Draft Black Country Plan

Object

Representation ID: 44792

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

The relationship with the need for employment land and reliance on the SHLAA

4.16 The BCP evidence base26 concludes there is a gap (shortfall) of 140.3 ha against the demand requirement for employment sites in the Black Country area. The Councils state this will need to be addressed through ongoing Duty to Co-operate engagement with neighbouring local authorities.

4.17 There are a number of sources of the Councils’ housing land supply which are proposed on existing vacant or occupied employment land. The NPPF states that a sufficient supply of employment sites should be provided as well as housing. The NPPF is also clear at paragraph 81 that planning policies and decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. It states that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for
development. The approach taken should allow each area to build on its strengths, counter any weaknesses and address the challenges of the future.

4.18 In this way, the reliance on occupied employment sites to deliver housing instead directly contradicts the intention of national policy to support economic growth and productivity.

4.19 The NPPF requires there to be a realistic prospect that a site will be available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged. The fact that many sites in the Councils’ trajectory are likely to be in demand for employment land, given the shortfall of 140.3ha identified, increases doubt that they will be developed for housing at the point envisaged.

4.20 The NPPF also states at paragraph 68 that strategic policy-making authorities should have a clear understanding of the land available in their area through the preparation of a strategic housing land availability assessment. From this, planning policies should identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites, taking into account their availability, suitability and likely economic viability.

4.21 Having reviewed the four SHLAAs, which are a key source in determination of the urban capacity in the Black Country, we have concerns with the approach taken, and any plan making decisions based upon them. The SHLAAs state that:

“Only where a site has a realistically implementable permission for an alternative, non- housing use will it be removed from the list of SHLAA sites”

4.22 This does not account for the likely high number of sites which may have potential for alternative, non-housing uses, but that simply do not benefit from an implementable permission. It could be argued that based on the SHLAA conclusions, these sites are as much possible employment sites as they are housing sites.

4.23 If this is the approach taken to understanding the stock of available housing sites, it is vital that reasonable and realistic planning judgement is then applied when relying on their delivery to meet requirements in the plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 44793

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Considering the type and size of housing likely to be delivered

4.24 The NPPF requires planning polices to reflect the size, type and tenure of housing needed, and the BCHMA – as summarised in section 2 – identifies a prevailing need for larger homes that could require two thirds of all new homes over the plan period to be houses.

4.25 From review of the Councils’ evidence base supporting the Draft BCP, it is unclear if any assessment of the proposed sources of housing supply has been undertaken to ascertain whether this prevailing need for houses will be met. Draft Policy HOU2 (‘Housing Density, Type and Accessibility’) sets out generic requirements, stating that density and type of new housing provided on any site should be informed by the need for a range of types and sizes to accommodate local needs.

4.26 The Councils’ forward housing supply is heavily distorted and relies on previously developed land, with circa 85% of all supply coming from non-greenfield sources. This is reflected in draft Policy HOU2 which drives higher densities when certain criteria are met and the site is located within a Strategic Centre or Town Centre. The densities in draft Policy HOU2 are also increased from the previous policy context, with justification included in Section 2 of the Urban Capacity Study.

4.27 Given the Councils’ forward supply is so reliant on non-greenfield sources, where traditionally certain types and sizes of housing are more readily delivered due to factors such as viability and density, the Councils should closely consider whether the Draft BCP is clear or justified in the approach to supplying the size, type and tenure of housing needed, and what modifications should be made if it comes to light that the BCP is not meeting needs.

Object

Representation ID: 44795

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Current supply – 5% discount on commitment and sites under construction

5.2 The current supply source is broken down by source/phasing and local authority below.

See attachment for Table 5.1:BCP Current Supply by Period


See attachment for Table 5.2:BCP Current Supply by Local Authority


5.3 The Councils have adjusted the BCCS discount rate of 10% on sites under construction and which have planning permission, to a lesser rate of 5%. The stated justification for the change is based only on data from Wolverhampton City and is absent of data from the three other authorities. This is considered to be insufficient evidence to warrant a

significant change in approach which affects a large proportion of the Councils’ supply (12,638 homes under construction or sites with PP or PA).

5.4 Worse still, the data obtained from Wolverhampton City Council only covers a period from 2001 and 200427. The Council then assert that of the 1,246 homes granted permission in that period, 96% had been built out in the subsequent 17 years.

5.5 This does not constitute rigorous evidence to justify the significant change proposed. There is clearly a significant data gap here – the assessment period is very short, and from almost two decades ago, in a different policy context and market conditions. This data gap must be addressed before robust conclusions can be made on what the true level of non-implementation has been in the Black Country.

5.6 The Councils should provide evidence on what the non-implementation rates have been in all of the four Black Country authorities, across a practical period, preferably more up to date and comprehensive than considering planning applications granted only between 2001 and 2004. If this evidence is not forthcoming, the Councils should revert to at least the 10% non-implementation rate on sites under-construction.

5.7 The Councils’ supply from committed sites and those sites under construction, when a 10% non-implementation discount is applied, reverts to (13,270 - the full stock of permissions without a discount applied), 11,943 homes in the plan period, a reduction of 695 homes in the plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 44796

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Current supply – 10% discount on existing allocations

5.8 A total of 4,973 new homes are identified as being deliverable from this source of supply over the new plan period (2020-39) with the largest contributions to supply coming from Dudley (2,506 homes) and Wolverhampton (2,248 homes).

5.9 The ‘Existing Allocations’ included in this source of supply are stated by Table 4 in the Draft BCP as to be located in defined Strategic Centres.

5.10 As a result of being located in Strategic Centres, these sites are allocated in the subsequent Area Action Plans (AAPs) that were intended to deliver the strategic policies for those areas of the BCCS. As far as we can tell, there is no new evidence in relation to them in the Draft BCP. The sites are not, for example, listed individually in the Draft BCP but do appear in the SHLAA.

5.11 The evidence in relation to the deliverability of these sites is therefore included in the AAPs, within which (from our assessment) there is limited evidence of developer involvement or justification/explanation that the allocations were sound, developable or deliverable.

5.12 There are numerous examples in the supporting evidence base and documentation where it is acknowledged by the Councils themselves that there are possible constraints including land ownership, viability, need to relocate existing uses and remediation issues. This immediately casts doubt on whether the sites can be considered developable, which requires the sites to be in a suitable location for housing development with a reasonable prospect that they will be available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged.

5.13 The BCP Evidence Base includes a Viability and Delivery Study (May 2021), where at para 7.7 it is concluded that:

“The analysis also excludes housing development in Strategic Centres, given that the BCP will not allocate land in the Strategic Centres. No specific sites have been identified in those centres for the purposes of this assessment. 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. The viability assessment does not consider what level of grant would be required to make development viable in the centres - because each strategic centre scheme is likely to be unique, with its own set of challenges and subject to site-specific assessment.”

5.14 This is a critical finding when considering whether these sites can be relied on to be developed in the plan period.

5.15 Turley have analysed the status of existing allocations in the Councils’ evidence base and consider each authority area in turn below.

Object

Representation ID: 44797

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Current supply – 10% discount on existing allocations

5.8 A total of 4,973 new homes are identified as being deliverable from this source of supply over the new plan period (2020-39) with the largest contributions to supply coming from Dudley (2,506 homes) and Wolverhampton (2,248 homes).

5.9 The ‘Existing Allocations’ included in this source of supply are stated by Table 4 in the Draft BCP as to be located in defined Strategic Centres.

5.10 As a result of being located in Strategic Centres, these sites are allocated in the subsequent Area Action Plans (AAPs) that were intended to deliver the strategic policies for those areas of the BCCS. As far as we can tell, there is no new evidence in relation to them in the Draft BCP. The sites are not, for example, listed individually in the Draft BCP but do appear in the SHLAA.

5.11 The evidence in relation to the deliverability of these sites is therefore included in the AAPs, within which (from our assessment) there is limited evidence of developer involvement or justification/explanation that the allocations were sound, developable or deliverable.

5.12 There are numerous examples in the supporting evidence base and documentation where it is acknowledged by the Councils themselves that there are possible constraints including land ownership, viability, need to relocate existing uses and remediation issues. This immediately casts doubt on whether the sites can be considered developable, which requires the sites to be in a suitable location for housing development with a reasonable prospect that they will be available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged.

5.13 The BCP Evidence Base includes a Viability and Delivery Study (May 2021), where at para 7.7 it is concluded that:

“The analysis also excludes housing development in Strategic Centres, given that the BCP will not allocate land in the Strategic Centres. No specific sites have been identified in those centres for the purposes of this assessment. 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. The viability assessment does not consider what level of grant would be required to make development viable in the centres - because each strategic centre scheme is likely to be unique, with its own set of challenges and subject to site-specific assessment.”

5.14 This is a critical finding when considering whether these sites can be relied on to be developed in the plan period.

5.15 Turley have analysed the status of existing allocations in the Councils’ evidence base and consider each authority area in turn below.

Object

Representation ID: 44798

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Existing Allocations in Dudley
5.16 The Strategic Centre for Dudley is Brierley Hill. In 2011 the Brierley Hill Area Action Plan was examined and adopted (the AAP sets out the details of the sites to deliver the level of housing growth set by the BCCS 2011). The vision for the area in that Plan was that development would have delivered more than 3,200 new homes by 2026.

5.17 Over 26 sites are listed in the AAP as delivering residential uses in the period, the AAP was adopted in 2011 and so the evidence base for these sites is considered dated.

5.18 There is an Appendix 3 of the Dudley AAP (Implementation Framework) which shows the investment needed to regenerate the area, including identifying funding gaps and possible issues relocating existing uses. Even at the time of allocating these sites it was acknowledged that significant investment would be needed to bring them forward.

5.19 Within the AAP, at Appendix 4, set out the anticipated trajectory for delivery at the time of adoption.

See attachment for Table 5.3: Projected Net Dwelling Completions in Dudley AAP

5.20 This delivery has not materialised. The Dudley AMR (2020-2021) explains that the results from this year’s monitoring is ‘consistent with previous years’; i.e ‘limited development has yet taken place within the Brierley Hill APP Plan Area’.
5.21 The only development recorded as progressing in the last monitoring year was the redevelopment of the Canal Street Site (DOB H11) for 65 new affordable dwellings which has now completed, with 33 dwellings completed in this monitoring year and 11 residential units as part of an office conversion (see page 37 of AMR).

5.22 The evidence base suggests that 291 homes (net) have been delivered in the area since 2011. This is less than was anticipated to be delivered in the first five years following the adoption of the AAP (369 were anticipated 2011-2016).

5.23 It is understood that other sites have been granted planning permission, such as Oak Court with 78 approved residential units (ref. P18/1105/PN30 and P19/0830), however completions have not been forthcoming.

5.24 The following table sets out completions against the BCCS requirement in Brierley Hill Strategic Centre and shows that just 10.4% of the requirement has been delivered, with a 2,632 home shortfall.

See attachment for Table 5.4: Brierley Hill Net Completions

5.25 The lack of the delivery in the Strategic Location of Brierley Hill is a factor in the under delivery of Dudley as a whole against the adopted CS requirement, as is shown in Table
5.5 below.

See attachment for Table 5.5: Brierley Hill Completions against target

5.26 The Draft BCP does not provide an up to date assessment of the deliverability of Existing Allocations in Strategic Centres. They appear to have simply been re-included in the Councils’ supply without due scrutiny. The Councils also continue to include AAP sites in their assessment of five year housing land supply.

5.27 When reviewing the Council’s housing land supply and the sites from the AAP area (page 31 of the 2020 SHLAA) it is clear that there is no up to date evidence to demonstrate that these sites can be relied upon. The evidence for inclusion in the land supply table is described as ‘Yield determined through AAP evidence’. This is relying on evidence that was prepared to support a plan that was adopted over a decade ago, where there has been clear and present deliverability issues.

Object

Representation ID: 44799

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Existing Allocations in Dudley
5.16 The Strategic Centre for Dudley is Brierley Hill. In 2011 the Brierley Hill Area Action Plan was examined and adopted (the AAP sets out the details of the sites to deliver the level of housing growth set by the BCCS 2011). The vision for the area in that Plan was that development would have delivered more than 3,200 new homes by 2026.

5.17 Over 26 sites are listed in the AAP as delivering residential uses in the period, the AAP was adopted in 2011 and so the evidence base for these sites is considered dated.

5.18 There is an Appendix 3 of the Dudley AAP (Implementation Framework) which shows the investment needed to regenerate the area, including identifying funding gaps and possible issues relocating existing uses. Even at the time of allocating these sites it was acknowledged that significant investment would be needed to bring them forward.

5.19 Within the AAP, at Appendix 4, set out the anticipated trajectory for delivery at the time of adoption.

See attachment for Table 5.3: Projected Net Dwelling Completions in Dudley AAP

5.20 This delivery has not materialised. The Dudley AMR (2020-2021) explains that the results from this year’s monitoring is ‘consistent with previous years’; i.e ‘limited development has yet taken place within the Brierley Hill APP Plan Area’.
5.21 The only development recorded as progressing in the last monitoring year was the redevelopment of the Canal Street Site (DOB H11) for 65 new affordable dwellings which has now completed, with 33 dwellings completed in this monitoring year and 11 residential units as part of an office conversion (see page 37 of AMR).

5.22 The evidence base suggests that 291 homes (net) have been delivered in the area since 2011. This is less than was anticipated to be delivered in the first five years following the adoption of the AAP (369 were anticipated 2011-2016).

5.23 It is understood that other sites have been granted planning permission, such as Oak Court with 78 approved residential units (ref. P18/1105/PN30 and P19/0830), however completions have not been forthcoming.

5.24 The following table sets out completions against the BCCS requirement in Brierley Hill Strategic Centre and shows that just 10.4% of the requirement has been delivered, with a 2,632 home shortfall.

See attachment for Table 5.4: Brierley Hill Net Completions

5.25 The lack of the delivery in the Strategic Location of Brierley Hill is a factor in the under delivery of Dudley as a whole against the adopted CS requirement, as is shown in Table
5.5 below.

See attachment for Table 5.5: Brierley Hill Completions against target

5.26 The Draft BCP does not provide an up to date assessment of the deliverability of Existing Allocations in Strategic Centres. They appear to have simply been re-included in the Councils’ supply without due scrutiny. The Councils also continue to include AAP sites in their assessment of five year housing land supply.

5.27 When reviewing the Council’s housing land supply and the sites from the AAP area (page 31 of the 2020 SHLAA) it is clear that there is no up to date evidence to demonstrate that these sites can be relied upon. The evidence for inclusion in the land supply table is described as ‘Yield determined through AAP evidence’. This is relying on evidence that was prepared to support a plan that was adopted over a decade ago, where there has been clear and present deliverability issues.

Object

Representation ID: 44800

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Existing Allocations in Dudley
5.16 The Strategic Centre for Dudley is Brierley Hill. In 2011 the Brierley Hill Area Action Plan was examined and adopted (the AAP sets out the details of the sites to deliver the level of housing growth set by the BCCS 2011). The vision for the area in that Plan was that development would have delivered more than 3,200 new homes by 2026.

5.17 Over 26 sites are listed in the AAP as delivering residential uses in the period, the AAP was adopted in 2011 and so the evidence base for these sites is considered dated.

5.18 There is an Appendix 3 of the Dudley AAP (Implementation Framework) which shows the investment needed to regenerate the area, including identifying funding gaps and possible issues relocating existing uses. Even at the time of allocating these sites it was acknowledged that significant investment would be needed to bring them forward.

5.19 Within the AAP, at Appendix 4, set out the anticipated trajectory for delivery at the time of adoption.

See attachment for Table 5.3: Projected Net Dwelling Completions in Dudley AAP

5.20 This delivery has not materialised. The Dudley AMR (2020-2021) explains that the results from this year’s monitoring is ‘consistent with previous years’; i.e ‘limited development has yet taken place within the Brierley Hill APP Plan Area’.
5.21 The only development recorded as progressing in the last monitoring year was the redevelopment of the Canal Street Site (DOB H11) for 65 new affordable dwellings which has now completed, with 33 dwellings completed in this monitoring year and 11 residential units as part of an office conversion (see page 37 of AMR).

5.22 The evidence base suggests that 291 homes (net) have been delivered in the area since 2011. This is less than was anticipated to be delivered in the first five years following the adoption of the AAP (369 were anticipated 2011-2016).

5.23 It is understood that other sites have been granted planning permission, such as Oak Court with 78 approved residential units (ref. P18/1105/PN30 and P19/0830), however completions have not been forthcoming.

5.24 The following table sets out completions against the BCCS requirement in Brierley Hill Strategic Centre and shows that just 10.4% of the requirement has been delivered, with a 2,632 home shortfall.

See attachment for Table 5.4: Brierley Hill Net Completions

5.25 The lack of the delivery in the Strategic Location of Brierley Hill is a factor in the under delivery of Dudley as a whole against the adopted CS requirement, as is shown in Table
5.5 below.

See attachment for Table 5.5: Brierley Hill Completions against target

5.26 The Draft BCP does not provide an up to date assessment of the deliverability of Existing Allocations in Strategic Centres. They appear to have simply been re-included in the Councils’ supply without due scrutiny. The Councils also continue to include AAP sites in their assessment of five year housing land supply.

5.27 When reviewing the Council’s housing land supply and the sites from the AAP area (page 31 of the 2020 SHLAA) it is clear that there is no up to date evidence to demonstrate that these sites can be relied upon. The evidence for inclusion in the land supply table is described as ‘Yield determined through AAP evidence’. This is relying on evidence that was prepared to support a plan that was adopted over a decade ago, where there has been clear and present deliverability issues.

Object

Representation ID: 44801

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Existing Allocations in Wolverhampton
5.28 As with Dudley, the 2,248 homes due to deliver in the Strategic Centre in Wolverhampton (which is the City Centre) are identified in an Area Action Plan, the latest version of which was adopted in 2016. The aim was for 2,043 homes to be delivered by 2026, with 475 of these by 2021.

5.29 In this case, the AAP does not even explicitly identify all the sites it relies on to deliver these homes. The Core Strategy targets for the AAP area include 2,130 commitments and 1,100 unidentified sites in the City Centre, and 560 homes on employment land to the south of the City Centre.

5.30 At the time of AAP adoption (2016) there had been 470 homes completed in the City Centre and there were 163 homes on committed sites, according the latest SHLAA (2020) there are still 163 commitments to be delivered by 2021. The latest Wolverhampton SHLAA (2020) states that there had been 948 completions in the City Centre between 2006 and 2019. Although the documentation is not explicit, it appears that delivery has fallen behind what was expected and relied on.

Object

Representation ID: 44802

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Existing Allocations in Wolverhampton
5.28 As with Dudley, the 2,248 homes due to deliver in the Strategic Centre in Wolverhampton (which is the City Centre) are identified in an Area Action Plan, the latest version of which was adopted in 2016. The aim was for 2,043 homes to be delivered by 2026, with 475 of these by 2021.

5.29 In this case, the AAP does not even explicitly identify all the sites it relies on to deliver these homes. The Core Strategy targets for the AAP area include 2,130 commitments and 1,100 unidentified sites in the City Centre, and 560 homes on employment land to the south of the City Centre.

5.30 At the time of AAP adoption (2016) there had been 470 homes completed in the City Centre and there were 163 homes on committed sites, according the latest SHLAA (2020) there are still 163 commitments to be delivered by 2021. The latest Wolverhampton SHLAA (2020) states that there had been 948 completions in the City Centre between 2006 and 2019. Although the documentation is not explicit, it appears that delivery has fallen behind what was expected and relied on.