Draft Black Country Plan

Object

Representation ID: 22407

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields

3.5 As outlined in its responses to draft Policy CSP1, St Philips objects to HOU1 on the basis that it seeks to provide only 47,837 dwellings in the plan period, leaving a significant shortfall of 28,239 dwellings. The BCP has failed to provide sufficient land to meet the minimum housing needs, as per NPPF paragraph 11(b), and will need to ensure that additional housing land is provided through further Green Belt release.

Comment

Representation ID: 22408

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields

Draft Policy CSP1 (Development Strategy)
2.1 St Philips objects to CSP1 on the basis that it seeks to provide only 47,837 dwellings in the plan period, leaving a significant shortfall of 28,239 dwellings. The BCP has failed to provide sufficient land to meet the minimum housing needs, as per NPPF paragraph 11(b), and will need to ensure that additional housing land is provided through further Green Belt release.
2.2 The BCA’s approach through CSP1 is flawed on several grounds, and these are set out as follows and below:
1. Local Housing Need and Plan Period: An incorrect local housing need figure is utilised, and an insufficient plan period is incorporated.
2. GBBCHMA Unmet Housing Need: The BCP fails to address the unmet housing need arising from the Great Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA’).
3. Black Country Unmet Housing Need and Duty to Cooperate: The Duty to Cooperate has not been fulfilled and the unmet housing need identified has been deferred rather than dealt with, contrary to NPPF paragraph 35(c).
4. Sustainability Appraisal: The Sustainability Appraisal fails to take into account the reasonable alternatives for housing growth and therefore would not be justified as per NPPF paragraph 35(b).
5. Exceptional Circumstances and Green Belt Release: The BCP does not seek to identify, allocate and release a sufficient supply of land within the Green Belt for housing.
6. GBHMA Strategic Growth Study: The BCP fails to take account of the findings and spatial recommendations of the GBHMA Strategic Growth Study, contrary to NPPF paragraph 35(a) and 35(b).
Local Housing Need and Plan Period
2.3 Draft Policy CSP1 is unsound it utilises an incorrect local housing need figure and does not incorporate a sufficient plan period.
2.4 The BCP “sets a housing target for the Black Country of 47,837 new homes over the period 2020-39, compared to a local housing need for 76,076 homes, creating a shortfall of 28,239 homes” (paragraph 3.21) [Emphasis added].
2.5 Though the BCA has not set out its methodology for calculating a local housing need figure of 76,076 dwellings over a 19-year plan period, the calculated figure is seemingly incorrect. Calculated using the standard method as of April 2021, utilising household projections over 2021-2031 and affordability ratios for 2020, the local housing need figure should equate as follows:
Table 2.1 BCA Local Housing Need (April 2021)
Black Country Authority - LHN (annual) - LHN (19-year plan period)
Dudley - 635 - 12,065
Sandwell - 1,466 - 27,854
Walsall - 869 - 16,511
Wolverhampton (incl. 35% urban uplift) - 1,041 - 19,779
Total - 4,011 - 76,209
Source: Lichfields analysis
2.6 The BCA will therefore need to revise its calculation underpinning the local housing need figure in order to reflect the most up-to-date data, and consequently seek to plan for a minimum of 4,011 dwellings per annum (‘dpa’) rather than 4,004 dpa.
2.7 As for the plan period, the BCA should firstly ensure that the period is explicitly expressed within Draft Policy CSP1 to ensure its soundness in the context of NPPF paragraphs 16(d), 22 and 35.
2.8 Secondly, although the 19-year plan period may exceed the minimum 15-year requirement, NPPF paragraph 22 goes on to state:
“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.” [Emphasis added]
2.9 Whilst it is acknowledged that the publication of the 2021 NPPF post-dates this consultation, and therefore the BCA has not had the opportunity to address its final contents, the BCP will need to employ a 30-year delivery trajectory as the development strategy comprises larger scale developments.
2.10 In this regard, NPPF paragraph 22 defines larger-scale developments as including “new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns”, and thus whilst the Council has not opted to include new settlements within its preferred growth strategy, it has nonetheless included significant extensions to existing villages in towns:
Table 2.2 Sites Allocated for Housing by Black Country Plan (Policy HOU1)
Site Ref - Site Name and Address - Indicative Housing Capacity - Gross Site Area (ha) - Net developable area (ha) - Net Density (dph) - Strategic Allocation
WAH232 - Yieldsfield Farm (sometimes recorded as Yieldfields farm), Stafford Road, Bloxwich - 978 - 39.55 - 37.26 - 35 - Policy WSA.4
WAH234 - Land between Queslett Road, Doe Bank Lane and Aldridge Road, Pheasey - 1,426 - 42.27 - 42.27 - 45 - Policy WSA8
WAH235 - Home Farm, Sandhills, Walsall Wood - 1,417 - 54 - 54 - 35 - Policy WSA1
Source: Black Country Plan
2.11 Whilst it is noted that the quantitative threshold qualifying a “significant extension” is ill-defined, the above allocations are all between 900-1,400 dwellings and would therefore likely fall within the scope of a significant extension. Consequently, the BCP should employ a 30-year delivery trajectory to align with NPPF paragraph 22.
GBBCHMA Unmet Housing Need
2.12 Draft Policy CSP1 is unsound as it fails to address the unmet housing need arising from the Great Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA’). 2.13 The HMA overall situation has primarily been set out within the:
• The Strategic Growth Study’ (‘the 2018 SGS’);
• The ‘Housing Need and Housing Land Supply Position Statement’ (September 2018) (‘the 2018 Update’); and
• ‘Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA) Housing Need and Housing Land Supply Position Statement’ (July 2020) (’the 2020 Position Statement’).
2.14 A summary of the concluded shortfall is shown below. The chart compares how the original 37,900 unmet need identified in the original BDP has been gradually whittled down by successive supply reviews, driven by BCC.
Figure 2.1 Comparison of GBBCHMA Unmet Housing Need Positions
[2018 SGS
• BDP Unmet Housing Need (2031) = 37,900
• GBBCHMA Unmet Housing Needs (2031) = 28,150
2018 SGS (Inc. Densities)
• BDP Unmet Housing Need (2031) = 37,900
• GBBCHMA Unmet Housing Needs (2031) = 15150
2018 Update
• BDP Unmet Housing Need (2031) = 37,900
• GBBCHMA Unmet Housing Needs (2031) = 10,696
2020 Position Statement
• BDP Unmet Housing Need (2031) = 37,900
• GBBCHMA Unmet Housing Needs (2031) = 2,597]
Source: Lichfields’ analysis, based on GBBCHMA Position Statements
2.15 Each of these positions has featured very different land supply figures, generally reflecting either changing supply evidence or differing assumptions on densities1. Indeed, the latest position reflected BCC’s ‘Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 2019’ data, which concluded that completions over 2011 to 2019 had exceeded the requirement by c.1,374 dwellings and that the Council’s supply of land has increased by c.14,300.
2.16 Taking the 2020 Position Statement at face value suggests that this significant unmet need challenge has been met. However, the raft of position statements above all use an unmet housing need figure derived for the whole GBBCHMA (i.e. Birmingham and the Black Country) which has not been tested through the examination process and only includes the period to 2031.
2.17 Importantly, the need figure does also not take into account the potential need to consider any uplift to supply to meet matters such as the delivery of affordable housing or economic growth.
2.18 The GBBCHMA Position Statement published in July 2020, concluded that the 2011-2031 shortfall is now estimated to be 2,597, a fall of 13,728 since the Greater Birmingham Strategic Growth Study was published in 2018.
2.19 Appendix 2 of the 2020 Position Statement sets out the allocated and emerging contributions made by the GBBCHMA authorities, which it says totals between 18,130-20,130 dwellings:
Figure 2.2 Summary of Direct Contributions to GBBCHMA’s housing shortfall [see PDF of representation]
2.20 This huge reduction in the identified GBBCHMA shortfall set out in the 2020 Position Statement has been calculated on the basis of BCC banking all the ‘commitments’ made by the GBBCHMA authorities to contribute towards the unmet need.
2.21 This is despite there being no formal agreement between the authorities making up the GBBCHMA regarding the apportionment of this unmet need, and importantly, these ‘commitments’ not forming part of any adopted Local Plan that has been tested through the examination process.
2.22 In this context, arguably, the only adopted and examined shortfall is that set out in BCC’s adopted Local Plan. Therefore, contributions ought to be considered against the adopted c.37,900 shortfall if considering the period to 2031.
2.23 Whilst St Philips agree that Birmingham City Council has markedly improved its housing land supply since establishing the level of unmet need in 2017, it is considered however that there remains a sub-regional housing land supply shortfall across the HMA.
2.24 This is because several of the ‘banked’ housing contributions have been reduced or have been earmarked to help meet the Black Country’s needs.
2.25 This is demonstrated through reference to the following local authority positions around unmet need contributions to date:
South Staffordshire – ‘Up to 4,000’
2.26 It is not clear how much of South Staffordshire District’s emerging c.4,000 dwelling contribution can realistically be said to be exclusively Birmingham’s, given that even the most cursory glance at a map shows that the District wraps around Wolverhampton, Stourbridge and to a lesser extent Walsall. It will obviously have a major role in meeting the Black Country’s emerging unmet needs up to 2039. Furthermore, there are no signed Statements of Common Ground [SoCG] or Memorandums of Understanding [MoU] agreeing to this contribution for Birmingham. At best, only a small part of this 4,000-dwelling contribution is likely to be meeting Birmingham’s unmet needs, with the bulk going towards the Black Country’s.
Lichfield – ‘4,500’
2.27 In the Litchfield District Local Plan 2040 Regulation 19 consultation, Litchfield City Council has already reduced its contribution from c.4,500 to c.2,665. The Plan sets out at paragraph 4.22 that; “Therefore, of the 2,665 homes to be made available to the housing market area to meet their need, a capped contribution of 2,000 is to be made for the Black Country authorities’ needs starting after 2027 to assist with their identified shortfall up to 2040”. The Council is therefore, apportioning 75% of this contribution to help meet the Black Country’s emerging unmet housing need and not those arising from BCC, reducing its contribution to Birmingham from 4,500 to 665 (paragraph 4.22).
North Warwickshire – ‘3,790 + 620’
2.28 North Warwickshire Local Plan has now passed its examination. The Examining Inspector’s Report notes that the Memoranda of Understanding between “NWBC and BCC and TBC acknowledge that the ‘discrete’ figure of 913 homes is subsumed within the overarching figure of 3,790” (IR127). In essence, only 2,877 dwellings are actually going towards meeting Birmingham’s unmet housing needs; and
Stratford on Avon – ‘2,720’
2.29 The 2020 Position Statement states that this c.2,720 dwelling contribution arises from the Coventry and Warwickshire MoU, which estimated that c.50% of the Council’s c.5,440 dwellings, above its demographic need, could be apportioned 50/50 between the GBBCHMA and Coventry and Warwickshire HMA. However, this is completely at odds with the Inspector’s conclusions at the Core Strategy Examination and the purpose of Policy CS.16, which is to provide a mechanism to meet these needs. Indeed, the Inspector was clear that the “MoU has identified a figure but this is based on an incorrect assumption that everything over and above the demographic need is ‘surplus’ and available to meet the needs of others.” (IR62). In essence, only the 600 dwellings being brought forward through the emerging Site Allocations Plan would contribute towards Birmingham.
2.30 These above figures are presented in the diagram below. It should be noted that these figures are dependent on how much of South Staffordshire’s 4,000 dwelling contribution can be attributed towards Birmingham, which at this stage is unknown.
Figure 2.3 Birmingham's Unmet Housing Needs up to 2031 [see PDF of representation]
Source: Lichfields' analysis
2.31 This demonstrates that based upon the stated positions of each of the identified authorities that there is a likely shortfall of between 11,479 and 15,479 dwellings up to 2031.
2.32 There are also of course two main elements to the GBBCHMA unmet need; that coming from Birmingham City; and that coming from the Black Country. For the avoidance of any doubt the position set out above does not include the Black Country shortfall.
2.33 The Position Statement, however, did also conclude that there will be significant shortfall past 2031, with the Black Country alone identifying its own shortfall of 28,239 dwellings.
2.34 The level of shortfall post 2031 will of course be subject to consideration through the future plan making process for the remaining HMA local authorities.
2.35 Whilst it is possible to speculate around a potential minimum level hosing need based upon the current Standard Methodology and assessment of the existing publicly stated housing land supply position, there is of course uncertainty, given that each of the HMA authorities (excluding North Warwickshire) have not yet had seen their emerging Local Plans process through EiP.
2.36 Further still, beyond 2031, there is likely to be a very considerable level of additional unmet housing need arising in Birmingham, as a result of the city being subject to the Government’s 35% urban uplift on its local housing need figure, whilst the LHN figure will rise still further when the standard method Local Plan ‘cap’ is removed in January 2022. BCC has also now decided that it needs to undertake a Development Plan Review following the decision of its Cabinet on 29 June 2021.
2.37 Conclusively, it is incumbent upon the BCA to address the unmet housing need arising from the GBBCHMA as a whole, to avoid exacerbating the already significant shortfall of between 11,479 and 15,479 dwellings up to 2031. Consequently, the shortfall is compounded by the BCA choosing to defer, rather the deal with, its own unmet housing need up to 2039. Black Country Unmet Housing Need and Duty to Cooperate
2.38 Draft Policy CSP1 is unsound as its own unmet housing need identified has been deferred rather than dealt with, contrary to NPPF paragraph 35(c), and the Duty to Cooperate has not been fulfilled.
2.39 The BCP “sets a housing target for the Black Country of 47,837 new homes over the period 2020-39, compared to a local housing need for 76,076 homes, creating a shortfall of 28,239 homes” (paragraph 3.21) [Emphasis added].
2.40 The Black Country Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021) summarised the various sources of housing land supply, comparing current supply with identified need, for the plan period 2020-39. It identified a housing shortfall of 36,819 dwellings in the plan period and concluded that exceptional circumstances had been met to trigger a Green Belt review.
2.41 Table 22 of the BCP sets out the scale and distribution of housing growth as proposed in the development strategy. Additionally, Table 33 confirms that a total of 17,732 dwellings are to be delivered through housing allocations in the BCP, comprising the following sources:
• Occupied Employment Land: 3,091
• Sites released from the Green Belt: 7,720
• Other (discounted by 10%): 6,921
2.42 It is unclear as to the actual source of land supply attributable to the reduction of the shortfall from 36,819 dwellings (as identified in the Urban Capacity Review Update) to 28,239 dwellings (as identified in the BCP), though it is inferred this is derived from sites released from the Green Belt in addition to other sources such as increased densities and/or employment land.
2.43 Notwithstanding, the BCA confirms at Table 2 that it intends to export the 28,239-dwelling shortfall elsewhere in the GBBCHMA through the Duty to Cooperate. Consequently, the BCA has published a Duty to Cooperate Statement (July 2021) setting out how it assumes the shortfall will be addressed elsewhere through the local plan reviews of counterpart HMA authorities.
2.44 Whilst the BCA considers it has “fulfilled the duty through the plan preparation process”, it nonetheless confirms that “it is intended to draft and agree Statements of Common Ground with relevant authorities and bodies on key duty to co-operate issues at the BCP’s publication stage” (paragraph 1.10). The BCP later sets out that “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” (paragraph 3.24).
2.45 Firstly, in the absence of any signed statements of common ground (‘SoCG’), St Philips disagrees with the BCA’s assertion that it has fulfilled the duty at this this stage. NPPF paragraph 35(c) confirms that plans are sound if they are “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”.
2.46 The PPG4 confirms that the preparation of SoCGs with neighbouring authorities will contribute in demonstrating whether the duty has been met:
“How will the duty to cooperate be considered at local plan examination?
The local plan examination will first assess whether a local planning authority has complied with the duty to cooperate and other legal requirements. The Inspector will use all available evidence including statements of common ground, Authority Monitoring Reports, and other submitted evidence (such as the statement of compliance prescribed by Planning Inspectorate’s examination procedure guidance) to determine whether the duty has been satisfied.” [Emphasis added]
2.47 Until the BCA has published such SoCGs and additional evidence detailing the discussions that have taken place, the duty has not been fulfilled.
2.48 The absence of any SoCG at this stage reinforces the apparent issues between the BCA and its counterpart HMA authorities as it is clear there remains a number of areas of disagreement. As later set out, it is noted that the BCA has identified several areas of disagreement with Solihull within their joint ‘Statement of Common Ground between Solihull MBC and the Black Country Authorities’ (April 2021), underpinning the examination into the Solihull Local Plan. The BCA has also objected to the site selection process underpinning the Solihull Local Plan through its response to Matter 3 (The housing requirement/overall housing provision).
2.49 Secondly, as the provisional housing contributions from neighbouring authorities addresses only a limited proportion of the 28,239-dwelling shortfall, the BCP has not sought to maximise housing land supply in order to deal with the residual unmet need.
2.50 In terms of the current position in respect of contributions from neighbouring authorities, the BCA has published a Duty to Cooperate Statement (July 2021) which sets out the direct and indirect ‘offers’ from each authority and considers that potential contributions could total up to 14,750 dwellings.
2.51 However, St Philips considers this assumption wholly flawed and misleading on several grounds. Following a review of the direct and indirect contributions within emerging plans throughout the HMA, it is likely that a potential contribution will total between 3,500–10,770 dwellings:
Table 2.3 Direct and Indirect Contributions to Black Country’s housing shortfall [see PDF of representation]
2.52 Given that the BCA recognises that the contributions from some authorities “would need to be attributed to meeting the needs of Birmingham” (paragraph 7.6), it is wholly inappropriate to ‘bank’ each total contribution as being attributed solely to the Black Country. This is the case for South Staffordshire, Cannock Chase and Solihull who have each not specified to whom their contributions are attributed.
2.53 Furthermore, some authorities such as Stafford Borough have not expressed a definitive commitment to even consider making a contribution to the HMA, particularly as it has concluded that “Stafford Borough comprises its own Housing Market Area (HMA) and that its Functioning Economic Market Area (FEMA) predominantly aligns with Stafford Borough’s administrative boundary”. Similarly, some authorities such as Telford and Wrekin have not yet defined an approximate figure which they have committed to testing through their local plan review.
2.54 Whilst it is recognised that both Stafford and Telford and Wrekin are at early stages of their local plan review, it is nonetheless unknown as to how the BCA has derived contributions of 2,000 and 3,700 dwellings respectively. As such, these should be removed from any assumptions made by the BCA at this stage as to the potential total contribution to the shortfall. 2.55 Notwithstanding, even as discussions with counterpart authorities progress as part of the BCP’s preparation, it is likely that a total contribution of between 3,500–10,770 dwellings represents, at best, a maximum figure. The emerging position therefore demonstrates that the BCA will fall substantially short of addressing the unmet need.
2.56 In this context, NPPF paragraph 35(c) requires that cross-boundary strategic matters are “dealt with rather than deferred” and, at this stage of the BCP plan-making process, it is fundamentally unclear how the residual shortfall up to 2039 will be met through the BCP, serving to highlight the onus on the BCA to reduce this shortfall. In this respect, the justification text for Draft Policy CSP1 states:
“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.”
2.57 Not only is this approach fundamentally flawed and entirely contrary to the requirement of NPPF paragraph 35(c), but it is completely misaligned with “the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes” (NPPF paragraph 60).
2.58 In the knowledge that a large proportion of the unmet need will remain unaddressed, Draft Policy CSP1 would be unsound as the BCA are seeking to defer, rather than deal with, the issue of unmet housing need through the BCP. The BCA should therefore seek to ensure that the housing supply within its administrative areas is truly maximised prior to being exported to other areas.
2.59 This consequently points to the need for the BCA to identify an understanding of the functional relationship between itself and the HMA constituent authorities, and to assess the likely effect of jobs-based growth within the Black Country upon demand for new housing.
2.60 As set out later in these representations, the BCA will be required to identify and release additional land from the Green Belt for housing. To align with the spatial recommendations of the GBHMA Strategic Growth Study, the BCP should allocate land North of Little Aston Road, Aldridge, Walsall. A Vision Document is submitted alongside these representations which demonstrates how up to 180 dwellings could be sustainably accommodated on the site.
2.61 Draft Policy CSP1 is unsound as it fails to take into account the reasonable alternatives for housing growth and therefore would not be justified as per NPPF paragraph 35(b).

Comment

Representation ID: 22409

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields

2.98 Draft Policy GB1 is unsound as it does not seek to identify, allocate and release a sufficient supply of land within the Green Belt for housing.
2.99 As set out in its response to Draft Policies CSP1 and HOU1, St Philips objects to the BCP on the basis that it seeks to provide only 47,837 dwellings in the plan period, leaving a significant shortfall of 28,239 dwellings. The BCP has failed to provide sufficient land to meet the minimum housing needs, as per NPPF paragraph 11(b), and will need to ensure that additional housing land is provided through further Green Belt release.
2.100 As earlier indicated, there are several shortcomings in the Black Country Green Belt Study: Stage 1 and 2 Report (Land Use Consultants, September 2019), and it is considered that the omission of several sites submitted through the Call for Sites is unsound on the basis that the Green Belt Study has applied an inconsistent and flawed approach in the assessment of sites submitted through the Call for Sites.
2.101 This is because the Stage 1 Contribution Assessment has been prepared at such a strategic level as to render its findings on the extent of the potential harm to the Green Belt purposes, as a result of development, questionable when applied to smaller individual potential development sites adjacent to the urban areas.
2.102 By way of example, the geographical scale of some parcels is extremely vast (e.g. between 100-500 ha) whilst others are of a much smaller scale (e.g. between 1-50 ha).
2.103 This varying scale will undoubtedly have a negative and inconsistent impact on the scoring identified in the Green Belt purposes ratings for each parcel, as set out at Table 5.1 within the Stage 1 Findings (page 44).
2.104 St Philips considers the larger Green Belt parcels are capable of logical sub-division based on defensible boundaries. It also recommends that all of the parcels should be of a similar size and that care should be taken to ensure that a consistent approach is taken in respect of the assessment of different parts of the Black Country. This could be achieved through the subdivision of some parcels to ensure that they are all more equally sized. Indeed, it would logically follow that the larger and wider a parcel is delineated, the stronger the parcel performs in terms of its Green Belt purposes as, inherently, it encompasses a greater geographic scale.
2.105 The approach taken in respect of generating the land parcels for assessment is set out at paragraph 4.29:
“By combining the lines marking variations in contribution to Green Belt purposes, a list of land parcels was generated, each of which has a reference number and a rating for contribution to each purpose. The parcels are the product of the assessment rather than a precursor to it. The reasoning behind this approach was to draw out variations in contribution to inform the site-specific assessments undertaken at Stage 2, avoiding broad variations in contribution within prematurely and more arbitrarily defined parcels. Avoiding significant variations in contribution within defined parcels prevents the need for ratings to be generalised to reflect the strongest or average level of contribution within a defined area.”
2.106 Whilst the Stage 2 Harm Assessments consider the sub-parcels at a smaller scale, it is noted that not only are some of these sub-parcels still at a significantly large and inconsistent scale (some extend to <10ha whilst others are >100 ha), but that the assessment of harm is effectively an average of the scorings identified at Stage 1, therefore ultimately being skewed by the Stage 1 findings.
Land North of Little Aston Road, Aldridge, Walsall
2.107 This issue is evident through the assessment of land north of Little Aston Road, Aldridge, Walsall (Call for Sites ID 173).
2.108 St Philips is promoting land north of Little Aston Road, Aldridge, Walsall and submitted the site accordingly through the Call for Sites process. A Vision Document is submitted alongside these representations which demonstrates how up to 137 dwellings could be delivered at the site.
Stage 1 Contribution Assessment
2.109 Within the Stage 1 Contribution Assessment, the site forms part of Parcel Reference B93 (East of Walsall) with a parcel size of 1768.3 ha, as illustrated below.
Figure 2.4 Parcel B93 at Stage 1 Contribution Assessment (Constraints Map) [see PDF of representation] Source: Black Country Green Belt Study Appendix 2 - Stage 1 Contribution Assessments
Figure 2.5 Parcel B93 at Stage 1 Contribution Assessment (Aerial Map) [see PDF of representation] Source: Black Country Green Belt Study Appendix 2 - Stage 1 Contribution Assessments
2.110 As can be seen, the parcel boundary incorporates a vast swathe of the east Walsall. Ultimately, it is considered that 1768.3 ha is too large of a geographic area such that meaningful conclusions can be drawn as to the Green Belt Purposes of sub-parcels within the wider parcel. By way of comparison, a large proportion of other parcels within Walsall have been drawn significantly smaller at between 1-50 ha.
2.111 As earlier established, it would logically follow that the larger and wider a parcel is delineated, the stronger the parcel performs in terms of its Green Belt purposes as, inherently, it encompasses a greater geographic scale. This inconsistent approach has therefore unfairly resulted in parcel B93 being assessed as performing generally strong against the Green Belt purposes:
Table 2.5 Performance of parcel B93 against Green Belt purposes [see PDF of representation] Source: Black Country Green Belt Study Appendix 2 - Stage 1 Contribution Assessments
2.112 This inaccurate scoring has consequently followed through into the Stage 2 Harm Assessment.
Stage 2 Harm Assessment
2.113 Within the Stage 2 Harm Assessment, the site form parts of Sub-Parcel Reference B93D (Little Aston Road) with a parcel size of 96.8 ha, as illustrated below.
Figure 2.6 Parcel B93D at Stage 2 Harm Assessment (Constraints Map) [see PDF of representation] Source: Black Country Green Belt Study Appendix 3 - Stage 2 Harm Assessments
Figure 2.7 Parcel B93D at Stage 2 Contribution Assessment (Aerial Map) [see PDF of representation] Source: Black Country Green Belt Study Appendix 3 - Stage 2 Harm Assessments
2.114 Whilst the Stage 2 Harm Assessments has considered the sub-parcel at a smaller scale, it is not broadly aligned with promoted site reference #173 and fails to illustrate promoted site reference #332. Additionally, the assessment of harm of ‘Very High’ has effectively been derived from an average of the scorings identified at Stage 1, therefore ultimately being skewed by the Stage 1 findings.
2.115 This is a fundamental flaw in the methodology of the Green Belt Study which results in a failure to account for a more localised assessment of how sub-parcels and promoted sites perform against the Green Belt purposes. As a result of this shortcoming, the land at Little Aston Road, Aldridge, which would have otherwise been selected for Green Belt removal, has been artificially omitted.
2.116 The Green Belt Study methodology should be reviewed and amended to address this issue, and the land at Little Aston Road should be proposed for removal from the Green Belt and allocated for housing accordingly.

Comment

Representation ID: 22410

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields

3.1 Draft Policy DEL3 states all developments of ten or more dwellings “will be required to deliver Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) capacity / infrastructure to all individual properties”.
3.2 St Philips recognises that new residential development should have infrastructure to facilitate access to high-speed broadband connections. However, the BCA should not impose new electronic communications requirements beyond the provision of infrastructure as set out in statutory Building Regulations.
3.3 In the Budget (11th March 2020), the Government confirmed future legislation to ensure that new build homes are built with gigabit-capable broadband. The Government will amend Part R
“Physical Infrastructure for High-Speed Electronic Communications Networks” of the Building Regulations to place obligations on housing developers to work with network operators to install gigabit broadband, where this can be done within a commercial cost cap.
3.4 Draft Policy DEL3 is unsound because it fails the four tests of soundness as per NPPF paragraph 35 as it is not positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 22411

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields

3.6 Draft Policy HOU3 states “all developments of ten homes or more should provide a proportion of affordable housing, where this is financially viable. The minimum proportion of affordable housing that should be provided is:
a. On all sites in lower value zones and brownfield sites* in medium value zones: 10% affordable housing;
b. On greenfield sites in medium value zones: 20% affordable housing;
c. On all sites in higher value zones: 30% affordable housing.”
3.7 St Philips support the BCA’s differentiated approach to the provision of affordable housing, which is justified by the Black Country Viability & Delivery Study. However, the proposed percentages set out in draft Policy HOU3 are marginally above the recommendations of the Black Country Viability & Delivery Study25.
3.8 Notwithstanding, it is noted that the Study recommends that the BCA “could therefore increase the affordable housing target to 10% in-line with national policy and consider other proactive interventions in the market to deliver the housing” (paragraph 10.24).
3.9 Additionally, the Study notes that the BCA:
“…has achieved 3.5% S106 affordable housing (as proportion of total net homes across the Black Country) over period 2010-20 - equivalent to approximately 5% on eligible sites of 10 homes or more.” (paragraph 10.52)
3.10 This further justifies the need for the BCA to provide for additional housing land supply in order to increase the provision of affordable housing. Such an approach is encouraged by the PPG26: “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.”
3.11 Draft Policies CSP1 and HOU1 should therefore be amended to provide additional housing land supply in order to increase the overall provision of affordable housing.

Object

Representation ID: 22412

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields

3.12 Draft Policy TRAN8, proposals for low emission vehicles will be supported by “ensuring that new developments include adequate provision for charging infrastructure e.g. electric vehicle charging points in car parks…”
3.13 As set out in the Department of Transport consultation on Electric Vehicle Charging in Residential & Non-Residential Buildings (ended on 7th October 2019), the Government's preferred option is the introduction of a new requirement for EVCPs under Part S of the Building Regulations. The inclusion of EVCP requirements within the Building Regulations will introduce a standardised consistent approach to EVCPs in new buildings across the country and supersede the BCA’s policy approach.
3.14 Until the introduction of proposed changes to Part S of the Building Regulations, St Philips considers that the physical installation of active EVCPs is inappropriate, as a passive cable and duct approach means that householders can later arrange and install an active EVCP of their choice.
3.15 NPPF paragraph 16d states that policies should be “clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals.” The policy should therefore be clearer in specifying if adequate provision for charging infrastructure is a requirement for a passive cable and duct approach or installation of active EVCPs.
3.16 Draft Policy TRAN8 is unsound because it fails the four tests of soundness as per NPPF paragraph 35 as it is not positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy

Comment

Representation ID: 22413

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields

3.17 Draft Policy ENV3 states that “all development shall deliver a minimum 10% net gain in biodiversity value when measured against baseline site information.”
3.18 St Philips supports the principle of biodiversity offsetting through Biodiversity Net Gain (‘BNG’). However, the BCP should not pre-empt the Government’s requirements on BNG, set out in the 2019 Environment Bill.
3.19 An example of this pre-emption concerns Milton Keynes Council, whereby the Milton Keynes Local Plan included a policy (Policy NE3) that required BNG; albeit, it did not specify the level required. In its decision-making, the Council had sought to have regard to the 2019 Environment Bill which referred to a 10% BNG after development compared to the level of biodiversity prior to development taking place. In an appeal at Land at Brickhill Street, South Caldecotte,27 the Inspector concluded that:
“Whilst the Environment Bill is a material consideration, it is not yet law. I attach greater weight to the adopted Plan:MK Policy NE3, which does not set out any specific level of biodiversity net gain.” (IR42)
3.20 In essence, draft Policy ENV3 should be cautious in its approach to proposing a BNG policy requirement in advance of the Environment Bill passing in law. In this context, the BCA should not deviate from the current proposals on BNG as set out in the Environment Bill, and should certainly not specify a requirement above 10%. Consequently, the prefix “a minimum” should be deleted.
3.21 Moreover, it may not be possible for all sites to provide BNG on-site. The BCA should apply proportionality in their application of planning policy. Sites without reasonable opportunities to achieve biodiversity net gain should not face risks of delay through rigid or prescriptive requirements. Therefore, a policy approach to BNG should include provision for off-site contributions to mitigation, where this is appropriate and required.
3.22 Furthermore, consideration should also be given to the provision of a comprehensive package of strategically located habitat banks across the BCP area. Without a comprehensive network of these, it will be difficult for developments that require off-site mitigation to deliver this and therefore could render some otherwise deliverable sites to be undeliverable.
3.23 Draft Policy ENV3 is unsound because it fails the four tests of soundness as per NPPF paragraph 35 as it is not positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy

Object

Representation ID: 22416

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields

3.24 Draft Policy ENV9 states that all new residential development “will be required to meet the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS), except where it can be clearly evidenced that the implementation of the NDSS would cause harm to the significance of a heritage asset. The space standards will apply to all tenures.”
3.25 If the Council wishes to apply the optional NDSS to all dwellings, then this should only be done in accordance with NPPF paragraph 130(f) and footnote 49. Footnote 49 states that “policies may also make use of the NDSS where the need for an internal space standard can be justified”.
3.26 As set out in the NPPF, all policies should be underpinned by relevant and up to date evidence, which should be adequate, proportionate and focussed tightly on supporting and justifying the policies concerned (paragraph 31). The PPG28 sets out that “where a need for internal space standards is identified, the authority should provide justification for requiring internal space policies. Authorities should take account of the following areas need, viability and timing”. The BCA should provide a local assessment evidencing its case; however, no evidence has been presented to justify the policy requirement.
3.27 Draft Policy ENV9 is unsound because it fails the four tests of soundness as per NPPF paragraph 35 as it is not positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 22429

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields

3.28 Draft Policy CC7 states that major developments creating ten or more homes must “achieve a 19% carbon reduction improvement upon the requirements within Building Regulations Approved Document, Part L 2013, or achieve any higher standard than this that is required under new national planning policy or building regulations.”
3.29 St Philips supports the objective of achieving net zero carbon development but considers that the BCP should comply with the Government’s intention of achieving net zero carbon development through the Building Regulations. As such, the BCA’s proposed policy approach is unnecessary because of the higher levels of energy efficiency standards for new homes proposed in the 2021 Part L uplift and the Future Homes Standard 2025.

3.30 Draft Policy ENV9 is unsound because it fails the four tests of soundness as per NPPF paragraph 35 as it is not positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 22430

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields

[Sustainability Appraisal]

2.62 Chapter 3 of the ‘Sustainability Appraisal of the Black Country Plan’ (Lepus Consulting, July
2021) (‘the SA’) sets out the various housing growth options assessed in sustainability terms. Table 3.1 of the SA outlines the five housing options subjected to the appraisal, as replicated below.
Table 2.4 Sustainability Appraisal Housing Options (May 2021) [see PDF of representation] Source: Sustainability Appraisal of the Black Country Plan (Lepus Consulting, July 2021) Table 3.1
2.63 Although the BCP Preferred Approach (Chapter 3.5) does not actually confirm the BCA’s preferred housing growth option, the Executive Summary confirms that the BCP “proposes a strategy that is most closely aligned with Option 5” (page vii).
2.64 There is seemingly no rationale or justification for the five housing options appraised, other than that “the four authorities developed five housing number and five employment number options to be subject to sustainability appraisal” (paragraph 3.1.2). Notwithstanding, the BCA’s approach is flawed on two grounds.
2.65 Firstly, the preferred option, Option 5, is effectively a duplicate of Option 2 as both options incorporate a housing requirement of 47,837 dwellings within the BCP area boundary. In itself, Option 5 is somewhat disingenuous as it refers to a housing requirement of 76,076 dwellings whilst proposing 28,239 dwellings to be exported outside of the BCP area boundary.
2.66 In this respect, the PPG16 confirms that the reasonable alternatives are to be identified “taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan or programme”. Consequently, it is not within the remit or scope of the SA to appraise the sustainability credentials of exporting housing growth outside of the administrative area of the Black Country and the area boundary of the BCP.
2.67 This option should therefore be removed, and the SA be amended to clarify that the preferred growth option is indeed Option 2 and not Option 5.
2.68 Secondly, following removal of Option 5 as set out above, the growth alternatives essentially comprise four separate housing quantum options:
• Option 1: 40,117 dwellings;
• Option 2: 47,837 dwellings;
• Option 3: 76,076 dwellings;
• Option 4: 79,076 dwellings.
2.69 Fundamentally, the distinction between Options 1 & 2 and Options 3 & 4 are too broad and wide-ranging such that the sustainability implications of a mid-range growth option have been disregarded. By way of illustration, the proportional difference between Option 1 and 2 amounts to circa 19%, whilst the difference between Option 3 and 4 amounts to circa 4%.
2.70 However, the proportional difference between Option 2 and 3 amounts to circa 59%: this is clearly too significant of a distinction and therefore does not allow for the appraisal of an intermediate growth option and its associated sustainability implications. In this regard, the PPG17 states:
“Reasonable alternatives are the different realistic options considered by the plan-maker in developing the policies in the plan. They need to be sufficiently distinct to highlight the different sustainability implications of each so that meaningful comparisons can be made.”
2.71 By omitting a mid-range growth option, for example an option within a range of between 50,000–70,000 dwellings, the BCA has artificially omitted a reasonable but realistic alternative which could potentially provide more positive and less negative sustainability impacts, whilst still meeting the objectives, than the preferred option.
2.72 In this respect, whilst R (Friends of the Earth) v Welsh Ministers [2015]18 confirms it is for the plan-making body to identify the reasonable alternatives, Hickinbottom J sets out:
“Article 5(1) refers to “reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives… of the plan or programme…” (emphasis added). “Reasonableness” in this context is informed by the objectives sought to be achieved. An option which does not achieve the objectives, even if it can properly be called an “alternative” to the preferred plan, is not a “reasonable alternative”. An option which will, or sensibly may, achieve the objectives is a “reasonable alternative”.” (paragraph 88)
2.73 Consequently, the SA as currently prepared is unsound as the BCA has failed to identify and test the sustainability implications of a growth option within a range of between 50,000–70,000 dwellings as a reasonable alternative. For this reason, Draft Policy CSP1 is unsound as it conflicts with NPPF paragraphs 32 and 35(c).