set out in a separate SPD.

4.6 If such a document is to be produced, it is essential that this is prepared as part of the BCP so that any cost implications can be properly viability tested in conjunction with other policy requirements.

4.7 It is also considered that the policy should be reviewed against the requirements of the latest version of the Framework (July 2021) to ensure that it reflects the most up to date national policy in relation to matters such as the creation well- designed and beautiful places, and the contribution of trees to the urban environment.

4.8 Paragraph 3.58 of the justification text to the policy suggest that a contribution towards public art with thresholds for eligible development and the value of contributions will be set out in Local Development Documents. As this may have an impact upon the viability of schemes alongside other contributions, Taylor Wimpey considers that any justification for this contribution and thresholds and requirements for a contribution should be set out in the BCP itself, so that they can be properly tested though the viability assessment work informing the
plan.

Object

Representation ID: 44921

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy GB1 – The Black Country Green Belt

5.1 The justification to Policy GB1 states that exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to remove certain areas of land from the Black Country Green Belt to meet housing and employment land needs. For the reasons set out in our response to Policy CSP1, we agree that exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated in accordance with the Framework [§139-
§141] but it is essential that further Green Belt land is released and additional sites are allocated for residential development to meet development needs in sustainable locations.

5.2 We are also concerned with the approach taken to assessing the Green Belt in the Black Country Green Belt Study [BCGBS]. Having reviewed the BCGBS methodology, we are concerned that there are shortcomings in the BCGBS and this has resulted in the contribution of some sites to the Green Belt purposes being assessed as greater than they actually are.

5.3 In particular, we note that the findings of the Stage 1 assessment provide a strategic review of the contribution made by land to the Green Belt purposes. Given the strategic nature of the Stage 1 assessment, many of the parcels of land which are assessed are significant in size and the boundaries identified often extend to several different urban areas. The assessed contribution
of these parcels does not therefore necessarily reflect the contribution of smaller areas of land within the parcels.

5.4 In addition, we note that the findings of the Stage 1 Assessment have been carried through into the assessment of sub-parcels at Stage 2. We consider that the use of the findings as the starting point to assess the ‘Harm’ of smaller sub parcels results in the assessed harm being greater in some instances than it would be if the contribution of sub-parcels was assessed individually.

5.5 In addition, at Stage 2 of the Assessment process, the ‘Harm’ ratings applied are based on an assessment of sub-parcels rather than individual sites. They are not therefore considered to provide an accurate assessment on the contribution of individual sites as they are often larger in size and assessed using different boundaries.

5.6 In this regard, Taylor Wimpey wishes to draw upon the signficiant issues raised by the Inspector in the ongoing examination into the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan. Submitted for examination in May 2017, the plan as submitted did not provide for a sufficient housing land supply to meet the Full Objectively Assessed Housing Need [‘FOAHN’]. Following stages 1 and 2 of the hearing sessions, the Inspector issued a 'Green Belt review' note23 in December 2017 setting out their initial thoughts relating to the soundness of the plan in the context of the Green Belt Review findings:

“The Council has suggested that it is unable to meet its housing need because of Green Belt restrictions among other concerns. In my concluding remarks to the Hearing sessions into Strategic Matters, I pointed out that I did not consider the development strategy put forward in the plan to be sound, in part because there was insufficient justification for the failure to identify sufficient developable sites within the Green Belt. That is largely because the phase 1 Green Belt Review was at such a strategic level as to render its findings on the extent of the potential harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, caused by development within the large parcels considered as a whole, debatable when applied to smaller individual potential development sites adjacent to the urban areas. It goes without saying that a finer grained approach would better reveal the variations in how land performs against the purposes of the Green Belt. Such an approach is also more likely to reveal opportunities as well as localised constraints, both of which might reasonably be considered further.” (page 1) [Lichfields emphasis]

5.7 In order to ensure that the contribution of sites to the Green Belt is accurately assessed, Taylor Wimpey considers that a similar finer grained approach is appropriate in the case of the BCGBS.

5.8 We consider the findings of the BCGBS in the context of Taylor Wimpey’s land interests at Mob Lane, Chester Road and Clent View Road and provide more detailed commentary of this matter in the Green Belt Technical Report submitted with these representations. We have undertaken our own assessment of the contribution of each of these sites in isolation to the Green Belt purposes. For the reasons identified, when this more ‘fine grained’ approach is taken, the contribution of the sites is much less that when they are assessed as larger strategic parcels and sub-parcels in the BCGBS.

5.9 The assessment demonstrates that all three sites perform a limited Green Belt function and are suitable for removal from the Green Belt boundary and allocation for residential development.

Walsall Policies Map

5.10 With regard to the Policies Map for Walsall, Taylor Wimpey strongly supports the removal of the Mob Lan site from the Green Belt and the allocation of the site as part of Strategic Allocation WSA.2 (Land at Vicarage Road and Coronation Road, High Heath and land at Mob Lane, Pelsall). The Green Belt Technical report submitted alongside these representations, sets out
the reasons why the removal of the site from the Green Belt is wholly appropriate and will help to deliver much needed housing for the Plan area.

5.11However, Taylor Wimpey objects to the inclusion of land at Chester Road, Streetly within the Green Belt boundary. The contribution of the site to the purposes of the Green Belt is considered in detail in the Green Belt Technical Report submitted with these representations. For the reasons identified, we consider that the assessment of this part of the Green Belt in the Black Country Green Belt Study [BCGBS] is incorrect. We have provided a more detailed assessment of the contribution of the site in isolation and identify the reasons as to why the site is suitable for Green Belt release and should be allocated for residential development.

Dudley Policies Map

5.12 With regard to the Policies Map for Dudley, Taylor Wimpey objects to the inclusion of land at Clent View Road, Stourbridge within the Green Belt boundary. The assessment of this part of the Green Belt in the evidence supporting the Draft BCP is also considered to be incorrect. Our Technical Report considers this site in detail and identifies the reason as to why the site is

Part 2

5.13 Part 2 of the policy notes that

“For sites that are removed from the Black Country Green Belt and allocated to meet housing,
employment, or other needs through this Plan (as listed in Chapter 13):

a. the design of development will include physical features that define the new green belt boundary in a readily recognisable and permanent way; and

b. 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 the green belt, in accordance with national policy”.

5.14 Taylor Wimpey broadly supports these policy requirements. However, we request clarification on the mechanisms through which the authorities expect compensatory improvements to be delivered (e.g. through financial contributions, improvements on neighbouring land etc.) and would suggest that this information is provided in the policy. The BCP Viability Study (May 2021) indicates that a cost of £1,000 per unit has been included to account for Green Belt loss
mitigation and we also request clarification as to how this cost has been derived.

Object

Representation ID: 44925

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

6.1 Taylor Wimpey objects to Part 3 of Policy DEL1. Whilst the need to bring forward sufficient infrastructure to support new development is recognised, the proposed approach set out in the policy is considered to be flawed as it fails to clearly identify what the infrastructure requirements will be to deliver and fund the allocations.

6.2 The Financial Viability Assessment Report (May 2021) claims that it is a full viability assessment of the draft policies and proposed site allocations in the emerging Black Country Plan (BCP) (which will replace the Black Country Core Strategy (BCCS)). It states that the viability assessment is also sufficiently robust to be able to be used as the basis for a review of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) within each of the BCA areas with a view to future alignment (§1.6).

6.3 Part 3 of the policy states that:

“The BCA will set out in Development Plan Documents, Infrastructure Delivery Plans, Supplementary Planning Documents, and where appropriate, masterplans:
a. The infrastructure that is to be provided or supported;
b. The prioritisation of and resources for infrastructure provision;
c. The scale and form of obligation or levy to be applied to each type of infrastructure;
d. Guidance for integration with adjoining local authority areas;
e. The procedure for maintenance payments and charges for preparing agreements;
f. The defined circumstances and procedure for negotiation regarding infrastructure
provision”.

6.4 Taylor Wimpey considers that all of the above information and the associated costs need to be provided in the BCP at this stage. This is the only way to provide certainty on what is required and for the requirements to be tested through the viability evidence accompanying the plan to ensure that development within the plan area will be deliverable, in accordance with the Framework. It is also noted that a key requirement of the Framework [§11 a] requires that growth and infrastructure are aligned. As currently drafted the Plan fails to identify the infrastructure needed to deliver the plan and the funding mechanisms that will deliver them. This needs to be provided to ensure that the Plan can be found sound as it progresses. We are concerned that the CIL and any required financial contributions in combination could lead to developments being unviable. Certainty needs to be provided as to what will be provided through the Infrastructure Funding Statement so there is no double counting.

Comment

Representation ID: 44927

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy DEL3 - Promotion of Fibre to the
Premises and 5G Networks

7.1 Whilst Taylor Wimpey generally supports the delivery of high-speed broadband it considers that the BCP should not impose new electronic communications requirements beyond the provision of infrastructure as set out in statutory Building Regulations.

7.2 In the March 2020 Budget, the Government confirmed future legislation to ensure that new build homes are built with gigabit-capable broadband. The Government will amend Part R “Physical Infrastructure for High-Speed Electronic Communications Networks” of the Building Regulations to place obligations on housing developers to work with network operators to install gigabit broadband, where this can be done within a commercial cost cap. This will apply to all new builds. The inclusion of a policy in the BCP is not therefore necessary.

7.3 We also note that the delivery of broadband service connections is reliant on a third-party contractor over which a developer is unlikely to have any control and therefore cannot confirm availability at first occupation.

7.4 In addition, it is not clear what costs for the provision of this infrastructure have been factored into the BCP viability work.

7.5 With regard to this policy requirement the Viability and Delivery Study states24:

“Most developers will want to provide full fibre to the premises as it is increasingly considered an essential utility by house purchasers and/or commercial occupiers. The cost of utilities provision is included in our external works allowance”.

7.6 No detail is provided to confirm what cost has been factored in to cover this element of external works so it is not clear whether the cost applied is realistic.

Comment

Representation ID: 44928

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy HW1 - Health and Wellbeing

8.1 Policy HW1 is generally supported. However, it is considered that the aim of achieving “affordable warmth” in part (d) of the policy is vague and it is not clear what developers would need to do to meet this requirement. The policy as drafted conflicts with the Framework §16 (d) as it is not evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals

Comment

Representation ID: 44931

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy HW2 - Healthcare Infrastructure

9.1 Part 3 of Policy HW2 states that proposals for major residential developments which would have unacceptable impacts upon the capacity of these facilities, developers will be required to contribute to the provision or improvement of such services, in line with the requirements and calculation methods set out in local development documents.

9.2 Part 7 notes that for strategic sites, the likely requirement for on-site provision for new health facilities is set out in Chapter 13. In this regard we note that Policy WSA.2 suggests that a local health centre will be required on the allocation.

9.3 The justification text to Policy HW2 [§5.32] states that depending on the extent of other planning obligations required, such contributions may not be viable on some sites. This appears to be inconsistent with §4.21 of the Draft BCP which states that greenfield sites and most brownfield sites will be able to sustain the full range of planning obligations required.

9.4 As this policy requirement will affect allocations in the BCP and will be used to inform infrastructure provision on these sites, Taylor Wimpey considers that these requirements and calculation methods should be identified in the BCP. This is the only way to ensure that the requirements of the policy are transparent and justified and can be appropriately tested through
the viability work which accompanies the plan.