Draft Black Country Plan

Support

Representation ID: 22499

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Barberry

Agent: Harris Lamb

DUH211 - The Triangle

Dear Sir or Madam,

Draft Black Country Plan Consultation
Response by Barberry Kingswinford Ltd.

Harris Lamb Planning Consultancy ('HLPC') are instructed by Barberry Kingswinford Ltd ('Barberry') to submit representations to the Draft Black Country Plan ('BCP') and welcome the opportunity to comment at this time. Barberry are promoting land for residential development at Swindon Road, Wall Heath, Kingswinford (often referred to as The Triangle site) and have previously submitted details of the site to the Call for Sites.

The site is identified in the Draft plan as a strategic housing allocation under policy DSA.2 to deliver 530 dwellings. Clearly, we support the Council's intention to remove the site from the Green Belt and to allocate it for residential development and our comments to the Plan should be read with this objective in mind. To assist the Councils, we submit alongside these representations a Delivery Document for the site that sets out how the proposals will deliver the requirements of the draft policy and allocation.

Notwithstanding our support for the draft allocation we also comment on the spatial strategy, need for release of land from the Green Belt along with a number of the development management policies. We set out our detailed comments below.

Vision for the Black Country

This is succinct and to the point, which is welcomed.

Objectives and Strategic Priorities

Barberry welcome the inclusion of 'Housing that meets all our needs' as a Strategic Priority and consider themselves well placed to assist with helping meet these needs. We return to this point below.




BIRMINGHAM
0121 455 9455

NOTTINGHAM
STOKE-ON-TRENT
01782 272555

WORCESTER



ISO
9001:2015



INVESTORS


,d RTPI (~

0115 947 6236
REGISTERED
01905 22666 •
'_ IN PEOPLE
Ff' ow

RICS

A full list of Directors available on request Registration No. 4301250 Regulated by RIGS Harris Lamb Limited, Grosvenor House, 75-76 Francis Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham 816 8SP

www.harrislamb.com
To: Black Country Plan Consultation Date: 11 October 2021



Policy CSP1 - Development Strategy

Policy CSP1 -- Development Strategy, of the draft Plan provides the overarching policy guidance on housing delivery during the course of the Plan Period. Part 1.(a) of the policy states that during the course of the Plan Period "at least" 47,837 net new homes will be provided in the Black Country. However, the housing target of 47,837 dwellings will not deliver the total number of houses that are required. Table 2- Black Country Development Strategy
2020-2039, of the draft Plan identifies a need for the development of 76,076 dwellings. The residual requirement of 28,239 dwellings will be directed to other local authority areas through the duty to cooperate. The exact proportions of where and when this will happen are yet to be established.

We have a number of concerns with the overall housing requirement identified in the Plan and the sources of housing land supply that have been identified to meet the target. This has consequential implications for the quantum of development that will be needed to be exported to other local authority areas and whilst this Plan cannot allocate land for development in other authorities, the shortfall that arises reinforces the need to make as much use of those sites for development within the Black Country such as the land at The Triangle site.

In the first instance, Table 2 of the draft Plan suggests that a total of 76,076 dwellings is required during the Plan Period. This is, however, less than the Standard Method housing requirement identified by the Black Country Housing Market Assessment 2021 ("BCHMA"), produced by the Black Country Authorities. At paragraph 4.13 it is advised that "the final housing need in the Black Country, assessed using the revised Standard Method, is 4,019 per year". The Plan period runs from 2020 to 2039. As such, the BCHMA concludes with a total of 76,361 dwellings required during the course of the plan period (4,019dpa x 19 years).

The National Planning Policy Framework ("the Framework") advises at paragraph 61 that to determine the "minimum" number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing needs assessment conducted using the Standard Method, unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach, which also reflects current and future demographic trends and market signals. The draft Plan suggests a minimum housing figure below that identified by the BCHMA, and consequently fails to meet the requirement of the Framework. That being the case, as a very minimum the overall housing requirement needs to be uplifted by 285 dwellings to be consistent with the Council's evidenced based documents.

Paragraph 4.14 of the BCHMA advises that whilst paragraph 010 of the PPG identifies a series of circumstances where it may be appropriate to pursue a higher housing needs figure than is indicated by the Standard Method "this assessment is carried out on the basis that the Standard Method figure set out in the above will apply". That being the case, the BCHMA does not test whether the minimum standard of housing requirement figure should be increased, in accordance with the requirements of the PPG.

Paragraph ID:2a - 010 - 20201216, of the PPG advises that "there will be circumstances where it is appropriate to consider whether the actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates. This will need to be assessed prior to, and separate from, considering how much of the overall need can be accommodated (and then translated into a housing requirement figure for the strategic policies in the plan). Circumstances where this may be appropriate include, but are not limited to situations where increases in housing need are likely to exceed past trends because of:

• Growth strategies for the area that are likely to be deliverable;



HLPC Ref: P1086 Page 2
To: Black Country Plan Consultation Date: 11 October 2021



• Strategic infrastructure improvements that are likely to drive an increase in the homes needed locally; or

• An authority agreeing to take on unmet need from neighbouring authorities.

We are not aware of any assessment to establish whether the minimum Standard Method housing requirement should be exceeded. It could be the case that the minimum Standard Method housing requirement is not sufficient to meet the housing needs of the Black Country. In this regard we note that Table 5.1 of the BCHMA identifies that the percentage of people of working age in the Black Country will be less in 2039 than it is in 2020. In order to meet the emerging Plan's economic growth aspirations, it is necessary to ensure that a sufficient number of houses are provided to meet the jobs which will be created during the course of the Plan Period. An assessment should be undertaken to establish if the housing requirement needs to be uplifted to support economic growth, and if so, additional sites identified to meet this increased need.

In addition, the demand for affordable housing is a significant factor that should be considered in establishing the housing requirement. Paragraph 6.6 of the BCHMA advises that there is a requirement for 867 affordable properties per year in the Black Country. This is the equivalent of approximately 21.6% of the annualised housing requirement (including the proportion of the housing requirement that will be directed outside of the Plan area). It is expected that the principal way of delivering this affordable housing would be via Section 106 agreements.

Policy HOU3 -- Delivering Affordable Housing, Wheelchair Accessibility and Self Build/Custom Build Housing, advises that 10% affordable housing will be sought on sites in lower value areas and brownfield sites in medium value zones. 20% affordable housing will be sought on greenfield sites and in medium value areas. On all sites in higher value areas 30% affordable housing will be sought. That being the case, only the sites in the higher value areas deliver more than 21.6% affordable housing.

The draft Plan does not identify what proportion of the housing requirement is expected to take place in each of these zones. However, paragraph 6.4 of the Plan advises that 81 % of the housing requirement is expected to be provided on brownfield land, and 19% on greenfield land. That being the case, this strongly suggests that the affordable housing policy within the Plan will be incapable of delivering a sufficient quantum of affordable housing to meet their identified need.

We are not aware of any assessment that seeks to establish the relationship between the quantum of affordable housing required by the BCHMA, and the likely level of affordable housing that it is expected by Policy HOU3 of the Plan will deliver. This is a key piece of evidence that is missing from the emerging Plan. An increase to the minimum housing requirement may be required to ensure that a sufficiently supply of affordable housing is provided.

Drawing these matters together, it is our view that the housing requirement within the plan is not justified given that it is below the minimum Standard Method requirement, and there appears to have been no supporting work undertaken to establish if there is a requirement for an uplift to the minimum Standard Method Housing target on economic or affordability grounds. Updating it so that it accords with the standard method would be a starting point, whilst also looking to apply any uplifts due to economic or affordability grounds would also address this.






HLPC Ref: P1086 Page 3
To: Black Country Plan Consultation Date: 11 October 2021



We also have a number of concerns with the deliverability of various sources of the housing demand supply identified by the Plan. Table 3 - Black Country Housing Land Supply Indicative Phasing 2020-2039, identifies the various sources of housing land supply. We have a number of concerns with the sources of supply, including:

• Sites with Other Commitment - The sites in this category are expected to deliver 3,802 dwellings during the course of the plan period. It is understood from the Black Country authorities SHLAAs that an "other commitment" is a site with a resolution to grant planning permission but the Section 106 has not been signed. This source of supply is discounted by 10% in order to allow for non-delivery. It is not clear from the draft Plan how the 10% discount rate has been calculated. However, it is noted that the SHLAAs (e.g. Walsall SH LAA 2019 paragraph 17) advise that Other Commitments are discounted by 10% as the adopted Black Country Core Strategy ("BCCS") applied a discount rate of 10% to commitments. It is advised that a discount rate that is based on past trends may not be an appropriate way of establishing future delivery rates. Housing delivery in the Black Country has been affected by the 2008 recession and a number of government initiatives for improving future delivery, such as help to buy and ISA for first time buyers.

Whilst this may be the case, we would also suggest that it is equally unreliable to take a discount rate from the adopted BCCS, which was published in 2011. The BCCS is in excess of ten years old, and its supporting evidence documents even older. At the very least, a past trends based analysis should be undertaken in order to see if the discount rate is robust for the Other Commitments category. There is insufficient information available to determine whether or not the discount rate suggested is robust. Furthermore, it is not clear whether there are sites with a resolution to grant planning permission, but the Section106 has not been signed, where the resolutions are several years old. If the resolution to grant planning permission is more than 6 months old the site should not be included as a source of supply.

• Existing Housing Allocations in Strategic Centres -- These sites are expected to provide
4,973 dwellings. This is excluding those sites within the Strategic Centres that already have the benefit of planning permission, a resolution to grant planning permission, or are completed. The Walsall Site Allocations Document was adopted in 2019. The Dudley Borough Development Strategy was adopted in February 2017 and other various Dudley MBC AAPs were adopted between 2011 and 2017. The Sandwell Site Allocations and Delivery DPD was adopted in December 2012. The Wolverhampton Area Action Plans were adopted between 2014 and 2016. There has, therefore, been a significant period of time for the sites allocated for development in the Strategic Centre to come forward for development. The fact that these sites have not delivered despite the benefit of a positive planning framework suggests that there may be problems with their delivery. That being the case, the 10% discount rate suggested for these sites is entirely unrealistic.

• Occupied Employment Land - Occupied employment land is expected to deliver 3,091 dwellings towards the total housing requirement. This should not be included as a source of supply. There is no guarantee if or when such sites will come forward for development. Landowner's intentions may change during the course of the Plan Period. In addition, we have frequently found that industrial values outweigh residential values in large parts of the Black Country. As a consequence, it simply may not be economic to bring a site forward for residential development.

Furthermore, there is a significant shortfall of employment land within the Black
Country, and the conurbation as a whole. Whilst new employment allocations are


HLPC Ref: P1086 Page 4
To: Black Country Plan Consultation Date: 11 October 2021



proposed by the Plan these will be new build estates where rents will be significantly greater than second hand stock. It is unlikely that businesses that are located on the poorer quality employment sites will be able to afford to rent or buy a new premises. Secondary, and lower cost stock, plays a vital role in the West Midlands economy. Losing land of this type to residential use may result in businesses closing. We are, therefore, extremely concerned that this source of supply is by and large undeliverable but could also have a detrimental effect on the supply of employment land through the plan area. If allocated employment sites come forward for development during the course of the Plan Period they should simply be treated as part of the proposed windfall allowance.

• Other Allocations - The "Other" allocations within the plan have a 10% discount rate applied. It is not clear how this discount rate has been calculated. However, given the significant proportion of the allocations in the draft Plan that are not Green Belt are brownfield sites they are likely to have delivery constraints. A 10% discount rate is inadequate.

• Additional Site Capacity in Strategic Centres - The sites in this category are due to be identified and allocated through subsequent Local Plans produced later into the plan period. We are concerned that the housing figures identified for these areas are not robust, and ultimately the plan making process will find that there is not the capacity to deliver this level of development within future Local Plans. A substantial discount rates should, therefore, be applied to sites in this category.

In light of the concerns expressed above about the various components of the supply, this reiterates our view about the importance of ensuring that sites included in the Plan and specifically those sites that are identified as draft allocations are deliverable. The accompanying Delivery Document presents further evidence of the deliverability of the draft allocation at Swindon Road (The Triangle site).

Furthermore, as detailed in our response to policy HOU2, we are concerned that the density requirements identified are over optimistic. The emerging plan seeks to adopt a space standard policy which will increase dwelling sizes impacting upon density. It is not unusual, in our experience, for brownfield sites within the Black Country to have constraints that adversely affect density, such as mineshafts or due to their relationship to surrounding uses. In addition, Table 5.10 of the BCHMA, advises that 54% of the housing requirement should be delivered as three or more bedroom properties, with over 25% of the properties required as four bed plus. Larger dwellings take up more space. This will drive down the density that can be achieved on certain sites whilst not all sites identified in the Plan would support a large proportion of 3 and 4 bed properties.

In conclusion, we have concerns about the some of the identified sources of supply and whether this will be capable of meeting that part of the housing requirement identified by the Plan to be developed in the Black Country in full. In addition, given the housing requirement should be a minimum there is clearly a distinct advantage in erring on the side of caution, and applying robust and realistic lapse rates to the various sources of supply and allocating additional sites to provide that flexibility and buffer. Without this, a housing delivery shortfall has the potential to be extremely problematic, causing five year housing land supply issues, failing the Housing Delivery Test and delaying the delivery of much needed market and affordable housing within the Black Country for those that need it, something which we are keen to avoid.






HLPC Ref: P1086 Page 5
To: Black Country Plan Consultation Date: 11 October 2021




Policy CSP2 - The Strategic Centres and Core Growth Regeneration Areas

We generally support the objective of directing development to the Strategic Centres and Core Growth Regeneration Areas and these being the main focus for regeneration and investment. It is considered appropriate that most new development should be directed to where it is most needed but also where it is best able to accommodate it in terms of accessibility and existence of facilities and services to serve new development. Locations such as these are considered suitable for higher density development where new residents would have the greatest access to commercial, cultural, leisure, entertainment and community facilities, as well as employment opportunities.

The proposed strategy seeks to carry forward the same (or very similar) strategy that was set out in the adopted Black Country Core Strategy (2011 ). This has been successful to a point in delivering new housing and employment development throughout the Black Country and as such, we have no objection in principle to it being carried forward as the basis for underpinning and directing where the majority of new development should go going forward.

Notwithstanding the focus on Strategic Centres and the Core Growth Regeneration Areas we welcome the fact that the BCA acknowledge that not all of its growth requirements can be met within these areas, on previously developed land, and whilst it is appropriate that the majority of development is directed to these locations we support the fact that other greenfield sites, including land that is to be removed from the Green Belt is also going to be required to help meet the housing needs of the BCA.

Policy CSP3 - Towns and Neighbourhood Areas and the Green Belt

We support Policy CSP3 and the objective to deliver 27,068 homes outside of the Strategic Centres and Regeneration Corridors. We specifically welcome the intention that 6,792 homes are to be delivered through a network of Neighbourhood Growth Areas (NGA), which the supporting text defines at paragraph 3.46 as "are large sites, or clusters of smaller sites, which have been released from the green belt in sustainable locations on the edge of the urban area (as set out in the Site Assessment Report) for housing or employment development." In light of Barberry's land at interests at The Triangle site, which is one of the sites that has been identified as a draft housing allocation and, therefore, one of the NGAs that are referred to in the policy, we wholly support this objective.

We agree that NGAs will not only deliver the housing that they are expected to but will also make valuable contributions to the provision of the network of green infrastructure, improving linkages within and through the boroughs and enhancing the landscape and where possible for heritage, recreation, agricultural and nature conservation value. We agree that these objectives can be achieved through the preparation of masterplans for the various sites and that the appropriate infrastructure can be planned and delivered for each site accordingly. We return to the specific merits of The Triangle site later in these representations so will not repeat those here.

The identification of NGA, alongside directing development to the strategic centres and regeneration corridors will provide a choice to home owners and prospective purchasers as to where to buy a new home. As well as increasing choice, this will help diversify communities and deliver much needed affordable homes across the Black Country.

As we have set out in our response to CSP1, we agree that exceptional circumstances exist to release land from the Green Belt and agree with the sites and land that the Council are




HLPC Ref: P1086 Page 6
To: Black Country Plan Consultation Date: 11 October 2021



currently proposing to release from it. In doing so, we agree that there is a need to create a new defensible Green Belt boundary going forward.

Policy CSP4 - Achieving Well-designed Places

We generally welcome the thrust of Policy CSP4 and agree that achieving well designed places that make a positive contribution to the local character of an area is a desirable policy objective. Furthermore, the thrust of national planning policy seeks to emphasise the role that good design can and should play in new development as evidenced by the recent updates to the Framework and the inclusion of specific new design policies in Chapter 12.

Whilst the general approach in Policy CSP4 is welcomed paragraph 127 of the Framework states that "Plans should, at the most appropriate level, set out a clear design vision and expectations, so that applicants have as much certainty as possible about what is likely to be acceptable. Design policies should be developed with local communities so they reflect local aspirations, and are grounded in an understanding and evaluation of each area's defining characteristics." We consider that the proposed policy is appropriate and provides sufficient clarity as to what will be expected and what would be acceptable.

Paragraph 128 of the Framework goes on to state that production of design guides or codes would provide maximum clarity about design expectations. We disagree and consider that the Policy is sufficient to provide guidance on what is needed and required. Production and preparation of design codes has the potential to create a whole plethora of issues and delays when seeking to bring new housing development forward, all of which we are keen to avoid if applied on a blanket authority wide basis. Clearly, we acknowledge that there will be certain circumstances or instances where such additional design guidance would be beneficial and as such, we do not object outright to this, but wish to avoid a situation where every site or development is subject to a design code.

Reference is made within the policy to achieving high levels of sustainability and use of sustainable modern technologies. We agree with this objective and agree that if we are going to tackle climate change and global warming then we should be doing what we can at all stages of the development process to try and address this. The approach taken in the policy is welcomed in that it does not try and conflate the dual roles of the planning process with Building Regulations, as we consider that Building Regulations are a far more efficient and effective way of securing sustainable building design and energy reduction than the planning system is.

Policy GB1 - The Black Country Green Belt

As set out in our response to CSP1 we agree that exceptional circumstances exist to release land from the Green Belt for development. As the promotor of one of the sites that is proposed for release from the Green Belt and its allocation for housing we clearly support the Council's intentions in this respect. In relation to Policy GB1, and the requirements for sites that are to be released from the Green Belt, we agree that the design of development will need to include physical features that define the Green Belt boundary in a readily and permanent way and that compensatory improvements to the environmental quality, biodiversity and accessibility will be required to offset the impact of removing the land from the Green Belt. The accompanying Delivery Document produced for The Triangle site and submitted alongside this response sets out how development can achieve the policy requirements identified in the Plan such as access, drainage and achieving biodiversity net gain.






HLPC Ref: P1086 Page 7
To: Black Country Plan Consultation Date: 11 October 2021





Policy DEL1 - Infrastructure Provision

We agree that that all new development should be supported by the necessary on and off-site infrastructure to serve its need and to mitigate the impact of development on the environment and local community. The Policy states that the BCA will set out in the Plan and Infrastructure Delivery Plan what is needed and required in order to service development. Clearly, this would be helpful as it would provide certainty as to what would be required when sites are brought forward for development. Similarly, it would also assist developers when making decisions about acquiring sites as they would be fully appraised of the likely costs involved and can make informed decisions about what certain sites can support.

Whilst clearly this has a benefit to developers and the development industry, it would also be beneficial to the Council as they would have a good understanding of what each site can realistically deliver, be that a contribution to affordable housing or capacity to accommodate a new primary school for example. By having regard to the viability of development it should be acknowledged that not all sites will be able deliver the full range of infrastructure (as defined in paragraph 4.24) and whilst some will be able to, this cannot be said for all of them. By knowing what can be delivered, informed decisions can then be made about where any shortfalls in provision need to be made up elsewhere, thereby resulting in better planned development. It also potentially reduces the instances where developers/promoters seek to argue that development is not viable so a benefit to the Council as well if this happens.

We do, however, welcome the acknowledgment in the policy that there are going to be situations where development is affected by viability and that it may not be able to deliver everything that the Councils expect. This is the reality of undertaking development on brownfield sites in that one cannot foresee every eventuality at the outset and that there has to be a degree of pragmatism on both sides in order to deliver new housing and employment. We consider that the policy seeks to strike that balance.

Policy DEL3 - Promotion of Fibre to the Premises and 5G Networks

In principle we have no objection with major new development being required to deliver FTTP capacity/infrastructure as this will clearly benefit the occupiers of the new development. Whilst in principle we have no objection to the requirement to deliver such infrastructure, we are unclear how exactly this would take place and how the requirement would be secured. Clearly the onus to install such infrastructure would fall on the party responsible for constructing the new homes albeit that it is not always this party that is responsible for promoting the development in the first place. It would need to be established that it is technically feasible to deliver the required infrastructure before placing an obligation on a developer to do so as otherwise, there would need to be some get out clause if it wasn't feasible to install it for whatever reason. So, in principle we agree with the requirement but there should be a proviso included in the policy that where it is not technically feasible to install then the requirement would fall away.

Policy HW1 - Health and Wellbeing

In principle we have no objection to what the policy is seeking to achieve and agree that new development should protect and improve the physical, social and mental health and well being of the residents of the Black Country. However, the way the policy is structured leaves us questioning why it is needed at all as all it does is refer to other policies in the Plan. For example, in relation to part d) Energy Efficiency it states that this must be achieved having regard to policies CSP4, ENV9, CC1, CC2, CC3 and CC7, whilst part f) states that this must


HLPC Ref: P1086 Page 8
To: Black Country Plan Consultation Date: 11 October 2021



also comply with policies HOU5, EMP2, EMP3 and EMP5. As all parts of Policy HW1 are requiring compliance with other policies of the plan anyway, what is the point of having a further policy to duplicate matters. If one were to comply with CSP4 one would also, in effect, comply with HW1 for example. As such, we do not consider that the policy is necessary as it is an unnecessary duplication of other policies in the Plan.

Policy HW2 - Healthcare Infrastructure

The Policy states that where major development has an unacceptable impact on the capacity of existing infrastructure then contributions would be required to improve such services. We do not disagree with such an approach and agree that if new development does place additional demands on existing infrastructure then it is right that adequate mitigation is provided in the form of either additional capacity or a financial contribution. However, there has been a recent trend of certain NHS Trusts both in the West Midlands and across the country of seeking contributions from developers to help fill funding gaps in provision of local NHS services, primarily in hospitals. We strongly oppose such an approach as the NHS is funded through general taxation and should not in our view be subsidised by developer contributions. We, therefore, seek clarification that any such developer contributions to health care provision are specifically related to infrastructure funding and that such funding is CIL compliant and directly related to an individual scheme i.e. buildings as opposed to improving services or providing stop gap funding for services. A recent appeal decision (APP/J 1860/W/21 /3267054) in Worcestershire confirmed that such a request for a contribution by an NHS Trust did not met the CIL tests and as such was not required to mitigate the proposed development.

Furthermore, if the Plan is going to require contributions then the calculation methods referred to in the policy need to be set out clearly and provided in a form that is accessible and usable. Reference is also made to these appearing in local development documents. It needs to be clarified which specific documents you are intending to put this information in? Is it a Supplementary Planning Document? If so, when will this be prepared? When will it be reviewed?

We welcome the viability clause in the policy where if such contributions would make development unviable then these will be considered whether they are appropriate or not.

HW3 -- Health Impact Assessments

We object to the requirement to have to submit a Health Impact Assessment. This will just add to the cost and complexity of bringing sites forward development and make the planning application process more protracted without actually delivering any tangible benefit. Whist we agree they may have a place when certain types of development are proposed we do not see the need for one to accompany a new housing development for example. Our view is that the Council should take a more concerted District wide approach to health considerations and look to plan for this accordingly at a strategic level rather than on a site by site basis.

Policy HOU1 - Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

In terms of the amount of land to be provided for housing we do not propose to repeat our comments here to those set out in respect of Policy CSP1 and note that the requirement to be provided in the BCA is 47,837 dwellings. As noted above, we welcome and support the allocations that the Councils have made in the Plan and comment further on this in respect of our response to the proposed allocation of The Triangle site below.





HLPC Ref: P1086 Page 9
To: Black Country Plan Consultation Date: 11 October 2021



The supporting text at paragraph 6. 7 confirms that no discount has been applied to allocations on sites to be removed from the Green Belt as these will not generally be affected by delivery constraints. Whilst we agree that such sites are free from such constraints and, therefore, capable to deliver as expected, whether they will achieve the stated numbers set out in the plan may only be possible if certain types of dwelling are proposed i.e. apartments over houses, and whether certain sized units and densities are achieved. Clearly, there is an overriding objective to make the most efficient use of land to maximise the delivery of new housing on such sites but this should not be at the expense of good urban design, or failing to provide the right type of houses that are needed in a particular location.

Part 3 of the Policy identifies that a minimum housing target for each authority has been identified for three phases during the course of the Plan Period, with the targets set out in Table 4. The explanation for this is provided in the supporting text at paragraph 6.10 noting that these are based on the Black Country Housing Trajectory set out in Appendix 17. The supporting text states that 'The trajectory demonstrates a steady supply of housing completions over the Plan period, justifying consistent housing targets throughout the Plan period." This approach appears at odds with the guidance in paragraph 60 of the Framework which seeks to boost the supply of housing but more specifically that land can come forward where it is needed and that it can be developed without unnecessary delay. Identifying phased requirements/targets in our view would undermine the delivery of new housing and is not supported by the policies of the Framework. In terms of the Promoter's site at Kingswinford, we consider that completion can be achieved by 2025-2030.

Policy HOU2 - Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

The policy states that the density and type of housing should be informed by the need for and type of new housing required, the level of accessibility of a site to public transport and services and the need to achieve well design development that has regard to the surrounding character of the area. We agree that all of these considerations are key in determining what the density of new development should be. The policy then goes on to state that all new major development should achieve the minimum net densities set out in Table 5, which range from
40 dph to 100+ dph. Whilst the 100+ dph range is intended to be delivered within strategic centres or close to transport hubs, achieving 40 dph on other sites will present certain challenges, particularly if the BCA are seeking other policy requirements within new development such as open space or biodiversity net gain on site as these will all impact on the net developable area available on each site, and vis a vis, the remaining area available to accommodate dwellings.

Once the developable area is netted out, the Plan identifies a number of competing policy objectives that new development will be expected to deliver such as NOSS and accessibility standards. In seeking to incorporate these as per the proposed policies, this will present challenges when seeking to achieve the prescribed densities in the Policy and in doing so, it should not be at the expense of achieving well designed and laid out spaces that people want to live in. Density can be a crude measure of how effective a new development is and whilst one may achieve the numbers on a site, this does not always translate into a successful development. We would, therefore, urge caution in how the BCA seek to apply the density targets, as whilst they are targets, there will be occasions where these are not achievable for a whole host of reasons.

We agree that the starting point should be to make efficient use of land but that there should be an acceptance that this may not always be possible, particularly on constrained or difficult sites. Similarly, identifying accessibility targets within which new development should be located within is a helpful guide to developers but does come with associated problems. A potential development site should not be considered unsuitable if it falls outside of the stated


HLPC Ref: P1086 Page 10
To: Black Country Plan Consultation Date: 11 October 2021



walking or travel times. The policy should be clarified, or it emphasised, that the travel times stated are desirable but not explicit.

The policy also requires that a range of house types and sizes should be provided in new development. We don't disagree with this objective and agree that delivering the right type and size of houses in the right locations is clearly the right approach to meeting housing needs of the Black Country. However, we object to the policy as written on the basis that it is not the correct way of achieving these objectives as it is an incredibly blunt object for developers to comply with when it comes to delivering the houses that are needed having regard to the specific locations of individual sites.

The Table on page 99 is confusing as it is not clear what proportions of each tenure would be sought within new development and only seeks to breakdown what the size of the units within each suggested tenure should be. This needs clarifying.

Whilst the policy seeks to differentiate between the need for market and affordable housing, another key determinate of where housing is to be delivered is geographical location. Developments in the strategic centres or regeneration corridors are likely to be better served by public transport and existing shops, services and facilities which would lend themselves to higher density developments that could include apartments. An apartment scheme, however, is unlikely to be able to deliver the full mix of dwellings sought in the policy. The policy, as worded, does not take into account these different market areas and seeks to apply a one size fits all approach to delivering housing in both. This is not a sound approach.

Furthermore, the policy is not market facing. The housing market varies from place to place and as such, there needs to be flexibility in how it is applied. The objective should be to meet the housing needs across the Black Country as a whole rather than on each individual site.

Adhering to a specific mix could also present issues if a site has certain constraints that need to be planned around or which requires a specific design response in order to address an existing issue or reflect the character and density of the area. These factors need to be taken into account when devising a scheme that will work technically but which will also result in a well designed and high quality development. This also links with the need to achieve a certain density of development. Clearly the housing mix policy can help inform this but it should not dictate the type and form of development one gets in totality. A key overriding objective of the Framework is also to make effective use of land. Choosing an appropriate mix and type of dwellings will achieve this, but this might not be possible if constrained to the preferred mix set out in the policy.

In addition, a rigid housing mix policy does not take account of the fact that demand and needs for housing are going to change over time. In all likelihood the demand for housing is going to change at a much quicker rate than it takes to review a Local Plan. As such, there is a risk that the Local Plan policy will not keep up with these changes. In light of this, the exact proportions of house types/sizes that are sought should be removed from the wording of the policy itself and instead the policy should refer to providing housing in accordance with the most up to date evidence of need. In taking such an approach, it allows evidence of housing need to be continually updated. This will provide a more accurate position of what type and size of dwellings are needed, rather than the Local Plan having to be reviewed every time the Council wanted to publish an updated position of what local needs are.

As such, whilst we acknowledge the need to try and deliver a mix and range of house types of differing sizes, a one size fits all approach will not work and there must be some acknowledgment in the Plan that this is the case.




HLPC Ref: P1086 Page 11
To: Black Country Plan Consultation Date: 11 October 2021



Policy HOU3 - Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build / Custom
Build Housing

The supporting text to the policy acknowledges at paragraph 6.32 that building homes that meet the M4(2) standard are more expensive to build than standard housing and that ones that meet the M4(3) standard involve a significantly increased cost. In building houses to these standards, the additional cost in doing so is not offset by the additional value that such adaptions give to the house i.e. they do not attract a premium when the house is sold, so it costs more to build which is not then recouped when someone purchases the house. As this adds cost to the development it will impact on the viability of development and whilst some developments will be able to absorb these costs and remain viable, others will not. As such, securing adaptable/accessible homes may well have to be offset against other policy requirements such as delivery of affordable homes, provision of open space or payment of other contributions for example. Furthermore, such homes will affect achievable net densities as they have a larger land take.

We object to the requirement in the policy that in medium or higher value zones new development should meet 15% of homes at M4(3) standard whilst in lower value areas there should only be a requirement to meet the lower cost M4(2) standard. Why the differentiation in the need to provide wheelchair accessible homes. Those in wheelchairs who need this type of home are not just going to be focussed in the higher value areas.

Furthermore, the fact that the Plan has sought to direct the M4(3) standard homes to the higher value areas only demonstrates that the additional cost of these will affect viability. If it didn't there would be no distinction and the requirement to provide M4(3) and M4(2) would be the same across the Black Country.

In relation to self build homes paragraph 6.29 confirms that there are only 153 individuals on the Self Build Register. These 153 individuals if they were to each build a single home each would equate to 0.31 % of the 47,837 dwellings proposed to be delivered in the Black Country. In light of the numbers of people that are interested in self build we do not see that there is any justification for 5% of larger sites over 100 dwellings to be required to provide self build plots. If a requirement was sought we would suggest this should only be 1% at most and that as currently suggested if these plots are not taken up within 12 months then they should revert to open market units again.

We support the inclusion of the ability to submit a viability assessment if the requirements of the policy are likely to adversely affect the viability of the development.

Policy HOU5 -- Educational Facilities

We agree that if new development places additional demands on existing schools over and above their existing capacity, then it is correct that additional capacity should be created either through an extension to an existing facility, provision of a new facility or a financial contribution. This is a well-established principle underpinning new residential development. In accepting that developer contributions may be required we ask that the process or methodology for calculating such conditions are transparent. Furthermore, the potential need to make financial contributions towards education provision must also be seen in the context of the other policy requirements that the Plan is seeking to achieve and therefore, collectively they may well have an impact on the scheme viability. Again, we welcome the inclusion of reference to viability assessment if there is a question mark over the viability of development if such a contribution is sought.





HLPC Ref: P1086 Page 12
To: Black Country Plan Consultation Date: 11 October 2021




Policy ENV3 - Nature Recovery Network and Biodiversity Net Gain

The basis for the policy is that the Government is looking to bring into force the Environment Bill, although this is not now expected to be laid before Parliament until autumn 2022. Clearly, although it is expected that the Bill will become law in the fulness of time, if for whatever reason it does not, then we would expect this policy to be updated or deleted accordingly. As it stands, we have no objection in principle to what it is requiring or seeking, other than it has no statutory basis in law to require it be applied just yet. If the situation changes the Plan should be updated to reflect the current situation.

Measures to achieve biodiversity net gain (BNG) on site could have the resultant effect of reducing coverage and developable area and thereby number of units. Whilst every effort will be made to maximise opportunities for BNG without losing dwellings, there is a balance to be struck and the exact levels of mitigation or BNG required will be highly dependent on site specific characteristics. Novel solutions will need to be found so that undeveloped areas within a development site can potentially perform a dual open space and nature conversation/BNG role.

Policy ENV4 - Provision, Retention and Protection of Trees, Woodlands and Hedges

Part 5 of the policy states that "Tree Preservation Orders will be used to protect individual(s) or groups of trees that contribute to the visual amenity and / or the character of an area and that are under threat of damage or removal". We note that the guidance in the Planning Practice Guidance states that:

"A Tree Preservation Order is an order made by a local planning authority in England to protect specific trees, groups of trees or woodlands in the interests of amenity." (our emphasis) (ID: 36-001-20140306)

In making a TPO, the intention is to protect the tree in the interests of amenity. The PPG goes on to state that:

"Orders should be used to protect selected trees and woodlands if their removal would have a significant negative impact on the local environment and its enjoyment by the public."

The guidance is clear that a TPO should only be applied where the removal of a tree would have a significant negative impact on the local environment. They should not, therefore, be used as a mechanism to try and prevent development.

The policy has 27 sub-sections. Are all of these really needed? Could it not be simplified to make it more user friendly for the user?

Policy ENV8 - Open Space, Sport and Recreation

In principle we have no objection to the requirement to make provision for open space and recreation within new housing development, as we welcome the benefits that this has for residents of the development and generally more widely in terms of greening new development. Provision of open space should be aligned to how much provision there is already in a locality, with areas that are sufficient not needing additional capacity, whilst areas that are lacking needing more to be provided. The application of standards is useful to


HLPC Ref: P1086 Page 13
To: Black Country Plan Consultation Date: 11 October 2021



understand what may be required although we caution against a blanket application in light of the comments above as adherence to standards does not take account of where there is an abundance or shortage of a particular typology.

In providing on site open space on site, this will affect the developable area available and will, therefore, have to be balanced against the other competing policy requirements.

Similarly, requests for financial contributions to sports and recreation provision will also need to be considered in the round with other developer contributions and the potential impact that they may have on viability.

Policy EN9 - Design Quality

We have a number of concerns with the policy particularly where there are overlapping forms of control such as part 1e) which refers to needing to achieve Secured by Design principles as set out in Part Q of the Building Regulations. Similarly, part 3) of the policy refers to water efficiency standards that are set out in Part G2 of the Building Regulations. As both are covered elsewhere in other legislation there is no need for them to be included in this policy as they would need to be complied with elsewhere by law anyway.

The policy also states that all new forms of residential development will be required to meet Nationally Described Space Standards ("NDSS") except where it can be clearly demonstrated that the implementation of NOSS would cause harm to the significance of a heritage asset. The PPG is quite clear that the Councils need to gather evidence first to determine whether there is a need for additional standards in their area and justify setting appropriate policies in their Local Plan. There is not sufficient evidence to require all new properties to meet NODS.

The BCHMA suggest that there is a requirement of 17,866 accessible and adaptable homes in the Black Country and a requirement for 1,674 wheelchair user dwellings. Combined this equates to approximately 25. 7% of the total housing requirement (76,076), and 40% of the requirement that is expected to be met within the Black Country administrative area (47,837). That being the case, unless typically less than 40% of the houses on new development sites are built to NOSS standards there is no basis for this policy.

Notwithstanding the above and whether appropriate evidence has been collected to justify the application of NOSS, if NOSS were to be applied, this would have a number of significant implications for the Council. Firstly, NOSS means larger houses have to be built in order to comply with the standards. This will mean the density of development will decrease and the number of houses that can be delivered on the land identified for housing will decrease. This will decrease the number of houses that can be delivered in the Black Country authorities whilst increasing the size of the shortfall and the amount of dwellings that will need to be accommodated in adjoining authorities. Whilst the shortfall already stands at 28,239 dwellings, any decrease in the number of dwellings to be developed in the Black Country will have to be built elsewhere and this increased overspill agreed with adjoining neighbours.

Part 5 of the policy refers to 'greening' of the Black Country. This term is not precise. Whilst it generally refers to undertaking or incorporating sustainability measures in order to try and reduce the environmental impact of development how can this be measured or assessed. How would a developer know if they have 'greened' enough to comply with the policy or would a planning application be refused because not enough 'greening' had been proposed? Clarification is sought on this point.






HLPC Ref: P1086 Page 14
To: Black Country Plan Consultation Date: 11 October 2021




Policy CC1 - Increasing Efficiency and Resilience

We have no objection to the general thrust of the policy and agree that the need to change the way things are done to help reduce or arrest climate change is paramount. However, there is a lot of duplication in the policy between it and other policies that are in the plan. We only need to comply with a policy once to demonstrate that we are doing what we need to do. As such, we do not see the need for this policy which largely repeats other policies contained in the plan.

Policy CC2 - Energy Infrastructure

We object to the requirement that all development of 10 or more houses or more than 1,000 square metres should include opportunities for decentralised energy provision. Whilst in theory the use of decentralised energy has a number of sustainability benefits, the reality is that incorporating it in new development is very difficult and as such, there is no appetite from developers to use the technology in their developments. Similarly, the end user i.e. home owners have next to no experience of using shared heating systems to want to actually buy a house that incorporates such a system.

Policy CC7 - Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards

Again, whilst we do not object to the need to achieve higher levels of sustainability in new development we disagree with the need for this policy. It largely replicates what housing developers have to achieve through Building Regulations so we question why such a policy is actually necessary. Clearly others may have something to say on the need for non-residential development to achieve BREEAM standards.

Dudley Housing Allocations

In light of Barberry's land interests at Swindon Road (The Triangle Site), we would like to express our support for the draft strategic allocation DSA.2 which allocates the site for 530 dwellings. The site is in a single ownership and Barberry have control of the whole site and are looking to bring it forward for residential development.

In light of the Councils' decision to identify the site as a draft allocation in the Plan, Barberry have instructed supporting technical work to help demonstrate that the site is deliverable. The findings of this are presented in the accompanying Delivery Document along with a masterplan for the site.

The masterplan has bene produced having regard to the supporting technical work that has been produced which includes inputs on highways, flooding and drainage, ecology and landscape and visual. The masterplan confirms that the quantum of development envisaged on the site by the Council i.e. 530 dwellings, is capable of being accommodated in a range of development parcels across the site. The site also incorporates significant areas of public open space and retains key landscape features and mature landscaping within it. Significant areas are retained and will be available for biodiversity net gain. Furthermore, development can be accommodated on the site having regard to the topography of the site and minimising the impact of the development on key landscape and visual receptors.

The Delivery Document concludes that the key requirements for the site as set out in the draft policy can be achieved and that there are no technical, physical or environmental reasons that would prevent development of the site.




HLPC Ref: P1086 Page 15
To: Black Country Plan Consultation Date: 11 October 2021



The site is being promoted by an established development company with an enviable track record of bringing forward such sites through the development process. An outline planning permission will be sought in due course and once granted will be brought to the market for a developer to build out.

We, therefore, reiterate our support for the proposed draft strategic allocation of the Triangle Site (Policy DSA.2) and consider that the proposal is suitable, achievable and available and that is deliverable.

We trust the above is of assistance and would welcome the opportunity to comment further at subsequent stages of plan preparation. If you have any questions or queries about the above please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully

Support

Representation ID: 23348

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Barberry

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

WOH265 & Perton Court Farm, Wrottesley Park Road, Perton.
1.1. This is a representation to the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan which is subject to
consultation until 11 October 2021. It is made on behalf of Barberry in respect of land they are promoting for residential development at Perton Court Farm, Wrottesley Park Road, Perton.
1.2. The site itself falls entirely within South Staffordshire, however, a neighbouring area of land
(which falls within the Wolverhampton City boundary) to the south east at Perton Road (Ref
WOH265 WTNA) has been proposed to be released from the Green belt as a housing allocation.
1.3. This is relevant to Barberry and the site they are promoting as they are directly adjacent and share a boundary.
1.4. Barberry have submitted a Vision Document to South Staffordshire Council communicating the
constraints and opportunities of the site, together with a proposed masterplan.
1.5. Barberry would like Wolverhampton City Council to consider this and how their site might better
tie in with the proposed allocation at Perton Road.
1.6. Clearly, Barberry intend to make representations to the South Staffordshire Preferred Options
plan, where consultation is due to begin in the coming weeks.
1.7. Barberry reserve the right make further representations to the Black Country Plan as
opportunities arise. It should be noted that not commenting on an aspect of the emerging plan
does not mean they agree with that content.

2. REPRESENTATION
2.1. Barberry would like to begin by expressing their support for the allocation of the land (inside the
Wolverhampton CC boundary) East of Perton Road, Wightwick (Ref WOH265 WTNA) particularly
as it relates well to the existing established settlement edge, with the opportunity to provide a
more definitive boundary to the Green Belt beyond.
2.2. Barberry agree that there should be mitigation for green belt loss to be provided through
accessibility, biodiversity and environmental quality improvements to nearby Smestow Valley
Local Nature Reserve. However, Barberry dispute the fact that the ‘track to the north west, which
runs along the Wolverhampton / South Staffs District boundary’ , (which forms at the junction
between Pattingham Road and Perton Road) is capable of providing a defensible new green belt
boundary. The track itself is neither robust nor enduring and could easily change over time.
2.3. Paragraph 143 (f) of the NPPF is clear that when defining new Green Belt boundaries, plans
should ‘define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely
to be permanent.’
2.4. We consider a better solution would be to holistically plan for the wider site, which is controlled
by Barberry, as shown in the attached Vision Document. Here, it is shown that the development
of the site would result in new parks and play spaces, as well as a safe route to school for children
living in Perton itself.
2.5. The following table summarises the policies that we have commented on in this representation:
Table 1 – Policies/Paragraphs subject to comment:
Policy/Para Title Page
HOU1
and
WOH265 WTNA
Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth 89 (Table 3 and
Table 4)
HOU2 Housing Density, Type and Accessibility 96
HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth and WOH265 WTNA - Land East of Perton Road,
Wightwick.
2.6. The land east of Perton Road is proposed to be allocated for about 4 dwellings on 0.6 ha of land,
which is substantially low in terms of density, and an inefficient use of land. We consider this
could be increased because there are opportunities within the wider site for compensatory
access to open spaces. Of course, the wider site would have to be included as an allocation in the
emerging South Staffordshire Local Plan. Moreover, a development density of around 30
dwellings per ha would be more aligned to the established densities within the immediate
vicinity of the site. An extract of the proposals map is shown overleaf:
2.7. We consider, in reality, that if this site were to be allocated that it is unlikely just 4 dwellings
would be delivered, particularly with the added burden of delivering any noticeable
improvements to the Smestow Valley Local Nature Reserve. Nor would 4 dwellings deliver any
affordable housing or tangible public benefits, other than marginally improving housing choice
within the local area. Developers of this site are likely to push for more.
2.8. Clearly, Green Belt is a strategic planning policy which exists on a permanent basis, transcending
plan periods. It should only be released in exceptional circumstances. To that end, a small ‘nibble’
of the Green Belt as proposed is unlikely to pass the exceptional circumstances test, nor is it
likely to be warranted on such a small-scale site. It is our view that the wholesale removal of the
wider site, together with the small site should be considered, where the exceptional
circumstances test could be met and where the compensatory measures as set out in the NPPF
at para 142 could be properly addressed: ‘Strategic policy-making authorities should……. also set
out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through
compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green
Belt land’.
2.9. There are some strategic allocations included in the BC Plan proposed at Linthouse Lane, Cross
Green and Bilbrook, all of which will require substantial lead-in times, smaller strategic sites like
the land at Perton Court Farm could conceivably come forward quicker as they do not require
substantial infrastructure investment.
2.10. The BC authorities aspire to deliver 47,837 new homes over the course of the plan period 2020 to
2039. We note that in Table 4, there has been a lapse rate allowance of 10% discounted to allow
for some sites which may not come forward over the course of the plan. We would like to know
whether this truly represents the historic lapse rate pattern, as we are aware of a substantial
number of sites within Wolverhampton that have not come forward because of persistent
viability problems associated with heritage, site contamination and other issues which include tensions between commercial/industrial land values being similar to those of residential (postremediation).
We are not clear whether this has been considered carefully enough.
2.11. Further, the BC authorities propose to ‘export’ 28,239 dwellings outside of its boundary – but as
South Staffordshire Council have just publicised their preferred options Local Plan, it remains the
case that they propose to take c.4,000 dwelling as (unmet need), but it is not clear whether this is
unmet need from the GBSLEP area, or the Black Country. This needs clarification.
2.12. At 7,657 (Table 3), we consider the windfall allowance to be high – it represents around 16% of the
total housing target for the plan period, which is a considerable proportion. Given the
requirements of the NPPF, we consider the plan is at risk of not being ‘positively prepared’ given
this (we feel) overreliance on unallocated housing in the emerging plan. Paragraph 71 of the
NPPF sets this out clearly: ‘Where an allowance is to be made for windfall sites as part of
anticipated supply, there should be compelling evidence that they will provide a reliable source
of supply. Any allowance should be realistic having regard to the strategic housing land
availability assessment, historic windfall delivery rates and expected future trends. Plans should
consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential
gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area.’
HOU2 - Housing Density, Type and Accessibility
2.13. We are broadly supportive of the densities proposed in the emerging plan, however for reasons
already given, we consider that the densities on the proposed allocation at WOH265 are far too
low and represent an inefficient use of land, contrary to paragraph 124 of the NPPF, which states:
‘Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land’.
4. CONCLUSION
4.1. Overall Barberry welcome the inclusion of the land at Perton Road, Wightwick as a housing
allocation and its removal from the Green Belt. Barberry will make further representations to the
emerging South Staffs Local Plan when the consultation begins as they believe there is an
opportunity for further land to be included in this allocation within their administrative
boundary.
4.2. Barberry consider a holistic and strategic approach is clearly preferable and this is demonstrated
within the Vision Document, which is submitted with this representation.
4.3. We have made comments on more generic planning policies where we consider it is justified,
and we urge the BC councils to consider the points we have made.

Object

Representation ID: 23349

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Barberry

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

WOH265 - objection to density proposed
1.1. This is a representation to the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan which is subject to
consultation until 11 October 2021. It is made on behalf of Barberry in respect of land they are promoting for residential development at Perton Court Farm, Wrottesley Park Road, Perton.
1.2. The site itself falls entirely within South Staffordshire, however, a neighbouring area of land
(which falls within the Wolverhampton City boundary) to the south east at Perton Road (Ref
WOH265 WTNA) has been proposed to be released from the Green belt as a housing allocation.
1.3. This is relevant to Barberry and the site they are promoting as they are directly adjacent and share a boundary.
1.4. Barberry have submitted a Vision Document to South Staffordshire Council communicating the
constraints and opportunities of the site, together with a proposed masterplan.
1.5. Barberry would like Wolverhampton City Council to consider this and how their site might better
tie in with the proposed allocation at Perton Road.
1.6. Clearly, Barberry intend to make representations to the South Staffordshire Preferred Options
plan, where consultation is due to begin in the coming weeks.
1.7. Barberry reserve the right make further representations to the Black Country Plan as
opportunities arise. It should be noted that not commenting on an aspect of the emerging plan
does not mean they agree with that content.

2. REPRESENTATION
2.1. Barberry would like to begin by expressing their support for the allocation of the land (inside the
Wolverhampton CC boundary) East of Perton Road, Wightwick (Ref WOH265 WTNA) particularly
as it relates well to the existing established settlement edge, with the opportunity to provide a
more definitive boundary to the Green Belt beyond.
2.2. Barberry agree that there should be mitigation for green belt loss to be provided through
accessibility, biodiversity and environmental quality improvements to nearby Smestow Valley
Local Nature Reserve. However, Barberry dispute the fact that the ‘track to the north west, which
runs along the Wolverhampton / South Staffs District boundary’ , (which forms at the junction
between Pattingham Road and Perton Road) is capable of providing a defensible new green belt
boundary. The track itself is neither robust nor enduring and could easily change over time.
2.3. Paragraph 143 (f) of the NPPF is clear that when defining new Green Belt boundaries, plans
should ‘define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely
to be permanent.’
2.4. We consider a better solution would be to holistically plan for the wider site, which is controlled
by Barberry, as shown in the attached Vision Document. Here, it is shown that the development
of the site would result in new parks and play spaces, as well as a safe route to school for children
living in Perton itself.
2.5. The following table summarises the policies that we have commented on in this representation:
Table 1 – Policies/Paragraphs subject to comment:
Policy/Para Title Page
HOU1
and
WOH265 WTNA
Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth 89 (Table 3 and
Table 4)
HOU2 Housing Density, Type and Accessibility 96
HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth and WOH265 WTNA - Land East of Perton Road,
Wightwick.
2.6. The land east of Perton Road is proposed to be allocated for about 4 dwellings on 0.6 ha of land,
which is substantially low in terms of density, and an inefficient use of land. We consider this
could be increased because there are opportunities within the wider site for compensatory
access to open spaces. Of course, the wider site would have to be included as an allocation in the
emerging South Staffordshire Local Plan. Moreover, a development density of around 30
dwellings per ha would be more aligned to the established densities within the immediate
vicinity of the site. An extract of the proposals map is shown overleaf:
2.7. We consider, in reality, that if this site were to be allocated that it is unlikely just 4 dwellings
would be delivered, particularly with the added burden of delivering any noticeable
improvements to the Smestow Valley Local Nature Reserve. Nor would 4 dwellings deliver any
affordable housing or tangible public benefits, other than marginally improving housing choice
within the local area. Developers of this site are likely to push for more.
2.8. Clearly, Green Belt is a strategic planning policy which exists on a permanent basis, transcending
plan periods. It should only be released in exceptional circumstances. To that end, a small ‘nibble’
of the Green Belt as proposed is unlikely to pass the exceptional circumstances test, nor is it
likely to be warranted on such a small-scale site. It is our view that the wholesale removal of the
wider site, together with the small site should be considered, where the exceptional
circumstances test could be met and where the compensatory measures as set out in the NPPF
at para 142 could be properly addressed: ‘Strategic policy-making authorities should……. also set
out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through
compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green
Belt land’.
2.9. There are some strategic allocations included in the BC Plan proposed at Linthouse Lane, Cross
Green and Bilbrook, all of which will require substantial lead-in times, smaller strategic sites like
the land at Perton Court Farm could conceivably come forward quicker as they do not require
substantial infrastructure investment.
2.10. The BC authorities aspire to deliver 47,837 new homes over the course of the plan period 2020 to
2039. We note that in Table 4, there has been a lapse rate allowance of 10% discounted to allow
for some sites which may not come forward over the course of the plan. We would like to know
whether this truly represents the historic lapse rate pattern, as we are aware of a substantial
number of sites within Wolverhampton that have not come forward because of persistent
viability problems associated with heritage, site contamination and other issues which include tensions between commercial/industrial land values being similar to those of residential (postremediation).
We are not clear whether this has been considered carefully enough.
2.11. Further, the BC authorities propose to ‘export’ 28,239 dwellings outside of its boundary – but as
South Staffordshire Council have just publicised their preferred options Local Plan, it remains the
case that they propose to take c.4,000 dwelling as (unmet need), but it is not clear whether this is
unmet need from the GBSLEP area, or the Black Country. This needs clarification.
2.12. At 7,657 (Table 3), we consider the windfall allowance to be high – it represents around 16% of the
total housing target for the plan period, which is a considerable proportion. Given the
requirements of the NPPF, we consider the plan is at risk of not being ‘positively prepared’ given
this (we feel) overreliance on unallocated housing in the emerging plan. Paragraph 71 of the
NPPF sets this out clearly: ‘Where an allowance is to be made for windfall sites as part of
anticipated supply, there should be compelling evidence that they will provide a reliable source
of supply. Any allowance should be realistic having regard to the strategic housing land
availability assessment, historic windfall delivery rates and expected future trends. Plans should
consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential
gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area.’
HOU2 - Housing Density, Type and Accessibility
2.13. We are broadly supportive of the densities proposed in the emerging plan, however for reasons
already given, we consider that the densities on the proposed allocation at WOH265 are far too
low and represent an inefficient use of land, contrary to paragraph 124 of the NPPF, which states:
‘Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land’.
4. CONCLUSION
4.1. Overall Barberry welcome the inclusion of the land at Perton Road, Wightwick as a housing
allocation and its removal from the Green Belt. Barberry will make further representations to the
emerging South Staffs Local Plan when the consultation begins as they believe there is an
opportunity for further land to be included in this allocation within their administrative
boundary.
4.2. Barberry consider a holistic and strategic approach is clearly preferable and this is demonstrated
within the Vision Document, which is submitted with this representation.
4.3. We have made comments on more generic planning policies where we consider it is justified,
and we urge the BC councils to consider the points we have made.

Support

Representation ID: 23350

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Barberry

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

WOH265 Land west of Perton Rd, Wightwick
1.1. This is a representation to the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan which is subject to
consultation until 11 October 2021. It is made on behalf of Barberry in respect of land they are promoting for residential development at Perton Court Farm, Wrottesley Park Road, Perton.
1.2. The site itself falls entirely within South Staffordshire, however, a neighbouring area of land
(which falls within the Wolverhampton City boundary) to the south east at Perton Road (Ref
WOH265 WTNA) has been proposed to be released from the Green belt as a housing allocation.
1.3. This is relevant to Barberry and the site they are promoting as they are directly adjacent and share a boundary.
1.4. Barberry have submitted a Vision Document to South Staffordshire Council communicating the
constraints and opportunities of the site, together with a proposed masterplan.
1.5. Barberry would like Wolverhampton City Council to consider this and how their site might better
tie in with the proposed allocation at Perton Road.
1.6. Clearly, Barberry intend to make representations to the South Staffordshire Preferred Options
plan, where consultation is due to begin in the coming weeks.
1.7. Barberry reserve the right make further representations to the Black Country Plan as
opportunities arise. It should be noted that not commenting on an aspect of the emerging plan
does not mean they agree with that content.

2. REPRESENTATION
2.1. Barberry would like to begin by expressing their support for the allocation of the land (inside the
Wolverhampton CC boundary) East of Perton Road, Wightwick (Ref WOH265 WTNA) particularly
as it relates well to the existing established settlement edge, with the opportunity to provide a
more definitive boundary to the Green Belt beyond.
2.2. Barberry agree that there should be mitigation for green belt loss to be provided through
accessibility, biodiversity and environmental quality improvements to nearby Smestow Valley
Local Nature Reserve. However, Barberry dispute the fact that the ‘track to the north west, which
runs along the Wolverhampton / South Staffs District boundary’ , (which forms at the junction
between Pattingham Road and Perton Road) is capable of providing a defensible new green belt
boundary. The track itself is neither robust nor enduring and could easily change over time.
2.3. Paragraph 143 (f) of the NPPF is clear that when defining new Green Belt boundaries, plans
should ‘define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely
to be permanent.’
2.4. We consider a better solution would be to holistically plan for the wider site, which is controlled
by Barberry, as shown in the attached Vision Document. Here, it is shown that the development
of the site would result in new parks and play spaces, as well as a safe route to school for children
living in Perton itself.
2.5. The following table summarises the policies that we have commented on in this representation:
Table 1 – Policies/Paragraphs subject to comment:
Policy/Para Title Page
HOU1
and
WOH265 WTNA
Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth 89 (Table 3 and
Table 4)
HOU2 Housing Density, Type and Accessibility 96
HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth and WOH265 WTNA - Land East of Perton Road,
Wightwick.
2.6. The land east of Perton Road is proposed to be allocated for about 4 dwellings on 0.6 ha of land,
which is substantially low in terms of density, and an inefficient use of land. We consider this
could be increased because there are opportunities within the wider site for compensatory
access to open spaces. Of course, the wider site would have to be included as an allocation in the
emerging South Staffordshire Local Plan. Moreover, a development density of around 30
dwellings per ha would be more aligned to the established densities within the immediate
vicinity of the site. An extract of the proposals map is shown overleaf:
2.7. We consider, in reality, that if this site were to be allocated that it is unlikely just 4 dwellings
would be delivered, particularly with the added burden of delivering any noticeable
improvements to the Smestow Valley Local Nature Reserve. Nor would 4 dwellings deliver any
affordable housing or tangible public benefits, other than marginally improving housing choice
within the local area. Developers of this site are likely to push for more.
2.8. Clearly, Green Belt is a strategic planning policy which exists on a permanent basis, transcending
plan periods. It should only be released in exceptional circumstances. To that end, a small ‘nibble’
of the Green Belt as proposed is unlikely to pass the exceptional circumstances test, nor is it
likely to be warranted on such a small-scale site. It is our view that the wholesale removal of the
wider site, together with the small site should be considered, where the exceptional
circumstances test could be met and where the compensatory measures as set out in the NPPF
at para 142 could be properly addressed: ‘Strategic policy-making authorities should……. also set
out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through
compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green
Belt land’.
2.9. There are some strategic allocations included in the BC Plan proposed at Linthouse Lane, Cross
Green and Bilbrook, all of which will require substantial lead-in times, smaller strategic sites like
the land at Perton Court Farm could conceivably come forward quicker as they do not require
substantial infrastructure investment.
2.10. The BC authorities aspire to deliver 47,837 new homes over the course of the plan period 2020 to
2039. We note that in Table 4, there has been a lapse rate allowance of 10% discounted to allow
for some sites which may not come forward over the course of the plan. We would like to know
whether this truly represents the historic lapse rate pattern, as we are aware of a substantial
number of sites within Wolverhampton that have not come forward because of persistent
viability problems associated with heritage, site contamination and other issues which include tensions between commercial/industrial land values being similar to those of residential (postremediation).
We are not clear whether this has been considered carefully enough.
2.11. Further, the BC authorities propose to ‘export’ 28,239 dwellings outside of its boundary – but as
South Staffordshire Council have just publicised their preferred options Local Plan, it remains the
case that they propose to take c.4,000 dwelling as (unmet need), but it is not clear whether this is
unmet need from the GBSLEP area, or the Black Country. This needs clarification.
2.12. At 7,657 (Table 3), we consider the windfall allowance to be high – it represents around 16% of the
total housing target for the plan period, which is a considerable proportion. Given the
requirements of the NPPF, we consider the plan is at risk of not being ‘positively prepared’ given
this (we feel) overreliance on unallocated housing in the emerging plan. Paragraph 71 of the
NPPF sets this out clearly: ‘Where an allowance is to be made for windfall sites as part of
anticipated supply, there should be compelling evidence that they will provide a reliable source
of supply. Any allowance should be realistic having regard to the strategic housing land
availability assessment, historic windfall delivery rates and expected future trends. Plans should
consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential
gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area.’
HOU2 - Housing Density, Type and Accessibility
2.13. We are broadly supportive of the densities proposed in the emerging plan, however for reasons
already given, we consider that the densities on the proposed allocation at WOH265 are far too
low and represent an inefficient use of land, contrary to paragraph 124 of the NPPF, which states:
‘Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land’.
4. CONCLUSION
4.1. Overall Barberry welcome the inclusion of the land at Perton Road, Wightwick as a housing
allocation and its removal from the Green Belt. Barberry will make further representations to the
emerging South Staffs Local Plan when the consultation begins as they believe there is an
opportunity for further land to be included in this allocation within their administrative
boundary.
4.2. Barberry consider a holistic and strategic approach is clearly preferable and this is demonstrated
within the Vision Document, which is submitted with this representation.
4.3. We have made comments on more generic planning policies where we consider it is justified,
and we urge the BC councils to consider the points we have made.

Comment

Representation ID: 23361

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Barberry

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

WOH265 & Perton Court Farm, Wrottesley Park Road, Perton.
1.1. This is a representation to the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan which is subject to
consultation until 11 October 2021. It is made on behalf of Barberry in respect of land they are promoting for residential development at Perton Court Farm, Wrottesley Park Road, Perton.
1.2. The site itself falls entirely within South Staffordshire, however, a neighbouring area of land
(which falls within the Wolverhampton City boundary) to the south east at Perton Road (Ref
WOH265 WTNA) has been proposed to be released from the Green belt as a housing allocation.
1.3. This is relevant to Barberry and the site they are promoting as they are directly adjacent and share a boundary.
1.4. Barberry have submitted a Vision Document to South Staffordshire Council communicating the
constraints and opportunities of the site, together with a proposed masterplan.
1.5. Barberry would like Wolverhampton City Council to consider this and how their site might better
tie in with the proposed allocation at Perton Road.
1.6. Clearly, Barberry intend to make representations to the South Staffordshire Preferred Options
plan, where consultation is due to begin in the coming weeks.
1.7. Barberry reserve the right make further representations to the Black Country Plan as
opportunities arise. It should be noted that not commenting on an aspect of the emerging plan
does not mean they agree with that content.

2. REPRESENTATION
2.1. Barberry would like to begin by expressing their support for the allocation of the land (inside the
Wolverhampton CC boundary) East of Perton Road, Wightwick (Ref WOH265 WTNA) particularly
as it relates well to the existing established settlement edge, with the opportunity to provide a
more definitive boundary to the Green Belt beyond.
2.2. Barberry agree that there should be mitigation for green belt loss to be provided through
accessibility, biodiversity and environmental quality improvements to nearby Smestow Valley
Local Nature Reserve. However, Barberry dispute the fact that the ‘track to the north west, which
runs along the Wolverhampton / South Staffs District boundary’ , (which forms at the junction
between Pattingham Road and Perton Road) is capable of providing a defensible new green belt
boundary. The track itself is neither robust nor enduring and could easily change over time.
2.3. Paragraph 143 (f) of the NPPF is clear that when defining new Green Belt boundaries, plans
should ‘define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely
to be permanent.’
2.4. We consider a better solution would be to holistically plan for the wider site, which is controlled
by Barberry, as shown in the attached Vision Document. Here, it is shown that the development
of the site would result in new parks and play spaces, as well as a safe route to school for children
living in Perton itself.
2.5. The following table summarises the policies that we have commented on in this representation:
Table 1 – Policies/Paragraphs subject to comment:
Policy/Para Title Page
HOU1
and
WOH265 WTNA
Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth 89 (Table 3 and
Table 4)
HOU2 Housing Density, Type and Accessibility 96
HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth and WOH265 WTNA - Land East of Perton Road,
Wightwick.
2.6. The land east of Perton Road is proposed to be allocated for about 4 dwellings on 0.6 ha of land,
which is substantially low in terms of density, and an inefficient use of land. We consider this
could be increased because there are opportunities within the wider site for compensatory
access to open spaces. Of course, the wider site would have to be included as an allocation in the
emerging South Staffordshire Local Plan. Moreover, a development density of around 30
dwellings per ha would be more aligned to the established densities within the immediate
vicinity of the site. An extract of the proposals map is shown overleaf:
2.7. We consider, in reality, that if this site were to be allocated that it is unlikely just 4 dwellings
would be delivered, particularly with the added burden of delivering any noticeable
improvements to the Smestow Valley Local Nature Reserve. Nor would 4 dwellings deliver any
affordable housing or tangible public benefits, other than marginally improving housing choice
within the local area. Developers of this site are likely to push for more.
2.8. Clearly, Green Belt is a strategic planning policy which exists on a permanent basis, transcending
plan periods. It should only be released in exceptional circumstances. To that end, a small ‘nibble’
of the Green Belt as proposed is unlikely to pass the exceptional circumstances test, nor is it
likely to be warranted on such a small-scale site. It is our view that the wholesale removal of the
wider site, together with the small site should be considered, where the exceptional
circumstances test could be met and where the compensatory measures as set out in the NPPF
at para 142 could be properly addressed: ‘Strategic policy-making authorities should……. also set
out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through
compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green
Belt land’.
2.9. There are some strategic allocations included in the BC Plan proposed at Linthouse Lane, Cross
Green and Bilbrook, all of which will require substantial lead-in times, smaller strategic sites like
the land at Perton Court Farm could conceivably come forward quicker as they do not require
substantial infrastructure investment.
2.10. The BC authorities aspire to deliver 47,837 new homes over the course of the plan period 2020 to
2039. We note that in Table 4, there has been a lapse rate allowance of 10% discounted to allow
for some sites which may not come forward over the course of the plan. We would like to know
whether this truly represents the historic lapse rate pattern, as we are aware of a substantial
number of sites within Wolverhampton that have not come forward because of persistent
viability problems associated with heritage, site contamination and other issues which include tensions between commercial/industrial land values being similar to those of residential (postremediation).
We are not clear whether this has been considered carefully enough.
2.11. Further, the BC authorities propose to ‘export’ 28,239 dwellings outside of its boundary – but as
South Staffordshire Council have just publicised their preferred options Local Plan, it remains the
case that they propose to take c.4,000 dwelling as (unmet need), but it is not clear whether this is
unmet need from the GBSLEP area, or the Black Country. This needs clarification.
2.12. At 7,657 (Table 3), we consider the windfall allowance to be high – it represents around 16% of the
total housing target for the plan period, which is a considerable proportion. Given the
requirements of the NPPF, we consider the plan is at risk of not being ‘positively prepared’ given
this (we feel) overreliance on unallocated housing in the emerging plan. Paragraph 71 of the
NPPF sets this out clearly: ‘Where an allowance is to be made for windfall sites as part of
anticipated supply, there should be compelling evidence that they will provide a reliable source
of supply. Any allowance should be realistic having regard to the strategic housing land
availability assessment, historic windfall delivery rates and expected future trends. Plans should
consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential
gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area.’
HOU2 - Housing Density, Type and Accessibility
2.13. We are broadly supportive of the densities proposed in the emerging plan, however for reasons
already given, we consider that the densities on the proposed allocation at WOH265 are far too
low and represent an inefficient use of land, contrary to paragraph 124 of the NPPF, which states:
‘Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land’.
4. CONCLUSION
4.1. Overall Barberry welcome the inclusion of the land at Perton Road, Wightwick as a housing
allocation and its removal from the Green Belt. Barberry will make further representations to the
emerging South Staffs Local Plan when the consultation begins as they believe there is an
opportunity for further land to be included in this allocation within their administrative
boundary.
4.2. Barberry consider a holistic and strategic approach is clearly preferable and this is demonstrated
within the Vision Document, which is submitted with this representation.
4.3. We have made comments on more generic planning policies where we consider it is justified,
and we urge the BC councils to consider the points we have made.