Draft Black Country Plan

Object

Representation ID: 44963

Received: 09/03/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

2.0 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.
Response to the Draft Black Country Plan : Representations on behalf of Taylor Wimpey UK Limited
2.7 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 2.1 BCA Local Housing Need (April 2021)
Black Country Authority LHN (annual) LHN (19-year plan period)
Dudley 635 12,065
Sandwell 1,466 27,854
Walsall 869 16,511
Wolverhampton (incl. 35% urban uplift) 1,041 19,779
Total 4,011 76,209
Source: Lichfields analysis
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 2.2 Sites Allocated for Housing by Black Country Plan (Policy HOU1)
Site Ref Site Name and Address Indicative
Housing
Capacity
Gross
Site Area
(ha)
Net
developable
area (ha)
Net
Density
(dph)
Strategic
Allocation
WAH232 Yieldsfield Farm (sometimes
recorded as Yieldfields farm),
Stafford Road, Bloxwich
978 39.55 37.26 35 Policy WSA.4
Site Ref Site Name and Address Indicative
Housing
Capacity
Gross
Site Area
(ha)
Net
developable
area (ha)
Net
Density
(dph)
Strategic
Allocation
WAH234 Land between Queslett Road,
Doe Bank Lane and Aldridge
Road, Pheasey
1,426 42.27 42.27 45 Policy WSA8
WAH235 Home Farm, Sandhills, Walsall
Wood
1,417 54 54 35 Policy WSA1
Source: Black Country Plan
2.14 Whilst it is noted that the quantitative threshold qualifying a “significant extension” is illdefined,
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].
Figure 2.1 Comparison of GBBCHMA Unmet Housing Need Positions
Source: Lichfields’ analysis, based on GBBCHMA Position Statements
2,597
10,696
15150
28,150
37,900
37,900
37,900
37,900
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000
2020 Position Statement
2018 Update
2018 SGS (Inc. Densities)
2018 SGS
Dwellings
BDP Unmet Housing Need (2031) GBBCHMA Unmet Housing Needs (2031)
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:
Figure 2.2 Summary of Direct Contributions to GBBCHMA’s housing shortfall
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.
2.24 This 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 The 2017 land supply data in the 2018 Update suggested that the land supply had increased by 5,629 since the 2018 SGS.
However, the land supply figures are not quite directly comparable, as the 2018 Update removes the 5%-15% non-implementation
discounts on supply. Furthermore, it does not apply the 13,000 additional dwellings resulting from the increased densities.
2,500
4,500
4,410
2,000
4,000
2,720
500
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
Dwelling Contribution to GBBCHMA
Maximum Minimum
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.
Figure 2.3 Birmingham's Unmet Housing Needs up to 2031
Source: Lichfields' analysis
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
3 Black Country Plan, page 27
4 Black Country Plan, page 90
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 to
14,750 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 2.3 Direct and Indirect Contributions to Black Country’s housing shortfall
HMA Authority
Emerging Plan
Status
Date
Potential
Contribution
Attributed to Black
Country
South Staffordshire Preferred Options September 2021 4,0006 Unspecified
Cannock Chase Preferred Options March 2021 5007 Unspecified
Lichfield Pre-submission July 2021 2,665 2,0008
Shropshire Examination September 2021 1,500 1,5009
Stafford Issues and Options February 2020 Under review10 N/A
5 PPG ID: 61-031-20190315
6 Draft Policy DS3 of the South Staffordshire Local Plan Review Preferred Options (September 2021)
7 Draft Policy SO3.1 of the Cannock Chase District Local Plan Preferred Options (February 2021)
8 Paragraph 4.22 of the Lichfield District Local Plan 2040 Pre-Submission Publication (July 2021)
9 Paragraph 3.7 of the Regulation 19: Pre-Submission Draft Shropshire Local Plan (December 2020)
10 Paragraph 5.7 of the New Stafford Borough Local Plan 2020-2040 Issues and Options consultation (February 2020)
HMA Authority
Emerging Plan
Status
Date
Potential
Contribution
Attributed to Black
Country
Solihull Examination October 2021 2,10511 Unspecified
Telford and Wrekin Issues and Options September 2020 Under review12 N/A
Bromsgrove Issues and Options November 2019 Under review13 N/A
Redditch N/A N/A N/A N/A
North Warwickshire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tamworth Review March 2020 Unlikely14 N/A
Wyre Forest Main Modifications June 2021 None15 N/A
Stratford-on-Avon Scoping May 2021 Under review16 N/A
Total 10,770 3,500
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.”
11 Paragraph 228 of the Solihull Local Plan Draft Submission Plan (October 2020)
12 Paragraph 9.4.3 of the Review of Telford and Wrekin Local Plan Issues and Options Paper (September 2020)
13 Paragraph 4.2 of the Bromsgrove District Plan Review Update and Further Consultation (November 2019)
14 Page 7 of the Review of the Tamworth Borough Council Local Plan 2006-2031
15 Draft Policy 6A of the Wyre Forest Local Plan Review Submission Document (January 2020) contains an early review mechanism
to consider the need for contributions towards the HMA where clearly established
16 Page 13 of the South Warwickshire Local Plan Scoping and Call for Sites consultation (May 2021)
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 2.4 Sustainability Appraisal Housing Options (May 2021)
Option Description of Option
Option 1 ‘Do nothing’. Stick with the existing strategy ‘brownfield first’ and only focus development
within the urban area.
• 40,117 net homes in urban area.
Option 2 Stick with the existing strategy ‘brownfield first’ plus sustainable and deliverable Black
Country Green Belt release, totalling 47,837 homes.
• 40,117 net homes in urban area.
• 7,720 homes on land released from Black Country Green Belt and deliverable by 2039
and 1,715 homes on land released from Black Country Green Belt and deliverable after
2039.
Option 3 2020-39 housing requirement of 76,076 homes all located within the Black Country.
• 40,117 net homes in urban area.
• 35,959 homes on land released from Black Country Green Belt.
Option 4 2020-39 housing requirement of 76,076 homes plus 3,000 homes of Birmingham’s housing
shortfall, totalling 79,076, all located within the Black Country.
• 40,117 net homes in urban area.
• 38,959 homes on land released from Black Country Green Belt.
Option Description of Option
Option 5 2020-39 housing requirement of 76,076 homes within the Black Country and neighbouring
authorities
• 40,117 net homes in urban area.
• 7,720 homes on land released from Black Country Green Belt and deliverable by 2039,
and 1,715 homes on land released from Black Country Green Belt and deliverable after
2039.
• 28,239 homes exported through Duty to Cooperate.
Source: Sustainability Appraisal of the Black Country Plan (Lepus Consulting, July 2021) Table 3.1
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:
17 PPG ID: 11-019-20140306
18 PPG ID: 11-018-20140306
“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]
19 R (Friends of the Earth) v Welsh Ministers [2015] EWHC 776 (Admin)
20 Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council & Ors [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin) (21 April 2015)
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
21 ‘Green Belt review note’, Ref: EX39, December 2017
22 ‘Supplementary Conclusions and Advice’, Ref: EX272, June 2021
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: 44964

Received: 09/03/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

3.0 Policy CSP3 - Towns and Neighbourhood
Areas and the Green Belt
3.1 Taylor 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: 44965

Received: 09/03/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

4.0 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.

Comment

Representation ID: 44966

Received: 09/03/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

5.0 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]
23 ‘Green Belt review note’, Ref: EX39, December 2017
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.
5.11 However, 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
suitable for Green Belt release and should be allocated for residential development.
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.

Comment

Representation ID: 44967

Received: 09/03/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

7.0 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.
7.7 For the above reasons we consider that Parts 1 to 3 of Policy DEL3 should be deleted.
24 Black Country Plan Viability and Delivery Study (May 2021) , page 24

Comment

Representation ID: 44968

Received: 09/03/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

8.0 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
8.2 It is therefore considered that the text “and achieve affordable warmth” should be deleted from
the policy.

Object

Representation ID: 44969

Received: 09/03/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

9.0 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.

Object

Representation ID: 44970

Received: 09/03/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

10.0 Policy HW3 - Health Impact Assessments
10.1 The justification text to Policy HW3 states that policy provides for the individual Black Country
authorities to require Health Impact Assessments for development proposals, in line with locally
determined criteria, to be set out in local development documents.
10.2 Part 2 of the policy states that where a development has significant negative impacts on health
and wellbeing, the Council may require applicants to provide for mitigation.
10.3 As such impact assessments could be applicable to sites allocated in the BCP and may be needed
to inform infrastructure provision on these sites, Taylor Wimpey considers that these criteria
should be identified in the BCP rather than local development documents. This is the only way
to ensure that the soundness of the policy can be properly tested and assessed through the
viability work which accompanies the plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 44971

Received: 09/03/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

11.0 Policy HOU1 - Delivering Sustainable
Housing Growth
11.1 For the reasons set out in our response to Policy CSP1 Taylor Wimpey objects to Policy HOU1
which states that sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 47,837 net new homes over
the period 2020 – 2039.
11.2 Draft Policy HOU1 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.
11.3 The BCP has failed to provide sufficient land to meet the minimum housing needs, as per the
Framework §11(b), and it will need to ensure that additional housing land is provided through
further Green Belt release and the allocation of additional housing sites. In order to ensure that
the plan is sound is considered that the minimum housing target for each authority area needs
to be increased accordingly.
Housing Land Supply
11.4 In accordance with the Framework (§68 and §76) the BCP should ensure the availability of a
sufficient supply of deliverable and developable land to meet the housing needs, ensure the
maintenance of 5 Years Housing Land Supply (YHLS) and achieve Housing Delivery Test (HDT)
performance measurements.
11.5 Taylor Wimpey notes that the majority of housing growth (40,117 dwellings) will be located
within the existing built-up area. The use of brownfield sites has been optimised and BCA have
undertaken a densification of existing and new allocations. However, whilst 81% of supply is on
brownfield land and only 19% of supply is on greenfield land, there is limited information
available from which to assess the robustness of the BCA proposals for the densification of sites
in Strategic Centres (over 1,300 dwellings) and on new allocations, and densities may be overly
ambitious.
11.6 Table 3 of the Draft BCP suggests that the supply for the period 2022 to 2039 will include 4,973
dwellings on existing allocations in Strategic Centres. We note that these sites are not subject to
review in the BCP and there needs to be some assurance that these dwellings are deliverable
given that they have been allocated for some time. In this regard, we note the findings of the
BCP Viability Study (§7.7) which casts doubt over their deliverability:
“The viability assessment above has however found that development there is unviable, even
with zero developer contributions. Without grant support, therefore, it is likely that no housing
– either market or affordable – would be delivered in the Strategic Centres”.
11.7 The BCP proposes that a total of 7,720 dwellings will be allocated on sites removed from the
Green Belt, which are mainly located in the Neighbourhood Growth Areas and the remainder on
smaller sites on the edge of the Towns and Neighbourhoods Areas in the form of rounding-off or
through the redevelopment of previously developed land. Taylor Wimpey supports the release
of Green Belt land including that released to accommodate Strategic Allocation WSA.2.
However, additional Green Belt release is required for the reasons we have identified in these
representations.
11.8 Taylor Wimpey considers it is critical that an accurate assessment of availability, suitability,
deliverability, developability and viability is undertaken. The BCA assumptions on lead in times
and delivery rates should be correct and supported by parties responsible for the delivery of
housing on each individual site.
11.9 The Framework (§71) requires that where an allowance is to be made for windfall sites as part of
anticipated supply, there should be compelling evidence that they will provide a reliable source
of supply. The windfall allowance of 7,651 dwellings should be robustly evidenced and there
should be no double counting between windfall allowances, additional capacity and
Wolverhampton upper floor conversions.
11.10 The discounts of 5% for other commitments and existing allocations, 10% for other BCP
allocations, and 10% & 15% for occupied employment land should also be robustly evidenced.
11.11 Taylor Wimpey also considers that flexibility needs to be provided in the supply. At present, the
supply matches the housing requirement of 47,837 dwelling identified in the Draft BCP. There
is no headroom to account for slippage in anticipated delivery rates and additional flexibility
needs to be provided in order to ensure that sufficient housing land is provided. The allocation
of additional housing land, including Taylor Wimpey’s sites at Chester Road, Streetly and Clent
View Road, Stourbridge, would contribute to providing this flexibility. As the BCP is highly
dependent upon development in the existing built-up area (40,117 dwellings) and brownfield
sites (81% of HLS) and the BCP Viability Study confirms that 65% typologies tested are
marginally viable (27%) or unviable (38%), Taylor Wimpey considers that a significant flexibility
allowance is justified.
11.12 We are also concerned that insufficient detailed background information on each site has been
provided to allow delivery assumptions to be transparently assessed. The Framework (§74) is
clear that strategic policies should include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of housing
delivery over the plan period and all plans should consider whether it is appropriate to set out
the anticipated rate of development for specific sites.. The Housing Trajectories in Appendix 17
of the BCP show projected yearly completions but are not site specific. More detailed site
specific evidence should be provided in order that deliverability can be robustly assessed.
11.13 The Framework (§68) requires planning policies to identify specific, deliverable sites to provide
a 5 year housing land supply [5 YHLS]. A 5 YHLS Statement has not been provided by the BCA.
and if a 5 YHLS cannot be demonstrated on adoption of the BCP and maintained throughout the
plan period, the BCP should not be found sound. In addition, it is unclear whether the BCA are
wishing to demonstrate 5 YHLS via adoption of the BCP as set out in the Framework (para 74b).
Viability and Deliverability
11.14 Viability will be central to determining the soundness of the BCP. The BCP Viability Study tests
the cumulative impact of proposed policies on a representative sample of development site and
scheme typologies. It notes that viability and delivery advice in respect of a portfolio of Key
Large Sites is provided in a separate confidential report. Taylor Wimpey considers that this
information should be provided as part of the BCP evidence base in order that the cost applied
for such provision can be properly reviewed to ensure that it is sound.
11.15 The Viability Study concludes that of the total housing capacity tested 38% are assessed as
unviable and 27% are assessed as marginally viable based on the original target rates of
affordable housing contributions of 30% for greenfield sites and 25% for brownfield sites. In
accordance with the Framework (§34), the contributions expected from development including
the level & types of affordable housing provision required and other infrastructure for
education, health, transport, flood & water management, open space, digital communication,
etc. should be set out in the BCP , and development should not be subject to such a scale of
obligations that the deliverability of the BCP is threatened. If a robust approach is not
undertaken, the BCP will be unsound. Landowners and developers will have to submit sitespecific
assessments to challenge assumptions in the Black Country Viability & Delivery Study
and such negotiations at planning application stage causes uncertainty for both the BCA and
developers, which may result in significant delay to housing delivery or even non-delivery.
11.16 We have provided further commentary on viability issues in our representations to individual
policies in this report. Further commentary on the BCP Viability Study has been prepared by
Bruton Knowles on behalf of Taylor Wimpey and is attached at Appendix 5.
11.17 Before the pre-submission BCP consultation, further viability work should be undertaken to
address the concerns raised.
Part 4
11.18 Part 4 of the policy states that Masterplans and Supplementary Planning Documents will be
produced, where appropriate, to provide detailed guidance on the development of strategic
allocations. Taylor Wimpey considers that this guidance would best be provided in the BCP in
order to ensure that sites are genuinely deliverable and the viability implications of any
infrastructure provision etc. can be properly considered at examination prior to the adoption of
the plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 44972

Received: 09/03/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy HOU2 - Housing Density, Type and
Accessibility
Part (3) of policy HOU2 states that developments of ten homes or more should provide a range
Of house types and sizes that Will meet the accommodation needs Of both existing and future
residents, in line with the most recently available information. Taylor Wimpey considers that
the source of information should be confirmed in the policy (e.g. it should state that this will be
the latest version Of the SHMA if this is the case) so it is clear to developers What evidence they
need to consider in order to address policy requirements.
part (4) Of the policy sets out density requirements for new development based on different
accessibility standards and Part 5 of the policy states that Chapter 13 provides details of the
appropriate density and, where appropriate, house type mix, to be sought on each housing
allocation site. However, it's is not clear how the requirements of the policy and the density
requirements for allocated sites align. For example, Policy WSA.2 suggests that densities of at
least 35 dph will apply on the allocation but there is no equivalent density æquirement in Policy
HOU2. policy should be amended to clarify this matter.
Part 5 of the policy also states that further details of design requirements for housing
developments may be set out in Supplementary Planning Documents. If such a document is to
be produced, it is essential that it is prepared in parallel with the BCP so that any cost
implications can be properly viability tested in conjunction with other policy requirements to
ensure that it Will not have any detrimental impact upon scheme delivery