Draft Black Country Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 47031

Received: 13/09/2022

Respondent: HIMOR

Agent: Turley Associates

CSP1 (development strategy)

As currently drafted the housing (47,837 homes) and employment (355ha) supplies are identified in the emerging policy (we are of the view that the actual housing supply is much lower – we discuss this further in response to draft policy HOU1).

The actual policy should be clearer that this is the area’s proposed supply only and that the actual overall needs for the Black Country are 76,076 homes and 565ha of employment land. The policy can then be clear on how much of the need is proposed to be exported to other authorities. The policy should also be clearer on the extent of the supply proposed on land to be released from the Green Belt.

The overall development strategy is essentially made up of two elements:

• Delivering the majority of growth in the existing Urban Area / Growth Network (86% in total); and

• Delivering a limited number of Neighbourhood Growth Areas (NGA) outside of Growth Network (14%). The policy defines NGAs as “areas in highly sustainable locations on the edge of the Urban Area”. The supporting text to the policy provides further explanation – they 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”.

Given the existing Urban Area / Growth Network reflects the sites identified in the Councils’ Urban Capacity Study, it is presumed the above represents a hierarchical approach, with the existing Urban Area / Growth Network favoured over the NGAs. This point should be further clarified as part of the justification text to draft policy CSP1 to ensure it meets NPPF paragraph 20.

Paragraph 3.7 of the policy supporting text indicates the strategy has been developed “through a comprehensive assessment of a range of alternative options”. The preferred strategy reflects Spatial Option J, considered in the Sustainability Assessment (July 2021) (SA). To ensure the plan satisfies NPPF paragraph 35 further evidence will be necessary to provide clarity as to whether this optioneering exercise reflects the Councils’ assessment of reasonable alternatives, or whether this assessment is provided elsewhere in the SA.

The Black Country’s needs are based on a plan period of 2020-2039. NPPF paragraph 22 states that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15 year period from adoption. To achieve this the plan would have to be adopted by 31 March 2024. The current schedule for the BCP is that the plan will be adopted in April 2024, on this basis the plan would not meet the requirements of NPPF paragraph 22. The plan period should therefore be extended to reflect this.

Comment

Representation ID: 47032

Received: 13/09/2022

Respondent: HIMOR

Agent: Turley Associates

Policy CSP3 1 recognises the importance of providing a mix of good quality residential areas where people choose to live and recognising the inherent sustainability of directing new development through the allocation of a network of new NGAs. This is why NGAs are crucial to the success of this plan – as traditionally certain types and sizes of housing are more readily delivered on urban brownfield sites due to factors

such as viability and density. Indeed table 2.2 of the Turley Technical Review of Housing Need and Supply in the Black Country (October 2021) (Appendix 7) demonstrates that, based on analysis of the Council’s housing need assessment and Valuation Office Agency data, two thirds (66%) of the overall needs for housing in the Black Country relates to houses, with a much smaller need for flats (27%) or bungalows (6%). In response NGAs offer the opportunity to deliver a wider range of housing types to meet the area’s identified needs.

HIMOR agrees that it will be important to the success of the NGAs for them to be masterplanned comprehensively. HIMOR own all the land promoted at Birmingham Road, Great Barr, so can deliver it comprehensively.

The allocation of NGAs allows for greater public access to the countryside which urban sites are not able to, so it is right parts e) and g) of the draft policy require integrated and where possible continuous networks of green infrastructure and easy access to the countryside. This would not be possible without NGAs and the need for this infrastructure is a central theme to the illustrative masterplan for the site.

This is set out at section 4 of the Vision Document enclosed at Appendix 6, which identifies the key design principles for each masterplan option. This includes the provision of a defensible Green Belt boundary to the north / west.

On point e), it will be essential that the Councils’ evidence base appropriately identifies necessary infrastructure to facilitate and mitigate the proposed development to allow for NGAs to be appropriately phased and delivered alongside any necessary infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 47033

Received: 13/09/2022

Respondent: HIMOR

Agent: Turley Associates

As identified at paragraphs 3.14-17 and 3.75, the draft BCP has identified exceptional circumstances for the removal of land from the Black Country Green Belt. The Council summarise their exceptional circumstances case further at paragraph 4.7 of the Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021).

Following national planning policy, the authorities are therefore justified in proposing to amend the Green Belt boundary through the associated policies map. Indeed further land will be necessary to be released from the Green Belt if the Councils are to deliver the scale of supply proposed in the plan, let alone reducing the overall shortfall being exported to neighbouring authorities (as we discuss further in response to draft policy HOU1 below).

The policy however could do with refinement. As currently drafted part 2 applies to sites to be removed from the Green Belt (so at the point the plan is adopted will no longer be in the Green Belt), and the balance of the policy is to be applied to land remaining in the Green Belt. The policy would benefit from part 2 being deleted to provide greater clarity. Part 2)a. (the need for a defensible Green Belt boundary) is covered in draft policy CSP3, it may be that policy should also include reference to part 2)b. and the need for compensatory measures. Another solution could be making Part2)b. part of any site specific allocation for sites removed from the Green Belt.

In evolving the next version of the plan the Councils should provide further information in a single document (perhaps as a topic paper) summarising the Green Belt compensatory measures on a Black Country wide basis to ensure there is clarity on how NPPF paragraph 142 is satisfied.

NPPF paragraphs 140 and 143 are clear that Green Belt boundaries should be permanent and endure beyond the plan period. Where necessary safeguarded land should be identified when defining Green Belt boundaries in order to meet longer term needs. Despite this the draft BCP makes no attempt to safeguard land for its needs beyond 2039. This is particularly relevant for authorities such as Sandwell, safeguarded land can also contribute to maintaining the area’s housing land supply. Indeed Sandwell has consistently not been able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply2 in recent years given under delivery on brownfield land, a strategy it proposes to continue through the BCP. The plan should therefore identify safeguarded land to satisfy national planning policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 47034

Received: 13/09/2022

Respondent: HIMOR

Agent: Turley Associates

The Councils need to be cautious with their approach to viability given the scale of brownfield land in the proposed supply. The draft BCP is highly dependent upon development in the existing built-up area (40,117 dwellings) and brownfield sites (81%). The Black Country’s Viability & Delivery Study (September 2021) confirms that 65% of urban typologies tested are marginally viable (27%) or unviable (38%). The Councils must grapple with this matter as part of the plan and in identifying its proposed supply.

Comment

Representation ID: 47035

Received: 13/09/2022

Respondent: HIMOR

Agent: Turley Associates

This policy covers development of housing or employment on previously developed land ‘that is not allocated for this use’, so would apply for any planning applications for residential development on existing employment sites. Both the housing and employment shortfalls are significant – circa 37% of the total need (notwithstanding that no evidence has been prepared to indicate whether the proposed component of the housing supply on existing employment sites has been factored into the employment land shortfall).

As set out in the Turley Technical Review of Housing Need and Supply in the Black Country (October 2021) (Appendix 7) there is limited evidence that there is any trend of housing sites coming forward for employment development in the urban area, where as there is evidence that employment sites are sometimes redeveloped for new homes. Examples of this are the Bilston Urban Village site in Wolverhampton and the former Cerro EMS Ltd site on Goscote Lane in Walsall (though we do dispute the scale of the Council’s anticipated supply from this source going forward).

So it is anticipated this policy would mostly be applied to new housing on employment sites. Any further loss of employment land would only exacerbate the Council’s already significant employment land shortfall of 210ha, at a time when the Black Country’s economy is growing, with the employment rate growing faster than the average in England (3.5% growth compared to an average of 0.9%) (paragraph 1.29 of the draft BCP).

Indeed, it clearly states at paragraph 1.30 that “the challenge is to keep that momentum”. Policy DEL2 should reflect this growth and ensure the employment land shortfall does not unnecessarily increase, it should therefore be seeking to provide greater protection of existing employment sites (no protections are provided in draft policies HOU1 or EMP1-EMP4). This would also ensure the policy and plan conforms to the NPPF, which requires a sufficient supply of employment sites to be provided.

This can be done through requiring any application for residential development on an existing employment site to include evidence the site has been marketed for a certain period and that there is no reasonable interest. Indeed this is an approach taken by a number of authorities, including neighbours such as Lichfield District.

Rather than compromising its employment land supply further, the plan should be seeking to maximise locations for development outside of the urban area, and increasing the number of homes allocated on sites currently in the Green Belt. HIMOR’s site at Birmingham Road, Great Barr can assist in ensuring the Black Country’s housing land supply is robust and does not compromise the plan’s ability to meet the area’s employment needs.

Support

Representation ID: 47036

Received: 13/09/2022

Respondent: HIMOR

Agent: Turley Associates

HIMOR support the BCP’s aspirations for supporting health and wellbeing and identifying opportunities through new development to support the creation of strong, vibrant and healthy communities. Health and wellbeing are core to the social objective of sustainable development as defined by the NPPF (paragraph 8).

Comment

Representation ID: 47037

Received: 13/09/2022

Respondent: HIMOR

Agent: Turley Associates

As discussed in response to Policy DEL1, it is important that policies within the BCP do not compromise the viability and deliverability of new developments, particularly in respect of the need for and delivery of onsite infrastructure. To ensure HW1 takes a consistent approach to viability with other policies in the plan, part j. of the policy would benefit from cross referencing draft policy DEL1 which sets out the tests for viability.

In terms of providing employment for all skill sets and abilities, it is estimated that during construction the proposed development will support 45 gross direct FTE jobs per annum for circa 7 years, and 40 net additional direct FTE jobs and 20 indirect / induced FTE jobs in the wider region. Once complete it will likely provide homes for 78- people of employment age, and 60 jobs in retail and leisure businesses annually.

Comment

Representation ID: 47038

Received: 13/09/2022

Respondent: HIMOR

Agent: Turley Associates

Subject to there being an evidenced need, HIMOR welcomes part 7 of this policy and the requirement for onsite healthcare provision. Indeed provision is already allowed for in the site’s illustrative masterplan. To satisfy NPPF paragraph 16 the policy should only refer to an identified requirement, rather than a ‘likely requirement’, which would render this part of the policy ambiguous.

Comment

Representation ID: 47039

Received: 13/09/2022

Respondent: HIMOR

Agent: Turley Associates

Firstly, similarly to our response to policy CSP1 above, the policy should be clear that 47,837 new homes is the proposed supply only and that the full need for the Black Country is 76,076 new homes. To ensure it is not ambiguous the policy should also clearly state the exact scale of the remaining unmet need so it is clear for any authority working with the Black Country on assisting with its unmet needs.

In terms of the overall need of 76,076 homes (4,004 dwellings per annum), the plan must be clear that this is a minimum. As set out at page 31 of Appendix 7, this represents a relatively small number of new homes compared to the size of the Black Country’s existing housing stock (501,464 homes as of 20203) and would only require growth at a rate which almost half of the thirty West Midlands region’s authorities have achieved since 2006 (0.7% per annum4).

Indeed the proposed housing need, which is based on the area’s standard method need only, represents a benchmark of the minimum need for housing only. For instance, it does not account for changing economic circumstances, such as the Councils’ assurances that there will be sufficient labour to meet the economic growth ambitions of the area (draft policy EMP1). This could be justification for increasing the Black Country’s housing needs.

This demonstrates that there is no evidence for lowering the Black Country’s total housing needs, indeed it should be increased if it is to ensure sufficient labour is provided to meet the sub-region’s economic growth ambitions.

Table 3 (Black Country housing land supply and indicative phasing 2020-39)

The proposed supply of 47,837 new homes between 2020 and 2039 is the equivalent of 2,518 dwellings per annum. As demonstrated at page 9 of Appendix 7, this is less than what the authorities have delivered per annum for the last six years (2,863 dwellings per annum). Whilst the supply within the urban area may be more exhausted going forward than in those previous six years, this level of delivery demonstrates the scale of demand in the Black Country and that the market is capable of absorbing it.

The increased supply of homes has directly contributed to the area more effectively attracting and retaining people than it has historically. One benefit of this is that the Black Country’s working age population has grown5. The proposed supply in the draft BCP therefore risks this recent trend and ultimately will result in reducing the size of the working age population.

Notwithstanding the above, based on the findings of Turley’s Technical Review of Housing Need and Supply in the Black Country, we have significant concerns regarding the robustness of the Councils’ proposed supply, which we summarise below:

• There are a number of sources of the supply which are proposed on existing vacant or occupied employment land (6% of the total proposed supply). Similarly to the response to draft policy DEL2 above, this approach significantly risks the NPPF’s requirement for the plan to provide a sufficient supply of employment sites, as well as for housing supplies to only include land with a realistic prospect that it is available and could be viably developed. It also contradicts the plan’s objective to support economic growth.

• The above is not a new approach. The BCCS also allocated a total of 16,182 homes on occupied employment land. Based on the Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021) only 679 (4.2%) of those homes have been delivered to date (with less than five years of the plan period remaining).

• The BCCS assumed a 10% non-implementation rate for sites under construction. The BCP plans to reduce this to 5%, based only on evidence from Wolverhampton City for the period 2001-20046. There is insufficient evidence at this stage to justify such a change in approach.

• 4,973 new homes are proposed on existing allocations (circa 10% of the total supply). The largest contributions to this are from Dudley (2,506 homes) and Wolverhampton (2,248 homes). These sites are largely located in Strategic Centres and allocated in Area Action Plans which followed the BCCS. There is no new evidence to demonstrate their deliverability to support their continued allocation in the draft BCP, there is however evidence where the Councils concede a number of these sites are constrained given issues such as land ownership, viability, the need to relocate existing uses, or ground contamination7.

• No compelling evidence (as required by NPPF paragraph 71) has been provided to justify including 812 new homes (circa 2% of the supply) in Wolverhampton City Centre on upper floor conversions. There is no evidence in the SHLAA or any data on historic windfall delivery rates of this nature in the Black Country.

Making the appropriate reductions in supply based on the above reduces the Black Country’s housing supply by almost 10,000 homes, leaving a potential supply of only 38,266 homes (2,014 dwellings per annum).

There is currently no evidence to demonstrate how the Black Country’s shortfall of circa 28,000 homes will be met, let alone the more likely scale of the shortfall – circa 38,000 homes. The plan refers to Lichfield, South Staffordshire and Shropshire contributing to the shortfall – this totals a maximum of 7,500 new homes8. So a 30,500home shortfall remains based on Turley’s analysis of the supply.

To provide some context to the scale of the shortfall, even if Wolverhampton City’s 35% standard method cities uplift was removed, the shortfall including contributions from other authorities would still stand at circa 16,000 based on the Black Country’s claimed supply, or circa 24,000 homes based on Turley’s analysis of the supply. There is reference to Telford potentially also assisting (and at the Solihull Local Plan examination reference was made to Stafford potentially contributing), but this is unlikely to be a significant contribution or anything close to ensure the unmet need is fully resolved.

This is further exacerbated by the Black Country’s shortfall only being a component of a greater shortfall within the wider Greater Birmingham and Housing Market Area, as demonstrated by the Turley’s Falling Short: Taking Stock of Unmet Needs across the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area report (August 2021) (Appendix 8). That report shows that up to 2040 the potential shortfall within the Housing Market Area could be between 53,000 and 64,000 homes.

The Black Country should therefore be examining its potential supply of greenfield sites to ensure its supply is robust and to further reduce the shortfall to be exported to neighbouring authorities. As set out at Section 4 below land at Birmingham Road, Great Barr has been unfairly scored in the Councils’ SA and Site Assessment scoring exercise. When reasonably and appropriately considered it is capable of delivering new homes which can assist in reducing the scale of the Black Country’s shortfall, whilst providing real benefits for existing and new residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 47040

Received: 13/09/2022

Respondent: HIMOR

Agent: Turley Associates

At the current time the majority of the Councils’ proposed supply (though we dispute the scale of it) will be on brownfield land, which based on draft HOU3 will only deliver 10% affordable housing.

Any development on land which is currently in the Green Belt will be expected to deliver the higher 30% affordable housing requirement. Sandwell is only proposing 171 new homes on land currently in the Green Belt – 2% of Sandwell’s proposed supply and 0.5% of its total need.

This is against a backdrop of chronic under delivery of affordable housing in Sandwell, as demonstrated by Tetlow King’s Affordable Housing Statement (July 2020) (Appendix 1).Between 2004/05 and 2018/19, despite gross completions of 3,309 affordable homes, there has been a net reduction in -454 affordable homes from the same period. This is an impact of Right to Buy and is an issue not unique to Sandwell.

Based on the above it is absolutely necessary for Sandwell to be identifying sites which can make a more significant contribution to its affordable housing shortfall – such as HIMOR’s site at Great Barr which proposes a policy compliant 30% affordable housing provision.