Draft Black Country Plan

Object

Representation ID: 23566

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

[Attachment 1: Representations to the Black Country Plan]
Land at Greenwood Road, Aldridge

Contents:
1. Introduction and Executive Summary 1
2. National Planning Policy and Guidance 2
3. Plan Period 4
4. Policy CSP1 - Development Strategy 6
5. Policy GB1 - The Black Country Green Belt 15
6. Policy HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth 18
7. Policy HOU2 - Housing Density, Type and Accessibility 20
8. Policy HOU3 – Affordable Housing 21
9. Chapter 13 – Sub-Areas and Site Allocations 22
10. Proposed allocation: Land at Greenwood Road, Aldridge 24
11. Summary and conclusions 29
12. Appendices 30 [see below]
Appendices
GBBCHMA housing need and land supply review
Black Country housing need and land supply critique
Site location plan
Sketch layout plan

[additional appendices that accompany this document: Tables 3.1 and 3.4]

1.4
Introduction and Executive Summary
Emery Planning is instructed by HIMOR to submit representations to the draft Black Country Plan
(BC?) : Regulation 18 consultation. These submissions relate specifically to the land at Greenwood
Road, Aldridge, which is promoted for residential development.
We do not consider that the plan as drafted is sound for the following reasons:
The plan fails to meet local housing need, which results in significant social and
economic adverse impacts.
• There is insufficient justification for failing to meet the Black Country's needs within the
Black Country. In fact, the starting point for the Black Country should be to meet its
own needs and to meet Birmingham's unmet needs.
• There are no firm agreements with neighbouring authorities to meet the identified
unmet needs.
• The identified housing land supply has been exaggerated. A significant shortfall exists
even against the current artificially reduced housing requirement.
Continued reliance upon a supply mainly comprising brownfield sites in the urban area
will not deliver enough affordable housing to meet the identified needs, and it will not
address the need for specific types Of housing, in particular family housing.
The application of the site selection methodology is flawed. Impacts are significantly
over-stated, particularly in relation to landscape and Green Belt harm, seemingly to
justify not meeting the local housing need in full. The methodology has also been
applied inconsistently between draft allocations and omission sites.
Additional site allocations are needed to address the identified issues of soundness. These
representations propose the allocation of the land at Greenwood Road, Aldridge. Whilst the
Black Country Authority (BCA) evidence base claims that developing the site would result in high
levels of landscape and Green Belt harm, these representations demonstrate that:
• The assessment of visual amenities is flawed and fails to consider potential mitigation,
such as landscaping or setting development back from the ridge.
• The Green Belt and landscape assessments relate to a much wider parcel of land and
the conclusions cannot be attributed to the subject site.
The site represents a logical, small-scale rounding-off opportunity, that would have a very minor
local impact upon the Green Belt. The site is deliverable and can contribute to meeting the
identified development needs of the Black Country in a sustainable way.
2.3
National Planning Policy and Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework)
The Framework sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are
expected to be applied. The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement
Of sustainable development. The Framework, taken as a whole, constitutes the Government's
view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system.
Paragraph 11 requires plans and decisions to apply a presumption in favour of sustainable
development. In relation to plan making, it states:
"a) plans should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs
of their area, and be sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change;
b) strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed
needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met
within neighbouring areas, unless:
i. the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of
particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale,
type or distribution of development in the plan area; or
ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably
Outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework
taken as a whole. "
Paragraph 35 provides the following in relation to soundness:
"35. Local plans and spatial development strategies are examined to assess
whether they have been prepared in accordance with legal and procedural
requirements, and whether they are sound. Plans are 'sound' if they are:
a) Positively prepared — providing a strategy which, as a minimum,
seeks to meet the area's objectively assessed needs 1211; and is
informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need
from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to
do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
b) Justified — an appropriate strategy, taking into account the
reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
c) Effective — deliverable over the plan period, and based on
effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have
been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the
statement Of common ground; and 2.4
2.5
) Conslstent With national pollcy — enablng the delivery of
sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this
Framework. "
Footnote 21 clarifies that where the area's objectively assessed needs relate to housing, such
needs should be assessed using a clear and justified method, as set out in paragraph 61 Of the
Framework. Paragraph 61 states:
"TO determine the minimum number Of homes needed, strategic policies should
be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the
standard method in national planning guidance
- unless exceptional
circumstances justify an alternative approach which also reflects current and
future demographic trends and market signals. In addition to the local housing
need figure, any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas should
also be taken into account in establishing the amount Of housing to be planned
for."
National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
The PPG was launched in March 2014. It replaced a number of practice guidance documents
that were deleted when the PPG was published. Local Plan making is addressed under Section
12. The relevant sections are referred to in our representations.
3.4
Plan Period
Paragraph 20 of the Framework makes clear that strategic policies are those which make
provision for housing, employment and other types of growth:
"Strategic policies should set Out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and
quality of development, and make sufficient provision for:
a) housing (including affordable housing), employment, retail, leisure and other
commercial development;
b) infrastructure for transport, telecommunications, security, waste
management, water supply, wastewater, flood risk and coastal change
management, and the provision Of minerals and energy (including heat);
c) community facilities (such as health, education and cultural infrastructure);
and
d) conservation and enhancement Of the natural, built and historic
environment, including landscapes and green infrastructure, and planning
measures to address climate change mitigation and adaptation. '
Paragraph 22 Of the Framework states:
"Strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15 year period from
adoption, to anticipate and respond to long-term requirements and
opportunities, such as those arising from major improvements in infrastructure.
Where larger scale developments such as new settlements or significant
extensions to existing villages and towns form part Of the strategy for the area,
policies should be set within a vision that looks further ahead (at least 30 years),
to take into account the likely timescale for delivery."
Paragraph 22 therefore requires strategic policies to cover a 15-year plan period
adoption.
The proposed plan period for SCP extends to 2039. The base date, primarily used for the
monitoring of the housing and employment land supply, is I April 2020, and therefore the end
date Of the strategic policies relating to housing and employment land supply is 31 March 2039.
This means for the strategic policies to cover at least 15-years from adoption, it must be adopted
by 31 March 2024.

3.8
e BCA schedule for the adoption of the plani is as fol
• Consultation on the Draft Publication Plan (Regulation 19): August — September 2022
• Submission (Regulation 22): March 2023
• Examination in Public: April 2023 - March 2024
Adoption: April 2024
Therefore, even on the BCA timetable, the plan will not be adopted by the end of March 2024.
But notwithstanding, the above timetable is not realistic. There has been slippage at every stage
of the plan's production to date, and further slippage seems likely.
The examination is also highly unlikely to only last 1 year. There are limited comparable examples
for a complex joint development plan document including multiple site allocations, but the
experience seen in the North Essex and West Of England Plans suggests that an examination
lasting several years is likely:
• The North Essex Local Plan (Section 1) was submitted for examination in October 2017.
The plan was not adopted until February 2022.
• The West Of England Joint Spatial Plan was submitted for examination in April 2018, but
was eventually withdrawn in April 2020 without ever even reaching the stage of main
modifications.
Even significantly less complex, single authority bcal plans can be subject to examination lasting
multiple years. Examples of lengthy examinations include the Birmingham Development Plan and
the Local Plans for Bath and North East Somerset, Cheshire East, Wiltshire, Central Bedfordshire,
Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire; all Of which took much longer than 2 years between
submission and adoption.
The plan is therefore inconsistent with national planning policy. TO make the plan sound, the plan
period should be extended to allow for a realistic timeframe to adoption, plus the minimum 15-
year plan period required by the Framework. Given that the 15-year plan period a minimum
requirement, the likelihood of further delays to the adoption of the plan, we consider that the
plan period end date should be extended by at least 5 years to 2044.

[taken from the end of the document and moved here to accompany the introduction]

I I. Summary and conclusions
We do not consider that the plan as drafted is sound for the following reasons:
The plan fails to meet local housing need, which results in significant social and
economic adverse impacts.
• There is insufficient justification for failing to meet the Black Country's needs within the
Black Country'. In fact, the starting point for the Black Country should be to meet its
own needs to meet Birmingham's unmet needs.
• There are no firm agreements with neighbouring authorities to meet the identified
unmet needs.
• The identified housing land supply has been exaggerated. A significant shortfall exists
even against the current artificially reduced housing requirement.
Continued reliance upon a supply mainly comprising brownfield sites in the urban area
will not deliver enough affordable housing to meet the identified needs, and it will not
address the need for specific types Of housing. in particular family housing.
• The application of the site selection methodology is flawed. Impacts are significantly
over-stated, particularly in relation to landscape and Green Belt harm, seemingly to
justify not meeting the local housing need in full. The methodology has also been
applied inconsistently between draft allocations and omission sites.
Additional site allocations are needed to address the identified issues of soundness. These
representations propose the allocation of the land at Greenwood Road, Aldridge. Whilst the
Black Country Authority (BCA) evidence base claims that developing the site would result in high
levels of landscape and Green Belt harm, these representations demonstrate that:
• The assessment of visual amenities is flawed and fails to consider potential mitigation,
such as landscaping or setting development back from the ridge.
• The Green Belt and landscape assessments relate to a much wider parcel of land and
the conclusions cannot be attributed to the subject site.
The site represents a logical, small-scale rounding-off opportunity, that would have a very minor
local impact upon the Green Belt. The site is deliverable and can contribute to meeting the
identified development needs of the Black Country in a sustainable way.

Object

Representation ID: 23597

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

Policy CSPI - Development Strategy
Housing requirement
Housing requirement
HIMOR has jointly commissioned Turley to undertake a review of housing need and supply in the
Black Country. A copy Of the report provided at Appendix EPI. The report draws the following
key conclusions in relation to housing need, and the consequences of failing to meet that need:
Housing need
• The Draft SCP acknowledges an overall need for 76,076 homes throughout the Black
Country over the plan period (2020-39). This equates to an average of 4,004 dwellings
per annum, aligning closely but not exactly with the minimum need for 4,01 1 dwellings
per annum currently suggested by the standard method.
This would actually only require the existing housing stock to grow at an average rate of
0.7% per annum which is less than is needed either regionally or nationally, according to
the standard method (0.8/1 .1%) and indeed aligns exactly with the average housing
growth seen across the West Midlands as a whole since 2006.
• The outcome of the standard method for the Black Country therefore should not be
viewed as excessively high, but instead a reasonable benchmark of the minimum need
for housing in this area. t would boost the historic rate of delivery, in line with the
Government's ambitions, and allow Wolverhampton — as one of the country's largest
cities — to contribute towards meeting a nationwide need for housing.
There may well be an even greater need for housing given that the standard method
makes no attempt to predict the impact Of changing economic circumstances, for
example. and the Councils' existing evidence base does not properly consider whether
there will be sufficient labour to meet the economic growth ambitions of the sub-region.
It equally provides no assurance at present that the prevailing need for houses,
estimated to account for two thirds of the overall housing need in the Black Country,
can and will be met through the proposed supply.
Consequences of failing to meet need
• The Draft BCP identifies sufficient land to provide only 47,878 homes over the plan period,
equivalent to 2,518 dwellings per annum which is less than two thirds Of the reported
need for 4,004 homes per year.
• It represents a level of provision that has been exceeded in each of the last six years,
delivery in this period having been boosted by roughly a third (34%) compared to the six
years prior. While a similar boost would very nearly meet the minimum need for housing
in the Black Country, the Draft BCP instead threatens to bring a 12% reduction compared
to the recent trend of delivery over the last six years.
4.4
hlS would put at risk the ben
through
he recent boosting
of housing
genera
supply. The Black Country has historically experienced a net outflow of people to other
parts of the UK, for instance, but this has more than halved over the past six years to
suggest that people are being more effectively attracted and retained, helping to
restore a trend of growth in the working age population. Demographic modelling
commissioned to inform this report suggests that this trend is unlikely to continue where
housing delivery is allowed to fall, with the proposal to provide only 2,518 dwellings per
annum effectively forcing around 5,525 residents to move elsewhere every year — over
three times more than in recent years.
• This would be expected to dramatically slow the rate of population growth and reduce
the size of the working age population. This, combined with potential changes in
behaviour, could result in a labour force that is capable of supporting only 615 new jobs
per year. An economic forecast produced by Experian suggests, for comparison, that
the Black Country actually has the potential to create over three times as many jobs
(c.2, 100 per annum) while the Black Country LEP has previously expressed a target that
seemingly equates to more than 6,000 jobs per year, over ten times more than could be
supported through the housing supply identified in the Draft BCP_ The proposed housing
requirement will therefore hamper, rather than support, economic growth and recovery,
conflicting with the Draft BCP's stated intentions.
The review of housing need and supply in the Black Country at Appendix EPI follows on from
Turley's 'Falling Short — Taking stock of unmet needs across the Greater Birmingham and Black
Country Housing Market Area' published in August 2021 (see Appendix EP2). That report identifies
a housing shortfall across the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area
(GBBCHMA) of between circa 18,700 and 42,000 dwellings up to 2031 , and between 68,700 and
78.1m homes up to 2040. It is Of serious concern that instead Of seeking to meet the unmet needs
of Birmingham, the BCP is not even planning to come close to meeting its own needs.
Affordable housing
The Black Country Housing Market Assessment (BCHMA) identifies a net need for 867 affordable
homes per annum, including 154 per annum in Walsall. There are 5, 159 households on each
individual Council's housing register2: these are real households that need an affordable home
now. The levels of need are very significant.
Neither the plan nor the evidence base grapples with how this need will be met. The majority Of
the housing supply comprises previously developed land in the urban area. However, Policy
HOIJ3 only requires the following proportions Of affordable housing
4.8
on all Sltes In
value zones and brownfield Sltes In medlum value zones;
• 20% on greenfield sites in medium value zones: and,
30% on all sites in higher value zones.
Continued reliance upon existing sources of supply from the urban area will not deliver enough
affordable housing to meet the identified needs. The evidence base should seek to identify
much affordable housing will be delivered from the planned housing supply, so that the full extent
Of the shortfall is understood.
Paragraph 2a-024 of the PPG states:
"The total need for affordable housing will need to be converted into annual
flows by calculating the total net need (subtract total available stock from total
gross need) and converting total net need into an annual flow based on the
plan period.
The total affordable housing need can then be considered in the context of its
likely delivery as a proportion of mixed market and affordable housing
developments, taking into account the probable percentage Of affordable
housing to be delivered by eligible market housing led developments.
increase in the total housing figures included in the o/an mav need to be
considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable
homes" (our emphasis)
Paragraph 67-001 also states:
"Strategic policy-making authorities will need to consider the extent to which
the identified needs of specific groups can be addressed in the area, taking
into account:
the overall level of need identified using the standard method (and
whether the evidence suggests that a higher level of need ought to be
considered);
the extent to which the overall housing need can be translated into a
housing requirement figure for the plan period; and
the anticipated deliverability Of different forms Of provision. having
regard to viability. "
Therefore, the PPG states that an increase in the housing requirement above local housing need
can be considered if it is necessary to help address the identified level Of affordable housing
need. However, the Black Country is not even proposing to meet local housing need. The
proach is inconsistent with national planning policy and guidance. and would only worsen the 4.9
4.13
already significant issue of affordable housing need in the Black Country and Walsall. A step
change in affordable housing delivery is needed, going to the heart Of the spatial strategy. This
means allocating additional sites which can viably deliver affordable housing in the plan period.
Justification for not meeting local housing need in full
Paragraph 3.20 of the BCP states:
"This Plan will provide for the great majority Of housing and employment land
needs arising in the Black Country to be met within the Black Country. However,
the capacity Of the Black Country is finite; it is not possible to provide for all the
Black Country's housing and employment land needs within its administrative
boundaries, given the circumstances around land deliverability, justifiable
constraints and the need to protect the unique character Of the area. "
Firstly, a housing requirement of only 47,837 dwellings over the plan period would meet less than
two thirds (63%) of the reported housing need. This is not the 'great majority' referred to within
the plan.
Secondly, the proposition that it is not possible to provide for all the Black Country's housing and
employment land needs within its administrative boundaries not credible, for the following
reasons.
Reliance upon the Sustainabilitv Appraisal (SA)
As set Out in the BCP Options document, the BCA is effectively relying upon the Sustainabili
Appraisal (SA) to justify its decision. However, the SA is a numerical scoring exercise which fulfils
a legal requirement to assess reasonable alternatives. It cannot replicate the planning balance
exercise discussed in paragraph 1 of the Framework, which involves the weighing of numerous
quantitative and qualitative planning considerations, and it should not be used as the main
justification for the selection of the housing requirement in the emerging plan. Assessing impacts
on the landscape and natural resources requires a far more considered appraisal than a simple
scoring-based system. If there is a genuine level of environmental capacity that cannot be
breached. then that needs to be properly and fully evidenced. It is not sufficient to simply say
that one option scored better than another in the SA.
Notwithstanding, it can be noted that the SA assessment Of the growth options is flawed. The
options assessed are provided at Table 3.1 of the SA:

[see attachment table 3.1 and tanle 3.4]

4.19
Optlon 5 was the chosen option.
The SA concludes that the impacts on landscape and natural resources would comprise a 'major
negative impact' under options 3 and 4, and a 'minor negative' under option 5. However, it also
concludes that an equal 'major positive impact' would be achieved for housing under options
3, 4 and 5. This illogical given that:
• Option 5 would not meet the needs within the Black Country. which would have adverse
impacts upon the Black Country housing market irrespective of whether those needs are
met elsewhere.
• There is no agreement for the needs to be met elsewhere and it is therefore unlikely that
they will be met in full.
• Whilst the SA is factoring in the positive impact of delivering housing in neighbouring
authorities, it makes no such attempt to factor in the potential negative impacts of
delivering that housing elsewhere, including on landscape and the Green Belt. This is
acknowledged at paragraph 3.3.12 of the Sustainability Appraisal.
It is therefore impossible to draw the conclusion that housing growth can be more sustainably
delivered in a neighhbouring authority, having regard to Green Belt and other constraints. If those
needs are met by neighbouring authorities, the impacts may be greater than meeting them in
the Black Country.
Therefore, the BCA assessment Of the growth options in the SA is flawed, and the reliance upon
the SA to justify its preferred option is misplaced.
Landscape and Green Belt harm
It is not clear how the SA has arrived at the conclusion that the impacts on landscape and natural
resources would be 'major negative impact' under options 3 and 4 and lesser under other
options. It appears to be based upon the crude notion that more development equals more
harm. There is no evidence to suggest that a certain quantum of development tips the balance
to an unacceptable level of harm, such that the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the very considerable benefits of meeting identified needs.
4.24
t should be noted that in determining the methodology for calculating local housing need
Government well aware that meeting the housing needs Of the country will necessitate
greenfield sites in Green Belt areas. There is nothing demonstrably special about the Black
Country to suggest that it should not meet its development needs in the same way that other
authorities are expected to.
Although not explicitly set Out within the Growth Options report, part Of the BCA justification
appears to be the application of its site selection methodology as set out within the Draft Site
Assessment Report. Under stage 3. the methodology filters Out sites "where development would
cause very high harm to remaining green belt and moderate-high or high harm to landscape
sensitivity". However, as a whole the evidence base significantly over-states Green Belt and
landscape harm, thus over-stating the overall impacts of meeting housing needs in full. In this
regard, it can be noted that the evidence in relation to Green Belt and landscape relies upon
area-based assessments which do not reflect specific sites and proposals put forward by
developers. We discuss this further in our response to the site selection methodology.
Therefore, to conclude, the BCA reliance upon the SA to justify the proposed growth option is
misplaced. There is no evidence to justify a specific environmental capacity for the Black Country
which cannot be breached now or in the future. The proposed approach is not justified, effective
or positively prepared. The BCP should seek to meet local housing need in full within the Black
Country.
Agreements with neighbouring authorities
In accordance with paragraph 35 of the Framework, to be •positively prepared' means providing
a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area's objectively assessed needs: and is
informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is
accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable
development.
Therefore, the starting point for the Duty to Cooperate is that the Black Country should be seeking
to meet unmet needs from other authorities (i.e. Birmingham's housing shortfall). However, the
BC? does not seek to meet Birmingham's unmet needs, and instead seeks to export its own needs.
To do so it relies upon unspecified future agreements for neighbouring authorities. Paragraphs
3.23 - 3.25 of the BC? provide:
National planning policy requires this unmet housing and employment
land need to be provided for across the Housing Market Area, Functional
Economic Market Area (FEMA) and other areas with which the Black Country
has a physical or functional relationship.
3.24 As a result, the BCA have worked openly and constructively with
neighbouring authorities to help provide as much certainty as possible about
how and where the Black Country's full housing and employment land needs
will be delivered. The current position is set out in the Draft Plan Statement of
Consultation and will be elaborated on in more detan in Statements of
Common Ground at Publication stage.
3.25 The BCA recoqnise that this approach may only address a proportion of
the housinq and employment shortfall. as it is inappropriate and beyond the
powers Of the BCA to establish the limits Of sustainable development in
neiqhbourinq authorities. " (emphasis added)
4.25 The BCA therefore concede that there is no guarantee that the neighbouring authorities will
accommodate the shortfall. Given the absence of firm agreements, it seems inevitable that the
unmet needs will not be met elsewhere. Therefore, the approach is not positively prepared, and Employment land requirement
4.26 The SCP proposes a similar approach to employment land as it does with the housing
requirement, in terms of not meeting the identified needs and relying upon neighbouring
authorities to meet the shortfall, which amounts to 210 hectares of employment land.
4.27 Furthermore, a significant proportion of the identified housing supply comprises existing
employments sites. Aside from the identified strategic and local employment areas (Policies
EMP2 & EMP3), the plan provides no protection to existing employment sites. In fact, Policy EMP4
is permissive of such sites being developed for housing, without any test as to whether there is a
continued need for the site to remain in employment use. This will only exasperate issues of
employment land supply in the Black Country.
4.28 Failing to meet the identified need for employment land will cause significant harm to the local
economy. Businesses will not be able to invest and grow in the Black Country, and jobs growth
will be curtailed to the detriment of residents. There may also be an impact on commuting
pattens.
4.29 The Council's reasons for failing to meet the identified need for employment need are similar to
its reasons for failing to meet local housing need. The approach is flawed because:
• The SA is based upon flawed assumptions.
• The BCA reliance upon the SA to justify the proposed growth option is misplaced.
• The alleged impacts on landscape and natural resources (including Green Belt) are
overstated.
• There is an absence Of firm agreement with neighbouring authorities to meet the
needs.
4.30 Overall, the proposed approach is not justified, effective or positively prepared. The BCP should
seek to meet housing and employment needs in full within the Black Country

Comment

Representation ID: 23598

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

5.5
Policy GB1 - The Black Country Green Belt
The BCP identifies at paragraph 3.15 that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to
the Green Belt boundaries. However, the amount of Green Belt release proposed is contested.
TO summarise Our representations on the housing policies:
• The should seek to meet identified development needs in full. There is no justification
for reducing the housing and employment land requirements.
• The BC? should also seek to meet the unmet needs of Birmingham.
• The housing land supply position has been over-stated.
The result is that additional viable sites need to be allocated to address the identified shortfalls in
land supply. The supply in the urban area has been exhausted, to the extent that it has been
significantly over-estimated. The only logical solution is for the plan to release further land from
the Green Belt.
Such an approach would be entirely consistent with the Framework. Paragraph 142 requires that
when drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, local planning authorities should take
account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. It also requires local
planning authorities to consider the consequences for sustainable development Of channelling
development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages
inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary. In the
case of the Black Country, there would be very significant adverse social and economic
consequences Of not providing sufficient land to meet the Objectively assessed needs.
Our client proposes an omission site for development in Section 10 of this statement. The land
should be released from the Green Belt and allocated for a residential or mixed-use
development.
Safeguarded land
Paragraph 137 of the Framework identifies that "the essential characteristics of Green Belts are
their openness and their permanence'
5.9
Paragraph
requires strategic policies to "estab
the need for any changes to Green Belt
boundaries, hqvinq reqqrq to their intended oermanence in the long term. so thev can endure
bevond the o/an oeriod"
Paragraph 143 states that when defining Green Belt boundaries, plans should (amongst other
requirements):
"c) where necessarv. identifv areas of safeguarded land between the urban area and
the Green Belt. in order to meet longer-term develooment needs stretching well bevond
the plan period'
e) be able to demonstrate that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the
end of the olan period" (our emphasis)
Therefore, national policy is clear on the need to ensure that Green Belt boundaries will not need
to be altered at the end Of the plan period (currently 2039). This is a critical aspect to achieving
the intended permanence in the long term. The appropriate mechanism for achieving this
through the provision of safeguarded land. However, the BC? does not propose to designate
any safeguarded land. Other sources of land for future development needs beyond the Green
Belt are extremely limited.
There is no justification for not providing sufficient safeguarded land in the Black Country. The
permanence of the Green Belt would not be maintained, as it would be inevitable that Green
Belt boundaries will need to be reviewed again before the end of the plan period to meet needs
beyond 2039.
5.10 How much safeguarded land is needed in practice was considered in detail at the Cheshire East
Local Plan Strategy examination. In that case it was determined that sufficient safeguarded land
should be made available for another full plan period following the end Of the current plan
period. Paragraph 99 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Inspector's report states:
"The overall amount of proposed Safeguarded Land is intended to meet
longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the end of the current
plan period; in fact, taking account of other sources of land, it should be
sufficient for another full 15-year period beyond 2030, so that the Green Belt
boundary defined in the CELPS-PC will not need to be amended until at least
5.12
The Further Interim Views of the Inspector (Appendix 2 to the Inspector's report) refer to this
conclusion being based upon examples Of best practice from around the country. Paragraph
50 of the Further Interim Views states:
"There is little guidance available on defining the appropriate amount of
Safeguarded Land, but after considering best practice, an approach which
considers a IO- 15 year period beyond the end of the current plan period seems
reasonable in the context Of Cheshire East: it strikes a reasonable balance
between avoiding the need to review the Green Belt at the end of the current
plan period and avoiding unnecessary releases of Green Belt land at this time. "
Therefore, in summary, sufficient safeguarded land should be provided to ensure that the current
requirement could be carried forward to the next 15-year plan period without the need for Green
Belt release. In practice the minimum requirement is to provide a similar amount Of safeguard
land to the amount of Green Belt being released for development in this plan period. Ideally
more should be provided, to allow flexibility for potential higher growth in the future and to
increase the permanence of the Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 23599

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

6.2
Policy HOUI — Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
Housing requirement
We address our objections to the proposed housing requirement in our response to Policy CSPI.
We consider that local housing need should be met in full.
Housing land supply
HIMOR has jointly commissioned Turley to undertake a review of housing need and supply in the
Black Country. A copy Of the report is provided at Appendix EPI The report draws the following
key conclusions in relation to housing land supply:
• The Framework requires Local Plans to be aspirational but deliverable, identifying a
sufficient supply of sites taking into account their availability, suitability and likely
economic viability. Those sites should meet the tests of deliverable and developable
contained in the Framework's glossary. It is vital to realistically assess the amount of
deliverable supply in plan period, as to overestimate the amount of housing coming
forward in the plan period, as appears to be the case here, causes a significant planning
harm connected to the unnecessary creation Of an acute shortfall Of housing when
individuals require them.
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.
• Setting realistic delivery assumptions, as required by the Framework, is essential as
planning harm crises 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. The 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 a
reduction of 695 homes to this source in the plan period is proposed;
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. A reduction of 4,973 homes to this source in
the plan period is proposed; 6.3
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
Framework which also seeks to ensure a sufficient supply Of employment sites. A
reduction of 3,091 homes to this source in the plan period is proposed; and
The Councils rely on a significant number of dwellings in Wolverhampton Ci
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 the removal of the entirety of this source (812
homes) in the plan period is proposed.
• Based on the above, the Draft BC? 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.
In progressing the BCP, the Black Country authorities are encouraged to fundamental
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
Therefore, there is a significant shortfall in housing land supply even against the SCP's artificially
constrained housing requirement, bt alone a higher requirement in line with bcal housing need
as we propose in Our response to Policy CSPI The strategy needs to be fundamentally changed
to address these significant issues of soundness. This means significantly boosting the supply of
housing land to meet local housing need in full.

Object

Representation ID: 23600

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

7.6
Policy HOU2 - Housing Density, Type and Accessibility
Paragraph 60 of the Framework states:
"To support the Government's objective of significantly boosting the supply of
homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come
forward where it is needed. that the needs of qrouos with specific housinq
requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without
unnecessary delay". (our emphasis)
Paragraph 62 Of the Framework explains that within this context:
"the size. tvoe and tenure of housing needed for different qrouos in the
community should be assessed and reflected in plannina policies (including,
but not limited to. those who require affordable housing, families with children,
older people, students, people with disabilities, , service families, travellers,
people who rent their homes and people wishing to commission or build their
own homes". (our emphasis)
Paragraph 2a-023 of the PPG: "What is the relationship between the current housing stock and
current and future needs?", states:
"Strategic policy-making authorities will need to look at the current stock of
houses Of different sizes and assess whether these match current and future
needs. '
Policy HOU2 does not provide any specific mix relating to need. It simply requires the density and
type of housing to be informed by "the need for a range of types and sizes of accommodation
to meet identified sub-regional and local needs". The policy then sets out minimum density
requirements, the lowest of which is 40 dwellings per hectare (dph), which would still be relatively
high density for a housing development.
The plan fails to properly address the need for different types of housing, in particular family
housing. This goes to the heart Of the strategy Of predominately relying upon brownfield sites in
the urban area. We refer to the analysis undertaken by Turley in their review of housing need and
supply in the Black Country (see Appendix EPI. paragraphs 2.10 — 2.13 & 424 — 4.27).
Furthermore, we question whether the need for different types and sizes of housing identified in
Section 5 Of the BCHMA is robust. The methodology for adducing the required housing mix is not
specified in the BCHMA, but it appears to be based upon demographic modelling assumptions
(i.e., the bedroom standard referred to on page 60, footnote 36 for the BCHMA. Or similar) rather 7.7
than any analysls of current and future market demand
Fo xample, a farm y of four may In
demographic terms require a three-bedroom house. However. that family may aspire to live in,
or need for other reasons, a four or five-bedroom house. For example, spare bedrooms may be
required for a home Office or guest accommodation. Such issues have become particularly
relevant post-COVID with the shift towards increased home working.
We therefore consider that the Overall strategy needs to be re-assessed to ensure that the need
for specific types of housing, in particular family housing, are met.

Comment

Representation ID: 23601

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

Policy HOU3 — Affordable Housing
Please see our comment on affordable housing delivery in our response to Policy CSPI .
summary:
• The levels of affordable housing need in the Black Country and Walsall are very
significant. The Black Country Housing Market Assessment (BCHMA) identifies a net
need for 867 affordable homes per annum, including 154 per annum in Walsall. There
are 5,159 households on each individual Council's housing register.
• Neither the plan nor the evidence base grapples with how affordable housing needs
will be met. The evidence base should seek to identify how much affordable housing
will be delivered from the planned housing supply.
• Continued reliance upon existing sources of supply from the urban areas will deliver
levels of affordable housing that fall substantially below identified needs.
A step change in affordable housing delivery needed. This means allocating
additional sites which can viably deliver affordable housing in the plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 23602

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

9.5
Chapter 13 — Sub-Areas and Site Allocations
Need for additional site allocations
As set out in our representations to Policies CSPI, HOUI and CBI, there is a need to allocate
additional sites as part of an increased housing requirement to meet local housing need in full.
and to address the deficiencies in relation to housing land supply. Section 10 of this statement
proposes the allocation of the land at Greenwood Road, Aldridge which would contribute to
addressing the identified shortfall.
Site selection methodology
Our concerns with the site selection methodology relate to the application Of the methodology.
both generally and specifically in relation to our client's land. Under stage 3 of the methodology
for Green Belt sites, the criteria for filtering our sites include:
• Where development would cause very high harm to remaining Green Belt and
moderate-high or high harm to landscape sensitivity
With one or more significant planning constraints which cannot be mitigated
We have the following concerns with the approach and how it has been applied.
Firstly, the application of the methodology in the Site Assessments has significantly over-stated
harm in these categories, and/or fails to have regard to potential mitigation. The result is that
most Green Belt sites are assessed as causing very high harm to remaining Green Belt and
moderate-high or high harm to landscape sensitivity, and they are also identified as having other
insurmountable planning constraints. The assessments are unduly negative, and appear to be
part of a wider approach of over-stating harm to justify the failure to meet objectively assessed
needs within the Black Country.
Secondly, the assessments Of Green Belt and landscape sensitivity rely heavily upon the
assessments of wider land in the Green Belt Study and the Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (LSA).
However, these assess much wider parcels Of land and were not based on specific proposals.
Furthermore, at best they only provide a starting point of landscape sensitivity or Green Belt
contribution to a wider area. The findings Of those assessments cannot be applied to the
individual site assessments in the way that they have, as the sites put forward may be lesser in 9.6
9.7
scale
he wlder parcels, follow more
landscaping.
ICal
unda s or provlde m tlgatlon such as
Thirdly, the BCA has applied the methodology inconsistently. For example, in Walsall:
• Several sites are proposed for allocation despite being categorised as causing very high
harm to remaining Green Belt and moderate-high or high harm to landscape sensitivity,
for example the land at (South Of) Stonnall Road, Aldridge (ref: SA-0309-WAL) and the .
For other sites this results in automatic filtering out.
• In some instances. the presence Of a SLINC across the entirety Of a site is not a constraint
to allocation, for example Oxley Park Golf Club (ref: WOH261 WTNA) and land off Sutton
Road, Longwood Lane, Walsall (ref: WHA231 / policy WSA.6). However, in other
instances the assessment claims that "mitigation and or compensation would also be
significant barriers to development" (see Land south Of Bosty Lane, Aldridge, ref: SA-
0047-WAL).
We highlight specific issues with the application of the site assessments in relation to our client's 10.

Object

Representation ID: 23603

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

10.7
Proposed allocation: Land at Greenwood Road, Aldridge
The site is located to the north Greenwood Road and west of Lazy Hill Road, Aldridge. The site
currently comprises 2.5ha of open pasture land, enclosed on 3 sides by exiting residential
development. A site location plan is provided at EP3.
Proposed allocation
The site proposed for an allocation of approximately 60 dwellings.
We have submitted a sketch layout plan (EP4) which illustrates how the proposed quantum of
development could be accommodated on site, which would integrate and sit conformably
within the existing built form Of the surrounding area. The development Of the site would represent
a logical rounding-off of the settlement and can deliver housing early in the plan period with no
significant requirements for infrastructure.
Exceptional circumstances
Exceptional circumstances at the strategic level are discussed in our response to policy CBI. The
BCA accept the need to release land from the Green Belt to meet the need for development.
At the site-specific level, Green Belt considerations can form part of the exceptional
circumstances. This site is surrounded by existing housing on 3 sides, and its development would
represent a rounding-off of the settlement that would not result in bringing Aldridge or Walsall
Wood any closer together. The allocation Of the site would result in very little harm to the Green
Belt. This is discussed further below in our response to the Site Assessment report.
Site Assessment Report
As discussed in Section 10 of this statement, we consider that the application of the site selection
methodology is flawed. Specifically, we object to the assessment of our client's site at
Greenwood Road, Aldridge (parcel SA-0059-WAL). We hereby address each aspect Of the site
assessment in turn.
Green Belt and Landscape Sensitivitv Assessment
This is a key stage of the site selection process as, under stage 3 of the current site selection
methodology, sites "where development would cause very high harm to remaining Green Belt and moderate-high or high harm to landscape sensitivity" a automatically fi tered out.
consider that the assessment Of parcel SA-0059-WAL against these criteria is fundamentally
flawed, for the reasons discussed below.
Green Belt considerations
10.8 Our client's site is assessed as part of sub-parcel 8120As2 within the Black Country Green Belt
Study (2019). The study identifies the parcel of land as having a harm rating Of 'high' if developed.
10.9 The Stage 2 Assessment as contained within Appendix 3 of the document, does not provide a
detailed assessment Of the sub-parcel, rather a single paragraph commentary is provided within
the assessment section to qualify the 'high' harm rating given:
'The sub-parcel makes a strong contribution to preventing the sprawl of the
West Midlands conurbation, maintaining the separation of Aldridge and
Brownhills and preventing encroachment on the countryside. Greenwood
Road forms a consistent boundary along the edge of Aldridge, but the field at
the eastern end is further from Holly Bank, more contained by existing built form
and has a constrained woodland block to the north which adds to separation
from the inset settlement to the north. Release of this area would therefore
cause only a limited weakening of the adjacent Green Belt. '
10.10 The conclusions provided within the commentary on the sub-parcel appear at Odds with the
overall 'high' harm rating of the wider parcel, noting the release would only result in •limited
weakening' Of the adjacent Green Belt. '
10. I I The site is well contained and is boarded on three sides by existing housing, with Greenwood
Road to the south and south-west. and Lazy Hill Road to the east. The future development Of the
site would not result in the physical or perceived closing of the gap between Aldridge and Walsall
Wood to the north. Rather it would represent the rounding-off Of the settlement. As a result Of the
alignment of Greenwood Road and the houses to the east of the site which extend north along
Lazy Hill Road. the development Of the site would not result in the extension Of the built form Of
Aldridge any further north than that which already exists.
Landscape Sensitivity
10.12 The site forms part of parcel BL35 in the Black Country Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (LSA). It
is assessed as being of moderate-high landscape sensitivity. As such, the BCA Site Assessment
scores the site as 'moderate-high' landscape sensitivity for residential development, and 'high'
sensitivity for employment development. It is not clear why the site assessment draws this distinction given that the site has never been promoted for employment development and the
LSA does not identify that this specific site would be any more or less sensitive to other uses than
any other site.
10.13 Parcel BL35 covers a far more extensive area Of land than the site being promoted. It includes
potentially sensitive features, such as areas of woodland, which would be not form part of the
developable area for the site. The assessment Of BL35 in the LSA also states that:
"The area also plays an important role in providing the perception of a rural
gap between Walsall Wood and Aldridge. "
10.14 Furthermore, the BCA Site Assessment states:
"Large scale development would disrupt the valley landform, historic field
pattern and reduce the role Of the area in providing a rural gap between
Walsall Wood and Aldridge. "
10.15 However, that finding does not apply to parcel SA-0059-WAL due to the physical containment of
the site and the fact that it would not result in the extension of the built form Of Aldridge any
further north than that which already exists (as discussed above in relation to Green Belt).
Furthermore, the development of this site would not result in 'large scale development'.
Therefore, applying the findings of the LSA to this site is erroneous.
10.16 Notwithstanding the negative assessment of the site in relation to these criteria, we note that
other draft allocations receiving similar scorings still go on to be allocated (see Section 9 of this
statement). It is not clear why such an approach not applied to this site.
Environmental, social and economic criteria
10.17 The Site Assessments addresses various other 'environmental, social and economic' criteria. We
address below the aspects of the assessment which we consider to be incorrect and/or flawed.
Impact on visual amenitv of adjacent land users
10.18 The assessment of the site under this criterion states:
"The site is in an elevated position, the surrounding development to the South
and East is predominantly single storey. The presence of buildings above single
storey in height would have a significant visual impact on the area and the
submission comes with a proposal for just single storey units. The greater, wider
impact would be from the North, the site is in an elevated position and development would significantly impact on the openness which characterises
this part of Aldridge and would be seen from the Chester Road 750m away, the
existing topography ensures that the single storey houses are not visible from
the North, however the submission site goes beyond the ridge and even single
storey here would be visible. For these reasons it is considered there would be
a strong negative impact from any development at this site. "
10.19 This appears to be an attempt to undertake a detailed assessment of the visual impact of the
proposal, but the assessment is extremely crude and the overall conclusion is unduly negative.
Visibility of the site does not necessarily equate to harm of the highest level. Furthermore, simple
mitigation such as landscaping or setting back development from the ridge could resolve the
issues identified, but is not considered.
10.20 The assessment also fails to note that the existing urban edge along Greenwood Road benefits
from no landscaping or screening. A development with a high-quality landscaping scheme could
provide a far stronger boundary than currently exists in this location. This could be a benefit in
landscape and visual terms.
Accessibilitv
10.21 The Site Assessment claims that the site is more than a 15-minute walk from a primary school.
However. the site is within 1.2km walking distance Of Leighswood School. and therefore within a
15-minute walk. The assessment therefore appears to be incorrect. Furthermore, Castlefort
Primary School is also within walking distance of the site (1.8km walk).
10.22 In addition to primary schools, the site is in a highly accessible location in relation to key services,
facilities and public transport links:
• Local bus stops are immediately adjacent to the site, providing an hourly service
between Walsall and Leighswood, via Aldridge.
• A range of local GP surgeries and dentists are within 2km of the site.
• The site is within 600m of nearest local convenience store, pharmacy and post office
located within Lazy Hill centre.
10.23 The site is therefore well served by public transport for the purposes of the Framework and IS
sustainably located with a range Of services and facilities nearby Other considerations
10.24 The Site Assessment report does not identify any significant harm in any other area, including
access, trees, residential amenity, air quality, ground conditions, flood risk or heritage. We agree
that these factors do not present any constraints to the sustainable development of the site.
Conclusions
10.25 The overall conclusion of the BCA Site Assessment is as follows:
"Development here could cause significant harm to the visual amenities Of the
wider area due to the topography surrounding the site which the adjacent
bungalows have been designed to take account Of. In addition the site scores
high Green Belt and landscape harm. "
10.26 For the reasons set out above, we consider that this assessment erroneous. The assessment of
visual amenities is flawed and fails to consider potential mitigation, such as landscaping or
development being set back from the ridge. The Green Belt and landscape assessments relate
to a much wider parcel of land and the conclusions cannot be attributed to the subject site.
10.27 The site represents a logical, small-scale rounding-off opportunity, that would have a very minor
local impact upon the Green Belt. The site is deliverable and can contribute to meeting the
identified development needs of the Black Country in a sustainable way. We therefore propose
that the site is allocated for residential development in the BCP. 11.1

Object

Representation ID: 43816

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

12. Summary and conclusions
12.1 We do not consider that the plan as drafted is sound for the following reasons:

The plan fails to meet local housing need, which results in significant social and
economic adverse impacts.

Black Country. In fact, the starting point for the Black Country should be to meet its
own needs and et needs.
There are no firm agreements with neighbouring authorities to meet the identified
unmet needs.
The identified housing land supply has been exaggerated. A significant shortfall exists
even against the current artificially reduced housing requirement.
Continued reliance upon a supply mainly comprising brownfield sites in the urban area
will not deliver enough affordable housing to meet the identified needs, and it will not
address the need for specific types of housing, in particular family housing.

justified. The land mainly comprises improved grassland of low ecological value.
The application of the site selection methodology is flawed. Impacts are significantly
over-stated, particularly in relation to landscape and Green Belt harm, seemingly to
justify not meeting the local housing need in full. The methodology has also been
applied inconsistently between draft allocations and omission sites.
12.2 Additional site allocations are needed to address the identified issues of soundness.

12.3 The proposed allocation of can contribute to meeting the identified
development needs of the Black Country in a highly accessible location. The site could also
deliver a new, state-of-the-art replacement school for Aldridge High School to secure its long-
term future. This is a significant, site-specific benefit which amounts to exceptional circumstances
justifying the release of the site from the Green Belt. As addressed within these representations,
the site can be delivered without any significant adverse harm to the Green Belt, the landscape
or ecology interests.

12.4 We are currently in the process of refining the proposals for the site. We intend to prepare and
submit a development framework document, including more detailed proposals for the
replacement school and the findings technical information, in the coming months.


39

13. Appendices [supporting evidence: see attachments]
EP1. GBBCHMA housing need and land supply review
EP2. Black Country housing need and land supply critique
EP3. Site location and concept masterplan
EP4. Ecological walk over survey
EP5. Secretary of State appeal decision (Effingham)
EP6. Secretary of State appeal decision (Seashell Trust)

Object

Representation ID: 43819

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

6

4. Policy CSP1 - Development Strategy
Housing requirement
4.1 HIMOR has jointly commissioned Turley to undertake a review of housing need and supply in the
Black Country. A copy of the report is provided at Appendix EP1. The report draws the following
key conclusions in relation to housing need, and the consequences of failing to meet that need:
Housing need
The Draft BCP acknowledges an overall need for 76,076 homes throughout the Black
Country over the plan period (2020-39). This equates to an average of 4,004 dwellings
per annum, aligning closely but not exactly with the minimum need for 4,011 dwellings
per annum currently suggested by the standard method.
This would actually only require the existing housing stock to grow at an average rate of
0.7% per annum which is less than is needed either regionally or nationally, according to
the standard method (0.8/1.1%) and indeed aligns exactly with the average housing
growth seen across the West Midlands as a whole since 2006.
The outcome of the standard method for the Black Country therefore should not be
viewed as excessively high, but instead a reasonable benchmark of the minimum need
for housing in this area. It would boost the historic rate of delivery, in line with the



cities to contribute towards meeting a nationwide need for housing.
There may well be an even greater need for housing given that the standard method
makes no attempt to predict the impact of changing economic circumstances, for
existing evidence base does not properly consider whether
there will be sufficient labour to meet the economic growth ambitions of the sub-region.
It equally provides no assurance at present that the prevailing need for houses,
estimated to account for two thirds of the overall housing need in the Black Country,
can and will be met through the proposed supply.
Consequences of failing to meet need
The Draft BCP identifies sufficient land to provide only 47,878 homes over the plan period,
equivalent to 2,518 dwellings per annum which is less than two thirds of the reported
need for 4,004 homes per year.
It represents a level of provision that has been exceeded in each of the last six years,
delivery in this period having been boosted by roughly a third (34%) compared to the six
years prior. While a similar boost would very nearly meet the minimum need for housing
in the Black Country, the Draft BCP instead threatens to bring a 12% reduction compared
to the recent trend of delivery over the last six years.










7

This would put at risk the benefits generated through the recent boosting of housing
supply. The Black Country has historically experienced a net outflow of people to other
parts of the UK, for instance, but this has more than halved over the past six years to
suggest that people are being more effectively attracted and retained, helping to
restore a trend of growth in the working age population. Demographic modelling
commissioned to inform this report suggests that this trend is unlikely to continue where
housing delivery is allowed to fall, with the proposal to provide only 2,518 dwellings per
annum effectively forcing around 5,525 residents to move elsewhere every year over
three times more than in recent years.
This would be expected to dramatically slow the rate of population growth and reduce
the size of the working age population. This, combined with potential changes in
behaviour, could result in a labour force that is capable of supporting only 615 new jobs
per year. An economic forecast produced by Experian suggests, for comparison, that
the Black Country actually has the potential to create over three times as many jobs
(c.2,100 per annum) while the Black Country LEP has previously expressed a target that
seemingly equates to more than 6,000 jobs per year, over ten times more than could be
supported through the housing supply identified in the Draft BCP. The proposed housing
requirement will therefore hamper, rather than support, economic growth and recovery,



4.2 The review of housing need and supply in the Black Country at Appendix EP1 follows on from
Taking stock of unmet needs across the Greater Birmingham and Black
EP2). That report identifies
a housing shortfall across the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area
(GBBCHMA) of between circa 18,700 and 42,000 dwellings up to 2031, and between 68,700 and
78,000 homes up to 2040. It is of serious concern that instead of seeking to meet the unmet needs
of Birmingham, the BCP is not even planning to come close to meeting its own needs.
Affordable housing
4.3 The Black Country Housing Market Assessment (BCHMA) identifies a net need for 867 affordable
homes per annum, including 154 per annum in Walsall. There are 5,159 households on each
2; these are real households that need an affordable home
now. The levels of need are very significant.

4.4 Neither the plan nor the evidence base grapples with how this need will be met. The majority of
the housing supply comprises previously developed land in the urban area. However, Policy
HOU3 only requires the following proportions of affordable housing:




8

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.
4.5 Continued reliance upon existing sources of supply from the urban area will not deliver enough
affordable housing to meet the identified needs. The evidence base should seek to identify how
much affordable housing will be delivered from the planned housing supply, so that the full extent
of the shortfall is understood.

4.6 Paragraph 2a-024 of the PPG states:

The total need for affordable housing will need to be converted into annual
flows by calculating the total net need (subtract total available stock from total
gross need) and converting total net need into an annual flow based on the
plan period.
The total affordable housing need can then be considered in the context of its
likely delivery as a proportion of mixed market and affordable housing
developments, taking into account the probable percentage of affordable
housing to be delivered by eligible market housing led developments. An
increase in the total housing figures included in the plan may need to be
considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable
homes.
4.7 Paragraph 67-001 also states:

egic policy-making authorities will need to consider the extent to which
the identified needs of specific groups can be addressed in the area, taking
into account:
the overall level of need identified using the standard method (and
whether the evidence suggests that a higher level of need ought to be
considered);
the extent to which the overall housing need can be translated into a
housing requirement figure for the plan period; and
the anticipated deliverability of different forms of provision, having
rega
4.8 Therefore, the PPG states that an increase in the housing requirement above local housing need
can be considered if it is necessary to help address the identified level of affordable housing
need. However, the Black Country is not even proposing to meet local housing need. The
approach is inconsistent with national planning policy and guidance, and would only worsen the










9

already significant issue of affordable housing need in the Black Country and Walsall. A step
change in affordable housing delivery is needed, going to the heart of the spatial strategy. This
means allocating additional sites which can viably deliver affordable housing in the plan period.
Justification for not meeting local housing need in full
4.9 Paragraph 3.20 of the BCP states:

will provide for the great majority of housing and employment land
needs arising in the Black Country to be met within the Black Country. However,
the capacity of the Black Country is finite; it is not possible to provide for all the
ng and employment land needs within its administrative
boundaries, given the circumstances around land deliverability, justifiable



4.10 Firstly, a housing requirement of only 47,837 dwellings over the plan period would meet less than
two thirds (63%) of the reported housing need
the plan.

4.11 Secondly, the proposition that it is not possible to provide for all the Black
employment land needs within its administrative boundaries is not credible, for the following
reasons.
Reliance upon the Sustainability Appraisal (SA)
4.12 As set out in the BCP Options document, the BCA is effectively relying upon the Sustainability
Appraisal (SA) to justify its decision. However, the SA is a numerical scoring exercise which fulfils
a legal requirement to assess reasonable alternatives. It cannot replicate the planning balance
exercise discussed in paragraph 11 of the Framework, which involves the weighing of numerous
quantitative and qualitative planning considerations, and it should not be used as the main
justification for the selection of the housing requirement in the emerging plan. Assessing impacts
on the landscape and natural resources requires a far more considered appraisal than a simple
scoring-based system. If there is a genuine level of environmental capacity that cannot be
breached, then that needs to be properly and fully evidenced. It is not sufficient to simply say
that one option scored better than another in the SA.

4.13 Notwithstanding, it can be noted that the SA assessment of the growth options is flawed. The
options assessed are provided at Table 3.1 of the SA:

[See attachment: ‘tables 3.1 and 3.4’]








10



4.14 The assessment of the housing options is set at Table 3.4:












11

4.15 Option 5 was the chosen option.

4.16

concludes th
3, 4 and 5. This is illogical given that:

Option 5 would not meet the needs within the Black Country, which would have adverse
impacts upon the Black Country housing market irrespective of whether those needs are
met elsewhere.

There is no agreement for the needs to be met elsewhere and it is therefore unlikely that
they will be met in full.

Whilst the SA is factoring in the positive impact of delivering housing in neighbouring
authorities, it makes no such attempt to factor in the potential negative impacts of
delivering that housing elsewhere, including on landscape and the Green Belt. This is
acknowledged at paragraph 3.3.12 of the Sustainability Appraisal.

4.17 It is therefore impossible to draw the conclusion that housing growth can be more sustainably
delivered in a neighhbouring authority, having regard to Green Belt and other constraints. If those
needs are met by neighbouring authorities, the impacts may be greater than meeting them in
the Black Country.

4.18 Therefore, the BCA assessment of the growth options in the SA is flawed, and the reliance upon
the SA to justify its preferred option is misplaced.
Landscape and Green Belt harm
4.19 It is not clear how the SA has arrived at the conclusion that the impacts on landscape and natural

options. It appears to be based upon the crude notion that more development equals more
harm. There is no evidence to suggest that a certain quantum of development tips the balance
to an unacceptable level of harm, such that the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the very considerable benefits of meeting identified needs.










12

4.20 It should be noted that in determining the methodology for calculating local housing need, the
Government is well aware that meeting the housing needs of the country will necessitate
greenfield sites in Green Belt areas. There is nothing demonstrably special about the Black
Country to suggest that it should not meet its development needs in the same way that other
authorities are expected to.

4.21 Although not explicitly set out within the Growth Options report, part of the BCA justification
appears to be the application of its site selection methodology as set out within the Draft Site
Assessment Report. Under stage 3, the methodology filters out sites
cause very high harm to remaining green belt and moderate-high or high harm to landscape
. However, as a whole the evidence base significantly over-states Green Belt and
landscape harm, thus over-stating the overall impacts of meeting housing needs in full. In this
regard, it can be noted that the evidence in relation to Green Belt and landscape relies upon
area-based assessments which do not reflect specific sites and proposals put forward by
developers. We discuss this further in our response to the site selection methodology.

4.22 Therefore, to conclude, the BCA reliance upon the SA to justify the proposed growth option is
misplaced. There is no evidence to justify a specific environmental capacity for the Black Country
which cannot be breached now or in the future. The proposed approach is not justified, effective
or positively prepared. The BCP should seek to meet local housing need in full within the Black
Country.
Agreements with neighbouring authorities
4.23 providing
a strategy which, as a m
informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is
accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable
development.

4.24 Therefore, the starting point for the Duty to Cooperate is that the Black Country should be seeking

nd instead seeks to export its own needs.
To do so it relies upon unspecified future agreements for neighbouring authorities. Paragraphs
3.23 - 3.25 of the BCP provide:










13

land need to be provided for across the Housing Market Area, Functional
Economic Market Area (FEMA) and other areas with which the Black Country
has a physical or functional relationship.
3.24 As a result, the BCA have worked openly and constructively with
neighbouring authorities to help provide as much certainty as possible about
will be delivered. The current position is set out in the Draft Plan Statement of
Consultation and will be elaborated on in more detail in Statements of
Common Ground at Publication stage.
3.25 The BCA recognise that this approach may only address a proportion of
the housing and employment shortfall, as it is inappropriate and beyond the
powers of the BCA to establish the limits of sustainable development in
neighbouring authorities
4.25 The BCA therefore concede that there is no guarantee that the neighbouring authorities will
accommodate the shortfall. Given the absence of firm agreements, it seems inevitable that the
unmet needs will not be met elsewhere. Therefore, the approach is not positively prepared, and
is inconsistent with the Framework.












14

Employment land requirement
4.26 The BCP proposes a similar approach to employment land as it does with the housing
requirement, in terms of not meeting the identified needs and relying upon neighbouring
authorities to meet the shortfall, which amounts to 210 hectares of employment land.

4.27 Furthermore, a significant proportion of the identified housing supply comprises existing
employments sites. Aside from the identified strategic and local employment areas (Policies
EMP2 & EMP3), the plan provides no protection to existing employment sites. In fact, Policy EMP4
is permissive of such sites being developed for housing, without any test as to whether there is a
continued need for the site to remain in employment use. This will only exasperate issues of
employment land supply in the Black Country.

4.28 Failing to meet the identified need for employment land will cause significant harm to the local
economy. Businesses will not be able to invest and grow in the Black Country, and jobs growth
will be curtailed to the detriment of residents. There may also be an impact on commuting
pattens.

4.29 ng to meet the identified need for employment need are similar to
its reasons for failing to meet local housing need. The approach is flawed because:

The SA is based upon flawed assumptions.
The BCA reliance upon the SA to justify the proposed growth option is misplaced.
The alleged impacts on landscape and natural resources (including Green Belt) are
overstated.
There is an absence of firm agreement with neighbouring authorities to meet the
needs.
4.30 Overall, the proposed approach is not justified, effective or positively prepared. The BCP should
seek to meet housing and employment needs in full within the Black Country.