Draft Black Country Plan

Object

Representation ID: 44813

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Wolverhampton City Centre upper floor conversions

5.61 Being unallocated sites, the upper floor conversions source of supply comprises a windfall allowance.

5.62 The principle behind reliance on a significant windfall from ‘upper floor conversions’ in Wolverhampton presumably comes from the NPPF reference at paragraph 71 which states that any allowance can consider expected future trends.

5.63 Following consultation in December 2020, the Government proposed a number of amendments to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO) which have now been laid before Parliament in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) Order 2021. The changes include Class MA business and commercial to residential permitted development rights, which in practice provide permitted development (‘PD’) from Class E to Class C3 residential. The rights took effect from 1st August 2021.

5.64 There is no evidence to show what delivery has materialised from this source in previous years and there can be no up-to-date and reliable data to show the potential from this source as a result of the expansion of the above PD rights.

5.65 Paragraph 71 also states 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.

5.66 To this end, the NPPF clarifies that windfall allowances should be realistic, with regard had to the strategic housing land availability assessment and historic windfall delivery rates. There is no evidence in the SHLAA or any data on historic windfall delivery rates of this nature in the Black Country.

5.67 There is no compelling evidence currently provided that a windfall allowance of this nature will provide the supply claimed.

5.68 There are limitations on the scale, conditions to the rights (including that the building must be vacant for 3 months prior to application) and the take-up/market impacts of this change remain to be seen in practice.

5.69 If upper floor conversions are to form part of the Councils’ supply, then they should be considered a part of the windfall allowance, which is identified as a separate source.

5.70 We suggest removal of this source entirely (812 homes), as no compelling evidence has been provided to demonstrate that this will constitute a source of supply in the plan period, nor can possibly be available given the time elapsed since the relevant policy change has been in place. If evidence is provided that a realistically consistent source of windfall will arise from upper floor conversions, then they should be considered as part of the main windfall allowance.

Object

Representation ID: 44814

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Wolverhampton City Centre upper floor conversions

5.61 Being unallocated sites, the upper floor conversions source of supply comprises a windfall allowance.

5.62 The principle behind reliance on a significant windfall from ‘upper floor conversions’ in Wolverhampton presumably comes from the NPPF reference at paragraph 71 which states that any allowance can consider expected future trends.

5.63 Following consultation in December 2020, the Government proposed a number of amendments to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO) which have now been laid before Parliament in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) Order 2021. The changes include Class MA business and commercial to residential permitted development rights, which in practice provide permitted development (‘PD’) from Class E to Class C3 residential. The rights took effect from 1st August 2021.

5.64 There is no evidence to show what delivery has materialised from this source in previous years and there can be no up-to-date and reliable data to show the potential from this source as a result of the expansion of the above PD rights.

5.65 Paragraph 71 also states 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.

5.66 To this end, the NPPF clarifies that windfall allowances should be realistic, with regard had to the strategic housing land availability assessment and historic windfall delivery rates. There is no evidence in the SHLAA or any data on historic windfall delivery rates of this nature in the Black Country.

5.67 There is no compelling evidence currently provided that a windfall allowance of this nature will provide the supply claimed.

5.68 There are limitations on the scale, conditions to the rights (including that the building must be vacant for 3 months prior to application) and the take-up/market impacts of this change remain to be seen in practice.

5.69 If upper floor conversions are to form part of the Councils’ supply, then they should be considered a part of the windfall allowance, which is identified as a separate source.

5.70 We suggest removal of this source entirely (812 homes), as no compelling evidence has been provided to demonstrate that this will constitute a source of supply in the plan period, nor can possibly be available given the time elapsed since the relevant policy change has been in place. If evidence is provided that a realistically consistent source of windfall will arise from upper floor conversions, then they should be considered as part of the main windfall allowance.

Object

Representation ID: 44815

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

6.8 The Black Country authorities have evidently made a set of assumptions in relation to the housing capacity and deliverability of certain sources of supply, relied upon in the Draft BCP. This report has assessed the proposed sources of supply and identified significant concerns with the assumptions being relied on, with a clear absence of any up-to-date and robust evidence. In some areas the Councils’ assumptions are not rigorous enough, the evidence base is inadequate to draw out the conclusions being relied on, and in our opinion the justification provided falls short given the context and scale of the implications of misjudging the true amount of housing supply.

6.9 Setting realistic delivery assumptions, as required by the NPPF, is essential as planning harm arises when delivery does not come to fruition. This is evident in the Black Country, where there has been clear issues in delivering sites previously identified in the Black Country Core Strategy (BCCS). Despite this, the Councils seek to simply roll forward the approach taken in that previous plan, with little scrutiny or regard to the effectiveness (or not) of that strategy. This report highlights that:

• In relation to non-implementation of commitments, the Councils seek to lower the opposed discount rate based on entirely inadequate evidence, and we propose a reduction of 695 homes to this source in the plan period;

• The Councils rely on existing allocations from previous Plan documents, which are not subject to review through the BCP but have evidently struggled to come forward in the preceding decade. We therefore propose a reduction of 4,973 homes to this source in the plan period;

• The Councils rely on a significant amount of supply from currently occupied employment land, on which there is patently no reasonable prospect that development will come forward at the point envisaged considering the local delivery track record on employment sites, and the wider economic context. The Councils’ strategy on these sites may contradict the wider context in the NPPF which also seeks to ensure a sufficient supply of employment sites. We propose a reduction of 3,091 homes to this source in the plan period; and

• The Councils rely on a significant number of dwellings in Wolverhampton City Centre, where upper floor conversions of retail units are expected to come forward at a given rate. There is no compelling evidence to include this windfall allowance in the BCP supply, and we therefore suggest removal of the entirety of this source (812 homes) in the plan period.
6.10 Based on the above, we conclude that the Draft BCP exaggerates the housing supply that is likely to come forward from its identified sources, by almost 10,000 homes. Unless additional sites are identified, this could lead to the provision of only 38,266 homes over the plan period, or 2,014 dwellings per annum, which is barely half of the identified minimum need for housing in the Black Country. With this report showing that even delivering in line with the proposed requirement would have negative consequences for the area, it follows that these consequences would be even more pronounced if delivery were to be lower still.

6.11 In progressing the BCP, the Black Country authorities are encouraged to fundamentally reconsider the proposed approach to housing provision, adding to and scrutinising the identified supply with the aim of further boosting delivery and meeting housing needs in full.