Draft Black Country Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 13453

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

Due to the size restriction for accepting emails this representation has been split in to 6 documents sent in 5 emails as follows:

Email Documents
1 1 and 2 of 6 (Forms, Main Representation and Vision Document)
2 3 of 6 (Development Options Document 2021)
3 4 of 6 (LVIA)
4 5 of 6 (LVIA Addendum 2021)
5 6 of 6 (Landscape Sensitivity Review)

These representations are made by Cerda Planning on behalf of Bloor Homes Midlands in relation to a site at Stencils Farm.

1. Executive Summary
1.1. The Black Country Plan fails to deliver anywhere close to its identified housing need,
with a reliance on neighbouring authorities to deliver homes that are needed now within
the Black Country. The reliance on such an approach without a firm commitment from
all of the neighbouring authorities is not considered to be a sound approach to plan
making. Especially when sites such as Stencils Farm are available within the plan area
without any significant constraints to development.
1.2. There are clear errors in the evidence which underpins the plan, in particular within the
individual Site Assessments which themselves justify the proposed housing allocations.
These errors and inconsistency in the application of evidence in the assessments is a
significant and fundamental flaw of the plan.
1.3. The Stencils Farm site is not subject to any ‘Gateway Constraints’ that would prevent its
development. The harms attributed to the site within the evidence are misleadingly
overstated and there are no substantive reasons for the site not to be allocated for
development. The allocation of Stencils Farm site would enable the Black Country
Authorities to reduce its housing delivery deficit and move closer to meeting its critical
need for new homes without any demonstrable negative impacts.

Comment

Representation ID: 23328

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Bloor Homes

POLICY HOU2- HOUSING DENSITY, TYPE AND ACCESSIBILITY

Proposed Policy HOU2 requires all developments of 10 or more dwellings to achieve a minimum density of 100 dwellings per hectare in a Strategic Centre or Town Centre; 45 dwellings per hectare where accessibility standards for high density housing are met and 40 dwellings per hectare where accessibility standards for moderate density housing are met except where this would prejudice historic character and local distinctiveness.

BHL welcomes that the proposed policy allows a degree of flexibility and sets out a range of densities that reflect the accessibility and potential of different areas, rather than one broad density range. However, BHL consider that when setting density requirements, BCA should ensure that they have taken into account all of their policy aspirations to ascertain that they are achievable
in practice. For example, BCA should ensure that the proposed set density requirements are attainable for developers when also considering the proposed sett requirements for M4(2) and M4(3) properties (proposed Policy HO3) when they have greater land take; and the proposed design requirements as stated in proposed Policy ENV9 etc.

Comment

Representation ID: 23329

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Bloor Homes

POLICY HO3- DELIVERING AFFORDABLE, WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE AND SELF-BUILD/CUSTOM BUILDING HOUSING
Affordable Housing
Proposed Policy HOU3 sets out the Black Country Authorities (‘BCA’) requirements in relation to the
proportion of affordable housing. The minimum poportion of affordable housing that should be provided is 10% on all sites in lower value zones and brownfield sites in medium value zones; 20% on greenfield sites in medium value zones; and 30% on all sites in higher value zones. The tenure and type of affordable homes sought will be determined on a site by site basis, based on national planning policy and best available information regarding local housing needs, site surroundings and viability considerations.

BHL recognise the importance of providing an appropriate mix and amount of affordable housing as
part of meeting BCA’s identified housing needs, and in particular recognise the significance of meeting the housing needs of specific groups within society in accordance with NPPF paragraph 61. Although BHL supports BCA’s differentiated approach, it is noted that the proposed percentages are in excess of the recommendations of the Black Country Viability and Delivery Study. Further clarification on this is requested.

Additionally, in accordance with paragraph 16(d) of NPPF 2021, policies should be unambiguous and
clearly written, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals. BHL considers that the type and tenure of affordable housing sought is ambiguous: BCA should provide further clarification of its requirements which should be justified by supporting evidence.

Notwithstanding the above points, the requirements in relation to affordable housing delivery and mix, will need to be tested alongside the other policy requirement set out in the plan through a full Viability Assessment that should seek to ensure that the total cumulative cost of all relevant policies will not undermine deliverability of the plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 23330

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Bloor Homes

BHL recognise the importance of providing an appropriate mix and amount of affordable housing as
part of meeting BCA’s identified housing needs, and in particular recognise the significance of meeting the housing needs of specific groups within society in accordance with NPPF paragraph 61. Although BHL supports BCA’s differentiated approach, it is noted that the proposed percentages are in excess of the recommendations of the Black Country Viability and Delivery Study. Further clarification on this is requested.

Additionally, in accordance with paragraph 16(d) of NPPF 2021, policies should be unambiguous and
clearly written, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals. BHL considers that the type and tenure of affordable housing sought is ambiguous: BCA should provide further clarification of its requirements which should be justified by supporting evidence.

Notwithstanding the above points, the requirements in relation to affordable housing delivery and mix, will need to be tested alongside the other policy requirement set out in the plan through a full Viability Assessment that should seek to ensure that the total cumulative cost of all relevant policies will not undermine deliverability of the plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 23331

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Wheelchair Accessible Housing
Proposed Policy HOU3 requires that all developments of 10 or more dwellings should provide a proportion of wheelchair accessible housing, where this is financially viable. The minimum proportion that should be provided is 20% of dwellings to meet M4(2) on all brownfield sites and on greenfield sites in lower value zones; and 15% of dwellings to meet M4(3) and all remaining dwellings to meet M4(2) on greenfield sites in medium or higher value zones. Other than reasons of financial viability, these requirements will only be reduced where it is not practically achievable given the site’s physical characteristics; site specific factors meaning that step-free access cannot be achieved; and dwellings
that are located on the first floor or above of a non-lift serviced multi-storey development.

Whilst BHL support the provision of high-quality, well-designed and accessible housing as an integral part of housing development to meet the area’s identified housing needs, the inclusion of requirements for M4(2) and M4(3) standard dwellings within Local Plans must be robustly justified with credible evidence. BHL considers that upon review of the Black Country SHMA (2021), the evidence does not justify BCA’s proposed policy approach in relation to M4(2) and M4(3) properties. The SHMA does not demonstrate that the needs of the Black Country differ substantially to those
across the West Midlands or England.

Furthermore, BHL wish to emphasise that M4(2) and M4(3) dwellings are currently ‘optional standards’. Indeed, if the Government had intended that the evidence of an ageing population alone justified the adoption of optional standards, this would be mandatory in the Building Regulations. BHL consider that if BCA wish to impose a policy requirement for accessible and adaptable
dwellings, this should be done in accordance with paragraph 130(f) of the NPPF 2021 and Footnote 49
of the latest iteration of the NPPG. Footnote 49 states "that planning policies for housing should make use of the Government’s optional technical standards for accessible and adaptable housing where this would
address an identified need for such properties”.
Moreover, BHL has concerns that the provision of a substantial level of M4(2) and M4(3) dwellings,
particularly in development sites that deliver earlier on in the plan period, will result in such units being occupied by those who do not require housing of this kind, or will remain empty until an end user is identified. It is BHL’s position that the requirement for M4(2) and M4(3) should be based on the specific demand for housing of that kind at the time of an application’s determination. The provision of specialist housing of this nature may also make it difficult to achieve the BCA’s yield and density aspirations for allocated and windfall housing sites.

Object

Representation ID: 23332

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Self build/custom build housing
Policy HOU3 states that on developments of 100 or more dwellings, where there is currently a need for self-build and custom build plots identified in the relevant LPA register, at least 5% plots should be made available for self-build or custom build, or sufficient to match the current number of the register if lower. Any plots that have not been sold after 12 months of appropriate
marketing will revert to the developer to build. BHL object to the inclusion of this part of the policy. In accordance with paragraph 62 of the NPPF 2021 and under The Self and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016), the responsibility for keeping a self-build and custom housebuilding register falls to “relevant authorities” i.e. District Councils, County Councils, in order to support development opportunities for self-build and custom housebuilding by increasing awareness among landowners, builders and developers of the level and nature of the demand for self-build and custom
housebuilding in the local area. BHL wish to emphasise that there is currently no legislative or national policy basis for imposing an obligation on landowners or developers to set aside 5% of plots on sites of more than 100 dwellings. BHL considers that it is the responsibility of the BCA, not landowners and developers, to ensure sufficient permissions are given to meet demand. BHL also seek further clarification on the justification of the identified threshold.

Additionally, as stated in the NPPG, the self-build register only needs to include the name and address of the association/lead contact and the number of serviced plots of land in the relevant authority’s area the association are seeking to acquire: no information is requested on the financial resources for each association. Therefore, BHL consider that the demand of the 153 individuals on the BCA register could in fact be an expression of interest rather than actual demand.

Moreover, in addition to increasing the complexity of an already complicated construction process, BHL consider that it is extremely unlikely that self and custom build serviced plots on new housing developments of over 100 dwellings will appeal to those wishing to build their own home. BHL consider that BCA should include an alternative policy to allocate small parcels of land
specifically for self-build and custom housebuilding. Further clarification is also requested on the ambiguous term of “appropriate marketing”.

Object

Representation ID: 23333

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Proposed Policy DEL3 requires all developments of 10 or more dwellings to deliver Fibre to the Premises (‘FTTP’) capacity/infrastructure to all individual properties. This requirement will only be reduced where it can be clearly demonstrated that it is not practical or viable. When FTTP is demonstrated as being undeliverable, non-Next Generation Access technologies which provide speeds in excess of 30MB per second should be provided. Proposals should be supported by an FTTP Statement that details how FTTP will be provided to serve the development prior to first occupation.

BHL recognises the importance of new residential developments having the appropriate infrastructure
to facilitate access to high-speed broadband connections. However, BHL wish to point out that the
Government has already confirmed that future legislation will ensure that new build homes are built with gigabit-capable broadband and will amend Part R of the Building Regulations to place obligations on housing developers to work with networks to install gigabit broadband within a commercial cost cap. BHL consider that this policy is unnecessary and objects to its inclusion in the BCP as it seeks to impose new electronic communication requirements beyond the provision of infrastructure set out in Statutory Building Regulations.

Comment

Representation ID: 23334

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Proposed Policy TRAN8 seeks to ensure that new developments include adequate provision for charging
infrastructure. Whilst BHL supports the scope of Policy TRAN8 and recognises the importance of a low carbon future, BHL are aware that the Government is seeking to introduce a new requirement for EVCP’s under Part S of the Building Regulations, which will inevitably supersede BCA’s policy approach.

Moreover, BHL requests an explanation on what is meant by “adequate provision”. In accordance with NPPF paragraph 16d, a policy should be “clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals”. If this policy is to be included in the BCP, it needs to modified to ensure that it is measurable to ensure consistency between planning applications and allow developers to take into account the implication of the requirement on scheme
viability.

Comment

Representation ID: 23335

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Proposed Policy ENV9 states that Local Housing Design Supplementary Planning Documents (‘SPDs’) and the Building for a Healthy Life criteria will be used to demonstrate a commitment to achieve the highest possible design standards, good place-making and sustainable development.

BHL is committed to providing high quality and well-designed housing developments which is demonstrated by our 5-star rating; our award-winning developments; and our consistently high customer satisfaction rating and therefore supports BCA’s ambition to achieve the highest possible standards in terms of design and sustainable development. However, it is BHL’s interpretation that Building for a Healthy Life was never intended to become a mandatory policy requirement in Local Plans and was rather, best practice guidance to assist local authorities, communities and developers to assess new housing schemes. BHL considers that the use of Building for a Healthy Life should remain
voluntary rather than becoming a policy requirement.

In relation to SPD’s being used to demonstrate high design standards, BHL considers that it is clear in the legislation (The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012) that Development Management Polices, which are intended to guide the determination for planning permission should be set out in policy and in accordance with paragraph 16d of the NPPF 2021, should be clearly written and unambiguous. BHL requests that requirements on design quality should be set out in sufficient detail in the BCP without relying on other criteria or guidelines set out in an SPD, which has not been subject to examination. Indeed, national policy clearly states that an SPD cannot introduce new planning policies nor add unnecessarily to the financial
burdens of a development. BHL are aware of recent High Court judgements that have ascertained that
policies which have a cost implication on development proposals cannot be deferred to a Supplementary Planning Document or similar document.

Policy ENV9 also requires all new residential development to meet the Nationally Described Space
Standards (NDSS) to all tenures, except where it can be clearly evidenced that the implementation of NDSS would cause harm to the significance of a heritage asset.

As aforementioned, BHL are committed to provide well-designed and high quality developments. BHL considers that by BCA pursuing a blanket and inflexible approach to NDSS, this could impact affordability and customer choice. BHL believe that there can still be well-designed dwellings that provide a good functional home that are below NDSS. When reviewing the NPPF 2021 and the NPPG, it is clear that polices should only make use of the NDSS where the need for internal space is
justified (footnote 49) and local authorities should take account of the areas need, viability and timing.

Additionally, to be in accordance with paragraph 31 of the NPPF 2021, all policies should be underpinned by relevant and updated evidence. BHL has not seen any evidence produced by the BCA that provides a local assessment justifying this blanket policy approach to NDSS and so cannot support the inclusion of this policy. BHL consider that the BCA should focus on good design and usable space to ensure dwellings are fit for purpose rather than focussing on NDSS specifically. BHL is of the understanding that if it was the Government’s intention to make NDSS mandatory, NDSS would have been incorporated into Building Regulations, which is currently not the case.

Comment

Representation ID: 23336

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Proposed Policy ENV3 requires all development to deliver a minimum 10% net gain in biodiversity value when measured against baseline site information. BHL are aware of the Government’s proposals on biodiversity net gain as set out in the Environment Bill. This legislation (when passed through parliament) contains a general duty to enhance biodiversity which will apply to the planning system by insertion of a new section 90A within the Town Country Planning Act 1990. The new section 90A will make it a requirement for development in England to be required to ensure the biodiversity attributable to the development exceeds the
predevelopment value by 10%. This must be measured using a recognised biodiversity metric i.e. DEFRA’s Biodiversity Metric 3.0 that was introduced in July 2021. BHL agree with the Government, that the figure of 10% strikes the right balance in providing certainty in achieving environmental outcomes whilst not prohibiting the deliverability of development. Therefore, BHL consider that the BCA should not deviate from the Government’s proposals and should not specify a requirement above 10%. BHL request that the words “a minimum” are deleted from Policy ENV3.

BHL notes that the Government will introduce exemptions applicable to the most constrained types
of development which will be set out in secondary legislation and as such, BHL considers the use of “all development” is premature. Sites without reasonable opportunities to achieve biodiversity net gain should not be delayed through inflexible and prescriptive requirements.