Draft Black Country Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 23364

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: West Midlands CPRE

Agent: Gerald Kells

We note that while the figures given in the ABCA Urban Capacity Update seem broadly similar to the plan, they are set out in different ways, making it harder to make direct comparisons. Ensuring the link between the evidence base figures and the policies is clear is something that should we think be revised and made comparable before a Submission Draft (Regulation 19) version of the Plan is published.

Object

Representation ID: 23365

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: West Midlands CPRE

Agent: Gerald Kells

We also note as a general point that much of the evidence used by ABCA pre-dates the COVID Pandemic and, as is acknowledged in several of the reports, the impact of this, as well as the longer-term impact of other upheavals, particularly BREXIT, remains uncertain. Most immediately the Pandemic has hastened the move towards on-line shopping and more extensive home working practices. These changes will directly affect the need for land and premises and free up opportunities for new housing, particularly in town and city centres, something acknowledged in the Centres Study (Para 3.36) and, even more importantly, an underlining factor in the decision of the Government in December 2020 to direct its housing uplift to the twenty largest cities (one of which is Wolverhampton).
As the attached report explains, there is considerable scope for new land to come forwards for housing from redundant retail and employment land and there are a number of ways this could be accounted for in the Plan, by ringfencing the Wolverhampton uplift (if it continues) for new urban regeneration sites, by identifying additional land in urban centres, by reviewing the criteria on redundant employment land, or by including a significant allowance for larger windfalls, perhaps in line with historic delivery.

Object

Representation ID: 23366

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: West Midlands CPRE

Agent: Gerald Kells

The following key points are central to CPRE’s concerns:

1. The policy on Climate Change is inadequate. There should be a specific goal to reduce emissions with specific targets which should be linked to more sustainable location of development.
2. The level of the housing requirement stated is not justified; the Black Country Authorities should be amassing evidence to justify using more up to date figures.
3. The additional housing allocated to Wolverhampton as a result of the 16 December 2020 policy statement should not be included in the overall requirement but identified for additional brownfield sites.
4. There should be a higher allowance for windfalls, including larger windfalls in the plan.
5. While employment land should generally be protected this may also provide additional land. The BEAR analysis, which focuses on protecting employment land, also needs to take account of future trends.
6. The need for retail and office space in City and Town Centres and other Retail locations should be reviewed post-COVID. It may be that some managed contraction of retail space could create centres which are sustainable in the longer term, linked to new housing in centres.
7. The proposed loss of Green Belt should be reviewed. Many of the allocated sites, particularly the large number in Walsall, are in areas which have a high or very high impact on the Green Belt as well as impacts on the environment and on amenity.
The plan includes a large number of policies and we have not been able to comment on all of them in detail. This does not imply we agree with or disagree with other policies not mentioned.

Object

Representation ID: 23367

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: West Midlands CPRE

Agent: Gerald Kells

Policy CSP1

Housing Land
West Midlands CPRE object to the proposed level of housing in Para 1 (a). In particular, we do not consider the removal of land from the Green Belt on the scale proposed for 7,720 houses is justified. While there is a shortfall identified in the plan, the attached report (which we commissioned) on the Updated Urban Capacity Report casts doubt both on the need and supply side of the housing assessment, something we address in more detail in relation to Policy HOU1.
A policy which provided 40,117 houses in line with the capacities identified from other sources would perhaps be appropriate but would fail to account for the additional housing sources identified in that report as likely to come forwards, notably from windfalls (perhaps as many as 6,000 additional homes). In our view the potential for housing development on existing retail, leisure and employment sites which are underused, or likely to come on the market for redevelopment, is still not being adequately explored.
Moreover, the 35% uplift of housing in Wolverhampton was not intended to result in additional greenfield housing, as is made clear in the Government Statement of 16 Dec 2020, whether in the Black Country or in surrounding area, so the Plan should identify that housing (5130 units) as specifically to be met from additional brownfield land (a position being taken by Bradford Council, for example).

Employment Land
In terms of Employment Land, we generally support the allocations but have specific concerns about the Allocations at WAE 409 and 410, close to the Sandhills NGA, (which amount to some 14.33 hectares). These are two parcels of land where the impact on Green Belt is considered by LUC to be either Moderate-High or High, although they are bounded by roads and so have a defensible boundary.
Taking them out would reduce the total Employment Land allocated to 340 hectares in CSP1.
However, we would urge ABCA to review this amount. The BEAR Study appears to be biased towards retaining employment land. While this may be the right approach there may well be sites where the balance still favours change of use to housing, and/or where the sites will become available because demand is suppressed. On both these counts the total; figure of 355 hectares should be reviewed prior to submission of the Final Draft (Regulation 19 stage)Green Belt

We also object to Para 2 (a) and (d) of CSP1. We believe most, if not all, reasonable development should be accommodated within the Black Country conurbation itself, and only very limited Green Belt releases accepted. We do not support the proposal for ‘Neighbourhood Growth Areas’ (NGAs), which are in effect Urban Housing Extensions into the Green Belt. In many cases they are on sites which, in the LUC Green Belt Study are considered to have a high impact on the Green Belt.
We agree with Para 2 (e) which seeks to support the integrity of the West Midlands Green Belt. However, this policy wording assumes that the NGAs have already been removed, causing damage to the Green Belt as it is now.

Climate Change
We also support Para 2 (g). However, the plan lacks a clear policy to mitigate climate change and the location of development on sites such as the NGAs is not clearly tested against its impact on Climate Change. A policy is needed which specifically elucidates the target the Black Country has for Net Zero Carbon Emissions and how that will be achieved in terms of the spatial location of development.

Table 2 (Development Strategy)
We also, therefore, object to Table 2. We would remove the NGAs, and instead include housing identified from the sources of supply identified in our report, including larger wind- falls and additional town centre housing.
We would also reduce the overall total. We believe there is a strong case for the Black Country arguing to adopt the 2016-based ONS Projections which would amount to 55,993 dwellings in the Plan Period (60,059 if the 35% uplift for Wolverhampton is included). That 35% uplift should be specifically aimed at Urban Regeneration sites and would (in general terms) be equivalent to and so numerically replace the Neighbourhood Growth Areas.
As a result of such a calculation the potential overspill to be dealt with through any duty to cooperate arrangement would be reduced by approximately 15,000 to approximately 13,000.
Since there will be an opportunity to review the numbers prior to the Submission Draft stage, these approximate figures are a sound basis to review the provisional allocations and remove those allocations which impact on the countryside, undermine urban regeneration and would impact on the integrity of the Green Belt

Para 3.15-3.16 (Green Belt)
We object to Paragraph 3.15-3.16 of the Plan. This section of the Plan identifies the Green Belt assessment that has been undertaken and claims the impact of the chosen sites would ‘cause the least harm to the purposes of the Green Belt and to landscape character’.
However, the LUC Green Belt Study makes clear that many of the proposed development sites, particularly in Walsall are identified as having a High, even Very High impact on the role of the Green Belt. Most are also in sensitive locations at the edge of Urban Areas with a high impact on the amenity of the Public. A particular example is the open land adjacent to Walsall Arboretum. A fault of the LUC Green Belt Study is that its choice of settlements to include in its analysis specifically excludes small sites at smaller settlements such as Rushall and Pelsall, creating a bias in favour of sites adjacent to those areas next to large urban areas - which are the sites now included in Plan.
Moreover, Para 3.16 of the Plan refers to defensible Green Belt boundaries. This would normally mean a road or other development. Yet there are sites which are poorly defined in that way. The Sutton Road site, for example, has no boundary to stop development further between the canal and Longwood Lane, The Sandhills site has no clear boundary towards Lichfield. The Bushbury site is adjacent to open land.
[table identifying green belt sites and the assessment in the LUC report – can be viewed in attachment]

Para 3.20-3.27 (Duty to Cooperate)
CPRE objects to the approach to Duty to Cooperate. The Government has signaled that it will seek to abolish this mechanism but has not said what will replace it. However, even if it stays the text is misleading in our view. It refers in Para 3.20 to land in the Black Country being ‘finite’. In practice there is likely to be considerable change during the Plan period to the urban core freeing up land for different purposes.
Coupled with the questions we raise regarding to housing numbers, our view is that the genuine requirement for housing in other local authority areas to meet the Black Country’s needs is likely to be considerably lower than anticipated.
We are aware that several local planning authorities, notably South Staffordshire and Shropshire, have offered to include significant amounts of housing in their plans to accommodate Black Country growth as the table below shows (reproduced from ABCA evidence to the Solihull Plan Inquiry.)
[table including details of adjacent local plans – can be viewed in attachment]

In the case of Shropshire, the location remains unclear but is likely to be the M54 corridor which is poorly served by Public Transport and where large-scale housing is likely to exacerbate commuting into the conurbation, adding to congestion on the M54 and M6, and to carbon emissions.
In the case of South Staffordshire, the sites are near the conurbation but many have high environmental and Green Belt impact, for example the site at Little Penn. While these sites are outside the Black Country boundary, in many cases they will have similar effect to those within the conurbation.
CPRE Shropshire and CPRE Staffordshire are responding separately to those Local Plans.
Moreover, the assumptions about on-going shortfalls in both the Black Country and Birmingham seem to us flawed. In the case of Birmingham, the approved Local Plan (2014) seriously under-estimated windfall housing delivery, as shown by the actual level of windfall development since. It may well be the case that this is repeated in the Black Country, albeit from potentially different sources.
We certainly do not consider other local planning authorities, such as Solihull, should be required to contribute to a claimed Back County ‘unmet need’ when the data and assumptions and data base for on which the Black Country Plan is based have yet to be fully tested.

Object

Representation ID: 23368

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: West Midlands CPRE

Agent: Gerald Kells

Policy CSP2
In general terms CPRE supports the aspirations of Policy CSP2, and particularly the intention to deliver more homes in urban centres. However, the figures given in CSP2 for housing supply appear to us conservative. The Black Country Centres Study, which was based on evidence predating the pandemic, suggests a reduction in the requirement for Retail Space, both for Comparison and Convenience Shopping.
Para 3.36 identifies the need for a new mix of uses, underpinned by housing in centres. CPRE would urge ABCA to review its approach to centres, adopting realistic assumptions about retail need, and whether some managed contraction is required. If this is done in advance of the Regulation 19 Submission it would allow the soundness of the Plan to be tested and could yield additional much needed housing within urban centres as well as making them more viable in the long term.

Object

Representation ID: 23369

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: West Midlands CPRE

Agent: Gerald Kells

Policy CSP3
CPRE objects to the inclusion of the Neighbourhood Growth Areas (NGAs) in Policy CSP3 (b). They are identified as ‘highly’ sustainable. There is no definition of what highly sustainable means, nor can there be when there is no specific test to be applied to this term. In fact, their locations are in some cases in the least accessible areas of the Black Country.
Sandhills is at the very edge of the Black Country, as is the proposed Aldridge site. Accessibility by bus is limited because of their locations.

Comment

Representation ID: 23370

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: West Midlands CPRE

Agent: Gerald Kells

Policy GB1
We support the general policy wording in line with our comments on CSP3. We do not support the large-scale removal of land from Green Belt. Where Green Belt status is removed, a policy of creating physical features to define the boundary is welcome, but this may be difficult when those boundaries are not, themselves, well defined.
In as much as they be complimentary improvements to offset the impact of development are welcome the wording is vague as to how these will be achieved, whether at the site it- self or elsewhere. The risk is that such ambitions will fall foul of viability tests and little will actually be done to improve the Green Belt beyond the new site boundary.

Object

Representation ID: 23371

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: West Midlands CPRE

Agent: Gerald Kells

Policy GB2
This policy is welcome but should reference the importance of ‘openness’ and also the 5 Green Belt purposes

Object

Representation ID: 23372

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: West Midlands CPRE

Agent: Gerald Kells

Policy DEL2
CPRE supports this policy as it sets out how development on brownfield sites will be judged. However, the policy should be more positive in its approach to brownfield development.
The use of brownfield registers and other tools should be encouraged so that there is a positive encouragement of the use of redundant brown field sites.
As set out in our objection to CSP1, we consider there is considerable scope for further brownfield land to come forward and there is likely to be on-going change and regeneration both in the Black Country centres and in areas of renewal. The Plan needs to support this on-going change, not only to protect the countryside from incursion but to allow for renewal and to ensure the Black Country remains an attractive area to invest in

Object

Representation ID: 23373

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: West Midlands CPRE

Agent: Gerald Kells

Policy HOU1
We object to this policy in line with CSP1 and based on work we commissioned to examine housing need and supply as set out above. This would in our view remove the need for wide -scale and damaging allocations in the Green Belt and reduce the requirement to rely on Duty to Cooperate.