Draft Black Country Plan

Object

Representation ID: 44890

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Folkes Holdings

Agent: Harris Lamb

P1661
SUBJECT: BLACK COUNTRY PLAN – DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

RESPONSE TO POLICY CSP1 – DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (HOUSING DELIVERY)
Housing Requirement
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.

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.

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;
• 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.

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.

Housing Delivery
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 20202039, 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 (eg. Walsall SHLAA 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 S.106 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 3,091dwellings 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 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. We therefore recommend that this source of supply be deleted from the supply. 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 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 rate should, therefore, be applied to sites in this category.

Furthermore, as detailed in our response to policy HOU2, we are concerned that the density requirements identified are unrealistic. 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 their relationship to surrounding uses.
It is, therefore, our view that the density policies are over ambitious and unrealistic, and the densities suggested will not be achieved. This in turn suggests that the capacity of the allocations has been over estimated and housing delivery will be reduced accordingly.

In conclusion, we are concerned that the identified sources of supply will be incapable of meeting that
part of the housing requirement identified by the Plan to be developed in the Black Country. 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 as if additional housing does come forward this will be of no detriment to the Plan. However, a housing delivery shortfall has the potential to be extremely problematic, causing five year housing land supply issues, failing the Housing Delivery Test and providing much needed market and affordable
housing within the Black Country for those that need it.

Object

Representation ID: 44892

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Folkes Holdings

Agent: Harris Lamb

P1661
SUBJECT: BLACK COUNTRY PLAN – DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

RESPONSE TO POLICY CSP1 – DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (HOUSING DELIVERY)
Housing Requirement
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.

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.

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;
• 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.

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.

Housing Delivery
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 20202039, 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 (eg. Walsall SHLAA 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 S.106 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 3,091dwellings 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 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. We therefore recommend that this source of supply be deleted from the supply. 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 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 rate should, therefore, be applied to sites in this category.

Furthermore, as detailed in our response to policy HOU2, we are concerned that the density requirements identified are unrealistic. 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 their relationship to surrounding uses.
It is, therefore, our view that the density policies are over ambitious and unrealistic, and the densities suggested will not be achieved. This in turn suggests that the capacity of the allocations has been over estimated and housing delivery will be reduced accordingly.

In conclusion, we are concerned that the identified sources of supply will be incapable of meeting that
part of the housing requirement identified by the Plan to be developed in the Black Country. 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 as if additional housing does come forward this will be of no detriment to the Plan. However, a housing delivery shortfall has the potential to be extremely problematic, causing five year housing land supply issues, failing the Housing Delivery Test and providing much needed market and affordable
housing within the Black Country for those that need it.

Object

Representation ID: 44894

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Folkes Holdings

Agent: Harris Lamb

P1661
SUBJECT: BLACK COUNTRY PLAN – DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

RESPONSE TO POLICY CSP1 – DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (HOUSING DELIVERY)
Housing Requirement
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.

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.

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;
• 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.

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.

Housing Delivery
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 20202039, 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 (eg. Walsall SHLAA 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 S.106 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 3,091dwellings 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 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. We therefore recommend that this source of supply be deleted from the supply. 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 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 rate should, therefore, be applied to sites in this category.

Furthermore, as detailed in our response to policy HOU2, we are concerned that the density requirements identified are unrealistic. 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 their relationship to surrounding uses.
It is, therefore, our view that the density policies are over ambitious and unrealistic, and the densities suggested will not be achieved. This in turn suggests that the capacity of the allocations has been over estimated and housing delivery will be reduced accordingly.

In conclusion, we are concerned that the identified sources of supply will be incapable of meeting that
part of the housing requirement identified by the Plan to be developed in the Black Country. 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 as if additional housing does come forward this will be of no detriment to the Plan. However, a housing delivery shortfall has the potential to be extremely problematic, causing five year housing land supply issues, failing the Housing Delivery Test and providing much needed market and affordable
housing within the Black Country for those that need it.

Object

Representation ID: 44895

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Folkes Holdings

Agent: Harris Lamb

P1661
SUBJECT: BLACK COUNTRY PLAN – DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

RESPONSE TO POLICY CSP1 – DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (HOUSING DELIVERY)
Housing Requirement
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.

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.

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;
• 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.

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.

Housing Delivery
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 20202039, 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 (eg. Walsall SHLAA 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 S.106 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 3,091dwellings 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 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. We therefore recommend that this source of supply be deleted from the supply. 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 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 rate should, therefore, be applied to sites in this category.

Furthermore, as detailed in our response to policy HOU2, we are concerned that the density requirements identified are unrealistic. 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 their relationship to surrounding uses.
It is, therefore, our view that the density policies are over ambitious and unrealistic, and the densities suggested will not be achieved. This in turn suggests that the capacity of the allocations has been over estimated and housing delivery will be reduced accordingly.

In conclusion, we are concerned that the identified sources of supply will be incapable of meeting that
part of the housing requirement identified by the Plan to be developed in the Black Country. 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 as if additional housing does come forward this will be of no detriment to the Plan. However, a housing delivery shortfall has the potential to be extremely problematic, causing five year housing land supply issues, failing the Housing Delivery Test and providing much needed market and affordable
housing within the Black Country for those that need it.

Object

Representation ID: 44897

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Folkes Holdings

Agent: Harris Lamb

P1661
SUBJECT: BLACK COUNTRY PLAN – DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

RESPONSE TO POLICY CSP1 – DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (HOUSING DELIVERY)
Housing Requirement
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.

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.

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;
• 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.

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.

Housing Delivery
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 20202039, 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 (eg. Walsall SHLAA 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 S.106 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 3,091dwellings 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 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. We therefore recommend that this source of supply be deleted from the supply. 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 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 rate should, therefore, be applied to sites in this category.

Furthermore, as detailed in our response to policy HOU2, we are concerned that the density requirements identified are unrealistic. 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 their relationship to surrounding uses.
It is, therefore, our view that the density policies are over ambitious and unrealistic, and the densities suggested will not be achieved. This in turn suggests that the capacity of the allocations has been over estimated and housing delivery will be reduced accordingly.

In conclusion, we are concerned that the identified sources of supply will be incapable of meeting that
part of the housing requirement identified by the Plan to be developed in the Black Country. 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 as if additional housing does come forward this will be of no detriment to the Plan. However, a housing delivery shortfall has the potential to be extremely problematic, causing five year housing land supply issues, failing the Housing Delivery Test and providing much needed market and affordable
housing within the Black Country for those that need it.