Draft Black Country Plan

Object

Representation ID: 44803

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: 44804

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Existing Allocations in Sandwell
5.31 The supply figures relied on from existing allocations in Sandwell are lower. The Strategic Centre in question is West Bromwich for which an AAP was adoptedin 2012. The evidence base was older than that, with Issues and Options in June 2006, Preferred Options in June 2008 and Changes to Preferred Options in January 2011.

5.32 The AAP should have delivered 201 homes before 2026, however it is difficult to identify specific numbers allocated as the adopted AAP is vague.

5.33 It is acknowledged that delivery may be slow in the AAP itself with paragraph 4.3 stating that some of the opportunity areas are considered to be more long term and in some instances will require other proposals to have come forward first before they can be delivered.

5.34 It is apparent that there are a number of allocations where delivery issues have come to light in the period since adoption of the AAP. The Lyng Industrial Estate, for example, was relied on for 300-430 homes, but Table 9 of SHLAA now assigns this site under the category “Sites allocated for housing but now considered not suitable / developable up to 2039”. The change arises from the viability and feasibility study commissioned which highlighted significant viability issues. In addition, the Eastern Gateway North site was identified for around 100 dwellings in the AAP and is now acknowledged in the SHLAA to have delivery issues relating to its occupation, the generally poor condition of the buildings and external environment and the fact that businesses would need relocating if the site was to come forward for residential development.

Object

Representation ID: 44805

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Existing Allocations in Sandwell
5.31 The supply figures relied on from existing allocations in Sandwell are lower. The Strategic Centre in question is West Bromwich for which an AAP was adoptedin 2012. The evidence base was older than that, with Issues and Options in June 2006, Preferred Options in June 2008 and Changes to Preferred Options in January 2011.

5.32 The AAP should have delivered 201 homes before 2026, however it is difficult to identify specific numbers allocated as the adopted AAP is vague.

5.33 It is acknowledged that delivery may be slow in the AAP itself with paragraph 4.3 stating that some of the opportunity areas are considered to be more long term and in some instances will require other proposals to have come forward first before they can be delivered.

5.34 It is apparent that there are a number of allocations where delivery issues have come to light in the period since adoption of the AAP. The Lyng Industrial Estate, for example, was relied on for 300-430 homes, but Table 9 of SHLAA now assigns this site under the category “Sites allocated for housing but now considered not suitable / developable up to 2039”. The change arises from the viability and feasibility study commissioned which highlighted significant viability issues. In addition, the Eastern Gateway North site was identified for around 100 dwellings in the AAP and is now acknowledged in the SHLAA to have delivery issues relating to its occupation, the generally poor condition of the buildings and external environment and the fact that businesses would need relocating if the site was to come forward for residential development.

Object

Representation ID: 44806

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Existing Allocations in Sandwell
5.31 The supply figures relied on from existing allocations in Sandwell are lower. The Strategic Centre in question is West Bromwich for which an AAP was adoptedin 2012. The evidence base was older than that, with Issues and Options in June 2006, Preferred Options in June 2008 and Changes to Preferred Options in January 2011.

5.32 The AAP should have delivered 201 homes before 2026, however it is difficult to identify specific numbers allocated as the adopted AAP is vague.

5.33 It is acknowledged that delivery may be slow in the AAP itself with paragraph 4.3 stating that some of the opportunity areas are considered to be more long term and in some instances will require other proposals to have come forward first before they can be delivered.

5.34 It is apparent that there are a number of allocations where delivery issues have come to light in the period since adoption of the AAP. The Lyng Industrial Estate, for example, was relied on for 300-430 homes, but Table 9 of SHLAA now assigns this site under the category “Sites allocated for housing but now considered not suitable / developable up to 2039”. The change arises from the viability and feasibility study commissioned which highlighted significant viability issues. In addition, the Eastern Gateway North site was identified for around 100 dwellings in the AAP and is now acknowledged in the SHLAA to have delivery issues relating to its occupation, the generally poor condition of the buildings and external environment and the fact that businesses would need relocating if the site was to come forward for residential development.

Comment

Representation ID: 44807

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Existing Allocations in Walsall
5.35 The Walsall Town Centre AAP (adopted in 2019) allocated the following sites for residential uses as shown on the Policies Map:

• TC11 Kirkpatricks, Charles Street; and

• TC15 FE Towe Ltd, Charles Street.
5.36 Both sites are industrial employment sites proposed to be redeveloped. The sites are now expected in the period ‘post 2025’ according to the 2020 SHLAA. This AAP was more recently adopted than some of the other AAPs, in 2019, and the Councils only appear to rely on 18 homes from this source in the Draft BCP

Comment

Representation ID: 44808

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Existing Allocations in Walsall
5.35 The Walsall Town Centre AAP (adopted in 2019) allocated the following sites for residential uses as shown on the Policies Map:

• TC11 Kirkpatricks, Charles Street; and

• TC15 FE Towe Ltd, Charles Street.
5.36 Both sites are industrial employment sites proposed to be redeveloped. The sites are now expected in the period ‘post 2025’ according to the 2020 SHLAA. This AAP was more recently adopted than some of the other AAPs, in 2019, and the Councils only appear to rely on 18 homes from this source in the Draft BCP

Comment

Representation ID: 44809

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Existing Allocations in Walsall
5.35 The Walsall Town Centre AAP (adopted in 2019) allocated the following sites for residential uses as shown on the Policies Map:

• TC11 Kirkpatricks, Charles Street; and

• TC15 FE Towe Ltd, Charles Street.
5.36 Both sites are industrial employment sites proposed to be redeveloped. The sites are now expected in the period ‘post 2025’ according to the 2020 SHLAA. This AAP was more recently adopted than some of the other AAPs, in 2019, and the Councils only appear to rely on 18 homes from this source in the Draft BCP

Object

Representation ID: 44810

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Conclusion on Existing Allocations
5.37 This source of supply (Existing Allocations in Strategic Centres not subject to review through the BCP) is relied on to deliver 4,973 homes between 2020 and 2039. The Councils claim that the application of a 15% discount rate to these sites is adequate to account for non-implementation.

5.38 There is significant doubt that the sites making up this source of supply are either deliverable or developable.

5.39 The sites are included in documents prepared in the context of the BCCS, and some are more than ten years old. There is a clear record of delivery issues with these allocations, with many of the Strategic Centre AAPs delivering significantly less than was originally anticipated.

5.40 They should not be relied on in the Draft BCP without investigation of site specific evidence through which it can be demonstrated that the sites are deliverable and developable, and thereby passing the NPPF tests. If site specific evidence is available to suggest the sites are deliverable or developable (which we do consider may exist for some sites), then they should be re-allocated through the Draft BCP, and fall into another source of the Councils’ supply.

5.41 We propose that beyond that no reliance should be placed on sites that have previously been allocated but have not come forward. If the allocations had come forward as planned, they would presumably be now counted as commitments

5.42 Furthermore, the Council’s own Viability and Delivery Study concludes that existing allocations in Strategic Centres are unviable.

5.43 As a result, without the necessary evidence base, it is necessary to remove the 4,973 homes, being the total quantum of homes relied on from this source in the plan period. It is nonetheless considered that some of this number could be offset through appropriate re-allocation, or identification of a specific existing allocation where up to date evidence is provided to confirm there is a reasonable prospect that they will be available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged.

5.44 Continued reliance on existing allocations where there is no realistic prospect they will come forward carries a risk of further compounding the pattern of delivery failure.

Object

Representation ID: 44811

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Proposed allocations on occupied employment land – discounted by 15%

5.45 The Councils rely on 3,091 homes in the plan period from this source. When considered against the NPPF tests, which emphasises ‘availability’ as a key tenet of being both developable and deliverable, these sites are unavailable as they are presently occupied by existing uses. There are particular risks with bringing forward occupied employment sites, in that they:
• have existing commercial value

• require business relocation

• are often in multiple ownerships without any form of collaboration agreement or equalisation

• have other commercial considerations (such as lease status)

• require land assembly

• will most likely require complex phases of remediation and new infrastructure

5.46 Whilst the Councils do highlight that investment may be forthcoming to assist land assembly and viability, specific evidence should be submitted for what sites this may affect. The allocation of occupied employment land for housing, in the context of the Councils’ own evidence base concluding that there is a gap (shortfall) of 140.3 ha against the demand requirement for employment sites in the Black Country area, casts doubt over whether there is a reasonable prospect that any of this source of supply is developable at all.

5.47 The Councils report, in the Urban Capacity Review, the following historic rates on occupied employment sites.

See attachment for Table 5.6: Homes Allocated and Delivered on Occupied Employment Land

5.48 The above demonstrates that of the occupied employment land allocated in the previous round of development plan documents associated to the BCCS, just 4.2% of the homes have been delivered.

5.49 It is acknowledged that there are additional permissions which have been granted (193 homes on 4.5ha of land in Dudley, and 510 homes on 23ha of land in Sandwell) but these do not substantially change the conclusion, and these sites remain undelivered.

5.50 The NPPF states that Local Plans must be aspirational but deliverable. We suggest that a precautionary approach to occupied employment sites as a source of supply must apply given the local track record of delivery, and due to the known constraints to delivery of these sites.
5.51 The precautionary principle should apply even more so, given the findings of the Councils’ evidence base and conclusions on employment land over the Draft BCP plan period.

5.52 The Councils apply a 15% discount rate to account for non-implementation, but it is considered that this does not go nearly far enough. The Councils state that the 15% non-implementation rate is supported by the GL Hearn Greater Birmingham HMA Strategic Growth Study (2018) which endorsed application of a 15% discount in the Black Country to:

“…take account of the significant proportion of the land supply which comprises employment sites where there are challenges associated with delivery related to assembling land, relocating existing occupiers, and development viability.”

5.53 Paragraph 4.123 of that report acknowledges that the discount is:

“…judgement-based and applied for the purposes of this report only and should not be considered to prejudge what allowance should be made for non-implementation in individual local plans or authorities’ land supply assessments, which can take account of locally-specific circumstances and evidence.”

5.54 It is clear then that the 15% discount was not intended to be relied on in Local Plan preparation, and does not assist in endorsing the Black Country authorities’ approach on this matter. It is still necessary for the Councils to prepare their own, authority specific, evidence to support their approach.

5.55 Dudley have undertaken a landowner engagement exercise in relation to assessing the availability of existing employment sites. The Dudley Employment Landowner Engagement Technical Report (August 2021) Appendix B sets out the responses to a direct land owner approach survey. There appears to be only two sites out of circa 45 sites documented where the owners have confirmed availability for the proposed use and the site has also been submitted into the SHLAA for housing availability.

5.56 For the significant majority of sites proposed in the Landowner Engagement Exercise Technical Report his document to be re-allocated for housing, the evidence suggests that no response was received from the landowner.

5.57 Evidence from only one of the four authorities covered by the BCP is insufficient to justify an approach with such strategic implications.

5.58 Given the Councils’ track record of delivery and the findings of their evidence base, the BCP should only include sites on occupied employment land that is known to be available, suitable and where some evidence is available of likely economic viability.

5.59 In reality this involves removal of all sites where there is any ambiguity around leases/current employment occupation etc.

5.60 This results in a reduction of the full 3,091 homes relied on from this source in the plan period, based on the Councils’ current limited and insufficient evidence base. However, it is suggested that some of this number could be offset through appropriate re-allocation, or identification as specific developable existing allocations where up to date evidence provided to confirm there is a reasonable prospect that they will be available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged.

Object

Representation ID: 44812

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Proposed allocations on occupied employment land – discounted by 15%

5.45 The Councils rely on 3,091 homes in the plan period from this source. When considered against the NPPF tests, which emphasises ‘availability’ as a key tenet of being both developable and deliverable, these sites are unavailable as they are presently occupied by existing uses. There are particular risks with bringing forward occupied employment sites, in that they:
• have existing commercial value

• require business relocation

• are often in multiple ownerships without any form of collaboration agreement or equalisation

• have other commercial considerations (such as lease status)

• require land assembly

• will most likely require complex phases of remediation and new infrastructure

5.46 Whilst the Councils do highlight that investment may be forthcoming to assist land assembly and viability, specific evidence should be submitted for what sites this may affect. The allocation of occupied employment land for housing, in the context of the Councils’ own evidence base concluding that there is a gap (shortfall) of 140.3 ha against the demand requirement for employment sites in the Black Country area, casts doubt over whether there is a reasonable prospect that any of this source of supply is developable at all.

5.47 The Councils report, in the Urban Capacity Review, the following historic rates on occupied employment sites.

See attachment for Table 5.6: Homes Allocated and Delivered on Occupied Employment Land

5.48 The above demonstrates that of the occupied employment land allocated in the previous round of development plan documents associated to the BCCS, just 4.2% of the homes have been delivered.

5.49 It is acknowledged that there are additional permissions which have been granted (193 homes on 4.5ha of land in Dudley, and 510 homes on 23ha of land in Sandwell) but these do not substantially change the conclusion, and these sites remain undelivered.

5.50 The NPPF states that Local Plans must be aspirational but deliverable. We suggest that a precautionary approach to occupied employment sites as a source of supply must apply given the local track record of delivery, and due to the known constraints to delivery of these sites.
5.51 The precautionary principle should apply even more so, given the findings of the Councils’ evidence base and conclusions on employment land over the Draft BCP plan period.

5.52 The Councils apply a 15% discount rate to account for non-implementation, but it is considered that this does not go nearly far enough. The Councils state that the 15% non-implementation rate is supported by the GL Hearn Greater Birmingham HMA Strategic Growth Study (2018) which endorsed application of a 15% discount in the Black Country to:

“…take account of the significant proportion of the land supply which comprises employment sites where there are challenges associated with delivery related to assembling land, relocating existing occupiers, and development viability.”

5.53 Paragraph 4.123 of that report acknowledges that the discount is:

“…judgement-based and applied for the purposes of this report only and should not be considered to prejudge what allowance should be made for non-implementation in individual local plans or authorities’ land supply assessments, which can take account of locally-specific circumstances and evidence.”

5.54 It is clear then that the 15% discount was not intended to be relied on in Local Plan preparation, and does not assist in endorsing the Black Country authorities’ approach on this matter. It is still necessary for the Councils to prepare their own, authority specific, evidence to support their approach.

5.55 Dudley have undertaken a landowner engagement exercise in relation to assessing the availability of existing employment sites. The Dudley Employment Landowner Engagement Technical Report (August 2021) Appendix B sets out the responses to a direct land owner approach survey. There appears to be only two sites out of circa 45 sites documented where the owners have confirmed availability for the proposed use and the site has also been submitted into the SHLAA for housing availability.

5.56 For the significant majority of sites proposed in the Landowner Engagement Exercise Technical Report his document to be re-allocated for housing, the evidence suggests that no response was received from the landowner.

5.57 Evidence from only one of the four authorities covered by the BCP is insufficient to justify an approach with such strategic implications.

5.58 Given the Councils’ track record of delivery and the findings of their evidence base, the BCP should only include sites on occupied employment land that is known to be available, suitable and where some evidence is available of likely economic viability.

5.59 In reality this involves removal of all sites where there is any ambiguity around leases/current employment occupation etc.

5.60 This results in a reduction of the full 3,091 homes relied on from this source in the plan period, based on the Councils’ current limited and insufficient evidence base. However, it is suggested that some of this number could be offset through appropriate re-allocation, or identification as specific developable existing allocations where up to date evidence provided to confirm there is a reasonable prospect that they will be available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged.